Societal Issues-Related Posts

COMMENTARY: unfortunately, today’s youth, those in high school and higher education are being fed patent nonsense (aka brainwashing) by their teachers, leftists who rail against capitalism, the establishment, whites, etc., while promoting ‘identity’ theories which are simply pap – unfortunately, this country will have to endure this generation of Americans in future years as they enter government, politics, the media, and business with their warped grasp of fake / revisionist history – woe and behold the consequences coming down the road – FAILING ON A SCALE NEVER BEFORE SEEN IN THIS COUNTRY!

Progressive Big Lies

Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.

Mar 4, 2020 Bruce Thornton

The “big lie” was Adolf Hitler’s term in Mein Kampf  for the propaganda tactic of telling a lie so “colossal” that nobody would believe anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Far from being specific to Nazism, this technique of political persuasion has been to varying degrees universal. These days, the masters of the “big lie” are the Leftists and those progressives who, addled by Trumpophobia, regularly promulgate whoppers that today’s internet can easily discredit.

Of course, from the Russian collusion fabrication to the Ukraine “quid pro quo,” the Dems have publicized numerous lies and distortions of facts. Now they’re at it again with hysterical attacks on Trump’s response to the coronavirus outbreak. During the last debate, Mike Bloomberg charge that Trump “defunded Centers for Disease Control, CDC, so we don’t have the organization we need,” a lie seconded by Joe Biden who added, “He cut the funding for the entire effort.” As the New York Post, commented, “It’s a lie that can only sow fear: The CDC budget is higher than when Trump took office. Same for the National Institutes of Health. And top career officials from both have been working with the White House for weeks to direct the US response.” This lie was so “colossal” that the AP––which was so skewed toward Democrats during Obama’s tenure that wags said AP stood for “administration’s press”–– ran a headline that read, “AP FACT CHECK: Democrats distort coronavirus readiness.”

This penchant for accepting lies as truth, however, has warped the minds of Leftists both hard and soft ever since New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty lied about Stalin’s engineered famines in the 1930s. They have accepted the Marxist, as in Groucho, stance “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” One of the best examples is Bernie Sanders’ stubborn, unapologetic support for vicious totalitarian regimes like the Castro cartel in Cuba, based on a variation of the fascist excuse that Mussolini “made the trains run on time” combined with the old proverb favored by communists, and used in print by Duranty, that “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

On Sixty Minutes, for example Sanders defended his affection for Fidel Castro by saying, “But, you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad. When Fidel Castro came to office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?” Of course, the real question is what are you teaching them to read––regime propaganda or facts? Moreover, apart from the moral idiocy of suggesting that improving literacy is worth imprisoning and torturing political enemies, and murdering up to 140,000 people, saying that Castro substantially raised Cuban literacy rates is a big lie.

So too are other excuses for Castro’s tyranny, such as improving health care, infant survival in childbirth, access to food and consumer goods, and per capita GDP. A typical example of such historical malfeasance is the following statement from the esteemed London Sunday Times in August 2006: “Fidel Castro can look back on some unquestionable achievements. Under his rule, the impoverished Caribbean island has created health and education systems that would be the envy of far wealthier nations . . . and there is near full literacy on the island.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Gonzales has summarized a State Department report that explodes these common canards:

study by the State Department’s Hugo Llorens and Kirby Smith shows, for example, that in infant mortality, literacy rates, per capita food consumption, passenger cars per capita, number of telephones, radios, televisions, and many other indicators, Cuba led when Castro took over on New Year’s Eve 1958. The United Nations statistics leave no doubt. In infant mortality, Cuba’s 32 deaths per 1,000 live births was well ahead of Japan, West Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, Italy, Spain (40, 36, 39, 33, 34, 50, and 53 respectively), and many others. 

In food consumption, in terms of calories per day, Cuba was ahead of all of Latin America except cattle-rich Argentina and Uruguay. 

In automobiles per 1,000 inhabitants, Cuba’s 24 was ahead over everyone in Latin America except oil-producing Venezuela (27). 

As for literacy rates, Cuba’s 76 percent in the late 1950s put it closely behind only Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica. Giant Brazil’s percentage, by comparison, was 49 percent. 

And Cuba’s gross domestic product per capita in 1959 was higher than those of Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, most of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, again according to U.N. statistics. In most vital statistics, therefore, Cuba was on a par with Mediterranean countries and southern U.S. states.

Humberto Fontova has documented even more specifically the monstrous lie at the heart of most people’s understanding of the Cuban Revolution and the presidency of Fulgencio Batista in his book Exposing the Real Che Guevara. Of course, like today the media have long been the enablers of this rank propaganda being taken as history. Indeed, as Fontova reminds us, Fidel and Che acknowledge the contributions of American newspapers, especially the New York Times, to the success of the “revolution.” As Che wrote in his diaries, “Much more valuable to us than recruiting military recruits for our guerrilla army was recruiting American reporters to export our propaganda.” And Castro, as he pinned a medal on Times reporter Herbert Matthews, a Duranty-class useful idiot, said “To our American friend Herbert Matthews with gratitude. Without your help, and without the help of the New York Times, the Revolution in Cuba would never have been.” The latest historical outrage from the Times, the “1619 Project” claiming “that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery,” is merely the latest example. These days, fake news is the first draft of fake history.

Worse yet, today’s progressives believe lies to be true despite their egregious falsehood. Then progressive state governments act on beliefs that biological sex can be changed by choice, that an aborted human being isn’t a human being, that infants surviving abortion can still be killed, that the modern industrial world can run on solar panels and windmills, that money can be endlessly appropriated and redistributed, that a region like California should dump precious water to protect a bait fish, that hordes of bums and hobos polluting public spaces require no action, and that our enemies can be mollified by soothing words and foreign aid rather than by mind-concentrating deeds.

These lies and their dangers have been worsened over the last few decades by the degeneration of education from grammar school to university. The millennials who comprise the passionate Bernie Bros are some of the worst-educated young people in American history. The postmodern and Leftist hijacking of history in particular has substituted “diversity” melodramas and left-wing propaganda for knowledge of historical data and the complex causes of events. Their historical horizon reaches to about 1990, with everything before that an undifferentiated mass of random historical events and figures, jumbled together like a cubist painting with no perspective depth to give them their meaning. So why shouldn’t badly educated millennials believe the Left’s fabrications? They probably think that the white landowner’s son Fidel (of Spanish ancestry) and the middle-class Che (Spanish, Basque, and Irish) are “people of color.”

As of now, the chances don’t look good that Bernie Sanders secures the nomination and then beats Donald Trump, particularly now that Joe Biden has won the South Carolina primary. But they are not nil. Twenty years ago very few people would have bet that an avowed socialist and political gadfly who serially apologizes for history’s most bloody tyrants, at the same time he obviously dislikes his native land, could last more than one debate in a presidential primary. But the rot in our educational system has been spreading for decades. It infects popular culture, movies, social media, newspapers, television, and even sports. Corporations, no doubt seeking to build brand-loyalty among millennials, have embraced the “woke” propaganda and based their corporate strategies on its shibboleths like transgender rights, “intersectionality,” and global warming. All it will take is some disaster and its unforeseen consequences––the current coronavirus crisis suggests one possibility––that will scare voters into gambling on a false prophet promising impossible utopias.

Then we might see for ourselves what George Orwell famously prophesied in 1984 as the consequences of the big lie:

If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death . . . . And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

The progressive corruption of history demonstrates their control of the past. Their dangerous policies currently control much of the present. If they triumph in November, we all may have to experience the grim wages of their control of the future.

COMMENTARY: Ilhan Omar may be a number of things but she has made it blatantly clear that she is NOT An American – grounds enough to terminate her continuing existence in our country and a open obvious danger to national security! throw the bitch out!

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Ilhan Omar?
Ben Weingarten‘s new book ‘American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of The Democratic Party,’ makes a compelling argument that Democrats’ sharp leftward turn threatens both American ideals and national security. 

By Kyle Shideler. FEBRUARY 27, 2020

There is always a temptation in politics, and indeed in all human life, to reduce people to symbolic representations. Storytelling — or, if you prefer the D.C. swamp lingo, “the narrative” remains the evolutionarily prescribed way to relay complex information to large groups of people and ensure they retain the core message. Narratives need heroes and villains, someone who will embody within himself the key ideas being transmitted.

Understanding this is important to getting to the heart of Ben Weingarten’American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of The Democratic Party. While ostensibly it is a book about Ilhan Omar and her sordid history allegations of immigration fraud, long-standing ties to anti-American regimes and terror-linked groups, her long train of antisemitic remarks – this is not Weingarten’s real focus. Weingarten has not really written a book about Omar so much as a book about how it is that a person with Omar’s baggage became a battle standard to which all the left now repairs. They do not defend her in spite of her foibles, but because of them.

American Ingrate portrays Omar as representing two significant trends for the Democratic Party. First, there has been a sharp leftward pivot to overt and unapologetic socialism. Second, there has also been an inversion of America’s traditional enemies and allies in foreign policy.

This is most clearly demonstrated in the Middle East by the Democrats’ rejection of Israel and embrace of Islamists, whether Shia, in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or Sunni, as embodied by their endorsement of Muslim Brotherhood-led Islamist revolutionaries and regimes throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Many have long presumed that the positions of the left, and especially the woke, intersectional, pro-LGBT, pro-libertine left, are antithetical to the dour and clerical Islamists who declare “the Koran is our constitution.” Weingarten endeavors to explain in American Ingrate just how increasingly narrow the gap has become.

Weingarten points to Omar’s familial upbringing in the Somalia of dictator Siad Barre as playing a key role in preparing her to be the representative of this syncretism of socialism and Islamic theocracy.  Siad Barre, who rose to power in a military coup in 1969, enforced an explicit doctrine of Islamic Marxism. Weingarten quotes The New York Times in 1977 on Barre’s ideology:

President Siad Barre has often insisted that Marx and Mohammed are not only compatible but also complimentary, that the religious asceticism of Islam can combine with the concept of mass discipline inherent in ‘scientific socialism’ to forge a strong national will and lift the country from the ranks of the 25 poorest nations.

Omar has often described the influence of her familial background on her political development. The mainstream media happily reported the beautiful story of a young refugee’s emergence into the heady local politics of Minnesota as she sat at the knee of her grandfather and translated his tribal wisdom for the benefit of the Democratic Farm-Labor Party.

Weingarten notes that this story leaves out that Omar’s grandfather derived his political experience from his senior position within Barre’s dictatorship. Likewise, central to Omar’s personal political story is having been born the child of “educators.” The media repeats this uncritically, choosing not to notice that her father’s role as “teacher trainer” had more in common with the position of political commissar than pedagogue. Weingarten documents how Omar’s political rise took place in a Minneapolis district perhaps uniquely suited for this ideological mixture. He writes:

As DFL vice chair, the self-identified progressive Somali woman in her early thirties cemented her role as a conduit for the party to Somali immigrants and stood well-positioned to appeal to the disproportionately young constituents in her district, given the large college student population it encompasses. Both the Somali and college student constituencies would soon prove central to her future electoral triumphs.

Omar’s narrative appeal to intersectional identity politics, including Omar’s self-identification as a progressive feminist, won her the support of the predominately white, middle-class college students.

Weingarten identifies Omar’s support as a consequence of a “Great Awokening,” a phrase coined by Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, to denote the trend by which white liberals (and particularly young white liberals) hold views on race and identity that are significantly more favorable to racial minorities, and support policies that preference minorities, at rates even greater than do minorities themselves.

Here Weingarten relies on a number of sources worth reading on their own, including Claremont Review of Books’ William Voegeli and the extensive work of Zach Goldberg, a University of Georgia Ph.D. student who has explored the concept in great depth.

Goldberg writes in a Tablet article, from which Weingarten quotes extensively, that this radical affinity by white liberals for the “out-group” rather than their own “in-group” has had a disturbing impact on Liberal views towards both Israel and antisemitism:

the surveys show that among white liberals, Jews are perceived to be privileged—at least in comparison to other historically victimized groups. Having made a full recovery from the Holocaust, Jews are no longer the downtrodden collective that white liberals can readily sympathize with. Other groups lower on the privilege hierarchy and less tainted by association with whiteness now have priority. So long as anti-Semitism has a white face to it, there is no problem here. But if the face is actually that of a member from an ‘oppressed’ or ‘vulnerable’ group, there may be a cognitive dissonance.

Through this window of cognitive dissonance crashes Omar, whose status as intersectional icon suffers no damage despite statements such as, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

All Hail ‘The Squad’

Here members of the Democratic Party who self-describe as “liberal,” particularly many Jewish Democrats, may argue that Omar did not have free rein to engage in her multiple acts of social media antisemitism, but instead faced criticism, and even a demand for an apology from no less figure of Democratic prominence than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Weingarten successfully preempts this objection in his apt handling of the battle for influence between Pelosi’s wing of the party and Omar and her cohort, ubiquitously known as “The Squad ”— the freshman Democrats who entered the House with Omar, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. As Weingarten documents, this confrontation, which began with Pelosi’s demand for an apology, ended with a Squad victory by K.O.

First efforts by the House of Representatives to censure Omar for her overtly antisemitic remarks about Jewish money and influence over American politics collapsed in the face of leftist protest. Weingarten writes:

In early March 2019, establishment Democratic leaders rushed to draft a resolution condemning Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism. Seemingly sensitive to the line they were walking, the party floated what appeared to be a trial balloon resolution condemning anti-Semitism, including the usage of the dual loyalty canard. However, the resolution refused to call out Rep. Omar by name, already indicating weakness. Yet even this language did not satisfy the Left. Within hours of the release of the draft resolution, at the urging of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), Speaker Pelosi vowed to expand its language to condemn not just anti-Semitism, but anti-Muslim expressions. Later, the language would widen still more—thereby further watering it down—to include condemnation of ‘bigotry against minorities’ as well. Leadership’s inability or unwillingness to maintain the original resolution stemmed from an uproar from party progressives, who commenced their pivot to the victimhood narrative, and played the race card, as they would later do in defense of the entire Squad against Speaker Pelosi…

Fresh off this upset, Omar openly criticized Pelosi for daring to publicly oppose the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. As Weingarten notes, support for BDS is mainstreamed in the Democratic Party.

The Squad achieved total victory as the Democrats rallied to Omar’s defense and condemned the president of the United States, by name, after he criticized “Progressive…Congresswomen who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe…”

Of course, in his frank way President Trump was enunciating the conservative critique that Omar represents and supports failed and foreign ideas that are antithetical to the American ideals held by those who were so kind as to take in Omar and her family in the first place.

Fundamental Transformation

Central to Weingarten’s thesis is that Barack Obama, although he had different and more pragmatic political approach, paved the way for Omar’s rise. (In fact, Chapter 8 is titled: “How Barack Obama Made Ilhan Omar Possible.”) Weingarten views the Obama administration through two signature policy “accomplishments,” namely Obamacare at home, and the Iran Deal abroad, which he views as illustrative of Obama’s time in office. Regarding Obamacare, Weingarten summarizes:

The latter law, it bears noting, led to the hyper-regulation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It gave the U.S. government unprecedented control over Americans’ most personal and intimate decisions—ones regarding their own health. It set the country on a path towards the collapse of private medicine and laid the groundwork for current progressive calls for ‘Medicare for All.’ It led the Supreme Court to do incalculable damage to its own legitimacy, the rule of law, and perhaps liberty itself, by deeming a government mandate to purchase a good or service a ‘tax,’ making the unconstitutional constitutional.

In the same way that Obamacare required reorganizing the economy and abandoning basic regime principles about the rule of law, the Iran Deal also required an inversion of what both parties had previously agreed on as long-standing foreign policy norms. These norms included proudly bipartisan support for Israel and a Middle East policy that relied on Arab states and Israel to help stabilize the region. Regarding the depths to which the Obama administration was willing to go to violate these norms, Weingarten writes:

That President Obama harbored real animus towards Jews came through in the course of his lobbying for his central foreign policy ‘achievement,’ the Iran nuclear deal. In order to summon Jewish support for the disastrous pact, the administration’s Iran Deal echo chamber, led by the aforementioned Ben Rhodes, engaged in a campaign of vicious Jew-baiting. In accordance with rhetoric later employed by Rep. Omar, Team Obama tried to browbeat recalcitrant American Jews into backing the deal by raising the classically anti-Semitic dual loyalty canard. Meanwhile, in the years leading up to the Iran Deal, the Obama-controlled National Security Agency spied on Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, in contradiction of its stated policy not to surveil allied heads of state. Its main reason for doing so was to ensure Prime Minister Netanyahu would not scuttle the deal. Secretary Kerry threatened that Israel would be blamed if Congress opposed the Iran Deal. The Obama administration further demonstrated its malice towards Israel by leaking sensitive information about its military and intelligence activities and capabilities, including breaking the several decades-old practice of not publicly discussing Israel’s nuclear program.

Through the Iran Deal, the Obama administration forced traditionally left-leaning pro-Israel democrats to make a choice. Either directly confront the administration, thereby exposing the increasing weakness of the pro-Israel view in liberal democratic circles and risk the Obama administration leaking about you, or else remain mum.

Weingarten also notes the Obama administration’s broader endorsement of Islamist groups, abroad in the form of supporting Muslim Brotherhood-backed revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, justified the Obama administration’s mainlining of many domestic Islamists in political relevance.

Covering Collusion

Many of those same Islamists now maintain close ties with Omar. It is in covering these relationships with Islamists that Weingarten’s narrative bogs down slightly.

One of the challenges facing any writer, but especially those on the right, is media bifurcation. With the increasingly partisan derangement of the mainstream media, it is impossible to be entirely sure that your audience understands basic key facts. So, while Weingarten is anxious to get to the meat of his argument, he finds himself susceptible to tangents and historical anecdotes to ensure his bases are covered.

This means that to cover Omar’s relationships with Islamists, he feels partially obligated to cover nearly two decades of recent and history into America’s counterterrorism failures and inability of the U.S. government to adequately comprehend the Islamist ideology that gives rise to jihadist terror.

Weingarten does a solid job summarizing the arguments articulated in works like Stephen Coughlin’Catastrophic FailureBlindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, and Andrew McCarthy’s Grand Jihad regarding the Obama administration’s extensive outreach to Islamists. (Weingarten also cites work from my organization, including my own work, and I can confidently say he covers the material with aplomb.)  Weingarten amply establishes the robust links between Omar and a variety of domestic Islamist groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism, including The Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim American Society, and Islamic Relief, among many others.

Weingarten also ably documents Omar’s long and disreputable relationship with foreign government figures, most with a shared affinity for Islamism. Weingarten’s examination of Omar’s ties to key corrupt Turkish and Somali government leaders is particularly illuminating, both because of how extensive the ties are, but also how far back they stretch her political career, with Omar meeting key Turkish leaders when only a Minnesota state senator.

These ties are even more dramatic when one considers Omar’s role on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and when compared to the trite and irrelevant meetings between foreign figures and members of the Trump campaign that came to be treated as prima facie evidence of collusion.

[I]f one were to apply the Special Counsel’s mandate to examine any ‘links and/or coordination’ between the global Islamist network and Rep. Omar,” Weingarten writes, “the case for collusion would be beyond compelling. This poses a significant national security threat to our nation.”

He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother

An adequate encapsulation of Omar and her meteoric rise would not be possible without at least addressing the controversy about Omar’s history, specifically the allegation that Omar participated in what amounts to an immigration fraud scheme by marrying her own brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and that she later allegedly engaged in campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and other corrupt behavior in furtherance of the sham marriage or the cover up which followed.

Here Weingarten summarizes and expands on the ample investigative reporting done (and still being done) by freelance journalist David SteinbergPowerline’s Scott Johnson, and Alpha News’s Preya Samsundar. These explosive, yet thoroughly documented, claims have been developing for several years within the conservative media ecosystem. Yet the mainstream media, which saw fit to smear Brett Kavanaugh with utterly specious claims, has said little to nothing regarding the allegations facing Omar, despite much stronger substance.

Weingarten does a laudable job of recounting the case, examining the evidence of the claims, and weighing them appropriately. For those who haven’t bothered to stay abreast of the Omar case, Weingarten’s book will be helpful in catching up. As it appears federal investigators may be closing in on the freshman congresswoman, Weingarten’s coverage of this particular element of Omar’s story could not be more timely.

Is Omar Too Big to Fail?

This investigation may ultimately help determine the accuracy of Weingarten’s hypothesis in American Ingrate that the Democratic Party has become the party of Ilhan Omar. Surviving federal investigation despite clear issues of malfeasance is a perk more typically reserved for Democratic party leaders than freshmen backbenchers, after all.

Given the ongoing Democratic presidential primary, it’s an open question whether Omar will remain a mere backbencher.  If Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is successful in seizing the Democratic nomination for president despite radicals and antisemites (including Omar) supporting his campaign, then Democrats’ trajectory will be clearly defined.

Is the thinnest veneer of woke politics sufficient shield for corruption, foreign cronyism, and vile antisemitism? Does the “Great Awokening” mean that liberals will abandon any pretense of policing their own side if the offender has a suitable background narrative? After reading Weingarten’s work it’s hard to conclude the answer is anything other than a resounding yes.Whether you view Omar as an intersectional hero or Islamist-socialist villain may be a matter of perspective. But after reading American Ingrate you should be convinced that Omar is increasingly an archetypal representation for where the modern Democratic Party has come to reside.

Democracy’s Backbone: A Strong Middle Class

When Trump says “Make America Great Again,” the message is one of restoring the wealth, honor, and status of this shrinking group, which has been crushed by a pincer movement of a hateful elite and a grasping and desperate underclass

Christopher Roach – February 25 2020

Politics have changed. Democrats today do not seem like the Democrats of yesteryear. Neither do the Republicans. Something feels different . . . alien. A lot of people are leaning toward socialism, for example. In years past, this was always a bridge too far. At the same time, supposed “Democrats” seem to think very little of the people.

While Karl Marx was wrong about a lot of things, he was not wrong—or alone—in observing that material conditions have a relationship to political systems. There is a reason economics used to be called “political economy.” Economics affects politics, just as politics affects economics. If you want to change the superstructure, you have to change the underlying conditions.

Highly unequal Medieval Europe was a society of classes, each with reciprocal duties and rights. Its political structures reflected its material conditions. It was a time of courage, knights, guilds, kings, and bishops, but it was not a time of democratic self-rule.

Long before this era, Aristotle wrote of Oriental Despotism,” the illiberal but intelligent people to his East. They had civilization, but no thirst for freedom. He contrasted this system with his native Athens, whose democracy was founded on a large middle class of farmers and merchants. The Athenians’ rough equality of wealth was matched by equality of citizenship.

Rising Inequality and the Threat to Democracy

American conservatives have not generally, until now, worried very much about “political economy.” Their rhetoric has been strongly free market, especially since the Reagan era. For Republicans, inequality was either self-correcting or a beneficial thing, a reward for the most talented. Government welfare was seen largely as a vote-buying scheme to harness the improvident poor. This view, however, has become increasingly decoupled from reality.

Economic freedom was and should be an important pillar of the “American way of life.” These policies worked well when they were tied to a broader pattern of economic mobility and rising standards of wealth. But sometime in the last 40 years, things began to change. The bargain broke down.

Wage growth flattened, even as national wealth and productivity expanded. Globalization and a large influx of immigrants were important contributors to this state of affairs. As workers struggled, a large oligarch class blossomed in the high-tech and financial services industries.

As this unfolded, the shills of Conservatism, Inc. continued to talk mechanically about tax cuts and the virtues of capitalism. They did the bidding of the very rich, even as the oligarchs of Silicon Valley and Wall Street increasingly were hostile to Republicans and did not see themselves primarily as Americans with duties to their fellow Americans. They saw themselves, rather, as “global citizens.”

Many of the economic patterns that permitted the growth of the new billionaire class—outsourcing, monopolization, and financial engineering—destroyed retail and manufacturing, the traditional sectors in which middle-class entrepreneurs and well-paid union workers could flourish. In 2008, an economic crisis dragged many formerly successful middle-class people into poverty. In response, Republicans and Democrats united to intervene in the economy in order to save . . . suffering banks?

More damaging than the mere concentration of wealth and a self-serving attitude toward government intervention, the oligarchical class became increasingly self-conscious of itself as a class. The mask came off, and they proudly proclaimed their status as distinct from and superior to the rest of the country, particularly in its coastal centers of Washington, D.C., New York City, and Silicon Valley.

Core values of American life—limited government, free markets, free enterprise, and free speech—are now in jeopardy and openly attacked on one side by a large, growing, and restless underclass and, on the other, by an aloof, culturally separate, and very powerful class of the megarich.

America’s Economic Freedoms Are Crumbling

These economic conditions are why things feel so different, even with the modest growth in wages and low unemployment of the Trump era. This improvement is only a small uptick after a 40-year decline.

Among Democrats, we encounter the potentially ruinous specter of economic socialism among the very poor, who are championed by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Since there is only so much wealth to be transferred from the oligarchs, the fragile middle class see themselves as threatened by the expense of such programs and the insatiable envy upon which they depend. They have seen this horror movie before in the form of ruinous “Obamacare.”

With the emergence of former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, we see the other face of the liberal elite: certain, proud, imperious, and fantastically rich. The elite sees its right to rule as completely natural. They are fearful of the economic populists, preferring instead to indulge in a cultural revolution that accords with their cosmopolitan view of the world but does not threaten their privilege. They are contemptuous of the values and wants of the “rubes from flyover country.”

In other words, the liberal elite, like the Sanders-wing of the party, is also hostile to the middle class and impatient with their insistence upon their traditional rights and privileged position in American life.

The middle class may be thought of, roughly, as those who work and who take pride in pulling their own weight. They’re the kind of people who own a home but also have a mortgage. They don’t have a Harvard degree, but they read the newspaper. They don’t inherit much wealth and instead often take care of their parents. They like NASCAR and college football and guns and Applebee’s and other things that are alien to someone like Michael Bloomberg or Hillary Clinton.

Trump ran and won as the champion of the embattled middle class. In the process, he ditched some of the free-market Republican orthodoxy. He instead considered whether policies actually helped his coalition; he embraced economic policies showing a pragmatic, ad hoc commitment to the middle class. These policies, whether on immigration or trade, were not merely economic policies, but they aimed to restore the honor and dignity of the middle class.

The necessity of a strong middle class was recognized by our own nation’s Founders and political theorists stretching back to Aristotle and forward to modern writers like Hernando de Soto. For those interested in conserving a democratic polity, a democratic culture and a democratic economy are essential.

While some conservatives have dismissed Trump as a Democrat, a liberal, or worse, his concern for the fortunes of the middle class has deep roots. The entirely alien tone of political life today is a product of the squeeze put upon the middle class by the very poor and the very rich, and both of these groups are joined together uneasily in the modern Democratic Party.

The Importance of the Middle Class Is Ancient Wisdom

A highly unequal society of a few very rich with much more numerous proletariat class bodes ill for democracy.

Aristotle, in his Politics, wrote that the chief alternatives to republican government—that is, a democracy limited by laws—were oligarchies and monarchies, both of which thrived in conditions of inequality. By contrast, the middle class tends to embrace political self-rule, because they also make a habit of ruling their own lives. They demand a share of political power and desire limited and predictable rules under which they can pursue their own version of the good life.

James Madison warned that democratic self-rule and property rights were both jeopardized by excessive inequality: If all power be suffered to slide into hands not interested in the rights of property which must be the case whenever a majority fall under that description, one of two things cannot fail to happen; either they will unite against the other description and become the dupes and instruments of ambition, or their poverty and independence will render them the mercenary instruments of wealth. In either case, liberty will be subverted; in the first by a despotism growing out of anarchy, in the second, by an oligarchy founded on corruption.

Madison rightly understood that the poor and the rich are not necessarily antagonists, but can be natural allies, indifferent to the rights of the middle class.

One distinction of the early United States was the extensive availability of land, which allowed most to own their own small farms. By contrast, Europe was filled to the brim, stagnant, and notoriously unequal. Alexis de Tocqueville described the situation: America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance.

This equal, democratic, bountiful America had people who maintained limited government, eventually abolished slavery, and their commitment to freedom permitted a dramatic expansion and distribution of wealth.

Traditionally American conservatives were wary of the threat from the poor. An earlier wave of immigration resulted in the urban underclass, a true proletariat, who were less attached to America’s traditions and ethos. They were the clients of the Tammany Hall and the labor unions, and later became the constituents of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. From that time through the 1980s, conservatives focused on the welfare state as their nemesis. Silicon Valley censorship and “woke” capital’s use of its power to force its cultural views—exemplified by Mayor Bloomberg—shows that the very rich can also be a threat to the middle class and middle-class values.

The very rich are oriented differently to the economy. The rising burdens of healthcare, student loan debt, and the frictions of a diverse society are unimportant to them. They are insulated from these phenomena by gated communities, private schools, private security, and private jets. For the same reason, they can deploy their resources to bribe supporters, buy elections, and impose their tastes upon the rest of us.

American oligarchs find an ally in the large managerial class. This group, though not propertied and only middling in wealth, is ambitious for power and employed by the oligarch class. The managerial class’s power comes from its expertise and credentials, rather than from economic independence. Thus, the managers are insecure and slavish in their devotion to the fads, concerns, and interests of their very rich patrons.

The oligarch class and their managerial allies are less attached to the rule of law than is the traditional middle class, not only because the worst effects of those laws do not reach them, but also because they can manipulate the laws together thanks to their proximity to power.

Making America Great Again is About Restoring the Middle Class

The key to a stable democratic system is a healthy middle class. When Trump says “Make America Great Again,” the message is one of restoring the wealth, honor, and status of this shrinking group, who have been crushed by a pincer movement of a hateful elite and a grasping and desperate underclass. For traditional conservatives who don’t like Trump’s style and are equally repulsed by the designs of someone like Sanders, the old conservatism and the old America cannot be restored without restoring its economic and social conditions, which included a robust middle class. Nationalist policies, which restore the primacy of the American worker, the American family, and the American middle class, are the only way to do that.

COMMENTARY: like the following article, globalism is not workable in today’s world, no matter how the Demos and their international ‘friends’ see it – example: the EU was started for monetary reasons; however, now the bureaucrats behind it, never elected to these positions, seek to grow their objectives and greed ever wider, to the penalty of nation-states – few international organizations succeed at anything they do, especially for those which have heavy participation of Muslim countries which are not progressing in today’s modern societies, yet their number gives them perspective and power at the expense of other lands – this can never be good for the world of Western civilization FAILING

Exposing the Roots of Globalism

Economic populism and its political cousin, political populism, are an antidote and a reality check to excessive globalization and globalist values and institutions

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch – February 26 2020

What are the real roots of globalism, the ideology of the party of Davos, transnational corporations, of many U.S. Democrats, and their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere today?

First, a definition. “Globalism” is one world government run on the basis of democratic socialism and world citizenship.

From the globalist perspective, all of world history is a history of endless wars among competing tribes and interest groups (later called nation-states) vying for domination, colonization and empire.

All religions, political philosophies, and histories are masks for this domination. All national histories are histories of oppression—both domestic and international—and are therefore delegitimate. All national histories in world history entail a form of victimization.

The ideal of “perpetual peace” requires secularization based on principle and the end of all religion.

As a “new charter” comes into being, each of us surrenders what we have acquired by illegitimate (racial, gender, or national) privilege or conquest and there is a confiscation, then redistribution, of all wealth and property. The new globalist “ethical” principle becomes total equality.

No borders exist, so there is no such thing as illegal immigration, as nation states by definition cease to exist.

There is no difference between the rights of citizens and non-citizens so, “illegals” are entitled to all of the same economic, social and legal privileges of citizens the world over.

Legislative supremacy is imposed by global bod(ies); we do not need an independent executive because there is no such thing as “foreign” policy; it follows that efforts to impeach and remove (President Trump or any other) elected leaders who oppose globalism are always justified.

“True socialism” means we do not need political parties that inevitably represent competing interest groups. We only need “experts” in a global technocracy where cooperation replaces competition and the market itself. Stakeholders replace shareholders. The global environment, i.e., climate change, becomes the single unifying feature of reality and intersectionality (identity politics) the measure of all things.

These technocrats, no longer a “deep state,” just the global administrative state (including journalists and educators), are trained by the “major” approved globalist universities (those with certified centers for and curriculum in globalism) to perpetuate, execute, and perfect the model.

The true end of globalism is the eradication of nations, patriotism, popular sovereignty, any attachment to families, churches or civic associations, and the emergence of a “New Man” (Person): cosmopolitan, rootless, atheist, and willing to follow the dictates of globalist ideology.

Globalism vs. Nationalism

When you take the 30,000-foot view, you can see the larger context and the significant stakes in the contest between the Democrats and Trump.

Globalism is the Democrats’ core belief today. Open borders, diminished sovereignty, multilateralism, multiculturalism, and everything defined as “worldwide” or global in scope. World government is the ultimate, long-term end.

Nationalism is its polar opposite.

For Trump, the nation state is supreme and sovereign. Borders matter, bilateralism is preferable, national and ethnic identities are rooted in tradition, cultures count, and the intermediating institutions of society—family, church, civic association and place—come first. Issues are settled by sovereign nation states, which are not going away.

The battle lines are set as never before.

One ideology is pitted against the other; one set of institutions against the other; one cultural outcome against the other.

It is war.

Truth is, globalization has been ebbing while economic and political populism has been surging. Globalists no longer provide the accepted set of rules for the political and economic order. Transnational, multilateral, and supranational organizations and their networks, experts, and regulators are everywhere on the defense. Cosmopolitan and globalist values are no longer ascendant. This is what made Trump’s candidacy and presidency viable. It is underscored in his re-election campaign.

As a matter of fact, national sovereignty has soared back and is growing stronger, week-by-week, and month-by-month. We see it most clearly in President Trump’s principled realism, which he calls “America First.”

Like the 19th-century version of populism that rallied against the gold standard, today’s economic populism is similarly anti-establishment, anti-elitist, and opposed to all forms of globalization and globalist governance.

Economic history and economic theory both provide strong reasons to suggest that the advanced stages of globalization are proofs for the nationalist-populist backlash—in both its right- and left-wing variants—and everywhere from Brexit to Brazil and the Trump effect to the current European political situation to the unrest throughout Latin America.

Whether along ethnocultural cleavages or along income and class lines, these forms of populism are a predictable and logical result. It should surprise no one, including globalists that the pendulum has swung so far in this direction.

Analytically there are two sides to populism: demand and supply. Economic anxiety generates a base for populism but does not determine its particular political narrative—that storyline is left to various populist politicians and movements, which are on the rise today, worldwide.

National greatness in one place does not diminish it in another place. There is no reason why all nations cannot articulate their individual greatness and, each in its own national interest interact in the world in a more peaceful and benign fashion.

Actually, it is the economics of trade and financial integration that provide the politically contentious backdrop to all globalization. Trade theory, such as the well-known Stolper-Samuelson theorem, shows that there are sharp distributional implications for open trade—in other words, free trade is not a “win-win.” Losers are inevitable.

And generally, those who lose are low-skilled and unskilled workers. Trade liberalization raises the domestic price of exportables relative to importables. Go to any Walmart, if you want to check out this phenomenon first hand. Where is everything made?

There is an inherent form of redistribution at work here—the flip side of the benefits of trade. Overall as globalization advances, trade agreements themselves become more about redistributing and less about expanding the economic pie. The political fallout is clear: globalization, the opposite of national interest, has become more and more contentious, if not unsustainable.

The empirical evidence bears this out. From NAFTA, which has cost the United States some $3.5 trillion over the last decade, to the widening U.S.-China trade deficit, the American economy has enjoyed few overriding efficiency gains from globalization.

What we have, instead, are large trade imbalances, income stagnation among middle earners, and other nasty social side effects. Talk to any middle-class family or visit any town or factory in the affected areas and you can gain first-hand knowledge, up close and personal.

The overall benefits of globalization are zero to negative. Trade was supposed to be based on reciprocity and growth, but it turned out to be a sham.

Have those “left behind”—the “forgotten silent majority,” in Trumpian terms—been compensated for the clear effects of globalization? No, not really.

The benefits of international trade as originally argued by Adam Smith and its subsequent canonization ignores important historical differences. A displaced worker in our modern technological age (unlike a day-laborer or farmer in the 18th century) already has a home mortgage, car payments, and tuition for his children, and lots of other overhead. Merely switching careers or retraining is not so simple for many people. Truthfully, it is more than difficult, especially for middle-aged workers who have generally worked one job and in one place.

The share of U.S. imports in GDP went from less than 7 percent in 1975 to more than 18 percent in recent years, but the imbalance has provided little of what’s called trade adjustment assistance.

Why? Because it is very costly—and politicians on all sides of the spectrum make a lot of promises they simply do not keep.

All economists know that trade causes job and income losses for some groups. Those same economists deride the notion of “fair trade” as a kind of fiction, but that’s clearly not the case as we see with anti-dumping rules and countervailing duties. These are dubbed “trade remedies” for a reason. And don’t forget what might be called social dumping”—where one country literally dumps its unemployment potential elsewhere or subsidizes inefficient production forever, regardless of the cost.

What about operational mobility and the so-called benefits of financial globalization? The distinction between short-term, “hot money” and financial crises and long-term capital flows, such as foreign direct investment, is significant. One is disruptive, the other enhancing. One is patient and the other imprudent. So why is it that the timing of financial globalization and the occurrence of banking crises coincide almost perfectly?

Recurrent boom-and-bust cycles are familiar to less developed countries, but now appear to have spread to the European Union and the United States. Financial globalization, like trade, has exerted a downward pressure on the labor share of income.

Has anyone ever heard this line? “Accept lower wages, or we will move abroad!” The other week, a gentleman in Ohio was interviewed who managed a large battery-manufacturing unit there and had recently moved to Mexico. When asked about the thousands of workers in Ohio, he replied: “They are gone. We hired far cheaper Mexican ones in Juarez at just a fraction of their hourly wage.”

Those with lower skills or qualifications are the least able to shift or move across borders and are most damaged by this sort of risk shifting. But soon, so too, will be the accountants, architects, engineers, software developers, and every other white-collar worker.

It has also become harder to tax global mobile capital. Capital moves to the lowest rate tax haven and uses transfer pricing to disguise profits. Taxes on labor and consumption are much easier to collect, and they have gone increasingly up and up.

Globalization, we were told, had a big upside. This is the bill of goods the public has been sold for decades. In fact, globalization has only helped the few: exporters, multinationals, and the large international banks, as well as certain professionals and the very top management.

It surely helped some countries, such as China, which rapidly transformed peasant farmers into low-cost manufacturing workers, thereby reducing poverty. But all those jobs were at the cost of “old jobs” in America’s Rust Belt. In effect, globalization was a definite and planned wealth transfer from one place to the other, which has gone largely unreported.

There is another side of the not-so-glossy globalization coin: increased domestic inequality and exacerbated social division. The benefits and monetary flows sold to the unknowing public turned out to be all one-sided and went exclusively to the very highly skilled, to employers, to cities, to cosmopolitans, and to elites—not to ordinary working people.

The United States and Europe have been ravaged by financial crises, decades without a raise in pay or the standard of living for the masses and by the effects of austerity—while the few got richer. Globalization gutted the existing social contract and ushered in a stigma of unfairness—in what is called “a rigged system.”

The playing field was hardly level. The winners took all and investment bankers always seemed to come out on top, whether they were selling distressed mortgage debt or shorting it (sometimes simultaneously).

In the end, the economics of globalization and of globalist agency are, we have discovered, not politically sustainable.

Economic integration (in the EU or globally) has definite and unacceptable real costs that the people cannot and will not bear. This explains the rise of economic and political populism.

It explains Trump.

Economic populism and its political cousin, political populism, are an antidote and a reality check to excessive globalization and globalist values and institutions.

The 2016 election year was a watershed. The Clinton globalists did not want to lose to the Trump nationalists. They did not want their world or their ambitions for globalism disrupted. They want to return to the status quo ante.They have been disrupted; and 2020 promises to continue this much needed disruption.

COMMENTARY: liberalism seems to be merging toward the far left and the laws of unintended consequences have clearly come into play as expected by some – at this point, the Demo Party has clearly lost its roots and become a threat to We The People, its agenda quite anti-American, discriminatory, and intolerant – only their words and acts have merit, period – yet there is no way that modern society can be built on such a platform anytime, let along for the foreseeable future – FAILING!

What liberalism is today and why it is toxic

By Peter Skurkiss. February 27, 2020

What is the essence of today’s liberalism?  A good answer is provided by Ryszard Legutko, a professor of philosophy at Jagiellonian University in Poland.  He sees liberalism as a super-theory that dominates Western thought to the exclusion of all else.  To deviate from the liberal proposition is to be illiberal, which is taken to mean illicit.

So what is the liberal proposition?  Legutko answers:

Liberalism’s ideal is a society in which there is room for every human desire and life plan, in which all occupations and aspirations are allowed, in which those practicing various religions coexist, in which all groups, associations, parties, and clubs may peacefully pursue their goals, provide they do not impose their views on others. It is a society  in which there are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, heterosexuals, homosexuals innumerable genders, people of all nationalities or ethnic extractions, conservatives, liberals, socialists, anarchists, communists, pornographers, priests, hedonists, moral ascetics, all respecting the common rules.

The goal is to maximize both diversity and the freedom of individuals to be themselves.  And if there is not enough diversity, liberalism has a two-track answer.  Import it on a grand scale, and erase America’s traditional right of free association.  The twin of diversity is inclusion.  As applied, inclusion means none of the diverse groups or individuals can be excluded or made to feel marginalized, no matter how unusual they may be.  Their feelings and sensitivities take precedence over antiquated concepts such as free speech, traditional norms, and religious beliefs if those beliefs are Christian.  Diversity and inclusion are not options; they are mandates taken as the ultimate good, and even questioning them is not tolerated.

As Legutko notes, force is needed to make the liberal project run.  To achieve its goals, in addition to changing human nature, liberalism must also work to remove old boundaries and limits, no matter how uncomfortable that may be to the majority.  At the same time, those who supposedly have been privileged in the past (mainly white males) must have space taken away from them so they can no longer dominate.  This is done in government, the corporate world, and schools and is seen even in movies and TV commercials.  It is ubiquitous. 

Coercion and “cultural affirmative action” must be constantly applied not just for the liberal project to advance, but for it to stay afloat.  That’s because liberalism is contrary to the laws of God and nature.  It is unnatural.  This bespeaks its fragility, which is why Legutko writes: “The liberal super-theory adopts a version of the Brezhnev Doctrine: Any threat to liberal dominance anywhere is a threat to liberalism everywhere, justifying immediate and forceful intervention by any means necessary.” 

Look what happened when Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law in 2015.  The media and big business came down on Indiana with a vengeance, whereupon Pence ran up the white flag and invited the CEOs who attacked the law to come in and rewrite it.  You see, a deviation from the liberal super-theory can’t be permitted, as it could lead to the shattering of its edifice.  People must not be allowed to think liberalism is anything but highly moral and the wave of the future, for if they do, the emperor is then seen as naked.

The liberal super-theory is what has brought down on society things such things as affirmative action and racial quotas, legitimization of same-sex “marriage,” numerous genders, open borders, denigrating traditional Christian beliefs, the war on free speech, and indoctrination of the young in the public schools and universities.  All these are presented as great things in today’s culture, but none has been the result of a democratic process.  They’ve been forced on society by the ruling establishment, the same establishment that has time and time again shown itself to be corrupt, decadent, and self-serving. 

The rise of Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda has breached liberalism’s monopoly.  To be sure, Trump is not the end of the unraveling of the liberal super-theory, but with some luck, he is the beginning of it.

COMMENTARY: it is documented how often a law-abiding citizen with a concealed carry weapon (CCW) stops a crime from occurring; however, this is rarely ever carried in a news story (thanks to the NRA) – signs which say “Gun Free Zone) are invitations for armed criminals to come in to rob and even kill – WTF?

It’s Time to Establish a National Conceal Carry — Now!

 Kevin McCullough|Posted: Jan 26, 2020.

If the Constitution guarantees that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then it is time to bear those arms in the interest of protecting our families, lives, and orderly society.

If you live in blue-state America you have some common realities with other blue states and cities. Tax and economic policies are predatory. Life is harder for you than red-staters. And crime is on the rise. There are also less attractive issues you are dealing with as well. 

From New York City to Los Angeles, there is literally greater amounts of fecal matter coating your public streets. Homeless people are being more greatly injured—not helped. And crime is on the rise.

From New Jersey to California your mob member Democratic Party leadership has lawlessly labeled your state a “sanctuary” for people from literally only God knows where. And they are going so far as to give them voting rights and driver’s licenses.

Blue city after blue city is also disbanding and pulling out of their partnership with federal law enforcement, known as the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). They’re designed to allow local police departments access to federal resources (money and people) to help those cities stop terror attacks before they happen in their areas.

In the case of San Francisco, in the sanctuary “state” of California, you have no JTTF. Terrorists could be setting up cells across that city and the Democratic mafia in charge don’t care. They have made it “illegal” for the state to do anything to stop them. And crime is on the rise.

Some blue mayors and governors will play with numbers and reclassify what crimes are. Mayor DeBlasio and Governor Cuomo in New York have literally decriminalized so many traditional criminal acts that they’ve attempted to make the argument that crime has gone done on their watch.

These are the same morons who want to take a perfectly good, hard to get to island – where they now store 7800 or so criminals – close the island, let half of the 7, 800 criminals free and then house the other half smack in the middle of their residential city boroughs. They want to do this while spending tens of billions of tax dollars.

The Democratic mafia Assembly leader Carl Heastie and Governor Cuomo have also colluded with criminal defense attorneys to pass and now put into effect a bail reform package that is a get-out-of-jail-free card prior to trial, and if the person shows up for trial he gets free Mets tickets. 

Democrats have been able to make these changes in largely blue states because they have mostly limited or eliminated a common person’s right to defend one’s self and his family.  And crime is on the rise.

Over the final days of Hanukkah (and the weekend following Christmas) this lawlessness spilled over. Already in an all-out crisis of violence against our Jewish communities, anti-Semitic attacks were carried out every day during the “festival of lights.” In New York, a rabbi had to attempt to ward off a savage attacker who ended up injuring dozens. The very next morning a man walked into a church ready to kill 200 people in Texas and met his maker in six seconds. The male who attacked the Hanukkah gathering was armed with only blades yet severely injured many. The shooter in Texas was loaded with high-powered ammo and was put down almost immediately. One of my very dearest Jewish friends told me on Friday, “I want to be able to do what the guy in Texas did.”

In the New York county where the Hanukkah attack took place, they’ve already recorded thousands of gun permit applications where they traditionally authorize a few dozen per year.

And after only 25 days of the new “bail reform” New York has seen an increase of more than 517 robberies, burglaries and car thefts. At this pace, they will hit an increase of 7,800 more of those crimes than occurred in 2019. In blue cities, in blue states, the tide is turning criminal and violent. The elected Democratic lawmakers have created these criminal and violent, terrorist cell building zones for people of completely unknown origin.

It is time for Constitutionally law-abiding people to get armed and start carrying. 

A well-armed, law-abiding citizenry keeps crime at bay much better than a demoralized police force who grows tired of making arrests only to see the perps be released without bail and without a judge’s ability to remand them to being held based on danger to the community or the criminal’s flight risk.

Most armed citizens that use their gun for protection never even fire the weapon. The mere brandishing of it before the evildoer is usually enough to incentivize the criminal to stop his activity and to flee the scene. And as the church shooting in Texas proved, a well-armed citizenry is the best way to end mass shootings before they have the six to 10 minutes to kill as many as they can before the police arrive.

America is approaching a state of criminally dangerous proportions. The Democrats have brought it to the doorstep. And it is time to establish the national concealed carry program. 

We need to rid ourselves of the necessity of “reciprocity” agreements that Democrats can reject and make their populations sitting targets. If the Constitution guarantees our right to self-protection, regional Democrat politicians shouldn’t have the right or even the ability to remove it.

National carry now. National carry forever.

Court precedents need to be challenged and established and the Constitution should be enforced. For if the Constitution guarantees the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) the arms needed to protect one’s self, one’s family, and one’s society then it’s time that we stop allowing the Democratic criminal mafia to trample on the very protections we have. For that right shall not be infringed.

COMMENTARY: in mass shootings, the culprit is virtually always a psychopath, not a law-abiding citizen who owns firearms it’s simply common sense which those calling for gun control seem unable to grasp – yes, some reforms are needed in some states but Chicago, IL, really shows the farceur what it is; that is, most of crimes committed with firearms are by criminals and those in the hood with access to weapons at street level, not from licensed gunshops – FAILING

Johns Hopkins Study: No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

AWR HAWKINS 18 Feb 2020

A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.

”The push for an “assault weapons” ban is central to the Democrats’ gun control agenda nationally and is front and center for Democrats at the state level in places like Arizona and Virginia.

According to the Johns Hopkins study, researchers”did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago. But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.

COMMENTARY: these Demos and their supporters in the FBI, IRS, and the ‘Deep State’ weaponized the DOJ, the IRS, and the FBI, among other entities in their attempts to frame President Trump and his appointees and advisors – few have been arrested and convicted despite a number of Trump’s people having been arrested and convicted – at this point, one simply cannot trust those in the FBI, IRS, or DOJ since they willingly and deliberately lied, forged documents, hid information or changed it, to suit their purposes – Barr must clean the swamp in both organizations and Treasury over the IRS – if not, he should be fired and Trump must then identify someone who will do what is pessary to clean house! – it remains to be seen if Barr will act – FAILURE!

February 24, 2020

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

By John Leonard

The phrase “right-wing extremist” has become part of the national lexicon, yet for some strange reason, we never hear “left-wing extremist” to describe the liberal crazies in Antifa and BAMN, just two examples of what liberal extremism looks like — bloody.  Why is that?  Why do the media pretend the lunatics on the left don’t exist?

Remember back in 1998, when Hillary Clinton went on the Today show and defended Bill to Matt Lauer against accusations of infidelity and impropriety as the result of the efforts of a “vast ring-wing conspiracy that spawned when Bill first announced his candidacy for president?  I sure do.  It’s been Hillary’s go-to excuse for every exposed legal and ethical problem that she and Bill have experienced since they first came to occupy the White House.  She was still using that same old tired excuse in 2016, while at the same time having the unmitigated gall to claim that “there was nothing to Benghazi” — except four dead Americans, correct?

But the internet video excuse conspiracy to hide the real reason for the Benghazi attack and the shameful lack of response to send help pales in comparison to the effort to execute a bloodless coup on President Donald Trump.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this scandal is worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude.  People active on the federal payroll conspired to attempt the overthrow of the Trump administration before Trump had even taken office.

The infamous “Steele dossier” was commissioned by a company called Fusion GPS, hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Donald Trump and call it opposition research.  Literally, a couple of guys getting drunk in a bar made up a bunch of absurd, salacious nonsense about hookers and golden showers that only a mindless twit would ever believe.  Fortunately, the conspirators could count on John McCain to get a copy of this farcical “research” document and pass it along to James Comey at the FBI, who was more than happy to knowingly receive utter garbage in the form of uncorroborated opposition research from a political campaign and then turn around and use it as the foundation to spy on President-Elect Donald Trump.

Folks, it doesn’t get any worse than this.

Members of the conspiracy met in FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe’s office and worked out the “insurance plan” called Crossfire Hurricane to use as their excuse to surveil Trump Tower in the event Hillary Clinton lost the election.  James Comey took advantage of the hectic transition period to immediately target Michael Flynn and even had the chutzpah to brag about it.

Look up the word “despicable” in the dictionary, and you just might find a picture of James Comey wearing a pink pussy hat.  That would be apropos.  If the concept of equal justice under the law still exists in America, Comey will be wearing an orange jumpsuit in the near future.

James Comey is only one member of the vast left-wing Deep State conspiracy against Donald Trump.  Here is only part of this cast of most disreputable characters: James Clapper, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Dana Boente, Kevin Clinesmith, Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud, Azra Turk, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Barack Obama — just to name a few of the conspirators.  The plot was so intricate, and so many actors played a significant role, that it would take an entire book to fully explain all the details of the plot, but here is a brief synopsis: bogus opposition research was converted into “intelligence” and used to justify illegal spying on President Trump. Members of the new administration were fed information and then encouraged to repeat it in order to entrap them with “process” crimes.  Documents were deliberately altered in order to completely change their meaning.  Exculpatory evidence was withheld.  And they did some really bad stuff, too.

If you want to know exactly how bad the Mueller investigation was, just read this article about the unbelievable persecution of K.T. McFarland.  The strategy seems relatively clear: harass, intimidate, and bankrupt anyone brave enough to work for Donald Trump.  Destroy such people’s reputations and throw them in prison.  How did a guy with a reputation as an overzealous prosecutor like Andrew Weissmann ever get hired to lead the “Mueller” investigation in the first place?  Rod Rosenstein probably knew that Robert Mueller had basically become senile in retirement and would only serve as a figurehead, not an active and engaged special counsel.  Rod ought to be sharing a cell with Comey before Trump’s next inauguration.

Some conservatives have expressed concerns over recent media reports that General William Barr is not really willing to clean out the Augean stables of his Department of (In)Justice because he has complained about some of Trump’s tweets and said they have made it difficult to do his job, but I still have confidence in our brave attorney general.  Barr’s critics may not have heard this hour-long speech he gave to the Federalist Society last November, but it’s well worth the listen.  Among many other eloquent and astute observations, Barr said this:

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration.  Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power.  It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate.  This is a very dangerous, and indeed incendiary notion, to import into the politics of a democratic republic.  (applause)  What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in this country for over two hundred years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.

I enjoy Barr’s wry sense of humor, exhibited when he joked about being the first attorney general threatened with contempt of Congress within his first 100 days in office, asking Nancy Pelosi if she’d brought her handcuffs to arrest him.  Barr explained that he was opposed to President Trump tweeting about Roger Stone’s court case because the tweets made it more difficult to intervene in the case without creating the appearance that he was acting in response to the tweets instead of the unfair treatment of Stone by the judicial process.  Seems reasonable.  

Therefore, I remain hopeful that William Barr will continue to faithfully execute the duties of his job in spite of the fact that Andrew McCabe escaped prosecution for lacking candor, the FBI way of saying he lied — the very same reason Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos got in trouble with the FBI and the Mueller investigation.  If John Durham doesn’t indict anybody, then we’ll have ample reason to be upset.  Until we hear otherwise from Durham, we should continue to cautiously keep our faith in the judicial system.

Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” is nothing but a figment of her imagination.  The left-wing conspiracy to overthrow the government led by Donald Trump is very real.

COMMENTARY: ah, the knowledge of the elites and the Demos – for decades, they have controlled most of the large cities in America, yet nothing substantial is ever done for minorities – the proof is in the lack of local action – yet they say that they know what is best for their constituents – funny how GOP-run cities have a record of getting things done, while the Demos keep them in a plantation-like status – and in too many cases, the local pols are corrupt to their gills, just look at the history of the large Demo cities – time and again the mayor and his/her colleagues wind up in prison – FACT! FAILURE, to be sure

Intellectual Elitism: A Threat to Racial Reconciliation

Why is it that so many liberals assume that blacks have to hate President Trump?

Patrick Hampton · Feb. 24, 2020

Racist – noun – 1. Someone who wins an argument with a liberal

On Presidents’ Day, I met a pair of tourists who were enjoying their stroll around downtown Chattanooga. Upon wishing them a “Happy Presidents’ Day” greeting, they proceeded to engage with me about our nation’s origins.

After just a few minutes of conversation with the couple, it was clear that they inherited a liberal mindset. The lady openly expressed her hatred for our sitting president, upon which I explained how I actually support President Donald Trump. (Of course this would lead to being called crazy and ignorant. How kind!)

What was initially a cordial conversation turned into vocalized vitriol. Pleasantries turned into put-downs, as she lobbed a fury of insults toward our POTUS before storming off along the bridge walk. The man continued to engage with me, mentioning the usual mainstream-media headlines. His favorite? Where President Trump’s father prevented non-creditworthy individuals from renting an apartment block. Of course, the gentleman equated this to the fact that these low-income individuals were black.

“So are you saying that blacks are poor?” I responded. Anyone with business sense understands why non-creditworthy individuals may not qualify for certain purchases like a home or a rental property. But because the MSM told him so, the man repeated this without understanding how it made him sound.

The man stammered to provide a response, dancing around the question and using anything to justify the notion that Trump is a racist. Of course, running down a list of Trump’s many achievements supporting the black community didn’t make them flinch a single bit. For these individuals, credibility comes from a television screen and not out of the mouths of regular black people like myself. We eventually parted ways, I with a smile on my face, the couple with an imprint of disgust.

These sorts of engagements are actually quite common. People who are far removed from black people get the only information they know about the demographic from television and social media. This, in turn, leaves their minds at the mercy of the programming they receive. Which is why they repeat the hottest headlines without fail. Yet despite their limited knowledge and interaction with actual black people, they always seem to have a remedy for what ails our communities. This hypothesis is often replicated as Democrats come into urban communities and make them worse at the expense of minorities. (From the hills, these wealthy liberals and progressives rule over the black and brown people they live far away from. But I digress.)

We black conservatives are waging a sort of unknown war. But it’s not against other black liberals or the black community at all (like many liberals erroneously believe). The battle is against a sort of intellectual elitism — often dealt by white democrats who vote based on what television and mainstream media tells them about the black population. While some are individuals are well-meaning yet uninformed, others simply possess a profound lack of faith in minorities. This intellectual elite abhors and rejects those who think differently — this includes black conservatives and Republicans who don’t fit the narratives that the elite write for them. To engage with one of us — like the couple engaged with me — would trigger a total meltdown every single time.

The fact that black people largely overlook this is baffling. Are we, as a demographic, okay with intellectuals assuming our political ideas? Are black people happy that white liberals are speaking on their behalf, regardless of whether these people know any black people at all or have our interests at heart? What has the intellectual elite done to earn our undying trust? But most importantly, what happens if we disagree? Will your individual views be respected? I don’t know. Let each of us ask a liberal and find out for ourselves.

COMMENTARY: yet another anti- stance taken by the Demos – they merely want to deny equal rights to groups they do not favor – at its very core, this is anti-American! they don’t even care that We The People might know of what they speak, discrimination on a massive scale – FAILURE!

Liberals Oppose Equal Status for Faith-Based Organizations

Tony Perkins / February 21, 2020

Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., must really miss the days of Barack Obama, when faith-based groups were treated like second-class citizens when it came to government programs

Every time a member of President Donald Trump’s team rolls back a rule and levels the playing field, the two Northwest Democrats kick and scream. For people who talk about equality so much, Senate liberals sure don’t understand it.

Nothing really sums up the left better than the first line of their protest letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar: “We write to strongly oppose the Department of Health and Human Services’ proposed rule, ‘Ensuring Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations.” 

In other words, what they support is the unequal treatment of faith-based organizations—something the Obama administration had become quite good at. The pair of senators tries to argue that Trump’s policy reinstating religious freedom is actually a secret attack on it—a suggestion that would be funny if it weren’t so outrageous.

“The proposed rule—developed under the guise of religious liberty is actually … yet another step taken by President Trump to green-light federally-funded discrimination,” their letter claims

No one is quite sure how, since the whole point of the regulation is to make sure every organization—religious or not—is treated the same. 

What Obama’s team liked to do was burden religious groups with special reporting or referral requirements, creating ridiculous hoops that no secular organization had to jump through. Of course, the idea was to persuade faith-based groups it was too much trouble—or worse, too steep a compromise—to comply.

The new rulejust posted last month, guarantees that every qualified government organization has a seat at the table—no matter what they believe. 

It appears by the words of Murray and Wyden not everyone believes in that kind of neutrality. They want religious groups to be disqualified from any government interaction before it starts.

“We demand the Department put the American people first and withdraw the proposed rule,” they write. 

But putting the American people first means engaging all of the diverse options for health care, education, adoption, and disaster relief. If the Trump administration listened to those on the left, it would be jeopardizing billions of dollars in social services.

The Catholic Church spent roughly $97 billion in 2010 alone on health care networks, about $47 billion on colleges, and $4.6 billion on “national charitable activities.Does the government really want to pick up that slack? And, more importantly, where would the government find the resources to try?

Faith-based groups carry the load in this country for humanitarian work—feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, housing the poor. Do liberals really want to be responsible for elbowing out a sizable chunk of our drug rehabilitation programs, prison work, adoption placements, and foster care?

On top of that, HHS is actually bringing itself in line with the Supreme Court’s insistence that “The Free Exercise Clause ‘protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment’ and subjects to the strictest scrutiny laws that target the religious for ‘special disabilities’ based on their ‘religious status.’”

Just because a group is operating in the government’s domain doesn’t mean it has to give up its convictions. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those on the left doesn’t agree.

Originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

COMMENTARY: the USA is a land of opportunity for all of its citizenry rather than a land of equality for all – we are practical people despite vast differences in the talents we individually possess, the wealth we may or may not own, the elitism of our many academic institutions, the benefits of corporate employment versus the advantages of ‘blue collar’ and agricultural work for so many, and so on – for the vast majority, we know damn well that we have to work to earn – few are endowed with family riches or have the talents for entertainment or sports, yet far too many of these think they are simply better than the rest of us, more ‘enlightened’, more sophisticated, and thus their opinions count while those of lesser folks do not – spare us the bs, their opinions count for little or nothing (except for those who seemingly worship at the feet of the rich and famous) – whatever Cher, Jim Carey, Oprah, the Obama, the Clintons, the Kardashians, Robert DeNiro, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, the late night show TV hosts, and on and on think about any issue is of no consequence whatsoever to us – in fact, we don’t even care a rat’s ass for any of their emotional crap – FAILURE, again and again

The American Middle Class

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON.  August 22, 2019

In the hurly-burly of politics, we usually don’t stop to note our simple, unadorned love of the things that make this country so marvelous. That’s what we’ve asked our contributors to our latest special issue, “What We Love about America,” to do.

Immigrants to America never brought with them the idea that they were still European subjects. Nor were our small farmers peasants or serfs. Instead, the United States was the rare consensual government in history in which the middle class, in numbers and influence, defined the society and culture at large. Every man was to be a king, and so his home really was his castle.

You can see the modern result of such middle-class chauvinism manifested on the freeway in the huge Winnebago with chairs, bikes, and gadgets tacked onto its sides barreling to a national park — or by listening to the well-informed callers on talk radio who prove to be better informed than Ivy League students.

Elites hate jet skis, snowmobiles, and recreational vehicles in part because they reflect that so many have the wherewithal to have fun without the approval or sanction of their supposed betters.

The twin of such populist chauvinism has always been a unique informality lacking in most nations abroad. Americans are practical, commonsensical, and self-reliant. The middling classes usually avoid the European gullibility of periodically embracing all-encompassing doctrines and ideologies. They certainly never warmed to the patrón or the manor. The middle classes have found would-be Hitlers, Mussolinis, or Stalins more creepy than spellbinding.

Neither Marxism nor aristocracy caught on here, because upward mobility was more than just a free-market slogan. Americans have always been suspicious of their European ancestors’ ossified notions that merit was to be based on birth and inheritance rather than on natural talent, action, and achievement, or success and privilege defined by who your grandfather was.

So dominant is this ethos of unpretentiousness that even the blueblood and magnate often embrace the fashion, accent, and bearing of the middle class. The aristocratic Ivy Leaguer William F. Buckley famously announced, “I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” Buckley did not mean just that he resented the overweening nonsense of the eastern liberal intelligentsia. He also perhaps was conceding that men of his own class would gladly admit that the common sense and bearings of the “average folks” had kept the country sane and balanced.

In this sometimes paradoxical view of privilege, Americans respect professors but would not wish to turn the country over to them. They admire the man who appears successful and rich enough to drive a Porsche, but also believe a Ford, Honda, or Chevy is a better barometer of steadiness and sanity — and a far better cost-to-benefit investment.

Americans, in their nonstop drive to “make something of themselves,” worship education, are impressed by professional titles, and strive to become affluent — but usually in a context where such resulting success is the result of hard work and natural talent, and thus should be emulated rather than resented as an unfair entitlement of royalty and aristocracy.

Americans lack the idea of knighthood. They bristle even at the motorcades of their high officials. To cut into an airport line or pull rank bothers citizens, who have convinced themselves that no one is better than they.44

This ascendency of the middle class is due in part to the classical legacies of independent agrarians, in part to the efforts of the Constitution to promote a natural equality of opportunity, in part to the confidence that America by design would be different from European class and monarchy, British imperial aristocracy, and Spanish manorialism, and in part simply to the often wild marriage of freedom and capitalism.

So-called elites may mock the middle class and deride it as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” in its culture and tastes, but usually the middle class has had the last laugh.

This article appears as “The Middle Class ” in the September 9, 2019, print edition of National Review.

COMMENTARY: set to music, ‘whatever Barack wants, Barack gets’ – hopefully not as the Big Deal Himself tries to run over the little guy – exactly what one might expect from His Imperial Majesty, eh?

The Obamas Are in the Middle of a Trademark Dispute…and They’re Not Taking the High Road 

Leah Barkoukis. Posted: Sep 06, 2019.    

The Obamas are being accused of “really deplorable behavior” for attempting to cancel the trademark registration for a company that has a similar name to the couple’s movie production company, Higher Ground Productions.

“The Obamas have known for almost a year that their Higher Ground trademark application was rejected by the USPTO because it infringed my client’s rights,” Larry Zerner, a Los Angeles attorney who is representing Hanisya Massey of Higher Ground Enterprises, told the The Hollywood Reporter. “Instead, of simply picking another name, the Obamas’ lawyers have now filed a meritless petition to cancel my client’s trademark so they can take it for themselves. This is really deplorable behavior. I hope that the Obamas realize that these actions are not consistent with the values they preach and that they instruct their attorneys to immediately dismiss the petition.” 

While the Obamas tried to argue both companies could co-exist, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office saw otherwise, believing they were too similar and related in services. 

“The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer,” the agency said. 

Instead of backing down, the Obamas’ attorney mounted a challenged and filed a petition to cancel the Higher Ground Enterprises trademark, claiming it was not being use at the time of its 2016 registration. 

Apparently the Obamas don’t truly live by their word—that “when they go low, we go high.”

The trademark battle comes as the Obamas have a deal with Netflix to produce films and television series.

COMMENTARY: recall that Obama did absolutely NOTING to improve the employment opportunities and resulting stats for minority residents

Black Unemployment Hits Record Low, Black-White Unemployment Gap Shrinks to Smallest Ever

JOHN CARNEY. 6 Sep 2019

The unemployment rate for African-Americans fell to the lowest level ever recorded in August, dropping from 6 percent to 5.5 percent.

One result: the persistent gap between white and black unemployment also narrowed to its smallest on record.

The unemployment ratio has averaged around 2 to 1 or so for decades, meaning the black unemployment rate is typically twice the white unemployment rate.  In good times, the unemployment rate of whites and blacks falls but the gap remains. And in bad times, the unemployment rate for whites and black rises, but black unemployment typically remains around twice that of white employment.

A year ago, the black unemployment rate stood at 6.6 percent while the white unemployment rate was 3.4 percent, meaning black unemployment was 185 percent of white unemployment.

In August, the gap narrowed so that black unemployment was under 162 percent of white unemployment. That is the smallest gap ever in records going back to January 1972.

This is particularly remarkable because it comes at a time of remarkably low unemployment. Prior to the Trump era, the last time the gap fell below 170 percent was in August of 2009, when the black unemployment rate was 14.8 percent and the white unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. Back then the gap declined because white unemployment was increasing at a faster clip than the already sky-high black unemployment.

In other words, the decline in employment inequality now is undeniably the best on record because it comes in the context of falling unemployment.

COMMENTARY: let’s just say that ‘climate change’ is settled science isn’t, no matter what Al Gore and Barack Obama say – we will post other articles dealing with the same subject and its real conclusion, rather than the hoax the Demos and their academic and entertainment brethren espouse

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax

Kurt Schlichter| Posted: Sep 09, 2019.

I hate science, evidently, because I’m woke to the manifest truth about what the leftist elite currently calls “climate change.” It is the second most staggering fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people after the media’s promotion of the unstoppable candidacy of Beto (who is a furry). Like some suckers still do, I once believed that “science” was a rigorous process where you tested theories and revised those theories in response to objective evidence. But in today’s shabby practice, “science” is just a package of self-serving lies buttressing the transnational liberal elite’s preferred narrative. Our alleged betters hope that labeling their propaganda “science” will science-shame you into silence about what everyone knows is a scam.

Nah. “Climate change” is a hoax. Come arrest me for felony denial.

Understand that the term “climate change” does not refer to actual meteorological phenomena but, rather, to the sordid rat-king of lies, scams and power grabs that we are commanded to accept as pagan gospel lest we burn to a crisp or drown or suffer…whatever the Armageddon du jour is. When you say “climate change is a grift,” and you should as often as possible, you are pointing out that this green-on-the-outside/red-on-the-inside fake frenzy is really just a set of intertwined grifts transparently designed to separate you from your freedom and your property in the name of somehow adjusting the weather.  Observing that “climate change” is steaming garbage served in a dirty ashtray is not disputing that the climate changes. That the climate is not static, and never could be static, is one of the myriad reasons that this whole idea is ridiculous. The planet gets hotter, it gets colder, sometimes quickly, sometimes over eons, and there are a bunch of reasons why, like the sun and volcanos. Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors, but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one. Of course, if they really cared about carbon, they would be up in arms about China and India, which are upping their output while we are slashing ours. Yet the object of their ire is your New York strip. Gosh, does that seem consistent with 1) someone truly concerned about atmospheric carbon, or 2) someone who trembles with joy at the notion of bossing around you rubes out in gun/Jesusland?

watch them sputter when you enquire about that perfect setting for Earth’s thermostat. Remember, if you ask questions you hate “science.” If they did stop telling you how you hate “science” long enough to respond, they might explain that of course there’s no perfect temperature – it’s not like LA, where it’s always 72 degrees. 

But then, what are they comparing the present climate to in order to declare that our climate is “getting worse?” If you establish a climate baseline, then you can compare what’s actually happening to the baseline and that might demonstrate that the whole thing is baloney. That would be awkward. It happened after Katrina. Oh, Katrina’s proof positive that Gaia is really ticked off and…and…and…then we had a bunch of years without much hurricane action at all. You might think that this would be evidence that maybe the climate wasn’t in chaos, and that they would be happy to be proven wrong, but no, it doesn’t work that way. Every time the weather fits the narrative, you see, it’s proof that the climate kooks are right, and every time the weather fails to fit the narrative, well, weather’s not climate. At least until the next heat wave or storm; then weather will totally be climate again.

Heads, you must give us all your freedom and money, and also tails, you must give us all your freedom and money.  Now, we’re being told that we’re all going to die in…I guess we’re down to what? About 11.5 years this go ‘round? Of course, we’ve been told many times that we’re doomed and the deadlines have come and gone with the doomsdayers not missing a beat. They’re like old timey Elmer Gantrys promising the apocalypse over and over again, with their hardcore true believers regularly showing up for the rapture over and over again no matter how many times the Four Horseman fail to turn up.

We haven’t even seen one horseman. Back in the 70s, I remember we were promised an ice age if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. Then in the 80s, we were promised death by ozone hole if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, and then doom by acid rain if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. By the time they started promising that we were all gonna die from global warming if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, I was still wanting my ice age. It would be nice to have a white Christmas in LA.

So, where’s my damn ice age?

Oh right, only a climate denier – Climate, I deny thee! – might wonder why we should hand over one, ten, a hundred trillion bucks to people who have never once been right about their predictions. You evidently hate “science” if you expect the “science” people to be correct at least one time in a half-century. 

And they’re not even good at short-term prognostication. Heck, for several days Hurricane Dorian was supposed to slam head on into Florida and then…it didn’t. The Obamas just bought a $15 million pad on the beach – what’s that say about their faith in “science?” But don’t worry, the guys batting .000 so far will definitely get the temperature in 2119 right if we only just write them a huge check and transform ourselves from citizens to serfs.

That’s another big red flag – have you noticed how “science” always tells us that the only possible response to the climate hullabaloo is to give liberals exactly what they always wanted anyway? How lucky are the leftists to have had an existential problem drop in their laps where the only solution is to give them everything they could not otherwise convince us to give them? What a remarkable coincidence!

And what’s also weird is how nothing that we must do right now no time to debate it’s a crisis think o’ the children in any way inconveniences or calls for sacrifices from our climate crisis-pushing elite. Boy, they really scored with climate change – if they were going to manufacture a crisis in order to get the power and money they craved, how would they do it any differently?

Now, they might claim that they too will have to sacrifice to the Angry Weather Demon, but it’s unclear how. I suppose they might stop flying across the globe to climate finger-wagging festivals in private jets, but call me jaded for thinking that if it’s such a crisis today and they have not stopped doing it yet, they won’t stop jetting about down the road. Oh, but you will. You most definitely will stop flying and driving the vehicles you choose and eating cheeseburgers and using straws that don’t disintegrate into gummy sludge in your Dr. Pepper. But them? Pete Buttigieg explained away his zipping around in Gulfstreams as necessary because it is important for him to be pestering people in Des Moines. Bet you that pretty much everything our betters want to do will turn out to be “important.” And I’ll bet that nothing what you peasants want to do will.

One might think that if stopping carbon was important, you might want to explore nuclear power. But you would think wrong. After all, if there’s plenty of electrical power, the elite loses the political power that comes from divvying up a scarce resource. If they control the power, they control you. Cheap, plentiful power makes you freer, which is a bug, not a feature.Oh, and those many millions of people in Middle America who directly or indirectly rely on fracking and the rest of the fossil fuel industry? Even bloody-eyed, Gaffe-atronic Joe 3000 wants to shaft you. Better learn to code or something, because your good job is history. Weird how all the sacrifice once again falls on those out in the hinterlands and not on the blue coastal city swells, huh? But you’ll be able to rest easy knowing that our moral superiors in Brooklyn and Alexandria and Santa Monica enjoyed showing you sweaty rubes who’s really the boss by impoverishing you. Because that, and not the weather in a century, is and always has been what the “climate change” hoax is really all about.

September 10, 2019

Change in population of world religious groups over the last 75 years

By Thomas Lifson

Sasha Madin writes to us with a video he has made charting the changes in population among major religious affiliations in the world for the last 75 years.  I haven’t been able to verify the underlying statistical data, but it looks consistent with my understanding of religious populations.

He writes:

There’s some mind-blowing numbers (especially past 1990s trend) when you put it all together in a visual way.

I’d say that’s quite true.  I don’t think it is much of a spoiler to say a focus on Islam is the key here.This takes under three minutes.  It’s worth a look:

NOTE 1: Click on the URL below to watch the video

NOTE 2: The movement through the years makes it difficult for any analysis

COMMENTARY: Despite the presence of hundreds of millions of firearms in our country, the overwhelming majority of gun owners NEVER use their guns for criminal means – they do not commit acts of random or planned attacks on others – they control their weapons and use them only for lawful purposes – in the case of criminals, they do not buy their weapons in firearm stores or at gunshows – instead, they buy them on the ‘streets’ from other criminals – they give no thought to legal purchase and no consideration to the laws governing purchase, ownership, or use – they get them only for criminal purposes, laws be damned – for those few who are in the category of psychopaths, sociopaths, criminally insane, thrill seekers, mentally challenged, and others of this ilk, they use a straw buyer to get weapons for them or steal them from people they know – the bottom line is that no new gun control laws will do anything to prevent criminals or crazies from getting their hands on firearms – by the same token, more and more gun control laws will do nothing to prevent the wicked deeds of these people once they obtain weapons illegally – they do not care – the ones who suffer are law-abiding citizens and residents who use such weapons lawfully and who will be most harmed by ever-more restrictions on purchase of firearms and ammunition – watch California if you want to look at government overreach at its worst

The Father of the Bill of Rights Warned: The Best Way to Enslave the People is to Disarm Them!

September 2, 2019 Bradlee Dean

The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government when abiding by the laws…

“How many times I have broadcasted on air that you either deal lawfully with corrupt anti-gunner politicians for violating our Bill of Rights (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution), or you will be disarmed. There is no in-between. If Americans do not want to learn from history, then Americans will learn from experience in the present only to have wished that they had learned from history.” – Bradlee Dean

Have you ever wondered how it is that dictators and tyrants do what they do and how it is that they do it when it comes to having absolute control over the people (Isaiah 14:915)? Just look to the children of Israel, who were disarmed of every means to defend themselves while under absolute control by their oppressors, namely the Philistines.

Let me say that again, they had to first disarm them of their means to defend themselves against their oppressors to have absolute control. “So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan:” -1 Samuel 13:22

And so it is the reason why our forefathers established the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights because they understood this basic elementary principle.

George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, warned:

“To disarm the people…was the best & most effectual way to enslave them.”

Americans must understand what is happening today. Administration after administration has incrementally and systematically stripped the people of their right to bear arms with one excuse after another, if not through propaganda, then resort to brainwashing if need be.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution said:

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Today, we see it is in a full-frontal attack by this current administration that is right in front of our faces to further strip law-abiding gun owners of their right to bear arms through something called “red flag laws,” which are not law! (Luke 11:21-22).

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” -Marbury vs. Madison 5 US 92 Cranch 137, 174, 176, (1803)

One must ask where these said representatives are deriving their delegated authority from in order to strip Americans of their right to bear arms?  They aren’t getting it from the American people who employ them nor from any founding document.  This is, in fact, foreign and subversive to American government. Why is this government arming The IRS, DHS, VHA, OIG, SSA, NPS?

Friends, they are not laws no matter what they call them because they counter the Bill of Rights, which restricts the government, not “We the People.” The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government when abiding by the laws.

These red flag laws are nothing more than the government declaring whomever they will, and at will, a threat at their own interpretation, as well as their perverted discretion (Isaiah 5:20).

“Do not separate from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. “ –James Madison the 4th President of the United States. In other words, it will make it easier for those who are perverting and subverting the Constitution to weed out their political opposition.  Think that may be stretching things a bit? Look to the history of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot etc…

Think of this:  today, in America, when a crime is committed, the law abider is blamed for the crimes of the lawbreaker by those who are to uphold the enumerated laws (Revelation 12:10). This goes far beyond innocent until proven guilty.

These subversives are not so much worried about lawbreakers such as themselves as they are worried about the law abiders because they will be the ones to resist if it becomes necessary. After all, this is whom they are attacking.

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” –President Thomas Jefferson. Remember that those who are disarming you are those who promised to uphold the law, not tear it down, which makes them outlaws and they must lawfully be removed from office (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution).  If not, you will be disarmed (Luke 21:22).

Remember, friends, the US Constitution is the law of the land and not party affiliations.

“The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme law of the land.” -Article 6, Section 2, US Constitution)

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights

With the two of them brought together, Samuel Adams stated:

The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

What our forefathers bestowed upon us, their posterity, was that we all learn from their experience and wisdom in addressing tyranny in their time so that we can allow the lessons to avail in our times if need be (Proverbs 15:32).

If you look to the Declaration of Independence alone, you will find that document was our forefathers’ instruction manual in throwing off a tyrant that would not be ruled by God in keeping the people free under God (2 Corinthians 3:17).

How important were firearms in throwing off tyranny, simply look to the lessons that our first president George Washington had taught:

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty teeth.”

This is why Americans are armed. Lesson learned.

Alexander Hamilton stated the reason for the Second Amendment: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,” adding later, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says “the representatives of the people”?

Americans will either become the strength of the Constitution, or they will find themselves under the power and control of their oppressors just like that of the children of Israel!

COMMENTARY: there is absolutely no doubt that far too many universities/colleges are failing to convey long-standing core American principles and values to students – for starters, academia is flooded with leftists whose perspective toward America is negative, to put it mildly – combine this with their brainwashing of today’s students, faculties having conservative professors are few and far between, throw in students demands for protection from free speech, safe zones, identity perspectives, etc., and we see the mess they have wrought – down the road, these leftist students will certainly pose challenges to our economy, politics, media, courts, and so on – should that happen, they will live to see a massive slide downward across the entire spectrum of our society

WSJ: Veterans Feel Betrayed by Colleges that Undermine American Values


A column published in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday makes the case that colleges and universities undermine the values that American veterans risked their lives to defend.

U.S. Air Force Veteran Rob Henderson penned a column for the Wall Street Journal this week in which he made the case that veterans feel betrayed by colleges and universities that seek to undermine American values.

Henderson expressed concern that campus activists actively seek to destroy the American values that veterans have risked their lives to defend. Henderson noted that college students often boast about their opposition to basic American values, like the First and Second Amendments. Henderson describes a discussion he had with a fellow veteran about campus culture.

He said he was mystified, observing that the predominantly working- and middle-class people in the military swear an oath to defend with their lives the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Second amendments. Meanwhile, affluent college students regularly trash the First and seek to dismantle the Second. Are veterans being duped, he questioned, into believing they are upholding American values while the richest kids in the world—the ones being groomed for success and power—try to undermine them?

Henderson claims that many veterans feel that they are fighting for the right of student activists to fight against American values. He claims that many veterans feel like “suckers” for fighting for ungrateful students that seek to fundamentally transform America and its values.

He’s not the only one who feels that way. Many veterans I know who enter college are bewildered by what they see: students from the top income decile expressing derision for the values that service members signed up to defend. Perhaps they could be forgiven for feeling like suckers.

Henderson says that many veterans feel forced to remain silent on campus. He believes that campus leftists that seek to undermine American values may feel differently after they’ve matured.

Veterans who first serve in the military and then attend elite colleges learn to navigate both moral worlds. On campus we learn to blend in, even at the cost of feeling betrayed. We keep our love for America to ourselves. We don’t want to give veterans a bad reputation. We want to make friends. We try to understand campus protesters, to see where they’re coming from. Maybe their grievances are a bit overblown, but still, they’re young. They’re still maturing. Just like we were when we volunteered our lives for this country. Just like our friend was when he hanged himself after returning from his second deployment.


A SPECTER is haunting the United States of America —the specter of Cultural Marxism.

By Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.) -February 23, 2019

America’s Socialist Revolution Has Officially Begun

Authored by Simon Black via,

On October 31, 1517, an obscure German theology professor put the finishing touches on a paper he had written about the current state of the Catholic Church, and sent it off to Archbishop Albert of Brandenberg for review.

The professor’s letter was polite and professional, with a formal tone that one might find in a modern academic work. It could hardly be described as revolutionary.

Yet within a few years, the professor would find himself excommunicated by the Pope, branded an outlaw and heretic and living in hiding under the protection of an army of followers.

His name, of course, was Martin Luther. And the publication of his famous paper, the 95 Theses, is often viewed as the start of the Protestant Reformation, one of the most important social movements in history.

The reformation was a European-wide rejection of Church authority. But its origins far predate Luther or his 95 Theses. Mini revolts against the Church go back to the late 1300s, more than 150 years earlier.

But historians often focus on a single watershed moment to mark the beginning of a major movement or trend, even though there are always multiple events leading up to it. For example, historians consider October 1929’s stock market crash as the start of the Great Depression, even though the London market had crashed in September, and the US market suffered a smaller crash in March.

Point is, there are always multiple, important events that could mark the beginning of a major trend or movement.

There’s a new major trend taking place right now in front of our very eyes– a modern Socialist Revolution.

People are storming into power and prominence with a belief system that bigger government, punitive taxes and nationalization of private industry will fix everything.
They find personal wealth utterly revolting, and they’ll stop at nothing to redistribute it.

We’ve been writing about this for years. But its no longer theory or conjecture. It’s happening. The revolution has begun.

There have been several watershed moments recently that future historians might view as the start of this modern Socialist Revolution… including possibly today with Bernie Sanders announcing his 2020 presidential bid.

But I think a less obvious choice would be when Amazon surrendered to the Socialists last week over its proposed headquarters in New York City. Amazon’s expansion into New York would have brought 25,000 well-paying jobs to the city, plus state-of-the-art green construction, $10+ billion in tax revenue, land for a new school, a tech and art incubator, etc. In exchange, the city government would give up some tax credits that were completely trivial by comparison.But… the Socialists couldn’t keep their mouths shut.
They were disgusted that a behemoth like Amazon, headed by the richest man in the world, would receive any benefits whatsoever. They couldn’t step back and realize that the deal was a WIN/WIN. Amazon wins. The city wins.

Socialists are only happy with a WIN/LOSE, i.e. they have to win at your expense… otherwise no deal. So they whined and complained until Amazon walked away.

Here’s a perfect example of this WIN/LOSE mentality:
Before all the public outcry, Amazon’s proposed headquarters was within a designated “Opportunity Zone,” which meant that the company could have eventually been eligible for federal tax breaks on its $2.5 billion New York investment. Socialists immediately lamented the gross injustice, claiming that Amazon shouldn’t receive any opportunity zone tax incentives that were “meant for the poor.”

Cultural Marxism, Homosexual agenda, Pink Swastika, AND so much more.

So, what happened to the American traits of confidence, pride, and accountability?

The roots of Western cultural decay are very deep, having first sprouted a century ago. It began with a loose clan of ideologues inside Europe’s communist movement. Today, it is known as the Frankfurt School, and its ideals have perverted American society.

When Outcomes Fail, Just Change the Theory
Before WWI, the Marxist theory held that if war broke out in Europe, the working classes would rise up against the bourgeoisie and create a communist revolution. Well, as is the case with much of Marxist theory, things didn’t go too well. When war broke out in 1914, instead of starting a revolution, the proletariat put on their uniforms and went off to war.

After the war ended, Marxist theorists were left to ask, “What went wrong?” Two very prominent Marxists thinkers of the day were Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács. Each man, on his own, concluded that the working class of Europe had been blinded by the success of Western democracy and capitalism. They reasoned that until both had been destroyed, a communist revolution was not possible.

Gramsci and Lukács were both active in the Communist party, but their lives took very different paths.

Gramsci was jailed by Mussolini in Italy where he died in 1937 due to poor health.
In 1918, Lukács became minister of culture in Bolshevik Hungary. During this time, Lukács realized that if the family unit and sexual morals were eroded, society could be broken down. Lukács implemented a policy he titled “cultural terrorism,” which focused on these two objectives. A major part of the policy was to target children’s minds through lectures that encouraged them to deride and reject Christian ethics. In these lectures, graphic sexual matter was presented to children, and they were taught about loose sexual conduct. Here again, a Marxist theory had failed to take hold in the real world. The people were outraged at Lukács’ program, and he fled Hungary when Romania invaded in 1919.

The Birth of Cultural Marxism

All was quiet on the Marxist front until 1923 when the cultural terrorist turned up for a “Marxist study week” in Frankfurt, Germany. There, Lukács met a young, wealthy Marxist named Felix Weil. Until Lukács showed up, classical Marxist theory was based solely on the economic changes needed to overthrow class conflict. Weil was enthused by Lukács’ cultural angle on Marxism. Weil’s interest led him to fund a new Marxist think tank—the Institute for Social Research. It would later come to be known as simply The Frankfurt School.

In 1930, the school changed course under new director Max Horkheimer. The team began mixing the ideas of Sigmund Freud with those of Marx, and cultural Marxism was born.
In classical Marxism, the workers of the world were oppressed by the ruling classes. The new theory was that everyone in society was psychologically oppressed by the institutions of Western culture. The school concluded that this new focus would need new vanguards to spur the change. The workers were not able to rise up on their own.

As fate would have it, the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933. It was a bad time and place to be a Jewish Marxist, as most of the school’s faculty was. So, the school moved to New York City, the bastion of Western culture at the time.

Coming to America

In 1934, the school was reborn at Columbia University. Its members began to exert their ideas on American culture. It was at Columbia University that the school honed the tool it would use to destroy Western culture: the printed word. The school published a lot of popular material. The first of these was Critical Theory. Critical Theory is a play on semantics. The theory was simple: criticize every pillar of Western culture—family, democracy, common law, freedom of speech, and others. The hope was that these pillars would crumble under the pressure.

Next was a book Theodor Adorno co-authored, The Authoritarian Personality. It redefined traditional American views on gender roles and sexual mores as “prejudice.” Adorno compared them to the traditions that led to the rise of fascism in Europe.

Is it just a coincidence that the go-to slur for the politically correct today is “fascist”?

The school pushed its shift away from economics and toward Freud by publishing works on psychological repression. Their works split society into two main groups: the oppressors and the victims. They argued that history and reality were shaped by those groups who controlled traditional institutions. At the time, that was code for males of European descent. From there, they argued that the social roles of men and women were due to gender differences defined by the “oppressors.” In other words, gender did not exist in reality but was merely a “social construct.”

A Coalition of Victims

Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Germany when WWII ended. Herbert Marcuse, another member of the school, stayed in America. In 1955, he published Eros and Civilization. In the book, Marcuse argued that Western culture was inherently repressive because it gave up happiness for social progress. The book called for “polymorphous perversity,” a concept crafted by Freud. It posed the idea of sexual pleasure outside the traditional norms. Eros and Civilization would become very influential in shaping the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

Marcuse would be the one to answer Horkheimer’s question from the 1930s: Who would replace the working class as the new vanguards of the Marxist revolution? Marcuse believed that it would be a victim coalition of minorities—blacks, women, and homosexuals.

The social movements of the 1960s—black power, feminism, gay rights, sexual liberation—gave Marcuse a unique vehicle to release cultural Marxist ideas into the mainstream. Railing against all things “establishment,” The Frankfurt School’s ideals caught on like wildfire across American universities.

Marcuse then published Repressive Tolerance in 1965 as the various social movements in America were in full swing. In it, he argued that tolerance of all values and ideas meant the repression of “correct” ideas.

It was here that Marcuse coined the term “liberating tolerance.” It called for tolerance of any ideas coming from the left but intolerance of those from the right. One of the overarching themes of the Frankfurt School was total intolerance for any viewpoint but its own. That is also a basic trait of today’s political-correctness believers.

To quote Max Horkheimer, “Logic is not independent of content.”

Recalling the Words of Winston (Not That One)

The Frankfurt School’s work has had a deep impact on American culture. It has recast the homogenous America of the 1950s into today’s divided, animosity-filled nation.
In turn, this has contributed to the undeniable breakdown of the family unit, as well as identity politics, radical feminism, and racial polarization in America.

It’s hard to decide if today’s culture is more like Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World.

Never one to buck a populist trend, the political establishment in America has fully embraced the ideas of the Frankfurt School and has pushed them on American society through public miseducation.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the beacons of progressivism, are both disciples of Saul Alinsky, a devoted cultural Marxist.

And so we now live in a hyper-sensitive society in which social memes and feelings have overtaken biological and objective reality as the main determinants of right and wrong.
Political correctness is a war on logic and reason.

To quote Winston, the protagonist in Orwell’s dystopia, “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.”

Today, America is not free.

Watch this video on YouTube.

A MUST Read…. Progressivism (A.K.A. Cultural Marxism) is a leftist thought process implemented into society via media, academia, politics, and entertainment. It desires a world with no traditional families, no religion, no pride, and no identity. It promotes degeneracy, immorality, ugliness, miscegenation, false history and self-loathing. Progressivism is societal rot, it eats away at the foundations of civilization until it falls in on itself. What is left is the decayed remnants of a once-great civilization, the one time envy of the world and eternal enemy of the progressives.
Progressivism thrives off certain traits unique to the European that work against the best interests of the European. Those traits being empathy and altruism. It promotes out group empathy and out group altruism, and attacks those who practice in group empathy and in group altruism. An example of this would be the concept that ‘charity begins at home.’ This basically means that you look after your own first and foremost, but progressivism would call this ‘racist’ and ‘discriminatory.’ They believe that charity is for all even if it is damaging to the person or nation being charitable. The empathetic and altruistic nature of the European is manipulated in this scenario, they will part with their money to feed the third world, and will support the foreign aid budget sent to the third world, but have no idea about their own nations needy. They will naively support immigration from the third world believing that third world people are merely seeking a better life, yet they ignore the consequences for themselves and their own people in the long term. They fall victim to the steering of their emotions by mass media and the progressive agenda. Empathy and Altruism are emotions based on concern and sympathy for others, that is why the progressive left appeal to emotion and rarely use logic based in reality.
‘Progress’ basically means moving forward, advancing, onward. In relation to society, ‘progress’ supposedly means moving society forward, advancing society, or moving society onward. The question has to be therefore, progress to what exactly? The answer to this question is all around you, the ‘progress’ they seek is not to advance society or Western civilization as a whole, it is to deconstruct it. To the progressives, Western civilization is the enemy, they don’t want to advance us they want to destroy us. Can anybody who is not a brainwashed drone say hand on heart that society is better today? Progressivism is a false term when applied to what progressives say advances society, this is intentional. For them to deconstruct and destroy Western Civilization they needed to give it a positive term, and ‘progress’ is that term. When somebody thinks of the word progress, they think of a positive rather than a negative and this is capitalized on by the progressives. Strip away the layers surrounding ‘progressivism’ and you will find Cultural Marxism, an ideology hell bent on the collapse of Western Civilization.Progressivism is a lie based on hatred, there is nothing positive about it and nothing that benefits us as a society, people or culture by falling for the agenda. The hatred of the progressives is directed at the West and the European people, our culture and traditionalism.
Anybody opposing the anti-Western progressive agenda will be subject to the Alinskyite tactics outlined in ‘Rules for Radicals,’ these are tactics that are used to advance the agenda. It can also be called repressive tolerance which is the brainchild of Herbert MarcuseIn practice it means the toleration of all ideas and views that are in line with the anti-Western narrative, and intolerance for all ideas and views that oppose them. A good explanation of progressivism is the following: ‘Starting in the 1960s, academics took heightened interest in Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s cultural Marxism. Members of the political class glimmered onto the resulting “social justice,” affirmative action, “diversity,” multiculturalism, political correctness, and other malignancies spawned by cultural Marxism. Progressive politicians came to view society as a hodge-podge of racial, ethnic, gender-based, and now also sexual orientation-based groups locked in zero-sum combat with Western whites. ‘Generally speaking, cultural Marxism’s indoctrinees have learned to view morality and knowledge as “constructs” and social and economic power as commodities to be transferred from “oppressor” to “oppressed.” Progressives routinely label minorities as oppressed and anything that benefits minorities as moral.’ – Chuck Some examples of the Cultural Marxist Progressivism agenda. Multiculturalism/Multiracialism This is one tenet of progressivism. They say that having a multiracial society is ‘progress’ and that ‘diversity is our strength.’ Progressives want a ‘post-racial’ society devoid of racial identity. They promote and support mass immigration and miscegenation and desire the day when white Europeans are a minority in once White European homelands. Can anybody who is not an anti-white see how this can possibly be called progress? When you are able to think freely and evaluate the facts, you will see that progressivism is an anti white European agenda. It isn’t about progressing the white European people, it is about destroying them.
Proof of this is seen in the demographic predictions by expert demographers that European nations including Britain, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and others, will be minority European this century. We are anti-European Union and anti EU migration, we fully recognize the problems it brings, however the main issue is the tens upon tens of millions of non-Europeans who have been brought to Europe. This is the primary reason European nations will soon become minority European.ModernismSo called modern art and architecture is the result of the hatred of classical Western art and architecture. The progressives produce and promote ugliness in every way possible, it is all about removing the individual away from his cultural heritage. By producing modernist art and architecture they replace the historical Western character of our culture, with so called ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ monstrosities. The progressives want to move past the historical character of our culture because they hate it, not because they want to advance it. They do this not only by attacking the culture in academia, but also by replacing the cultural expression of the West which was once a prominent feature of our culture.Sexual Liberation This tenet of progressivism has resulted in a culture of degeneracy promoted by the entertainment industry, porn industry and media. The sexualization of our culture has led to a decline in family values and has stigmatized the pursuit of creating a traditional family environment which includes man woman and child. Cultural Marxists thought that if you could free people from what they called ‘sexual oppression’ then you could start the process of deconstructing the West. The process was started by the pseudo-scientist Sigmund Freud who tried to suggest that sexual oppression was the cause of unhappiness. The sexual revolution, a term coined by Wilhelm Reich, became the manifestation of what Freud had created. The progressives say that ‘sexual liberation’ is freedom from Western morality and religious indoctrination. Eros and civilization, written by Herbert Marcuse created an environment in the 60s of ‘free love’ among the baby boomers or counterculture movement. The book is about how the oppression of human sexual instinct is geared towards social control. In a nutshell it suggests that the freedom of sexual desire and the pleasure principle is a means of human liberation from civilization, ie Western Civilization which they see a being the capitalist West. The progressives see the family as being part of the capitalist conspiracy to control people and therefore it must be deconstructed.
Homosexuality is part of the ‘sexual liberation’ agenda, however it is also a different kind of strategy. The goal behind the normalizing and promotion of homosexuality is to corrupt and distort the natural realities behind the reasons for sex. Sex is primarily about reproduction, the continuation of the species. Without heterosexuality then the species would die out within a generation. Homosexuality and the homosexual agenda is one of the main progressive agendas. They deny at every turn the real reasons behind it and its ultimate goals, and use that term ‘progress’ to brainwash people into believing that support for, and promotion of ‘gay rights’ is good for society. They say that homosexuality is normal and that it is nobody’s business what two adults get up to. They say ‘love is love’ and that we should all tolerate it. Anybody who doesn’t, and who doesn’t conform to the agenda is an ‘Intolerant homophobic bigot.’ They want children forced into same-sex households to be raised by homosexuals and believe that children should be indoctrinated from the earliest age possible to support the gay agenda. Children are the primary target of the homosexual agenda, as the new generation they are viewed as pivotal in the ‘normalization’ process. Another main strategy of the homosexual agenda is to legalize ‘same-sex marriage.’ This is an assault on Western Culture which was once largely based on Christian teachings and values which does not allow same-sex marriage or accept homosexuality as a normal or acceptable practice in the eyes of God. It is not about ‘equality in marriage’ it is about targeting one of the foundations of the West in order to destroy it. In order for the homosexual agenda to ‘progress’ therefore, means a concerted attack upon the religious opposition to it. Another reason for the promotion of the homosexual agenda, is because the progressives believe that there is no absolute truth or moral standard, no moral absolutism. Anything goes as far as the progressive is concerned, anything that advances the ongoing assault on the West. They will say that nothing is absolute, and therefore we ‘shouldn’t judge.’ Yes the people who scream ‘who are you to judge’ are the most judgmental people you could ever have the misfortune to meet. An example of moral relativism would be any practice that we in the West consider barbaric such as Female Genital Mutilation, the moral relativist would say that the practice is a moral practice within a certain culture, and therefore we shouldn’t judge. The educational institutions push moral relativism onto the young and impressionable, telling them that all beliefs and lifestyles are moral and therefore valid, except beliefs that run counter to the narrative of the agenda however. This means that parents are losing the fight to be the moral educators of their children. The progressives believe that in order to create a ‘truly egalitarian and equal society,’ that education should teach (indoctrinate) children with homosexual propaganda. Homosexuality is also opposed on the basis of the natural requirement and natural intention for man and woman to procreate. The progressive will say that ‘homosexuality can be found in nature,’ but that wouldn’t make it normal or natural. In nature, things have a design and purpose, and the design and purpose of the male and female is to procreate. Attraction and sexual chemistry between male and female therefore is the normal and natural requirement for procreation. Anything else is abnormal and unnatural. Any examples of so called ‘homosexuality in nature’ are merely an act of dominance and not a normal natural sexual act. Progressives believe that an extreme minority in society who engage in this type of behavior, should be empowered to dictate to the overwhelming heterosexual majority, who they consider to be a ‘bigoted majority.’ The term ‘homophobia’ was created by George Weinberg, it has become one the main Cultural Marxist buzzwords and along with ‘racist’ has caused untold damage. ‘Homophobia’ suggests a fear of homosexuals and what they say is an illogical heterosexual reaction to them. I would call ‘homophobia’ a natural feeling of utter revulsion for an unnatural behavior. Eradication of the Nuclear Family Progressives see the family as an oppressive unit that pushes racism, sexism, homophobia and fascism onto children. They say that the family is patriarchal, authoritative and hierarchical. They believe that after the eradication of the family, they can fill children with the ideas of ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism.’ The methods in which they set out to destroy the family are to promote homosexuality, feminism, sexual liberation and a reliance on the state. The role of the father has also been under attack, cut the father out of the family unit and the job is already half done. The family is labeled as a ‘generational chain of oppression.’ No Borders Progressives believe that there should be no national borders anywhere, they believe in the full and absolute freedom of movement for all people of the world. This in reality means no borders in nations that are majority white European. The desire of the non-European people to come to Europe is vastly greater than the reverse. This belief in no borders is in line with the Communist ‘world without borders’ mantra. Progressiveness (A.K.A. Cultural Marxism) is a leftist thought process implemented into society via media, academia, politics and entertainment. It desires a world with no traditional families, no religion, no pride, and no identity. It promotes degeneracy, immorality, ugliness, miscegenation, false history and self loathing. Progressivism is societal rot, it eats away at the foundations of a civilization until it falls in on itself. What is left is the decayed remnants of a once great civilization, the one time envy of the world and eternal enemy of the progressives.

Claims that gay parents are just as capable of raising children as straight parents are misrepresented. Source:…
Between 24% and 90% of lesbians report being psychologically abused by their partners. Source:…
Gay men are 60x more likely to have HIV than straight men. Source:…
46% of male homosexuals report being molested, as compared to only 7% of heterosexual men. Source:…
Gays are more likely than straight people to have mental illness. Source:…
1/4 gay men in America have had over 1000 sex partners. Source:…
43% of gay men have over 500 partners. Source:…
Gay men are six times more likely to commit suicide than straight men. Source:…
Gay men are 12x more likely to use amphetamines than straight men. Source:…
Gay men are 10x more likely to use heroin than straight men. Source:…
Liberal arguments in favor of homosexuality are based on logical fallacies. Source:….
10 to 15 percent of older homosexuals have more than 1000 sex partners. Source:…
Gay people are 2-3x more likely to abuse alcohol than straight people. Source:…
Up to 50% of lesbians have reported sexual abuse. Source:…
79% of homosexual men say over half of their sex partners are strangers. Source:…
99.8% of lesbian, gay and bisexual teens will change their sexual orientation within 13 years. Source:…
Two-thirds of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later. Source:…
Two thirds of self-identified lesbians later have heterosexual relationships. Source:…
Identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual does not end sexual questioning or confusion. Source:…
One in eight gay men in London has HIV. Source:…
Gay men are twice as likely as straight men to be in interracial relationships. Source: http://sf.oxfordjournals.or…
In Australia, 25% of homosexuals have had more than 100 sex partners. Source:…
Gay men, who are 1.65% of the US population, account for 63% of the country’s syphilis cases. Source:…
In 2010, homosexuals were about 200 times more likely than everyone else to be diagnosed with HIV. Source:…
Gay men are 15 times more likely to have Hepatitis B than everyone else. Source:…
Homosexuals are more to use illegal drugs and drink to excess than straight people. Source:…
Homosexuals are more likely than straight people to have anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and to commit suicide. Source:…
Gay men are 10-15 times more likely than straight men to have eating disorders. Source:…
40% to 60% of serial killers are homosexuals. Source:…
Homosexual men are more likely to have been abused by their partners than straight men. Source:…
Monogamy is not a central feature of most homosexual relationships. Source:…
Married homosexual men are 50% more likely than straight couples to divorce. Source:…
In the Netherlands, the average homosexual in a “steady relationship” has seven to eight affairs per year. Source:…
Over 20% of older homosexuals have had more than 500 different sex partners. Source:…
The average gay man has several dozen sex partners per year. Source:…
28% of homosexuals have had sex with over a thousand men. For straight men? Just 25% have had sex with more than 10 women. Source:…
Most “long term relationships” between gay men last less than eight years. Source:…
Among gay Canadian men in “committed relationships, only 25% were monogamous. Source:…
In one study, only 9% of gay men were monogamous. Source:…
75% of straight men an are faithful, compared to just 4.5% of gay men. Source:…
In Berlin, 83% of gay men in “steady” relationships had had frequent affairs in the last year. Source:…
Infection rates for gonorrhea and chlamydia are increasing among active homosexual men. Source: http://www.americanthinker….
Gay men, 1% of the population, account for 83% of syphilis cases. Source: http://www.americanthinker….
Syphilis was almost eradicated, but made a comeback among homosexual men. Source: http://www.americanthinker….
Active homosexual men are 17 times more likely than straight people to have anal cancer. Source: http://www.americanthinker….
Lesbians are 2.5x more likely than straight women to be obese. Source:…
Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to have eating disorders. Source:…
Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to be stalked or physically abused by their partners. Source:…
Married lesbians are 2-3 times more likely to divorce than straight couples. Source:…
Homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals are poorer than straight people. Source:…
America has spent $700 million promoting gay rights abroad – an “integral” part of American foreign policy. Source:…

Transsexuals are four times more likely than the average person to be infected with HIV. Source:…
About 88% of children who have gender dysphoria do not hold those beliefs when they grow older. Source:…
Only 12% of boys who believe they are transsexuals still believe so when they are older. Source:…
MRI scans indicate that MtF transsexuals are either men aroused by the thought of possessing female genitalia or homosexuals who want to seduce straight men. Source:…
41% of transsexuals have tried and failed to commit suicide. Source:…
Transsexuals who undergo sex reassignment surgery are more likely to commit suicide. Source:…
Most young transsexuals have committed self-harm within the last twelve months. Source: http://saravyc.sites.olt.ub…
65% of transsexual youth have seriously considered suicide within the last year. Source: http://saravyc.sites.olt.ub…
37% of transsexual youth have attempted suicide within the last year. Source: http://saravyc.sites.olt.ub…
1 in 10 young transsexuals has attempted suicide more than three times in the last year. Source: http://saravyc.sites.olt.ub…
Only 21% of transsexuals can sucessfully pass as the opposite gender. Source:…
53% of mothers of transsexual children have Borderline Personality Disorder, compared to only 6% of mothers of normal children. Source:…
16% of transsexuals have been sent to jail or prison, compared to 2.7% of the general population. Source:…
Gay and transgender students are half as likely to graduate high school as straight students. Source: https://www.americanprogres…
20-40% of homeless children are transsexuals. Source: https://www.americanprogres…
44% of transsexuals with a job are underemployed. Source:…
Children raised by gay couples are twice as likely to be in poverty as children of straight married couples. Source:…
“24% of lesbians and bisexual women are poor, compared with only 19% of heterosexual women.” Source:…
1/3 transsexuals are being treated for mental health. Source:…
85% of transsexuals show signs of psychological distress or have been recently treated for mental health. Source:…
44% of transsexuals show signs of clinical depression. Source:…
Transsexuals are more likely to have autism than the general population. Source:…
Transsexuals college students are five times more likely than all students to have an eating disorder. Source:…
Transsexuals college students are 30 times more likely than straight men to have eating disorders. Source:…
27% of MtF transsexuals test positive for HIV. Only 12% report it. Source:…
Transsexuals are several times more likely than normal people to have schizophrenia. Source:…
Worldwide, male-to-female transsexuals are 50 times likely to have HIV than normal people. Source:…
Transsexuals have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution, and incarceration than normal people. Source:…
Transsexuals have higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, and attempted suicide than normal people. Source:…
Transsexuals are four times more likely to live in extreme poverty than the general population. Source: http://www.transequality.or…
Transsexuals are twice as likely to be unemployed as the general population. Source: http://www.transequality.or…
Non-white transsexuals are four times as likely to be unemployed as the general population. Source: http://www.transequality.or…
Transsexuals are twice as likely to be homeless as cisgendered people. Source: http://www.transequality.or…
1 in 5 transsexuals has been homeless at least once in their lives. Source: http://www.transequality.or…
Close to 80% of children who feel transsexual will abandon their sexual confusion as they age. Source:…
Many transsexuals choose to take hormone treatments over HIV medication. Source:…
Male-to-female transsexuals are 50 times more likely than normal people to have HIV. Source:…

Class Warfare As The Winning Democrat ‘Liberal’ Strategy

Why Conservatism Has Lost The Battle For The U.S. Government
“There is not any question today that liberals/ progressives almost totally rule the five idea-producing, attitude-fashioning social institutions — academia, judiciary, news industry, spiritual leadership, and entertainment establishment.” — Colonel Tom Snodgrass Dec ’12

Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness and the Frankfurt School – ULTIMATE COLLECTION

A Brief History of Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness by Jefrey D. Breshears

The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness” by Raymond V. Raehn