Displaying posts published in

October 2023

KAMALA HARRIS- A VEEP LIKE NO OTHER

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/watch-kamala-home-buying-climate-anxiety/

Vice President Kamala Harris said young people aren’t buying homes because of “climate anxiety,” not mentioning the sky-high interest rates under her boss, President Joe Biden.

“Young leaders” suffer from “climate anxiety,” which is “their fear about … whether they should have children, whether they should ever think about buying a home for fear that it might be wiped out because of extreme weather occurrences,” Harris said in a Wednesday interview with an Allentown, Pa., news station.

The Specter of Permanent Democrat Rule By Allan J. Feifer

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/the_specter_of_permanent_democrat_rule.html

What would be the most unAmerican goal today’s so-called Democrat party is pursuing?It is permanent one-party rule.That’s what the New Democrat party is doing by and through its political actions.

Democrats have a long and uncomfortable history of demagoguery, rewriting history when needed and playing fast and loose with the truth.  Today, I will reach back into the history bucket to wash off some of that blackface for which Democrats are famous!

“A split in the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1820s gave rise to two factions, i.e., the National Republicans (or Anti-Jacksonians) and the Democrats.  Their most glaring differences lay in their beliefs to which the government should be involved in people’s daily lives.  Democrats tend to favor active government intervention, while Republicans favor a more “hands-off” policy called self-determination.”

We had two parties with but a single, significant difference between them.  Both parties agreed on various economic and societal issues but were split over the extent of government intrusion into people’s lives. 

The Great Depression allowed the Democrat party to shift to newly popular socialism, actually Marxism, as a reaction to President Hoover’s failure to address human suffering adequately.   

Enter President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was victorious by a landslide in 1932 and promised an end to the suffering.  With a mandate from the voters, Roosevelt accomplished three things over his twelve years in office:

He gave hope to the masses
He radically changed our system of government
He can be credited as a central figure in winning the Second World War

It is not generally understood that Roosevelt did not end the Depression but, in actuality, extended it.  Roosevelt’s policies saved lives and did much good, but he did so at the expense of entrepreneurship, innovation, and independence.  Roosevelt was virtually at war with American industrialists until a year before Pearl Harbor commenced a healing process, allowing the U.S. to prepare for war visible just over the horizon.

China pouring money into ‘unprecedented resources’ in disinformation, surveillance tactics, report “Russia has returned the favor by promoting PRC propaganda related to Taiwan and other PRC interests,” the report states.By Charlotte Hazard

https://justthenews.com/world/asia/china-pouring-money-unprecedented-resources-disinformation-surveillance-tactics-report

China’s government is investing in “unprecedented resources” in disinformation, surveillance and censorship tactics to influence the worldview of the country, according to a State Department report.

“As the [People’s Republic of China] has grown more confident in its power, it appears to have calculated that it can more aggressively pursue its interests via information manipulation,” the report reads. 

CBS reports that China’s state media has used some of these tactics to spew “anti-NATO” and pro-Kremlin propaganda after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

The communist-run country faces international criticism for such issues as its record on human rights, unfair international trade practices, spying on other countries and not condemning Russia’s war on Ukraine.

“Russia has returned the favor by promoting PRC propaganda related to Taiwan and other PRC interests,” the report  continues. 

A specific example in the report compiled by the department’s Global Engagement Center showed that Beijing “heavily amplified” its own military messaging it took to protest then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit last year to Taiwan, as the island nation tries to break from China rule and align itself more with Western nations. 

“You can see a breathtaking ambition to have information dominance in certain parts of the world, crucial parts of the world,” GEC coordinator James Rubin said in a briefing on Thursday. “That’s the threat that affects our national security that affects the national security of other parties.”

The Green Energy Subsidy Lie

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/10/06/the-green-energy-subsidy-lie/

Environmentalists have long complained about oil and gas industry subsidies. But we don’t hear from them regarding the subsidies paid out for politically favored renewable energy programs, even though the supposedly green sources are dining sumptuously on taxpayers’ dollars. In fact, renewables are more heavily subsidized than the fossil fuels, and it would be difficult if not impossible for them to exist without the support.

From 2016 to 2022, “energy-specific subsidies and support” totaled $183.3 billion, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report. While “wind and solar power account for about 21% of domestic electricity production,” they nevertheless took in “a staggering $83.8 billion in subsidies, by far the largest share compared to any other category,” says Fox News.

The EIA says that over that period, “nearly half (46%) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy,” with “federal support for renewable energy of all types” more than doubling, from $7.4 billion in fiscal 2016 to $15.6 billion in fiscal 2022.

Meanwhile, “natural gas and petroleum-related tax expenditures” – which are not direct government spending nor tax loopholes – were $2.1 billion in fiscal 2022.

The Culture War Is Coming for Your Car As the green left’s hostility to the automobile grows, voters notice their own values are at stake. By Joseph C. Sternberg

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-culture-war-is-coming-for-your-car-climate-electric-vehicle-britain-5a4cc7aa?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

Forget race. Forget sex. Forget immigration. The mother of all culture wars is breaking out, and its subject is the car.

The automobile has long been a policy flashpoint, with the paramount issue being where it should be able to roam. This was the heart of the brutal urban-planning battles of the mid-20th century, which were fought over the need for and placement of new highways.

Yet it’s hard to describe those earlier policy fights as a culture war. Liberal urban activists such as Jane Jacobs—who famously fought off Robert Moses’ plan to build a highway interchange over Washington Square Park in New York City—didn’t hate cars or the people who drove them. In her magisterial “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” Jacobs repeatedly observed that resorting to the personal car was an entirely rational response to the failures of government urban planners to encourage smarter development.

Such humane common sense seems quaint in the context of today’s car wars. For a growing portion of the left, the automobile has become a moral ill in its own right rather than the symptomatic inconvenience of Jacobs’s telling. Partly this has to do with pollution, which was barely emerging as an issue when Jacobs was at her peak in the early 1960s but has also improved dramatically since. Much more so it has to do with carbon emissions—which are distinct from the smoggy pollution of the 20th century, despite constant efforts to conflate the two.

When I say “carbon emissions,” note that I mean it in a general sense. The problem with the personal car isn’t its direct climate impact. Road transport, including trucking, accounts for 12% of global carbon emissions. Electric vehicles aren’t an obvious means of reducing overall emissions, especially once you factor in their dirty supply chains and the coal-fired power that often charges them.

Liz Peek: Trump’s the Republican To Solve the Crisis in the House, Which Would Bolster His Chances in 2024

https://www.nysun.com/article/trumps-the-republican-to-solve-the-crisis-in-the-house-which-would-bolster-his-chances-in-2024

It is time for President Trump to exert his authority as putative head of the Republican Party. He needs to step in and resolve the mess created by Congressman Matt Gaetz and his seven cohorts in the House of Representatives. 

How can he do that? By making sure that the selection of the next House speaker is done quickly and with minimal drama. Get Mr. Gaetz and his allies to support the most electable candidate, whether it is Congressman Jim Jordan or Congressman Steve Scalise or whomever else party leaders and Mr. Trump choose.

It’s time to tell the bomb-throwers, all Trump admirers, to stand down. Because it is widely believed that Mr. Gaetz’s drive to topple Speaker McCarthy stemmed from personal animus rather than any ideological high ground, that should not be impossible. The eight whose votes bounced Mr. McCarthy have no favored candidate, they have no plan. They just wanted him out.

Why would the 45th president wade into this particular swamp? Because nobody has more to lose politically from the ejection of Mr. McCarthy. When voters — even those of us who admire his policies — think of Mr. Trump’s presidency, they think of chaos, and the recent turmoil in the House furthers that narrative.

David Randall The Implicit-Bias House of Cards DEI trainings don’t work because one of the concepts on which they are based is junk science.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-implicit-bias-house-of-cards

In the Wall Street Journal, Mahzarin Banaji and Frank Dobbin recently published “Why DEI Training Doesn’t Work—and How to Fix It,” a defense of implicit-bias research in the guise of a critique of current corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings. Banaji is one of the two inventors of the concept of implicit bias, and of the related implicit association test (IAT). She and Dobbin hope to acknowledge the flaws of DEI trainings while preserving implicit-bias research—and the associated program of political activism. The authors lament that DEI trainings elicit shame in their subjects, and that they are largely being used to bolster workforce-management policies against possible litigation. Their problem with DEI trainings is not that they are discriminatory, but that they do not strike the right tone:

Reminding managers that they can use these tools to suss out problems and nip them in the bud helps them to feel capable of managing biases and microaggressions. When managers use these skills, they retain women and people of color for long enough to come up for promotion. . . . training isn’t designed to blame people for their moral failings. Instead, it’s galvanizing them to support organizational change by arming them with knowledge.

The problems with DEI trainings are not in their tone, however, but in their substance. The implicit-bias theory (also called unconscious-bias theory) on which these trainings are based has no scientific basis, as years of examinations have consistently demonstrated. Lee Jussim puts it politely in his “12 Reasons to Be Skeptical of Common Claims About Implicit Bias,” but the Open Science Foundation’s archive of Articles Critical of the IAT and Implicit Bias renders a harsher verdict. In 2011, Etienne LeBel and Sampo Paunonen reviewed evidence that measures of implicit bias possess low reliability. In other words, when you test for implicit bias multiple times, you rarely get the same result. Their conclusion was that some part of “implicit bias” is really “random measurement error.” In 2017, Heather Mac Donald’s intensive examination of the theory and its empirical basis (or lack thereof) concluded that the “implicit-bias crusade is agenda-driven social science.” And Bertram Gawronski’s 2019 review of the scholarly literature on implicit-bias research also concludes that there’s no proof that people aren’t self-aware enough to know what’s causing their supposedly “implicit” or “unconscious” biases; and that you can’t prove that there’s any relationship between how people do on the test and how they behave in the real world.

As far back as 2009, Hart Blanton and colleagues reexamined research data on implicit bias. They found that 70 percent of whites who supposedly displayed implicit bias against blacks actually discriminated in favor of blacks.

Our Establishment’s Alternate Realities After mid-terms, Biden resumed his attack on once bad, then good, and now bad again fossil fuels—at least until ’24 By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2023/10/05/our-establishments-alternate-realities/

One common denominator that explains why previously successful societies implode is their descent into fantasies. A collective denial prevents even discussion of existential threats and their solutions.

Something like that is happening in the United States. Eight million illegal immigrants have entered the United States by the deliberate erasure of the southern border.

Apparently, the Biden administration sees some unstated advantage in destroying U.S. immigration law and welcoming in would-be new constituents.

Yet, the more the millions arrive, the more Joe Biden and his Homeland Security director Alejandro Mayorkas flat out lie that “the border is secure.”

They both live in a world of make-believe, passed off to the American people as reality.

And the more the Americans are lied to that the border is secure, the more they poll—currently 77 percent—that it is not.

Biden apparently has reversed course and begun using the former pejorative “Bidenomics” as a term of pride.

He now praises this three-year effort to borrow $6-7 trillion, and spike interest rates threefold to 7% on home mortgages—even as prices on essentials like food and fuel have spiked 25-30% since he entered office.

The more that Biden brags about what he did to the economy, the more people poll—over 60%—dissatisfaction with his alternate reality of “Bidenomics.”

Do we remember the humiliation in August 2021 in Afghanistan?

The more Gen. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Joe Biden assured that the American military presence was stable, the more swiftly it crumbled and descended into the worst mass flight of an American army since Vietnam.

Ending Feudal Slavery…Again By J.B. Shurk

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/ending_feudal_slaveryagain.html

The ruling class would have us believe that the most dangerous threats to our security and happiness are Russia, global warming, and unapproved speech.  In actuality, the lethal threat of our times and for the foreseeable future is the unconstrained power of the State.  State control versus individual liberty is the conflict that will eventually lead to war, social upheaval, and revolutionary change.  Everything else is either ancillary or a psychological distraction.

The Marxist globalists know this.  Everything they do is engineered to steal personal freedoms and expand government’s oppressive control over the living.  They seek a centralized power structure in which as few people as possible own everything, while everyone else lives as a serf.  To that end, the small cabal of globalist oligarchs continue to siphon wealth and power from ordinary people, strengthening themselves and making their enemies — us — weaker with every thieving pass.

Ordinary people increasingly understand what is happening.  However bad the government’s COVID tyranny has been, it has had the salubrious effect of pulling the wool from the eyes of a great many people.  A primary reason that COVID tyranny has backfired is that it relies on a premise that normal people can see is not true — that the danger from the Wuhan Flu is so great that it justifies lockdowns, censorship, and forced injections of experimental “vaccines.”  Had people been dying in the streets in horrific and ghastly ways, these monumental violations of human rights and personal liberties might have been understood, if not condoned. 

However, ordinary people armed with nothing more than an elementary-school-level comprehension of the Scientific Method and medical ethics know that such radical programs to fight disease are inexcusable unless absolutely necessary.  Once people learned — despite the government’s embargo over such essential information — that young and healthy people had almost no risk of dying or becoming seriously ill from COVID, they also knew that it was unethical to force any kind of experimental treatment upon the unwilling.  Once people learned that the government’s twofold promise — that the “vaccines” prevented both viral infection and transmission — was an easily proven lie, then they knew that there was nothing scientifically rational behind the government’s imperious commands.  Once the government chose to defend its actions — including forced masking and isolation — as critically necessary, despite mounting evidence that these policies did more harm than good, ordinary people began to realize that the whole exercise had nothing to do with public health and everything to do with State control.  Once government scientists started speaking in infantile gibberish — such as, “We’re working at the speed of science!” — the jig was up.  The propaganda had become just too obvious.

How Would Frederick Douglass Regard Today’s Left? Copy his statements into a document and ask any leftist what he/she thinks of them. by Dennis Prager

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-would-frederick-douglass-regard-todays-left/

Frederick Douglass was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived. This man began life as an illiterate slave — nearly all slave owners prevented slaves from learning to read — and rose from slavery to become, along with Abraham Lincoln, the greatest orator of his time, and one of the wisest and most eloquent writers in American history.

He became the great black leader of his day, honored by multiple American presidents who frequently sought his counsel. If you read his autobiography, “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,” you will experience English language writing that has few peers in any nonfiction writing in American history.

Every American child and adult should read this book for many reasons. First, it should be read to appreciate the inhumanity of slavery. The physical abuse, and perhaps worst of all, the human degradation inherent to slavery are depicted in understated yet riveting language. Second, it should be read as a document of history. Third, it should be read for its wisdom about the human condition.

Frederick Douglass may be one of the few figures in American history revered by Left and Right, and by nearly all blacks and all whites.

In light of that, it is worth pondering the question: Are Frederick Douglass’ views more consonant with today’s Left or today’s conservatives? It is fair to say that nearly every leftist believes that Frederick Douglass is one of them. But if you read his “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,” you will discover a man who, with regard to race, the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and related matters has virtually nothing in common with today’s Left. In fact, leftists would identify every one of the following quotes from Douglass’s autobiography as “white supremacist” and/or “racist.”

Frederick Douglass: “When an unknown man is spoken of in their presence, the first question that arises in the average American mind concerning him and which must be answered is, Of what color is he? and he rises or falls in estimation by the answer given. It is not whether he is a good man or a bad man. That does not seem of primary importance.”

This Douglass quote runs completely counter to the virtually universal left-wing (not liberal, left-wing) claim that race is important and that to ignore it — to attempt to be color-blind — is racist.

The Atlantic, Sept. 13, 2013: From an article titled, “Color Blindness Is Counterproductive”: “How many times have you heard someone say that they ‘don’t see color,’ ‘are color-blind,’ or ‘don’t have a racist bone in their body’? Maybe you’ve even said this yourself. Many sociologists, though, are extremely critical of color blindness as an ideology.”