Not Fair

Ben Shapiro
But Reality Isn't Fair

In 2014, I debated Seattle City Council member and avowed socialist Kshama Sawant. Sawant was one of the chief proponents of a city ordinance that would create a $15 minimum wage. Eventually, the city adopted a three-phase transition plan that would push minimum wage to $11 per hour, then $13 per hour, then $15 per hour. In our debate, I asked Sawant directly whether she would support a $1,000 minimum wage. She deflected the question, of course. She deflected the question because reality would not allow for a $1,000 minimum wage. Were the government to mandate such an idiocy, every business in the Seattle area would immediately cut back employment, and all of those seeking minimum wage jobs would end up losing their income.

As it turns out, it didn’t take a $1,000 minimum wage to destroy the income for minimum wage workers. Thirteen dollars was plenty. According to a paper from The National Bureau of Economic Research, “the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.”

All of this was foreseeable, given the fact that businesses compete with one another to lower cost and thus operate with slim profit margins. That means businesses have two choices when government forcibly raises labor costs: increase prices and thereby lower demand, or cut back on the work force. Businesses opted to do the latter in order to stay competitive.

Reality is unpleasant. Perhaps that’s why so few politicians seem willing to face up to it.

On a larger scale, the bipartisan consensus in favor of regulations that force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions mirrors the minimum wage debate. It is perfectly obvious that forcing insurance companies — professional risk assessors that determine pricing based on actuarial estimates as to health — to cover those with pre-existing conditions costs them an enormous amount of money. If you are a consumer, why would you bother buying a health insurance plan while healthy, when you could wait to do so until after your costs materialize? Yet both parties would rather cater to the foolish notion that it is “unfair” for insurance companies to act as insurance companies than allow insurance companies to do what they do best: create a market to allow Americans to exercise choice.

But in economics, once one heresy has been advanced, a slew of other heresies follow. Coverage of pre-existing conditions has to be subsidized somehow. Democrats propose to mandate that people buy health insurance; this violates freedom of choice and artificially increases premiums for the healthy in order to pay for the sick. Republicans propose subsidies to encourage purchase, artificially creating demand without allowing the competition among health plans that would keep premiums down.

But everyone is surprised when such schemes fail.

They shouldn’t be. Politics used to be the art of educating the public about reality and pushing for change where change is possible. Now politics is the art of convincing the public that you can make reality disappear if it votes for you. Sadly, our politicians can’t make reality disappear. And every time they try to do so, reality comes rushing back with a vengeance.


A new study, released Monday, has found that the increase in Seattle’s minimum wage has led to reduced employment for workers and cut hours for those that kept their jobs. This essentially cancels out any benefits of the higher wages that the city had hoped for its workers.

In 2014, city council member Kshama Sawant pushed for the city to increase its minimum wage to $15 per hour, in attempt to improve the lives low-wage workers.

In response, Seattle signed in the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance and raised its minimum wage from $9.47 per hour in 2014 to $11 per hour in 2015, and later to $13 in 2016.

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors, the study concluded that second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent.

“Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs,” the study states. “Implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.”

There is evidence that attributes more modest effects in regards to the first wage increase. But the recent phase-in had a more direct and harsher effect on the low-wage workers. It reduced the number of low-wage jobs and the hours of retained employees.

Businesses that pay their employees minimum wage tend to focus on how to keep their assets high and liabilities low, in regards to wages. And they do this by playing the same game as the government.

Seattle rose the minimum wage too high too quickly without giving the city time to adjust and operate under the new conditions.

This will serve as another example as to how other states should pay closer attention to how their government and private businesses interact with each other in order to reach a successful middle ground that works with both entities.

Compromise? In this day and age of binary thinking? Naw…


Derek Hunter:

Well, the Congressional Budget Office score for the Senate health care bill is out, and it’s pretty much what was expected – not all that different from the House bill. It’s not all that different from Obamacare, either, which also was not unexpected. In essence, we’re now living in a country where the federal government is the provider of health insurance, one way or the other.

Pandora’s Box was forcibly pride open by The Democrats and now The RINOs don’t want to close it. Government bureaucrats like control. They like power and what’s more powerful than the control of who lives and who dies.

In their usual, rational way, Democrats are running around screaming the Republican health bill is going to kill people. How? Because the majority of the supposed millions of Americans who will “lose” health insurance would do so by choice, a fact the media can’t be bothered to point out.

If you have a $4000 deductible (or worse) or the premium is so outrageous you can’t pay it anyways, how is “losing” bad?

The Democrats just want to demagogue numbers, not people. They want to say “this many” are insured. The fact that its effectively useless is immaterial.

In union membership and now health care, the American left is horrified at the prospect of voluntary participation.

How dare you not want to bow down to them!! Join their Groupthink!! How dare you defy them!!

Don’t want to join a union? Tough. Shut up and pay. Don’t want to buy health insurance? Tough. Shut up and pay. It’s yet another example of how the party of “choice” really means to extend choice only on abortion, with everything else to be dictated by faceless bureaucrats.


Who could know more what’s best for you and your family than an unelected drone toiling toward a generous pension you and your kids will have the privilege to pay?

Homo Superior Liberalis, that’s who.

Can I just say something heartless? I don’t care if people choose not to buy health insurance. It’s their lives – they should be free to gamble year by year that they won’t get sick. If they don’t, they win. If they do, they lose.

That’s real choice. The choice of failure. The choice of success. Bad Choices, Good Choices.

That loss has to be coupled with serious consequences – including massive debt and the possibility of losing your home and/or future income. And I don’t care which way it goes for them.

I just don’t care.

That’s personal responsibility.

There are so many subsidies and programs to encourage people to buy insurance. If someone rejects the idea, who cares?

That’s YOUR Choice.

It’s your life – ruin it however you choose. Just don’t expect me to pick up your slack when things go wrong.

You don’t buy insurance hoping things go wrong; you buy it in case things go wrong. If you buy insurance and live a healthy life until your 90th birthday when you’re hit and killed by a bus, you lose too. But you make the same bet and lose when you buy car insurance and arrive safely your whole life.

And those Premiums that go up? Well, that’s because the cost of that risk goes up. Not because you’re just that great or because you don’t want it too. Inflation has caused prices to go up 800% in my life time, guess what’s going to happen in yours…

You’re buying piece of mind against something bad happening. If that’s not enough incentive for someone to act responsibly, why should anyone else care if you find yourself under crushing debt from a bad bet?

Obamacare and now the Republican plans seek to insulate people, to one degree or another, from their bad bets.

Because Mommy Government will protect you…”Hi, I’m mfrom the Government I’m here to help you”…RUN!

Subsidies and expanded government programs are tossed around to entice people into acting smart.

Bribes you pay for ultimately.

No government should legislate based on the dumbest of its citizens, yet that’s what “incentives” ultimately do – lay out a trail of cookies hoping they’ll follow them to the desired conclusion. It’s expensive and stupid.

And make you stupid and dependent, which makes you even more stupid and dependent.

The federal government has no business being in the health insurance business. Unfortunately, the federal government is in it to stay because, well, government never cedes power back to the people.

Pandora’s Box is open. The evil genie will never go back in the bottle.


Not all hope is lost, just most. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of the few principled conservatives in Washington, said he could support the Senate bill on the condition one fairly basic amendment be added.

Lee wrote, “I would still be willing to vote for it if it allowed states and/or individuals to opt-out of the Obamacare system free-and-clear to experiment with different forms of insurance, benefits packages and care provision options. Liberal states might try single-payer systems, while conservatives might emphasize health savings accounts. Some people embrace association health plans or so-called “medishare” ministry models.”

Let the people decide. What a novel idea….

Seems pretty basic and, therefore, unlikely to happen. Lee continued, “My guess is different approaches will work for different people in different places?—?like everything else in life.”

Too rational. Never work. 🙂

You’d think, especially in this time of newfound left-wing reverence for federalism when it comes to immigration policy, that empowering states to act however they like on health insurance would find bipartisan support. But that never, ever will happen.


After decades of trying, Democrat dogs finally sunk their teeth firmly into the health care slice of the economic pie. Now, there’s absolutely no way they’re going to loosen their bite. If the suffering of Americans under diminishing choices and soaring premiums and deductibles wasn’t enough to shake that dog, and a succession of electoral losses didn’t have an impact, the constitutional concept of state liberty ain’t gonna do it.

I encounter pit bulls in my job. People so locked in their thinking that it’s like a pit bull has locked their jaws on your leg. There are only two outcomes. 1) The light finally dawns on them that they are an idiot and wrong and what you’re trying to do is actually help them or 2) They hang up on you in frustration because you refuse to do extactly what they want, when they want, and because they want. in 25 years of Customer Service I have only had #1, once.

People can be quite narcissistic. Liberals even more so.

Many people want the basic idea of being left the hell alone to be at least a part of the conversation on health care. That day, just like personal responsibility, appears to be done. That is something I care about.

Me too.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


Killing You Ideologically

Guy Benson: As we mentioned in a previous post, a popular talking point against Republicans’ (rather modest) Obamacare replacement effort is that it would result in thousands of deaths.  It’s a tax cut paid for with “blood money,” fumes racial-hoax propagator Elizabeth Warren.  It’s “evil” sneers incurable demagogue Chris Murphy.  The GOP is setting itself up to be the “death party,” scolds twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  A number of these arguments are traced back to the bill’s “mean” cuts to Medicaid, a government program originally designated to serve America’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.  Medicaid was failing on the merits before Obamacare expanded it to include millions of new people, many of them able-bodied childless adults living well above the poverty line.  And thus, new strains were placed on a hugely expensive program already suffering from poor health outcomes and constraints on access to care.  Here are a few succinct expositions of the compounded unfairness of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, via Yuval Levin and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, both of whom I quoted earlier:

Today, people newly covered by Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion (who tend to be childless adults with relatively higher incomes than the non-expansion population) are funded by the federal government on much better terms than the traditional Medicaid population (which tends to include more women with children and people with even lower incomes)…the Senate bill would gradually equalize funding for the two groups, effectively shifting Medicaid’s focus back to the most vulnerable of its beneficiaries. In states that respond to that by pulling back the expansion—and for states that have not pursued an expansion—the fact that the [GOP bill’s tax credits] now [go] all the way down [to the bottom of the income scale] means the Senate bill would provide an income and age-based subsidy that would allow these lowest-income individuals to afford at least modest insurance coverage in the individual market.

I love the ads fearmongering about “double digit increases”. Well, here in AZ, the ObamaCare increase (from what’s left of providers) was going to be TRIPLE DIGITS. So Obamacare must be better, right?
The Journal:

The budget will never balance, and debt will continue to accumulate, if Congress can’t modernize entitlements…Liberals call block grants heartless, but ObamaCare increased Medicaid enrollment by 29% to 74.5 million Americans—one of four citizens—in a program originally meant for poor women and the disabled. Equalizing payments for these traditional beneficiaries and ObamaCare’s new able-bodied adult enrollees above the poverty line is uncaring only in liberal caricature. The real scandal is Medicaid’s poor health outcomes and a funding formula that doesn’t encourage states to prioritize the neediest Americans.

As For CBO Scores, Garbage In, Garbage Out. Remember, they showed ObamaCare Favorably, until then didn’t after it passed. So I Take their “analysis” with a grain of salt.
Republicans’ plan would make Medicaid fiscally sustainable, and gradually revert back to a model that prioritizes help to the poorest people, who need the most help.  It’s perverse that the federal government provides a more generous funding formula for Medicaid’s better-off, better-situated expansion enrollees than the original, neediest population for whom Medicaid was supposedly created in the first place.  And while the GOP proposal would reform the structure of the program by offering a capped per-capita annual allowance to each state (which would foster restraint, prioritization, innovation, and creativity), the notion that it makes drastic “cuts” to the overall program is deeply misleading.

But that’s the Democrats fortay. Lying is second nature to them.

 Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, frustrated by these word games, has been teeing off on this point:

This funding increase of tens of billions of dollars is nevertheless cast as a “cut” because it would spend less than Obamacare would.  

And spending less than a Democrat would is always a “cut”. Remember when a 2 percent increase was a cut because it was less than they wanted?
Beyond this point, a raft of data indicates that in the aggregate (obviously, this does not apply to all individual cases), Obamacare has not saved American lives.  In fact, life expectancy has dropped for the first time in decades under the law, with particularly bad news in Obamacare Medicaid expansion states:

Public-health data from the Centers for Disease Control confirm what one might expect from a health-care reform that expanded Medicaid coverage for adults: no improvement. In fact, things have gotten worse. Age-adjusted death rates in the U.S. have consistently declined for decades, but in 2015 — unlike in 19 of the previous 20 years — they increased. For the first time since 1993, life expectancy fell. Had mortality continued to decline during ACA implementation in 2014 and 2015 at the same rate as during the 2000–13 period, 80,000 fewer Americans would have died in 2015 alone. Of course, correlation between ACA implementation and increased mortality does not prove causation. Researchers hypothesize that increases in obesity, diabetes, and substance abuse may be responsible. But thanks to the roughly half of states that refused the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, a good control group exists. Surely the states that expanded Medicaid should at least perform better in this environment of rising mortality? Nope. Mortality in 2015 rose more than 50 percent faster in the 26 states (and Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid during 2014 than in the 24 states that did not.

If conservatives were inclined to traffic in the same brand of ugly, motive-impugning hysteria that many liberals have embraced on healthcare, they could throw nuance and causation arguments to the wind and simply shriek that Obamacare killed 80,000 Americans in 2015.  And that politicians who expanded Medicaid have even more blood on their heartless, cruel, murderous hands.  By the way, is there evidence that Obamacare actually has had a causal effect on increased death rates?  A look at opioid abuse and overdose-related death statistics suggests that yes, it is likely a contributing factor:

Read this entire thread, which provides in-depth data pointing to increases in insured rates (greatest in Medicaid expansion states), coinciding with a measurable, significant, commensurate uptick in drug overdose deaths.  As NBC News recently reported, insured people have easier access to pills and drugs — a fact that some terrible people have been capitalizing on by exploiting loopholes in well-meaning government programs to “rehabilitate” drug abusers.  Looking at the information linked above, one could make a simplistic, accurate, and unfair argument that Obamacare is killing people, and that Obamacare boosters are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.  This is how the Left is currently demonizing Republicans.  The more serious assessment would be to say that in a genuine attempt to mitigate problems X, Y and Z, Obamacare backers inadvertently opened a can of worms, leading to an explosion in problems A, B and C.  The truth is that laws require trade-offs and can generate unforeseen consequences — and healthcare represents an uniquely large, complex policy challenge.   If only liberals would acknowledge these applicable dynamics when reviewing the GOP’s Obamacare replacement proposals.

But as long as the debate over addressing Democrats’ failing healthcare experiment has degenerated into “you’re selfish, uncaring, blood-stained killers!” shouting, liberals should know that two can play that nasty and counter-productive game, if necessary.

It’s not like Democrats have anything else in the playbook except hyperbolic fear mongering and Orwellian/Alinsky Lying.
 And under their own standards, their hands are dripping with the blood of 80,000 innocent Obamacare victims, or whatever.  A less demagogic and entirely accurate approach would involve reminding Americans that Democrats lied to them incessantly while passing a healthcare scheme that is collapsing, harming millions, and getting worse.  And that their so-called “solutions” entail ever more government, ever more spending — and worse.  I’ll leave you with this development, which should not come as a surprise.
They lied to get Obamacare passed. They will lie to keep it. Very predictable.
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Complicity & Diversity

“All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability.”— Now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

This has to do with Cake. Yes, A Cake.

As has been mentioned many times in this blog, the Gay Mafia Vs. Religious Liberty.

The Supreme has taken up the Case of a Colorado Baker who refused a Gay Marriage Cake Order. The courts, mostly liberal, have ruled in the gay couples favor. But now with Gorsuch (and possibly another conservative to come) the LGBTQ+ Mafia on speed dial is worried that religious people and people of conscience might actually have rights too.

OH NO!  Discrimination!! OH NO!

Tell that to the white people who get discriminated against by the SJWs quite regularly.

I liked the recent article in a feminist magazine that said the solution to White supremacy was White Abortions…Yeah, that’s not the slightest bit racist… 🙂

Or the self-segregating SJWs who don’t want the “Not We” anywhere near them.

Like Jews at a Gay Pride Parade.

So you have to be right kind of SJW to considered a proper one.
So much for Inclusion and Diversity…
The Chicago Dyke March is billed as an “anti-racist, anti-violent, volunteer-led, grassroots mobilization and celebration of dyke, queer, bisexual, and transgender resilience,” according to its Twitter account.
But if you’re a Jew or Pro-Israel then, f*ck off…
…the rainbow flag with the Star of David in the middle “made people feel unsafe,” and that the march was “pro-Palestinian” and “anti-Zionist.”
And these are the people that demand you make them more equal than others to make them equal and if you don’t do as they say they will get their lawyers on speed dial to destroy you.
Another participant asked to leave because of a Jewish flag was Eleanor Shoshany-Anderson. “The Dyke March is supposed to be intersectional. I don’t know why my identity is excluded from that. I felt that, as a Jew, I am not welcome here,” she told the Windy City Times.
Because you aren’t dear. The “tolerant” are very intolerant of anyone who is 100% pure in their orthodoxy.
That’s why they make good Daleks. 🙂
Rivka Poli ·

Well, I am representing Israel in the 2017 Chicago Pride Parade – on the MENSA float. Our slogan is: “Diversity is Smart.”
Cruz June Rodriguez ·

Madrid, Spain
Haha “diversity is smart,” yeah okay. Is diversity keeping Palestinians under military control, passing them through gates like cattle, having separate roads to drive on, and killing them off through military force?
Zionism has no place in our queer movement for liberation! Fuck pinkwashing and long live a free Palestine.
Now that’s your Tolerance, Diversity, and Inclusion Police at their best. 🙂

The ACLU, which is representing the couple, had hoped that the court would simply decline to hear it and let the Colorado decision stand. A ruling in favor of the baker could roll back years of progress made by LGBT civil rights groups in combating discrimination, allowing all sorts of businesses to close their doors to gays and lesbians simply by invoking a religious objection. Mullins and Craig released a statement after hearing the news that the court would indeed be hearing their case.

“This has always been about more than a cake,” Mullins said. “Businesses should not be allowed to violate the law and discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love.”

We have aright to destroy you in our Sanctimony. After all, you religious people piss us off and we want under our heel.

His husband, Craig, added, “While we’re disappointed that the courts continue debating the simple question of whether LGBT people deserve to be treated like everyone else, we hope that our case helps ensure that no one has to experience being turned away simply because of who they are.” (Mother Jones)

But equal is not what you want, dearie. You want to be superior. To be able to walk around and have everyone fear you. To do whatever you want, when you want and because you want and no one can say anything about it without being a discriminatory “hater”.

The hypocrisy that proclaims the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite who agree with their views only.

Not very Tolerant. Not very Diverse. And certainly not Inclusive.

Black Lives Matter (BLM), issued a series of demands calling for greater inclusivity in Toronto’s Pride Parade, one of North America’s largest celebrations of diversity. Most controversial of the demands: a ban on police-sponsored floats and booths in the annual Pride celebration.


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others, Like liberals, especially Gay Liberals.

As long as you follow the orthodoxy that is…




Remember Tolerance and Diversity? Remember Civility and poisonous Partisanship?

The Democrats don’t.

But the Fear, bullying and Intimidation is all they know. So The Narrative is The Narrative.

So what if ObamaCare was a fucking disaster. So what if the RINOs want to keep it basically. It’s not THEIR plan.

CIVILITY: Democrat Leaders Now Calling Republicans “Murderers”

A Bernie supporter and lifelong leftist who was known to hate Republicans opened fire on congressional Republicans with the intentions of slaughtering as many as possible. Representative Steve Scalise is still in the hospital recovering from his gunshot wound.

You would think that responsible adults who are professional and mentally sane would try to express to their sheeple followers how important it is to have adult discussions rather than act out violently. Have Democrats done that? No, in fact they have done just the opposite. It’s as if they are egging on their followers to commit more acts of violence. It’s disgusting. From Ricochet:


Obviously, rhetoric didn’t pull the trigger on that Alexandria baseball practice last week, and we can’t hold liberal politicians and celebrities directly accountable for the actions of a violent, unbalanced man. Free speech in politics often tends toward the hyperbolic yet it is, and should remain, fully protected under the First Amendment. But after the shooting, many Democrats paused their efforts to undermine that right and called instead for civility on a voluntary basis.

To be honest, I’m surprised it (sort of) lasted a week.


The problem with these two nimrods is they represent the extreme left (even though they are both 1%ers that they often rail against) and their followers are indeed of the mentally unstable type. Twice over the past several weeks, Bernie supporters have tried to murder people, TWICE.

What the hell is wrong with these supposed leaders that they want to continue with their violent rhetoric? Not only are they LYING but they are INCITING others by claiming people could actually be killed or die if Republicans try to fix the disgusting mess that is Obamacare.

It’s repulsive to see how little Sanders and Warren and many other Democrats feel about regular Americans. It’s disgusting that these people continue to behave in ways that show how much vitriol, hatred and violent rhetoric they are about rather than actual ideas. They are out of ideas.

Because it’s the same OLD ideas. Fear, Fear, Fear, and More Fear…



Hyper Hyperbole.

Partisan Rhetoric so poisonous it would kill Medusa.

Nothing has changed. Same leopards. Same spots.

Violence was a moral boundary King refused any of his people to breach. He warned in 1958, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.”

But the modern Liberal Progressive Democrats has no boundaries they would not cross to get what THEY want. We’ve seen it before, we’re seeing it again.

The focus should not be  on winning or losing arguments on tough issues, and more on learning courageous dialogue skills that could be used to encourage understanding, foster critical thinking, and explore workable solutions that promote the common good.

The following civility conversation ground rules proved to be most helpful no matter what issue was discussed:

Don’t assume bad intent. Show empathy and tolerance for differences. Good people disagree. Well-intentioned patriots exist on both sides of any divide.

Stay Calm. When angry count to ten…very angry to a hundred. It’s better to end a conversation and take time to cool down than to let escalating anger destroy a valued relationship.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Ask good questions and then really listen. Say “Tell me more about…” and “Let me see if I understand…”

Make your argument without assuming you’re right or that the other should know why. Affirm points of agreement and common ground early while working to bring clarity to your position.


Do your homework and build depth to your convictions and your understanding of opposing views. (Townhall)

But the modern Liberal is intellectually incapable of this due an overabundance of brain-eating Narcissism. So the Fear & Smear is back with a vitriolic vengeance on this issue, because we all know it never left. It’s the perpetual guest pest that won’t leave.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

journalism 2017


Hodgkinson’s Disease

Derek Hunter

It was a different time, a crazy time, all those…days ago…way back at the end of last week. I remember it like it was, well, just last week, when Democrats suggested that maybe, just maybe, the political rhetoric in the country was a little too heated after one of their own tried to murder as many Republican Congressmen as possible. Like I said, it was a different time.

After less than two weeks, that time is done and the political left is back at their lying, hateful rhetoric about how Republicans are hoping to kill as many Americans as possible. It actually took a little longer than I thought it would.

Me too.

Putting aside the hypocrisy for a second, how dumb must Democrats think their base is to believe the other political party’s election strategy is to hasten the deaths of millions of people?

Very. They count on their mindless hoards who do and think as they are told.

How idiotic is the idea that one party’s plan to continue to win elections across the country is the screw as many people as possible out of something?

Fear is Fear. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.

Moreover, Democrats are telling their zombie army that the GOP’s “secret plan” is to take from the poor and give to the rich.

Well, they’ve been saying it for 50 years and the poor are getting poorer so it must be true, right? But when they are in power and it gets even worse the sheeple don’t notice because they are trained not it. Pavlov’s dog only salivates when you ring the bell. For Democrats that’s the “fear” bell.

Aside from the abject stupidity of it, what exactly would the rich take from the poor?

They are already rich, what more do they need, your broken down 1984 Chevy Suburban? I think not.

How, exactly, does one get rich by taking things from the poor? Do they have secret stashes of money they’re unaware of and rich people are sneaking into subsidized housing at night to empty the area under their couch cushions?

So that’s where that money goes….

Actually, there is a way to get incredibly rich off the poor – it’s by claiming to be their champion.

And make them feel “superior” at the same time you’re robbing them blind.

How many liberals have become fabulously wealthy by claiming to be “working for the poor”? They haven’t made a dent in the number of poor people -quite the contrary – but Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and countless other leftists have ensured their families won’t miss a meal for generations thanks, in large part, to their “championing of the poor.”

The poor are their meal ticket to riches.
Same as the “race” baiters use race to make themselves rich.

Quite a racket, when you think about it. And much more effective than robbing houses with no money.

Now back to the hypocrisy.

Before the blood on the baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, has even had a change to evaporate, Democrats were back to using rhetoric that could have come directly from James Hodgkinson’s Facebook page. Actually, most of what Hodgkinson posted could have easily come from a Democrat Member of Congress’s press conference or any show on MSNBC, so it’s kind of a chicken and egg situation.

Whatever came first, Democrats made clear this week their appeals to their fringe were not going to end simply because one of their own took what they were saying literally and attempted mass murder. After all, they must think, what are the odds of lightning striking twice?

Or maybe they’re hoping it will…

Elizabeth Warren said the Republican health care plan introduced in the Senate this week was paid for with “blood money” and “people will die” because of it. If someone truly believes a political party is going to cause the deaths of countless innocent people it’d almost be irresponsible not to do whatever possible to stop them, including violence. Warren knows this, and the frequency with which she says similar things makes me think she’s counting on it.


You’d think someone would say something to Warren, tell her to pump the brakes a little – at least until the shooting victims get out of the hospital. But one of the people in a position to slow down Fauxcahontas is right there with her.

Chuck Schumer, leader of the Democrats in the Senate, doesn’t give a damn about anything but Democrats regaining power. In one of his speeches on the bill, Schumer took issue with the idea of slowing the rate of growth in Medicaid.

Remember the bill doesn’t cut anything in the way a normal person thinks of a cut – meaning spending less one year than you did the previous year. It spends more each year; just less than was previously projected. If you were expecting to win $100 at the casino and only won $50 you wouldn’t complain about how your winnings were cut.

In his lament, Schumer said, “Medicaid is increasingly a middle class program.” Medicaid was designed as the federal health insurance plan for the poor, meaning those who can’t afford to take care of themselves, not those who won’t. It’s welfare, and Democrats have spread the idea of this welfare to people who don’t need it to get them hooked on the idea of government taking care of them so they don’t have to.


Medicaid is failing and going broke. With more people on it and funding being finite, government controls costs by keeping what they pay doctors artificially low. More and more doctors each year are refusing to accept new Medicaid patients because, depending on the issue, they take a loss on them. That’s a direct result of this welfare program becoming “increasingly a middle class program.”

What that means is, under the banner of compassion (and in the name of winning votes for Democrats), Democrats are actually harming the people Medicaid was designed to help. They’d rather ensnare a family of 4 making $80,000 per year in a welfare program than actually help the poor.

It’s the tobacco industry model – get them hooked on the product, worry about the consequences later.


Bernie Sanders is no better, tweeting “Thousands of people will die if the Republican health care bill becomes law.”


Not to be outdone, even irrelevant Democrats were compelled to toss their gasoline on the flames.

Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the party of death.”

Barack Obama was more subtle, but his Facebook rant was no different.

Last week a liberal activist took what he’d heard to heart and tried to save the country from the slaughter he’d been assured Republicans were set to unleash on the country.

What Hodgkinson did is easy to dismiss as part of a mental illness, just as it’s easy to dismiss a suicide bomber as insane. But they aren’t insane – they’re true believers. They’ve thought through their actions, aware of the consequences, and decided they had to act anyway. There’s too much thought in their actions to be chalked up to insanity.

And there’s too much inspiration for the Hodgkinsons of the world to think he’ll be the last.

These smug progressive preachers of hate may have won elections, but they have not won absolution. For absolution you must express regret and cease the offending action. While some Democrats did feign regret, though it didn’t last a week, none are showing any signs of a desire to stop their inflammatory rhetoric – there’s too much money and power is scaring the hell out of people. So is the only conclusion we can logically draw that they’re hoping someone else finishes the job?


I don’t relish that thought, but nothing else explains their words, their actions, and their lies.


The Fear Campaign Begins AGAIN

Mike Brzezinski: “…so much that he could control exactly what people think…and that is our job.” (MNBC)

The Senate Version of RINOCare may have it’s flaws. But that won’t stop the Sanctimonious Left and The Great and Grand Narcissist from fearmongering AGAIN and fiddle while ObamaCare Rome burns.

I know I get the fearmongering robocall every single day.

Remember when it was going to lower premiums by $2500? 🙂

As liberals flail away at the Senate’s newly-released healthcare bill, and conservatives scramble to adjust serious design flaws, Americans must not lose sight of an inescapable and crucial fact: The current law, which was exclusively written and passed by Democrats, is failing — and those failures are getting worse.  Within the past 48 hours, two major insurance carriers announced plans to withdraw from Obamacare marketplaces in a slew of states.  Despite hiking individual market federal exchange premiums by an average of 105 percent over the past four years, in a quixotic effort to compensate for Obamacare’s systemic adverse selection flaw, carriers are still losing hundreds of millions of dollars per state, per year.  For many, they can’t sustain those financial blows any further, so they’re pulling the ripcord:  

Anthem will pull out of the ObamaCare exchanges in Indiana and Wisconsin next year, the insurance giant announced Wednesday. obamacare1
These departures will only deepen the law’s spiraling rate and access shock problems. Liberals, ever eager to blame their failures on others, are trying to pin this slow-motion collapse on Republican “sabotage,” but that’s a nonsense excuse.  It’s true that uncertainty surrounding the future of the Obama administration’s illegal cost-sharing subsidies is adding to this turbulent business climate, as is the lack of clarity over the future of ‘repeal and replace.’  But the longterm trajectory — toxic risk pools leading to major cost spikes and insurer pullouts — long predates the Trump administration.  Indeed, this pattern was confirmed by Obama-era government data released just before the 2016 election.  The financial markets were fully expecting a Clinton victory, which would have guaranteed Obamacare’s endurance, yet the pullouts and soaring premiums continued in spite of that anticipated policy continuity.  Because Obamacare was and is the problem.  

Furthermore, the claim that Republican governors who “undermined” the law are at fault here is also bogus.  Those ‘red’ states that refused to establish their own Obamacare exchanges (several ‘blue’ states that tried doing so ended up crashing and burning) simply defaulted to the federal exchange, where massive rate increases are par for the course.  And perhaps the most Obamacare-friendly Republican governor in the country has been Ohio’s John Kasich, who still doggedly defends his (increasingly expensive) decision to expand Medicaid.  Remind me: How are Ohioans faring under the law, again?  Sticker shock has also battered solidly Democratic states like Minnesota, Maryland and Connecticut.  I repeat, the problem is not Republicans.  The problem is Obamacare.  Republicans now have a real opportunity to improve the ugly status quo in important ways, but the first draft of the Senate bill could conceivably make matters worse, for reasons I outlined yesterday.  The GOP is still absolutely right to keep beating the drum on how their opponents’ policies have made matters far worse for millions of people.  Here’s Majority Leader Mitch McConnell highlighting various stories of real people feeling the brunt of Obamacare’s shattered promises of affordability:

More Americans have been directly harmed by the current law than have been helped by it, putting the lie to the Left’s thoroughly-discredited “win/win” propaganda.  If GOP replacement efforts end up faltering, the nation will be stuck with an unsustainable and deteriorating individual insurance market, resulting in even more pain for families.  Credibility-crippled Democrats believe the “solution” to these issues is more government control and more spending.  Many are on the record in favor of a socialized, government-run healthcare system.  This isn’t merely a dreadful idea in terms of health policy and outcomes, it’s economically ruinous.  Don’t take my word for it; ask Democrats in Vermont and California, and the liberal editorial board of the Washington Post:

The government’s price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it…A single-payer health-care system would face all of these political barriers to cost-saving reform and more. To realize the single-payer dream of coverage for all and big savings, medical industry players, including doctors, would likely have to get paid less and patients would have to accept different standards of access and comfort. There is little evidence most Americans are willing to accept such tradeoffs.

A left-leaning think tank found that single-payer healthcare would cost US taxpayers an additional $3.2 trillion per year on average; the entire current federal budget is around $4 trillion — and we’re already running historically-large annual deficits, as the $20 trillion national debt balloons.  There is simply no way to pay for that type of eye-popping spending increase without truly gigantic tax increases on middle and working class families — all to pay for a worse system.  It’s a genuinely atrocious idea in nearly every way.  On another level, why should voters listen to one word on heath care policy from the party that exclusively created the mess we’re in, and that callously downplayed terrible, deadly corruption and abuses at the VA — America’s systemically flawed single-payer system that was designed to provide care to a small, discrete, sympathetic population venerated by both parties?  Alas, unwilling to own up to their calamitous failures, they’re screaming about the “mean” and “evil” GOP proposal that’s paid for with “blood money,” or whatever.  Incredibly, these same people believe their tactics are too kind, civil, and courteous.


The Ministry of Truth Study Part 2

If the children are the future, the future might be very ill-informed.

That’s one implication of a new study from Stanford researchers that evaluated students’ ability to assess information sources and described the results as “dismaying,” “bleak” and “[a] threat to democracy.”

As content creators and social media platforms grapple with the fake news crisis, the study highlights the other side of the equation: What it looks like when readers are duped.

The researchers at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education have spent more than a year evaluating how well students across the country can evaluate online sources of information.

Middle school, high school and college students in 12 states were asked to evaluate the information presented in tweets, comments and articles. More than 7,800 student responses were collected.

In exercise after exercise, the researchers were “shocked” — their word, not ours — by how many students failed to effectively evaluate the credibility of that information.

The students displayed a “stunning and dismaying consistency” in their responses, the researchers wrote, getting duped again and again. They weren’t looking for high-level analysis of data but just a “reasonable bar” of, for instance, telling fake accounts from real ones, activist groups from neutral sources and ads from articles.

“Many assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally savvy about what they find there,” the researchers wrote. “Our work shows the opposite.”

A professional appearance and polished “About” section could easily persuade students that a site was neutral and authoritative, the study found, and young people tended to credulously accept information as presented even without supporting evidence or citations.

The research was divided by age group and used 15 different assessments. Here’s a sample of some of the results:

Most middle school students can’t tell native ads from articles.

The researchers showed hundreds of middle schoolers a Slate home page that included a traditional ad and a “native ad” — a paid story branded as “sponsored content” — as well as Slate articles.

Most students could identify the traditional ad, but more than 80 percent of them believed that the “sponsored content” article was a real news story.

“Some students even mentioned that it was sponsored content but still believed that it was a news article,” the researchers wrote, suggesting the students don’t know what “sponsored content” means.

Most high school students accept photographs as presented, without verifying them.

The researchers showed high school students a photograph of strange-looking flowers, posted on the image hosting site Imgur by a user named “pleasegoogleShakerAamerpleasegoogleDavidKelly. The caption read “Fukushima Nuclear Flowers: Not much more to say, this is what happens when flowers get nuclear birth defects.”

Sam Wineburg, a professor of education and history at Stanford University and the lead author of the study, spoke to NPR on Tuesday.

“The photograph had no attribution. There was nothing that indicated that it was from anywhere,” he said. “We asked students, ‘Does this photograph provide proof that the kind of nuclear disaster caused these aberrations in nature?’ And we found that over 80 percent of the high school students that we gave this to had an extremely difficult time making that determination.

“They didn’t ask where it came from. They didn’t verify it. They simply accepted the picture as fact.”

Many high school students couldn’t tell a real and fake news source apart on Facebook.

One assessment presented two posts announcing Donald Trump’s candidacy for president — one from the actual Fox News account, with a blue checkmark indicating it was verified, and one from an account that looked like Fox News.

“Only a quarter of the students recognized and explained the significance of the blue checkmark, a Stanford press release noted. “And over 30 percent of students argued that the fake account was more trustworthy.”

Most college students didn’t suspect potential bias in a tweet from an activist group.

The researchers sent undergraduate students a link to a tweet by MoveOn about gun owners’ feelings on background checks, citing a survey by Public Policy Polling.

They asked students to evaluate the tweet and say why it might or might not be a good data source.

“Only a few students noted that the tweet was based on a poll conducted by a professional polling firm,” which might make it a good source, the researchers wrote.

At the same time, less than a third of students cited the political agenda of as a reason it might be a flawed source.

And more than half of the students didn’t even click on the link within the tweet before evaluating the usefulness of the data.

Most Stanford students couldn’t identify the difference between a mainstream and fringe source.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which publishes the journal Pediatrics, has more than 65,000 members and has been around since 1930.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) split from AAP in 2002, over objections to parenting by same-sex couples. ACPeds claims homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. It’s classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which estimates that ACPeds has about 200 members.

In an article in Education Week, Wineburg and his colleague Sarah McGrew explain that they directed Stanford undergrads to articles on both organizations’ sites. The students spent up to 10 minutes evaluating them, and were free to click links or Google anything they liked.

“More than half concluded that the article from the American College of Pediatricians … was ‘more reliable,’ ” the researchers wrote. “Even students who preferred the entry from the American Academy of Pediatrics never uncovered the differences between the two groups.”

You can see in-depth examples of some of the exercises — including sample responses — at the study’s executive summary.

The project began before the recent uproar over the prevalence of fake news online. But its relevance is immediately clear.

Wineburg told NPR on Tuesday that the study demonstrates that U.S. classrooms haven’t caught up to the way information is influencing kids daily.

“What we see is a rash of fake news going on that people pass on without thinking,” he said. “And we really can’t blame young people because we’ve never taught them to do otherwise.”

In fact, as Wineburg and McGrew wrote in Education Week, some schools have filters directing students to valid sources, which doesn’t give them practice learning to evaluate sources for themselves.

The solution, they write, is to teach students — or, really, all Internet users — to read like fact checkers.

That means not just reading “vertically,” on a single page or source, but looking for other sources — as well as not taking “About” pages as evidence of neutrality, and not assuming Google ranks results by reliability.

“The kinds of duties that used to be the responsibility of editors, of librarians now fall on the shoulders of anyone who uses a screen to become informed about the world,” Wineburg told NPR. “And so the response is not to take away these rights from ordinary citizens but to teach them how to thoughtfully engage in information seeking and evaluating in a cacophonous democracy.”

The Ministry of Truth Study Part 1

If the children are the future, the future might be very ill-informed.

That’s one implication of a new study from Stanford researchers that evaluated students’ ability to assess information sources and described the results as “dismaying,” “bleak” and “[a] threat to democracy.”

In exercise after exercise, the researchers were “shocked” — their word, not ours — by how many students failed to effectively evaluate the credibility of that information.

“Many assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally savvy about what they find there,” the researchers wrote. “Our work shows the opposite.” (NPR)

More on this article tomorrow. But I would say, since it’s liberal educaysion I would venture it’s quite deliberate.


For many millennials, it is impossible to imagine a day without turning on a phone or computer, accessing Twitter or Google News, and watching as floods of highlights appear on their screens. While many teens today consider themselves to be technologically advanced—skilled navigators in the sea of Internet content—this is often not the case.  
The digital media environment intensifies the presence of false information and enables poor critical judgement. A recent Stanford University study reveals harsh findings involving the ability of teens to determine fact from fiction. The implications of online “unreality” are numerous, and we should be demanding that the top tech users today focus more energy on how to become educated information consumers. 
The incomprehensibly large and varied domain of online information should be a progression in the pursuit of knowledge, truth and an all-around beneficial tool for youth. But, it is not that simple. The November 2016 Stanford study shows what researchers found when students from around the country were presented with online news and asked to critically evaluate it. The results are not only disturbing, but offer a clear glimpse into the unrealities the Internet perpetuates.  
The researchers “designed, piloted, and validated fifteen assessments, five each at middle school, high school, and college levels.” In one assessment, high school students were presented with a post from photo sharing website Imgur that included “a picture of daisies along with the claim that the flowers had ‘nuclear birth defects’ from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.”  
Results found that these students focused on the photograph and “relied on it to evaluate the trustworthiness of the post.” They did not note important details including the source of the photo. “Less than twenty percent of students … questioned the source of the post or the source of the photo.”  
College students were presented with a tweet from, the liberal advocacy organization, that claimed the NRA is out of touch with gun owners and their own members. The tweet also indicated “Public Policy Polling conducted the poll.”  
Results showed that only a few students noted that the poll was conducted by a professional polling firm and that this adds to its credibility. Also, “less than a third of students” thought that the clear political partisanship of the publisher — an open supporter of gun control measures — may have influenced the tweet. Overall, the students showed a shocking inability to assess information. The results suggest a growing need for incorporating civic online reasoning courses into school curricula. 
Future generations of media consumers will know the internet as their only source of information. Without an understanding of the dynamics of the Internet or the acquirement of debunking methods, future generations will become more tolerant of misinformation and more hostile to facts than ever before. New efforts must be geared toward fostering an awareness of the importance of distinguishing fact from fiction, in order to see millennials and all Internet users become educated, tech-savvy truth-seekers.  (
But the liberal educators for The Ministry don’t want and don’t teach critical thinking skills. They want them stupified.
Ignorance is Strength.

Congrats! You won the $15/hr Lottery

And your job is toast. Don’t you feel better!?

Got those righteous Social Justice Warrior juices going as you get laid off…

Character Assassination

“Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co,” the shooter wrote in one post.

Gee, I wonder what he was watching…

Well, this didn’t take long. Rep Steve Scalise gets gunned down, but not killed, by a crazed Leftist who was ginned up to violence and radicalized by the media is now ATTACKING THE VICTIM!

Because he’s an evil conservative and their “compassion” is apparently also very partisaned.

…the outpouring of support has stopped, mostly on the Left, where news outlets and prominent liberals are attacking the congressman over his conservative voting record. One of the Capitol Police officers, who saved Rep. Scalise and the rest of the Republican baseball team practicing before their annual charity game with Democrats last Wednesday morning, was gay. Officer Crystal Griner was assigned to protect Rep. Scalise, who rightfully leapt into action when Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson decided top open fire on the GOP baseball team last Wednesday morning in Alexandria, Virginia. Police killed Hodgkinson. Rep. Scalise was wounded after being shot in the hip.

Griner and Officer David Bailey, who was also assigned to Rep. Scalise’s protective detail, were wounded. Yet, there’s a toxic and appalling mix of humor and smugness that Rep. Scalise, a proponent of traditional marriage, was saved by a black lesbian cop. As if this was liberalism punishing someone for holding the wrong views.

I doubt Rep. Scalise is going to wish he was dead because a gay person saved him. Also, he’s a conservative Republican from the Deep South; did you guys really expect he was liberal of social issues? I’ll let Guy take it from here, but then, there’s the media’s reaction, which is equally appalling.

CBS News’ Scott Pelley offered a commentary last week, calling the attacking congressional Republicans self-inflicted “to some degree,” so Rep. Scalise being shot was partially his fault. That’s classy.

It’s time to ask whether the attack on the United States Congress, yesterday, was foreseeable, predictable and, to some degree, self-inflicted.

Too many leaders, and political commentators, who set an example for us to follow, have led us into an abyss of violent rhetoric which, it should be no surprise, has led to violence.

Yesterday [June 14] was not the first time.

In December last year, a man with an assault rifle stormed into a Washington-area pizzeria to free child sex slaves whom Hillary Clinton was holding there — or at least that’s what political blog sites had said. He fired into a locked door to discover no children in chains.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has called the president the “most dangerous in history.” The shooter yesterday was a Sanders volunteer.

You might think that no sane person would act on political hate speech, and you’d be right. Trouble is, there are a lot of Americans who struggle with mental illness.

In February, the president tweeted that the news media were the “enemy of the American people”:

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2017

Later, at a lunch for reporters, President Trump was asked whether he worried that language would incite violence. His pause indicated it had never crossed his mind. Then he said, “No, that doesn’t worry me.”

As children we’re taught, “Words will never hurt me.” But when you think about it, violence almost always begins with words. In “Twitter world,” we’ve come to believe that our first thought is our best thought.

It’s past time for all of us — presidents, politicians, reporters, citizens, all of us — to pause to think again.

Good thing he’s a “fair and balanced” “Journalist, don’t you think?

No obvious Bias. 🙂


Rep. Scalise has been in critical condition for days, undergone three surgeries, and was on the verge of death when he arrived at the hospital following the attack. Yet, liberal America says we’re going to slam him because he has a voting record we find to be problematic. Even when someone’s life is in the balance, the Left just can’t help it. This attack was self-inflicted?

Remember, these are the people who think they have cornered the market and have sole possession of the world’s “compassion” “sensitivity”. 😦

“the only way you can get to civility, is you must start with the establishment of justice. you must provide for the common good and you must provide the general welfare” and that Republicans “have to have a change in the trajectory of policy.”— Rev William J Barber on MSNBC

Translation: Do it our way or else.

“He did come to leadership after some controversy over attending a white nationalist event, which he says he didn’t know what it was,” MSNBC Host Jo Ann Reid said.

Translation: He’s a Racist too!

“He also co-sponsored a bill to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He co-sponsored the House healthcare bill, which as you said would gut healthcare for millions of people including three million children and he cosponsored a bill to repeal the ban on semiautomatic weapons,” Reid continued, bashing Scalise for holding mainstream Republican positions. “Because he is in jeopardy and everybody is pulling for him, are we required in a moral sense to put that aside in the moment?”

How dare anyone be different from us, Homo Superior Liberalis! We are the Holiest of The Holy and we shall not be denied our rightful place as Rulers of All!

Despite House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.) being in critical condition after an attempted assassination, liberal website Fusion denounced him on Thursday as a “bigoted homophobe.”

“Bigoted Homophobe Steve Scalise’s Life Was Saved by a Queer Black Woman,” read the headline from Fusion, which is owned by Univision.

“Steve Scalise, the House majority whip who was shot by a gunman who attacked a congressional baseball practice on Wednesday, has kept company with racists,” Fusion wrote. “He was forced to apologize for speaking at an international conference of white supremacists, and reportedly referred to himself as ‘David Duke without the baggage.'”

“He also authored Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage. Like many of his ilk, he said he was only trying to protect ‘traditional’ marriage,” the website continued. (Free Beacon)



Derek Hunter
Derek Hunter
Liberals Got Their Blood, Will It Be Enough?
When I wrote two weeks ago about how liberals would not stop until someone got killed, I was hoping it was more of a warning than a prophecy. Unfortunately, it was not.


But the actions and words of leftists in the wake of the attempted slaughter of Republican members of Congress –for the sin of not being Democrats – has done nothing to bring about the moment of reflection one might expect from people with blood on their hands.

oh my

Thankfully, the only life lost was that of the progressive terrorist who sought to embody the attitude of the media and the Democratic Party. But no sooner had the echoes of the shots stopped reverberating than that attitude returned.

Liberal journalists and activists took to their Twitter accounts to blame everything except the reality that their twisted fantasies came true.

But it did come true. And all the editorials and proclamations in the world will not change that.

Worst of all, the “paper of record,” the paper that sets the agenda for the mainstream media, the glorified birdcage liner that announced its new slogan this year to be “the truth is more important now than ever,” took the attempted mass murder as an opportunity to rewrite history for a second time this week.

In the wake of a mass-political assassination attempt the Times ran an editorial entitled, “America’s Lethal Politics,” that attempted, once again, to blame Sarah Palin for the shooting that killed six and seriously wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., in Tucson in 2011.

The editorial board of the Times actually wrote, “In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear.”

It was? Because it wasn’t all that clear once it was discovered Loughner was a mentally unstable George W. Bush-hater.


The Times continued: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

That wasn’t “clear” when, in the pages of none other than the New York Times, it was made clear he’d had a history with Giffords pre-dating Palin’s website by years.

Maybe the people who run the New York Times don’t read the New York Times. Who could blame them, really?

Not satisfied to bastardize reality, the Times wrote:

“Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.” (Emphasis added.)

So a map of the country with some marks on it no one ever even suggested Loughner saw, on a website there is zero evidence he ever visited, is “direct incitement.” But years of claiming Republican want to kill children, the elderly, the poor, the middle class, animals, vegetables, the planet and anything else you can think of is of little to no consequence?


Comparing the president of the United States to Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and any other monster you can think of had no impact on left-wingers?

The Times eventually changed its editorial, long after it had printed and distributed millions copies in the paper edition, tempering its smear of Palin (likely after lawyers made the editors aware of possible liability), but the damage was done.

The editors added, “An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.”

Not only was “no such link established,” there was no such link to establish. It was never real reporting; it was progressive porn, a left-wing snuff film in the minds of journalists that still, apparently, thrives in the minds of the people who run the New York Times.

Later in the piece it required a further correction. “The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs,” the editors wrote.


Hilariously, the Times eliminated its “public editor” position, the man responsible for holding the paper to journalistic standards, only two weeks ago. Perhaps speaking to someone outside the bubble might’ve spared the paper the embarrassment of its hatred spilling out on its pages again.

Make no mistake about it, James Hodgkinson is as much a committed man of the left as the editorial board of the Times. He’s the spawn of every fever-dream MSNBC airs on a nightly basis, and the network is trying to wash off its close association with him as fast as possible.

But it won’t wash off. Hodgkinson can’t be dismissed as a simple lunatic the way Loughner is.

Hodgkinson’s social media posts don’t show an insane person; they echo the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, Mother Jones, Slate and every other left-wing rag. His words have been spoken on CNN and MSNBC to a chorus of “amens.” He was onboard with what has become the mainstream of the Democratic Party. He was a true believer.

Since the movement that created him is actively refusing to recognize its role in that birth, there’s no reason to believe it will change its ways. Leftists aren’t willing or able to pump the brakes of hate for differing opinions. Simply wounding Republicans, it would seem, no longer is enough.

Leadership on the left remained mostly silent in the face of their followers’ violence around the campaign, the inauguration and college campuses across the country. When they weren’t silent, they were blaming Republicans for the sin of existing and, therefore, provoking the violence against them.

In other words, liberals don’t care.

They won’t be shamed into being decent human beings.

I would say they can’t be. Sanctimony demands it.

If the attempted mass murder of Republicans by one of their own didn’t result in 24 hours of honesty and civility, why would anyone think the next 24 days would be any different? Or any day after that?

It won’t be. The only way to really hurt the left is through the voting booth and to put conservative judges on the courts. Remind the American people of who these leftists are, every single time they expose themselves, then relegate them to the cautionary tale section of history books.

Don’t be them, beat them. Stripping the left of all political power is really the only way to harm them because political power is the only thing they care about. Just be careful out there till they’re done.

See something, say something. 🙂


Can I Quote You…

John Hawkins
John Hawkins
20 Liberal Calls For Violence Against Conservatives in Quotes

After Republican Rep. Steve Scalise was shot yesterday, many liberals on twitter CELEBRATED and said things like,

“The Only Good Fascist is a Dead One.”

“That’s a Shame but babies blown to bits at Sandy Hook was worse and Scalise takes money from the @NRA”

“If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP leadership considered self defense?”

“If KKK support Steve Scalise dies, the shooter deserves a holiday, true leadership. Now the trumps, kush, & miller need to be transitioned.”

Is it any wonder? The most prominent liberals in America regularly accuse conservatives of being racist, sexist, Nazis, fascists who want children to die and are killing the planet and ruining the environment all because of their hate of the poor and minorities. Liberals today aim a nastier stream of propaganda at Republicans than America did at the Nazis; so is it any wonder that some people take the next logical step and become violent?

Meanwhile, you have plays, rap videos and prominent liberals glorifying the murder of the President, liberals applauding unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers, all while cops at left-wing universities stand back and allow violent students to riot, threaten and disrupt conservative speakers. We’re moving fast towards a point where clashes between armed gangs of thugs on both sides will leave people dead because liberals believe conservatives aren’t human beings and thus, don’t deserve the same protection under the law.

I’m not going to blame Bernie Sanders for the shooter who supported him or say that liberals and Democrats should be held personally responsible for it. The only person responsible for what the shooter did was the shooter. However, this sort of political violence is doomed to grow ever more common and bloodier unless liberal Democrats start changing the sort of rhetoric they engage in on a regular basis. Rhetoric like this…

1) “Michele (Bachmann), slit your wrist. Go ahead… or, do us all a better thing [sic]. Move that knife up about two feet. Start right at the collarbone.” — Montel Williams

2) “F*ck that dude. I’ll smack that f*cker’s comb-over right off his f*cking scalp. Like, for real, if I met Donald Trump, I’d punch him in his f*cking face. And that’s not a joke. Even if he did become president — watch out, Donald Trump, because I will punch you in your f*cking face if I ever meet you. Secret Service had better just f*cking be on it. Don’t let me anywhere within a block.”– Rapper Everlast on Donald Trump

3) “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Bill Maher

4) “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama Plan White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.” — The Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy

5) “F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead.” — Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.

6) “Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream… giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton; every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every – They’re gonna say some Palestinian being too radical — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet.” U.C. Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian fires up the crowd at an anti-war rally by calling for an American intifada

7) “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.” — Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa

8) “..And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq ‘We have our good days and our bad days.’ We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say ‘This is one of our bad days’ and pull the trigger. Do you want to salvage our country? Be a savior of our country? Then vote for John Kerry and get rid of the whole Bush Bunch.” — From a fund raising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club

9) “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” — The Village Voice’s Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places

10) “But the victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man. Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can’t change that. But in the U.S., we don’t die for speaking our minds. Or we’re not supposed to anyway. Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security.” — Linda Stasi, New York Daily News,on a victim murdered in the San Bernadino terrorist attack

11) “Cheney deserves same final end he gave Saddam. Hope there are cell cams.” — Rep. Chuck Kruger (D-Thomaston)

12) “If I had my way, I would see Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell strapped down to electric chairs and lit up like Christmas trees. The better to light the way for American Democracy and American Freedom!” — Democratic Talk Radio’s Stephen Crockett

13) “May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.” — Allan Brauer, the communications chair of the Democratic Party of Sacramento County to Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter

14)Violence solves nothing. I want a rhino to f*ck @SpeakerRyan to death with its horn because it’s FUNNY, not because he’s a #GOPmurderbro.” – Jos Whedon

15) “I hope Roger Ailes dies slow, painful, and soon. The evil that man has done to the American tapestry is unprecedented for an individual.” — Think Progress editorAlan Pyke

16) “But, you know, the NRA members are the current incarnation of the brownshirts from Germany back in the early ’30s, late ’20s, early ’30s. Now, of course, there came the Night of the Long Knives when the brownshirts were slaughtered and dumped in the nearest ditches when the power structure finally got tired of them. So I look forward to that day.” — Mike Malloy

17) “Or pick up a baseball bat and take out every f*cking republican and independent I see. #f*cktrump, #f*cktheGOP, #f*ckstraightwhiteamerica, #f*ckyourprivilege.” — Orange is the New Black star Lea DeLaria responding to a meme about using music to deal with violence

18) “I wish they (Republicans) were all f*cking dead!”Dan Savage

19) “Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headf*cked by a big veiny, ashy, black d*ck then be locked in a cupboard.” — Azealia Banks advocates raping Sarah Palin over a fake news story

20)” Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything.” — Madonna

Just Kill The Bastards!

Derek Hunter
Derek Hunter
The Left Won’t Rest Until Someone Gets Killed

I’m old enough to remember when “violent rhetoric” was the root of all our problems, and crosshairs on a website no one ever saw was the reason for mass murder.

Of course, those were different times, times in which the president had a (D) after his name, not an evil (R). Since that important change happened, everything flipped – over-the-top rhetoric is no longer the domain of the fringe; it’s the currency of the mainstream media. Worse, it’s turned from heated political disagreement to paranoia and pure hatred, and it’s going to get someone killed.

The people on the political left didn’t just lose an election last November, they lost their minds. And their leadership has been exploiting that for power and profit ever since.

Immediately after their loss, Democrats did not turn introspective and try to discover why, after eight years of a personally popular president, voters across the country had rejected them in record numbers at every level of government. No, they turned in anger at those who beat them, and no one has had more of that anger directed at them than President Trump.

He’s the accidental president, in their minds, someone unworthy of even the basic respect for the office that used to be the norm in politics.

Worse, they are stoking fears to the point that even the casual observer is left with the impression they’re hoping someone “corrects” that accident.

How else can one interpret the left’s continual equating of the president to Adolf Hitler? What is implied in saying the man’s actions on an otherwise insignificant international agreement “is a grave threat to our planet?”

That last part was tweeted by none other than Nancy Pelosi to her more than 1 million followers.

Billionaire liberal financier and green energy profiteer Tom Steyer said pulling the US out of the Paris accord would “be committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.”

Supposed journalists stripped clear all standards to proclaim their outrage. “Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Rick Perry & Steve Bannon walk into a bar & the bar is the earth & it overheats & we all die,” was but one example of their calm “analysis.”

Celebrities and politicians all pronounced the president to be an enemy of the planet, of the people; a threat to life itself.

The Huffington Post declared, “Trump To Planet: Drop Dead.”

All this was made more ironic by the fact this gaggle of pearl clutchers had, just a few years ago, accused Sarah Palin of inciting the deadly shooting in Tucson that gravely injured former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

HuffPo itself ran a piece entitled, “Words Have Consequences,” which preached on the dangers of over-the-top rhetoric. It read:

Today we have seen the results of this rhetoric. Those with a megaphone, whether provided by public office or a media outlet, have responsibilities. They cannot avoid the consequences of their blatant efforts to inflame, anger, and outrage. We all know that there are unstable and potentially dangerous people among us. To repeatedly appeal to their basest instincts is to invite and welcome their predictable violence.

Of course, we hadn’t “seen the results” of anything of the sort. The killer was a left-wing rabid hater of President George W. Bush who’d never seen the “crosshairs” on Palin’s website and most likely hated her just as much.

But if liberals believed what they were saying back then, what does it tell us about what they’re hoping for now? There’s really only one conclusion to draw: They want blood, literal blood.

Be it declaring the president a traitor, equating him with history’s greatest monster, or a danger to the continued existence of our species, the political left clearly wishes him and anyone who agrees with him on any issue to be a threat. And, in the mind of the unstable, threats, especially on that scale, must be eliminated.

Maybe they aren’t doing it consciously – though that I find somewhat difficult to believe given their insistence on the risk of heated rhetoric in the past. No, they want blood.

When Kathy Griffin made a sick video of her holding the fake severed head of President Trump, Secret Service agents didn’t reach out to her because they feared she was on the verge of scaling the White House gates to murder the president. They had to convey to her that her video could set off an unstable person believing it was a message to them, a call to arms.

After all, the head of the greatest threat to humanity, dripping with blood in a video straight out of the ISIS playbook, isn’t exactly a subtle message on its own. When marinated in the toxic media, rabid college campus and progressive political culture, it’s a dare. It’s a challenge. It’s a plea.

Leftists will say this is crazy, that their disagreements are genuine and their rhetoric is simply a reflection of the times and the president’s own words. That Trump ratcheted up the tone, not them. They have short memories for their own hypocrisy and their attempts to smear blood on their opponents’ hands after every tragedy. Or at least they hope the American people do.

Maybe they do. But that won’t absolve them if their chickens come home to roost.

It may not be an attack on the president they inspire. Maybe it’ll be a speaker on a college campus, or a member of Congress, or a local city council. Whatever the case, the hatred they’re stoking is boiling, and for the sake of fundraising and to appease their base, they’re more than happy to turn up the heat.

If they don’t mean for something awful to happen, let’s hope they find a piece of whatever conscience they have left and dial it down before someone gets hurt. That is, of course, dependent upon something awful happening not being part of their plan.


Stop The H8te!

My fellow Americans we must stop this growing volcano of hate before it consumes us. So it is with this in mind that I propose the following solution.

Effective immediate all “hateful” speech will end.

All seditious thoughts against the rightful and superior masters of ethics and morals will end.

The punishments deserved and carried out with ruthless efficiency for the betterment of society as a whole.

This hatred must end.

We must give into the power of our Emotional and Intellectual Masters for only they have the wisdom, compassion, sensitivity, and ethical superiority to save us all from ourselves.

I speak, of course of:






As a Member of this hateful group of THE NOT WE, I must repent my sins of wanting all men and women judged by their character and not their race, gender identity, or other heathen norms.

The Constitution is racist, sexist, and so out of touch that it must be destroyed.

Long Live The Ministry of Love. Long Live and all praise to The Ministry of Truth.

We must all bow down to the vastly superior Homo Superior Liberalis. For they have spoken and we are not worthy to carry even their defecations.

We must bow down to them and pray for our salvation.

“It was great to see people from both sides seeing this and uniting under the banner of human, and American, before anything else,” <Daily Show Host Trevor> Noah told host Stephen Colbert. “That’s one of the things that we’re seeing less and less of in society today it feels like.”

“I think that’s something that’s lacking in American politics, is politicians showing from both sides of the aisle that they are friends,” Noah said. “It’s almost become like wrestling where the fans don’t realize that those people get along.”

Gee, I wonder where they got that idea? 🙂

The Special Counsel for The Russia Investigation, staffed by Clinton & Obama hacks:

Former FBI Director James Comey told Congress last week he believes he was fired by Trump to undermine the agency’s Russia probe.  (Huffington Post Headline)

He said nothing of the kind. But that’s not the Narrative.

And since the only salvation of mankind is The Ministry of Truth…

CNN’s Sally Kohn Blames The Right For The Arlington Shooting Sally opens by saying “right wing extremists do violent and hateful things.” Sounds about right coming from Sally Kohn...

Then the Story on is deleted. Hmmm…

But one is not allowed to question the Ministry of Truth, they are always right.

The Left is always correct. They are the vastly superior humans and we should all bow down to their greatness or this insubordinate behavior will be punished again and again…

You have been Warned. 🙂




History Re-Write

George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

And then LIE about it.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.“–Nazi Propaganda

In the former USSR, censorship, rewriting of history and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets’ effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history. Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.
Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month. Former Memphis Mayor A C Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park. In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart. It’s not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change. These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.

Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation’s history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing. Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America’s leftists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there’s a monument that bears his name — the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. George Washington also owned slaves, and there’s a monument to him, as well — the Washington Monument in Washington. Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington? Will the people demanding a change in the name of J.E.B. Stuart High School also demand that the name of the nation’s capital be changed?
 These leftists might demand that the name of my place of work — George Mason University — be changed. Even though Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became a part of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, he owned slaves. Not too far from my university is James Madison University. Will its name be changed? Even though Madison is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” he did own slaves.

 Rewriting American history is going to be challenging. Just imagine the task of purifying the nation’s currency. Slave owner George Washington’s picture graces the $1 bill. Slave owner Thomas Jefferson’s picture is on the $2 bill. Slave-owning Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s picture is on our $50 bill. Benjamin Franklin’s picture is on the $100 bill.
The challenges of rewriting American history are endless, going beyond relatively trivial challenges such as finding new pictures for our currency. At least half of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. Also consider that roughly half of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were slave owners. Do those facts invalidate the U.S. Constitution, and would the history rewriters want us to convene a new convention to purge and purify our Constitution?
The job of tyrants and busybodies is never done. When they accomplish one goal, they move their agenda to something else. If we Americans give them an inch, they’ll take a yard. So I say, don’t give them an inch in the first place. The hate-America types use every tool at their disposal to achieve their agenda of discrediting and demeaning our history. Our history of slavery is simply a convenient tool to further their cause. (Walter E Williams)


The 3%

“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.

In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.

By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.

Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.

Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.

Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.

Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today

Abrantes et al (below) confirms the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than anything we have experienced in our own era.

Here’s one from Li et al showing that China was much warmer 8,000 years ago

Here’s an unusual one from Guillet et al suggesting that there’s nothing new about wildly early or late grape harvests through the centuries:

And on and on it goes — there are 80 graphs in all, each showing in its different way why the scare about global warming has been horribly overdone because the evidence just doesn’t support its being unusual or a problem. Several of the papers note that the primary influence on warming appears to be solar activity. Few, if any, entertain the notion that carbon dioxide levels have much to do with it.

The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.

Here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.

Not that it ever was a thing, really. This debate — as I argue at some length in Watermelons — was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.”

Still, it’s always a comfort to know that “the science” is on our side too.

They do so hate that fact, the Greenies.  (Delingpole on

War is Profit

When U.S. President Donald Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change, newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron seized the opportunity to lecture Trump in English and implore him to “make the planet great again.” Who is this guy? Some kind of planetary hypochondriac? Come on — he’s a former Rothschild investment banker and economy minister.

Climate change is to Europe as security threats have traditionally been to America: a convenient pretext for foreign intervention. In Europe, environmentalism is a much easier sell. Unlike in North America, natural resources are palpably scarce, with more people jammed into a smaller area. It’s this prism through which Europeans view the world.

Climate change — the threat that in past decades was referred to as both “global warming” and “global cooling” — may not be consistent in its identity, but that’s what makes it a good pretext. It’s similar to the way the identity of the primary terrorist enemy keeps changing, from the Taliban to al-Qaida to the Islamic State. As long as the threat remains elusive, the collection plate can continue to be passed around in the hope that tossing wads of money at the problem will someday solve it.

Which is one of the main reasons I’m a “denier” is that whatever well meaning science their might have been has been replace by power and control and of course, Profit. Which is ironic since the Democrat Party is effectively socialist.

Fear and doom is exactly what Macron served up in his climate change address to the world. His tone was solemn, like that of a president announcing military action.

And that’s what the Chicken Little do in this country, only less effective on the sheep. But now you have “rebel” factions from The States of Hawaii and California to the mayors against Climate Change. If the Feds are no longer in the game they’ll do it themselves with great sanctimony.

“Climate change is one of the major issues of our time,” Macron said. “It is already changing our daily lives, but it is global. Everyone is impacted. And if we do nothing, our children will know a world of migrations, of wars, of shortage: a dangerous world.”

Macron’s call to civilians to join the fight against climate change was not unlike that of a general imploring soldiers to serve in battle:

“To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the president of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland. I call on them: Come and work here with us. To work together on concrete solutions for our climate, our environment.”

Send your Climate cash here! The Cheese eating surrender monkeys need your money.

France’s weekly news magazine L’Obs compared Macron’s speech to the one General Charles de Gaulle made to the resistance at the onset of World War II. “The president of the Republic was obviously inspired by the founder of Free France to call for resistance against Trump’s climate skepticism,” the article said.

Viva La Resistance! 🙂

It’s all pretty comical when you realize that European leaders have been able to sell citizens on the absolute need to prevent Earth’s temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius, which conveniently sidesteps the fact that it’s not the weather causing Europe to become more dangerous.

Ignore the real problem, focus on the one that benefits us the most.

The migrations that Macron referred to are being caused by leftist immigration policies that have resulted in a lack of integration and social cohesion. Macron also spoke of wars, but recent wars haven’t been caused by climate change; they’ve been caused by interventions (such as America in Iraq, or France and Britain in Libya) that lack the follow-through to ensure local security and stability.


There has been ample opportunity in the wake of such interventions to launch initiatives to combat resource shortages with the help of industry. Instead, short-term planning has only led to more war, often before the intervening countries can secure a significant return on investment. And this is where climate change can serve as an intervention strategy.

While Trump is commander in chief of the most advanced military force in the world, Macron has just seized the mantle of commander in chief of another kind of power: Western soft power, which is cloaked in benevolence. A glance at the projects funded through the Green Climate Fund — the United Nations’ climate change cash source — shows that most are located in Africa and Asia, that loans represent almost as much of the funding as grants, and that private interests are just as involved as public interests. In other words, this is business as usual, subsidized by taxpayers in much the same way that military interventions are.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development provides major support for “green” projects around the world. Apparently, Europe doesn’t need bombs, guns and regime change to create new markets when they can be created under the guise of humanitarianism.

One goal of war is eradicating threats, but another goal of war is profit. If countries can make the transition from bombs to business, then climate change as a foreign intervention strategy doesn’t seem so dumb. Those who perpetuate the myth of man-made climate change for their own financial benefit aren’t nearly as naive as the leftists whose idealism is greasing the wheels of big business.

The Socialists are Capitalists. How Orwell. 🙂

cookie jar

Biff! POW! Bam! Holy Heartbreak, Batman!

My childhood took a major hit yesterday with the death of Adam West. Batman ’66 was one my all-time childhood favorites.

For any Millenials or Snowflakes out there who go: “Adam who?” ask an older person you’re an under-educated idiot to begin with.


Even as a middle aged adult I still find this 60’s pop culture classic funny.

This batman was one of the pillars of my childhood, along with The Monkees, Mony Python, Star Trek, Bionic Woman and more…

I got to see Adam West at a Con here in Phoenix a few years ago. Unfortunately, due to F*ck ups by the Con my Autograph session was rescheduled without notice and I missed out. Now, I will miss out forever. 😦

With everyday where the icons of my childhood and life die off I think of what my father said about having a funeral, (effectively) “Why? There’s no one left I know”.

So on that sad note…

(CNN) Actress Julie Newmar, who played Catwoman alongside the late Adam West’s Batman, paid tribute to her co-star Saturday, calling him “the finest Batman ever.”

West, the star of the popular and campy 1960s “Batman” TV show, died on Friday after a short battle with leukemia, his agent said. He was 88.

“People adored him. Long lines of people stood to get his autograph,” Newmar recalled to CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield.

To West’s fans, she emphasized he was more than just a TV star.

“A friend called me up this morning and said to me with tears in his voice, that Adam West was the father that we wanted,” she said.

“He was always very charming and open and available,” she added.

Newmar described West as “adorable” and “very present,” as well as a master of finding “the humor” in the character of Batman.

“He had that extra intelligence called wit, which allows us to live in this world above things and laugh at it,” she said.

Though the character of Batman went on to be played by actors such as Michael Keaton, George Clooney and Christian Bale in big-budget movies, Newmar argued that the TV show’s more simple approach to the character had made West particularly appealing to fans.

“He did not have to have his shoulders built up. He wasn’t a fake Batman or an over costumed Batman. I think he was the real thing,” she emphasized.

“I think he was and will be — and always will be — the finest Batman ever,” she said.


Na Na na na na na na na, Na Na na na na …Batman!!!

So long, old chum.


A Wonder


Finding a safe space, where never is heard a discouraging word and never are the skies cloudy all day, obviously has a wide appeal. Safe spaces were born on the campus to accommodate “snowflakes,” the sensitive, fearful and fragile folk who imagine themselves unique and demand to be treated that way.

But supply has outstripped demand, and a safe space is coming soon to a theater in a neighborhood near you.

“Wonder Woman” is destined to be the biggest hit of the year. The Jewish weekly The Forward calls it the greatest boon to the chattering class since the election of Donald Trump. One Hollywood purveyor of hype says it might even save Warner Bros. It posted over $200 million in ticket sales worldwide in its first four days and stirred dozens — maybe hundreds, if counting the blogs in flyover country — of reviews and “reaction pieces” that guarantee riches, controversy and enhanced fame for Gal Gadot. The former Israeli soldier, model and Miss Israel portraying the Amazonian warrior demonstrates that anything a man can do, she can do better.

Diana, princess of the Amazons, was raised on a remote island, the ultimate safe space, and trained to be a warrior who cannot be bested in combat. She rescues a pilot whose plane crashes into the sea, and he tells her about a great conflict raging in the rest of the world. She is persuaded that only she can save that world. And so, she leaves home for the first time, her innocence intact, to fight at the side of men in another war to end war, and she discovers her destiny. The movie should be the final answer to anyone who still cavils at the notion that women can be as effective as men in military combat.

But now, critics raise many new questions. Is it OK that Wonder Woman is drop-dead gorgeous, and that men are allowed to notice? Is she feminist enough? Is she too feminist? (Surely, that’s impossible.) Since Gadot is white, is the movie a totem for the white Zionist supremacy conspiracy?

Whether it’s a good movie with a cracking story well-told is irrelevant in an age when reality and entertainment have become one. One of the crucial questions still to be reckoned with is whether Gadot’s dark skin, dark hair and sultry dark eyes are enough to make her an authentic woman of color (or WOC, in politically correct argot). Is it politically incorrect to ask?

These are questions at least as important as whether Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with the Russians, whether former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony will shake the foundations of the republic, or whether the American pullout from the Paris climate agreement dooms life as we know it to a dark and watery grave. Wonder Woman will see about all that. She once lived in a comic book, encouraging little girls to think they could go to war against evil with their big brothers. But last year, on the 75th anniversary of the first appearance of Wonder Woman, she was designated by the United Nations as an honorary ambassador for the empowerment of women and girls in order to promote “gender equality.” The occasion took on the trappings of state, with an undersecretary general on hand to mix and mingle with the actress Lynda Carter, who played Wonder Woman in an earlier movie, as well as director Patty Jenkins and others in the cast.

Gadot would appear to be a woman for all seasons: an actress with a string of successful movies who is married (and to a man), has two daughters and tools about Israel on a black Ducati Monster-S2R motorcycle that would have impressed Steve McQueen. Or even Wonder Woman.

It’s the mark of our superficial age that a movie can become reality for a generation of snowflakes. Some of the reviews of “Wonder Woman” reflect how deeply the age has embraced alt reality. One reviewer in the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, “What lingers … is the feeling of hope that the movie brings, that it someday might be possible for female rationality to defeat male brutality.” A review in the Washington Post said: “‘Wonder Woman’ has raised the bar. Now let’s see if the boys can clear it.” One writer in The Boston Globe said: “It matters that a woman is calling the shots in this movie. Diana and her fellow warriors are figures of simple, admirable strength, and while there’s a simmering romance with Trevor … he knows he’s the girlfriend here.”

Good movies are good fun, and good acting can transport an audience to the unseen world of the imagination. But a movie is only a movie, after all, and the actual world is neither a movie nor a comic book. Reality comes with no money-back guarantees.