Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Sun Activity Has Collapsed to the Lowest in 9,300 years

Sun Activity Has Collapsed to the Lowest in 9,300 years

Sun Activity Has Collapsed to the Lowest in 9,300 years


THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist.  Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term “lunatic” referred to people who seemed to go a bit strange when there was a full moon. Some people are perhaps susceptible to its gravitational forces. After all, it is the moon that lifts the entire oceans creating high and low tide. There are people who have varying mood swings and others who are a tad more steady. Yet we all have our ups and downs.

There is the Human Excitability Study where war was correlated to sunspot activity. The sunspot cycle is roughly every eleven years. However, this time it’s different. The sun is headed for a very rare, super-cooling period that threatens to topple civilization itself as it has throughout history roughly following a 300 year cycle.
For most of its history, science believed the sun’s output was constant. They finally realized that a thermal dynamic cycle beats like your heart so the sun could not exist if it was a steady outflow of energy. One degree less and it would blow itself out. Hence, it is cyclical rising and falling in intensity.
The eleven-year cycle in sunspots itself builds in intensity like the Economic Confidence Model (ECM) reaching “grand maxima” and “grand minima” over the course of 300 years. The last grand maximum peaked circa 1958, after which the sun has been steadily quieting down. Today, the drop in activity is at its steepest in 9,300 years, which is being ignored by the Global Warming propaganda.
The last Maunder Minimum, during which the sun languished for seventy years, took place from 1645 to 1715 when the sun’s brightness declined and the number of sunspots collapsed to almost zero.
A.L. Tchijevsky (1897-1964) did a study on sunspot and human activity. He found that humans responded even creating wars with the swings in sunspot activity.

R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018

R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018

R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018

Hansen’s 1988 testimony
Fresh analysis of government scientific records reveals the idea of ‘long-settled’ science in the greenhouse gas theory is a myth. The idea human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) acts as a control knob on climate only appeared in consensus science since the 1980s. Prior to that time, official records show the theory as “abandoned.”
Famously, on June 24, 1988, the whole world first heard about the dreaded “greenhouse effect” (GHE) from NASA’s  new champion of the theory, James Hansen. Hansen had breathed life into an old and “abandoned” theory drawing from new space research into Venus and Mars. Thanks to Hansen’s role, climate fear prevailed for a generation.
Recently, Russian scientists have declared the GHE dead as global cooling sets in; while a team of Italian scientists called for a “deep re-examination” of the failing theory. Other new papers readily dismiss the CO2 climate hypothesis. Below we present the stark evidence and encourage readers to engage in their own research.
Of course, we should begin by stating real scientists never rely on consensus opinion to determine the validity or otherwise of any theory. But so often, non-scientists in the general public and media (and certain corrupt national science institutes) cite consensus claims to quell discussion and debate.
In that regard, we show that for the greater part of the 20th-century consensus science, itself, rejected the idea that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
The so-called greenhouse gas theory (GHE) was first famously debunked by Professor  H. W.Woods in 1909. Establishment scientists never decry the Woods debunk. Instead, they gloss over it and the long hiatus that followed (1909-1980).
Spencer R. Weart, director of the Center for the History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics is pre-eminent among establishment science historians in splashing gloss.  Weart’s book, ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ is compulsory reading for modern students in this field.
Weart plugged Hansen’s comparison of Mars and Venus with Earth, asserting life as being very fragile and vulnerable to any climate shifts. Weart writes:
“In the 1960s and 1970s, observations of Mars and Venus showed that planets that seemed much like the Earth could have frightfully different atmospheres. The greenhouse effect had made Venus a furnace, while lack of atmosphere had locked Mars in a deep freeze. This was visible evidence that climate can be delicately balanced so that a planet’s atmosphere could flip from a livable state to a deadly one.” (id.)
Like James Hansen’s ‘fixing’ of history, Weart is masterful at making the evidence fit the narrative.
Alarmist drumbeater, Andrew C. Revkin, in The New York Times Book Review heaped fulsome praise proclaiming that Weart’s version of science history,
“dissects the interwoven threads of research and reveals the political and societal subtexts that colored scientists’ views and the public reception their work received.”
Revkin’s words are subtly revealing of the importance of appearance in science and public perception. Glowing praise for Weart came, too, from Fred Pearce, of the UK’s The Independent:
“It is almost two centuries since the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier discovered that the Earth was far warmer than it had any right to be, given its distance from the Sun… Spencer Weart’s book about how Fourier’s initially inconsequential discovery finally triggered urgent debate about the future habitability of the Earth is lucid, painstaking and commendably brief, packing everything into 200 pages.”
We could be forgiven for thinking we’ve had two centuries, no less, of CO2 ‘settled science’, couldn’t we?
Sadly, too few have scratched beneath the surface of Spencer Weart’s compelling (biased) narrative. If they had they would have found some very disturbing pronouncements of consensus science wonderfulness to jar such faith.
What Weart and other establishment lackeys won’t tell you is that the American Meteorological Society – as well as Britain’s top climate scientist, CEP Brooks (1951) no less – published the most damning assessments discrediting Weart’s Big Greenhouse Gas Fiction.
Weart and so many profiting from the scam won’t admit that it doesn’t pay to come clean and jump off the billion-dollar global warming gravy train. As Professor Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan sums it up succinctly:
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other – every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”
Weart and co. would rather you not know that there are more than 65 (SIXTY-FIVE!) known iterations jockeying for position as THE GHE theory. Many are self-contradictory and unphysical. By contrast, we don’t have 65 variations of the laws of gravity. Plus, there are no less than  53 bogus authority statements online declaring that Earth’s atmosphere DOES act ‘like a greenhouse.’
Weart also fails to tell readers that in 1967 Hansen claimed (when he was a fringe theorist) that if there was a GHE it was likely induced by dust (aerosol particulates).  [1]
Hansen had been pitching his “Dust Insulation Model” (DIM) to anyone and everyone after obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa and starting work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Then in the 1970′s disaster science became the rage, inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, a leading advocate of Catastrophist ideas as opposed to the prevailing Uniformitarian notions. Hansen, as a disciple of Velikovsky, was crying about an impending ice age on Earth while at the same time speculating that dust aerosols in the atmosphere of Venus caused a “runaway greenhouse gas effect” on the hot planet. Nowhere, back then, was Hansen claiming CO2 drove climate. Does the term “opportunist” spring to mind?
Not until television science celebrity and fellow catastrophist, Carl Sagan, won fame with his claims about a “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus – all due to carbon dioxide – that Hansen got on the new bandwagon. Meanwhile, a contemporary of Sagan, American physicist Richard Feynman, discredited the GHE. Today, independent scientists, using the latest data from space probes, have a better idea of what’s happening on Venus.
This certainly conflicts with the Weart narrative. But then Weart – a loyal alarmist propagandist – doesn’t want to expose how bad Hansen’s science really is. If he were honest, he would have told readers of the huge howler in Hansen’s first major climate paper in a 1981 edition of ‘Science‘.  [2]
In it, Hansen claims carbon dioxide absorbs in an atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers – which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. But the scientific reality is that carbon dioxide only has an effect on the atmospheric window centered on 14.77 microns with a range from about 13 to 17 microns – not from 7 to 14 micrometers. So how did Weart and other experts “peer reviewers” miss that Hansen howler?
None of these crucial failings was systematically challenged until 2010 and the full-volume ground-breaking book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the  Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ A recent bombshell study validated the book’s science.
The clues for junk science are staring us in the face, especially now so many experts, outside of climate ‘science’, aver to the facts of empirical evidence that CO2 has only even been proven to cool, never warm, anything. Respected textbooks on thermodynamics show why the GHE and any forcing role from CO2 cannot work.
But thanks to mainstream media hype and despite the flaws in the science, the GHE gained traction from 1980, as global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) went ever upwards. Non-scientists often mistake correlation for causation (charlatans depend on it!).  Yet, we now look back and see that average global temperatures over the past 100 years have barely moved one degree – despite the brief uptick in the late 20th Century.
With no catastrophe eminent and fears of a new ice age gripping ever more scientists, we are right on the cusp of the biggest science paradigm shift since Einstein. Academics don’t want to admit to the truth that levels of CO2 – whether higher or lower – can be shown to have no measured climate impact. The truth, it seems, shifts full circle back to what the AMS declared in 1951, as the extract below reveals. [3]

https://archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer#page/1016/mode/2up
The author of the above extract is CEP Brooks. He and the publisher, the American Meteorological Society, unequivocally advise that the old CO2 climate theory of Arrhenius, Fourier, et al:
was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor.”
Brooks (+AMS) then addresses the rise in atmospheric CO2 due to human industrial activity:
In the past hundred years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callender [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in world temperature.”
Continuing, Brooks (1951) makes the same inescapable argument made by skeptics today:
But during the past 7,000 years, there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the intervention of man and there seems no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.”
Thus, the greenhouse gas theory was well and truly dead and buried in 1951 – according to settled consensus science (if you are a believer in it).
For the next revealing insight we must shift 28 years further ahead to ‘Charney’ (1979). But before we do, let us first heed some words of warning from a man with the keenest insight of Big Government machinations.
As Warren E. Leary writes, no less than President Dwight D Eisenhower urged us to be on our guard:
“During the 1961 address, in which the president famously warned of the danger to the nation of a growing armaments industry referred to as a “military-industrial complex,” he included a few sentences about risks posed by a scientific-technological elite. He noted that the technological revolution of previous decades had been fed by more costly and centralized research, increasingly sponsored by the federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,” Eisenhower warned. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” [4]
Intellectual curiosity certainly has gone into short supply in contemporary government science. From the 1940’s to early 1970’s, the temperature records had showed a clear cooling trend. Till the mid 1970’s the big story among scientists was global cooling – not warming. We have to get well into the 1980’s, when there was evidence of an uptick in global temperatures, to see wide evidence that the long-abandoned CO2-driven greenhouse gas hypothesis was rising again – like phoenix from the ashes.
Indeed, we can pinpoint the change by examining the extremely detailed  13,000-page climate report ‘Carbon Dioxide and Climate, A Scientific Assessment’ (1979). Widely referred to just as ‘Charney’. This makes zero mention of the greenhouse gas theory. Not. Anywhere. Among. Thirteen. Thousand. Words. So how could the greenhouse gas theory be “settled science” if not mentioned by name ANYWHERE in such a key US federal climate report?
Nonetheless, ‘Charney’ did concede that CO2 might actually cause cooling, something contemporary alarmists would rather you didn’t know!
Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the original ‘Charney’ science contributors has “walked back” from the GHE. Canadian space scientist, Joseph E Postma summarizes why bias, groupthink and incompetence helped sustain the discredited greenhouse gas theory for so long when proper examination shows it is literally ‘flat earth physics.’
But time is not the friend of climate fraudsters. And Hansen’s beloved greenhouse gas theory is consistently and monotonously being refuted in peer-reviewed journals rendering him – and other alarmists – disgraced. NASA’s Mass/Gravity Equations contradict the GHE and retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theonm James Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, has declared on government record that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” and “was never muzzled.” [5]
The failure, after 30 years of prophesy, for a climate catastrophe to unfold, has left James Hansen a somewhat chastened man. In a recent paper, Hansen shows he has now flip-flopped again on the climate forcing properties of aerosols. Returning to his old DIM science idea Hansen now says aerosols are part of the control knob for a planet’s energy content. But contrary to what he claimed before, he now says they cause cooling, not warming.
In 2018, the null hypothesis awaits the greenhouse gas theory. In 1951, the AMS and Britain’s best climate scientist and head of the UK Meteorological Office, CEP Brooks said it all (id.)

[1] Hansen, J.E., and S. Matsushima “The atmosphere and surface temperature of Venus: A dust insulation model”Astrophys. J. 150: 1139–1157 (1967) Bibcode1967ApJ…150.1139HDoi:10.1086/149410.
[2] [Hansen J., Johnson D., Lacis A., Lebedeff S., Lee P., Rind D., Russell D., SCIENCE 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511, Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.].
[3]  CEP Brooks, American Meteorological Society (1951) in its Compendium of Meteorology (Brooks, C.E.P.  “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” pp. 1004-18 (at 1016)).  https://archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer#page/1016/mode/2up
[4] https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-years-eisenhower-s-warnings-against-scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation
[5] https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

Newly Released Arizona Crime Data Just Shattered a Key Liberal Narrative on Immigration

Newly Released Arizona Crime Data Just Shattered a Key Liberal Narrative on Immigration

Newly Released Arizona Crime Data Just Shattered a Key Liberal Narrative on Immigration

Scott Morefield
|
Posted: Jan 16, 2018 8:48 AM
Newly Released Arizona Crime Data Just Shattered a Key Liberal Narrative on Immigration
Liberal narratives don’t die easily, but when they do the fall can often be hard and fast. Consider the “myth of the noble illegal immigrant,” an insistence by a Left longing for more Democratic votes and an Establishment Right longing for more cheap labor that illegal immigrants are uber-law-abiding - indeed, are the most law-abiding among us, so law-abiding, in fact, that they could easily teach us Americans something about how to law abide, or something. 
My Townhall column last month, entitled, “The 'Big Lie' Starts to Crumble as Feds Release Immigrant Crime Data,“ apparently caused an inkling of a stir among the good folks at the ‘conservative’ but pro-immigration (yeah, that’s why ‘conservative’ is in quotes) Cato Institute. Their immigration policy analyst, Alex Nowrasteh, whom I quoted in the piece, was quick to tweet, “Ignorant piece by @SKMorefield on the new federal incarceration/immigration report,” and call me to task for supposedly not reading his research. 
Except, I did read his research, and others, albeit in fairness to Nowrasteh not everything and not every word. I read the open-borders research enough, however, to quickly realize that one crucial thing was missing - actual demographic data on convicted criminals from individual states. 
Oh there was data, if you want to call it that. In one paper, Nowrasteh and his co-author, Michelangelo Landgrave, use the United States Census’s American Community Survey “to estimate the nationwide incarceration rate for DREAMers for 2015.” The authors call the data “high quality,” notwithstanding the fact that the survey fails to ask “whether those individuals are or ever have been illegal immigrants.”
The authors get around this minor inconvenience by using something called “residual statistical methodology,” which amounts to, without getting all that technical about it, taking four shots of bourbon, closing your eyes, spinning around ten times, and tossing a dart at a wall full of numbers. OK, maybe I’m exaggerating just a bit, but let’s put it this way - when the “methodology” intentionally leaves out incarcerated immigrants who live in “a household where somebody received food stamps” based on the naive belief that illegal immigrants and those living with them never collect food stamps, it could quite possibly be a red flag big enough to sneak at least a mack truck full of illegal immigrants through.
And yes, I do realize the media mantra is that no illegal immigrant ever gets their hands on a single slice of bread at taxpayer expense, but among the numerous reasons why that’s a patent lie lies this little cryfest from the Washington Post earlier this year about immigrants withdrawing from SNAP programs nationwide for fear of being deported. Now, why would legal, uber-law-abiding immigrants fear being deported? Why indeed…
All of which boils down to this: If you’re going to do a study attempting to prove the general law-abidingness of illegal immigrants, wouldn’t you want data that compiles actual illegal immigrant crime rates? Considering the fact that legal immigrant crime is indeed low, any study using data that lumps legal and illegal immigrants together is bound to be skewed.
But how to prove it? That’s the question, right? We’re all familiar with the high profile cases, mainly thanks to President Trump, but Cato and others insist those are merely outliers of an otherwise, you know, uber-law-abiding population. The federal release last month was indeed a significant piece of data, but Nowrasteh and others are right when they say it’s a small sample size. Thus, the only place to go to satisfy all parties is to the actual state data, using actual compiled numbers, not guesstimates, from real record keepers.
When I pressed him during our Twitter exchange, Nowrasteh says he had previously “made a request for public records to the State of Texas DPS” and is “still waiting for another to be filled.” Further, he stated that Cato “has obtained data on convictions & arrests by immigration status & crime for Texas for multiple years.” One more records request answer, and “We’ll be publishing early in New Year.”
Good! I’m sure all of us eagerly await those results. However, it looks like economist and researcher John Lott has beaten Cato to the punch with a treasure trove of recently released data from another state - Arizona - from January 1985 to June 2017. 
Thus begins the second devastating blow in as many months of the “myth of the noble illegal immigrant.” And folks, this one could very well destroy the whole rotten structure. 
“Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of crime than other Arizonans,” Lott concludes from the data. 
While documented immigrants, or legal permanent residents, accounted for 3.9 percent of Arizona’s population in 2014, but only 1.5 percent of the prison population (which again shows why it’s inaccurate to lump documented and undocumented immigrants for any statistical purposes), undocumented immigrants account for 11.6 percent of first and second most serious offenses. 
Further, undocumented immigrants in Arizona are consistently more likely to be convicted of murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, sexual assault of a minor, sexual assault, DUI or DWI, and kidnapping, among other serious crimes. And undocumented immigrants are 163 percent more likely to commit first degree murder than are U.S. citizens in the state. 
As far as sample sizes are concerned, this one will be hard to ignore. During the 33-year period from 1985 to 2017, undocumented immigrants made up almost 5 percent of Arizona’s population, approximately 82 percent above the national average and 5th among all states. 
But when it comes to this particular state, there are no “sample sizes” here, no “residual statistical methodologies” employed. Why? Because this study deals with “the entire universe of cases,” or all 615,555 first and second most serious offenses processed by the Arizona Department of Corrections from January 1985 through June 2017. 
And these are just the crimes that are reported. Given the common perception that undocumented immigrant criminals’ most likely victims are other undocumented immigrants, and a significant percentage of those crimes go unreported, the numbers are likely far higher. 
There’s more, of course. It’s definitely worth reading the whole thing. Watch for liberals and beltway ‘conservatives’ to attack Lott himself instead of highlighting the supposed errors in the research. When they do, it’ll be the first sign that their edifice is crumbling around them, and the only way they think they can dig themselves out is by ad hominem attacks.
Lott writes, “If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.”
When will the carnage be enough for Americans to reject the lies they’ve been fed for so many years? Perhaps when they finally know the unfettered truth, and the “myth” is destroyed for good.

How Trump's Tax Cut Is Already Working - Stephen Moore

How Trump's Tax Cut Is Already Working 

Trump Tax Cut Is Already Working

Stephen Moore
|
Posted: Jan 16, 2018 12:01 AM
Trump Tax Cut Is Already Working
With the recent announcement of Walmart's increasing starting wages and Fiat Chrysler's opening a new plant (with 2,500 jobs) in Michigan, there are now more than a hundred companies that have offered bonuses and benefit hikes to their workers due to the tax cut. An estimated 1 million workers have benefited. This after less than one month.
Liberals disparage all of this as a "publicity stunt." To hundreds of thousands of families, this is a wonderful stunt, and let's hope to see a lot more examples of it in the weeks and months ahead.
The stock market has reached multiple new highs since the tax bill took effect on Jan. 1. Workers are more optimistic about the job market than any time in at least a decade.
I helped work with candidate Donald Trump to refine this tax reform plan, and I was ridiculed as too optimistic on how it might help the economy. But already Trump's economic accomplishments have managed to exceed my lofty expectations. The tax cut isn't the only factor here, but you'd have to be wearing ideological blinders to not see a link.
We are also learning that taxes influence how politicians behave. Blue state governors have argued for many years that their high tax rates don't cause people to move -- even though two of the highest income tax states, California and New York, have each lost about 1 million residents to other states over the past decade.
But now that their high tax rates are no longer tax deductible, the incentive to leave is magnified and these governors, such as Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, are leaping into action. Some are examining whether they can convert their income taxes into payroll taxes (which could be deductible off federal taxes as a business expense for employers) as a way to preserve federal deductibility. Some are even threatening to sue the federal government, as if this tax deduction were a constitutional right.
California and New York officials are investigating whether their states can convert income tax payments into tax-deductible charitable contributions to the state government. Good luck with that.
Why would they go to all this trouble if taxes didn't matter to constituents?
Then there are the charitable organizations -- including the Catholic Bishops -- that are complaining that the doubling of the standard deduction will lower donations to charitable causes, because far fewer people will deduct gifts from their taxes. Steve Taylor, vice president of the United Way, argues that charities are subject to the old adage: If you tax something, you will get less of it.
Well, yes, every politician in America should hold that thought -- especially when they contemplate higher taxes on work, profits, savings and so on. But in this case, higher growth from lower tax rates is likely to lead to more income, and thus more, not less, charitable giving -- just as we saw in the 1980s when tax rates fell from 70 percent to 28 percent.
The timeless economic lesson here is that taxes profoundly influence how and where we live our lives. We tax cigarettes and booze because we want people to consume less of them. There are proposals all over the country to tax soda pop, sugar and carbon emissions so we consume or produce less of them.
So why is it so hard to accept the reality that if we lower taxes on virtuous activities -- work, investment, starting a business or saving for retirement -- we will get more of these? And why is anyone surprised that this is already starting to happen?
By the way, government officials in China, Mexico, India and much of Europe are angry about America slashing its corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent: That giant sucking sound is capital and jobs from all over the world coming to low-tax America.
Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress -- every one of whom voted against the tax bill -- keep running around the country saying that their top agenda item, if they win the midterm elections, is to repeal this policy that is already creating jobs. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they started rooting for America rather than against it?

Trump the Barbarian

Trump the Barbarian 

Trump the Barbarian

Wayne Allyn Root
|
Posted: Jan 13, 2018 12:01 AM
Trump the Barbarian
As usual, the media and liberal critics of Trump have it all wrong.
Before I get to DACA and the wall, I will tackle Trump’s “offensive words” about Haiti and African nations. Trump supposedly called those countries by a crude name. He certainly could have chosen his words more carefully. But…who cares? He told the raw truth. As usual, he was right on the money. Trump said exactly (although crudely) what 63 million American taxpayers who voted for him were thinking.
Trump summed up the weakness of America- we’re far too nice. We think about everyone but our own people and our own taxpayers. Why on earth would we allow the world’s poor, unskilled, desperate and dependent masses to come into our country while we’re $20 trillion in debt? Those days are over. It’s time to be picky and choosy.
We don’t have enough jobs for middle class Americans. We don’t have enough money for poor Americans. We have no obligation or need to let in more people who desperately need to use up our resources and our hard-earned taxpayer money. It’s time for “America First.” It’s time for extreme vetting. It’s time to cut off “Visa lotteries.” It’s time to let in skilled craftsman from Norway, and business owners from China, and doctors from Israel.
We arent running a charity, were running a country.
As usual- Trump told the raw truth. Yes, he offended some people. So what? We elected him because he’s a bull in a china shop. We elected him because he’s a warrior. Call him “Trump the Barbarian.”
We elected him to drain the swamp and clean out the bad people and bad policies entrenched in DC. The truth hurts. Get used to it. Trump’s not going anywhere. He has a tough job to do, to set America on the right course. He might use a few tough words. Words I’ve heard on the streets of New York thousands of times- from liberal voters.
By the way, I’ve used words like that before myself- to describe what’s become of Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore.
By the way, liberals shouldn't get too excited. Trump didn’t lose one vote with his “sh-hole” comments. I have many liberal elitist Ivy League friends. They all felt the need to tell me how terrible and offensive Trump’s words were. They called him “racist.” Guess what? None of them was ever voting for Trump anyway.
But all my middle class, working class and small business pals and fans have weighed in. They said, “Bravo. Finally, someone in power talks like we do, says what we’d say, let’s it fly, doesn’t sugarcoat the truth.” Trust me, 63 million Trump voters are secure for 2020.
Now to what really matters. Trump is winning. The economy is booming. There was even more good news in the past few days. Over 2 million Americans are getting bonuses because of Trump’s tax law. Trump has no reason to give in on DACA. We’re holding all the cards. If Democrats want DACA make them give us the world in return. We have no reason to give in, unless we get everything on our wish list.
Democrats are the ones who want DACA so badly. What cards are they holding? Trump is “Making America Rich again.” His agenda is a success. He’s in the driver’s seat. He can negotiate from a position of strength. The 63 million Americans who voted for Trump don’t want DACA. Why would we give in, in return for nothing?
Here’s the list- plain and simple. We want the full funding of the wall…funding for thousands of new border and ICE agents for enforcement…extreme vetting…an immediate end to chain migration…e-verify, so illegal aliens can never be hired again…end to the Visa Lottery…an end to birthright citizenship…and a 5-year ban on welfare and food stamps for any foreigner in the USA.
That’s called negotiation. We don’t want DACA. We have no reason to give in on DACA. We won the election, remember? We control all levels of government, remember? But if you want it, you’re going to have to give us everything we want. And I mean everything. Plus the kitchen sink.
And as long as Trump holds firm on that list, he will have the full support of 63 million Americans to use strong language and offend anyone he wants by telling the raw truth.
Because he’s our “Trump the Barbarian.”

Worth Your Time to Read

Don Pettygrove - Don Pettygrove shared Craig Hoelzel's photo.

Worth Your Time to Read

Craig Hoelzel

Richard, (my husband), never really talked a lot about his time in Viet Nam, other than he had been shot by a sniper. However, he had a rather grainy, 8 x 10 black and white photo he had taken at a USO show of Ann Margret with Bob Hope in the background that was one of his treasures.
A few years ago, Ann Margaret was doing a book signing at a local bookstore. Richard wanted to see if he could get her to Sign the treasured photo so he arrived at the bookstore at 12 o'clock for the 7:30 signing.
When I got there after work, the line went all the way around the bookstore, circled the parking lot, and disappeared behind a parking garage. Before her appearance, bookstore employees announced that she would sign only her book and no memorabilia would be permitted.
Richard was disappointed, but wanted to show her the photo and let her know how much those
shows meant to lonely GI's so far from home.. Ann Margaret came out looking as
beautiful as ever and, as second in line, it was soon Richard's turn.
He presented the book for her signature and then took out the photo. When he did, there were many shouts from the employees that she would not sign it. Richard said, "I understand. I just wanted her to see it."
She took one look at the photo, tears welled up in her eyes and she said, "This is one of my gentlemen from Viet Nam and I most certainly will sign his photo. I know what these men did for their country and I always have time for 'my gentlemen.'' With that, she pulled Richard across the table and planted a big kiss on him. She then made quite a to-do about the bravery of the young men she met over the years, how much she admired them, and how much she appreciated them. There weren't too many dry eyes among those close enough to hear. She then posed for pictures and acted as if he were the only one there.
That night was a turning point for him. He walked a little straighter and, for the first time in years, was proud to have been a Vet. I'll never forget Ann Margaret for her graciousness and how much that small act of kindness meant to my husband.
Later at dinner, Richard was very quiet. When I asked if he'd like to talk about it, my big, strong husband broke down in tears.. ''That's the first time anyone ever thanked
me for my time in the Army,'' he said.
I now make it a point to say 'Thank you' to every person I come across who served in our Armed Forces. Freedom does not come cheap and I am grateful for all those who have served their country.
If you'd like to pass on this story, feel free to do so. Perhaps it will help others to become aware of how important it is to acknowledge the contribution our service people make.
A True Patriot Will Pass This On. A Foreigner In This Country Might Not.

Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

Articles: Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist
 


How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying "Eat the Rich." To me it wasn't a metaphor.
I voted Republican in the last presidential election.
Below are the top ten reasons I am no longer a leftist. This is not a rigorous comparison of theories. This list is idiosyncratic, impressionistic, and intuitive. It's an accounting of the milestones on my herky-jerky journey.
10) Huffiness.
In the late 1990s I was reading Anatomy of the Spirit, a then recent bestseller by Caroline Myss.
Myss described having lunch with a woman named Mary. A man approached Mary and asked her if she were free to do a favor for him on June 8th. No, Mary replied, I absolutely cannot do anything on June 8th because June 8th is my incest survivors' meeting and we never let each other down! They have suffered so much already! I would never betray incest survivors!
Myss was flabbergasted. Mary could have simply said "Yes" or "No."
Reading this anecdote, I felt that I was confronting the signature essence of my social life among leftists. We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.
I recently attended a training session for professors on a college campus. The presenter was a new hire in a tenure-track position. He opened his talk by telling us that he had received an invitation to share a festive meal with the president of the university. I found this to be an enviable occurrence and I did not understand why he appeared dramatically aggrieved. The invitation had been addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. X." Professor X was a bachelor. He felt slighted. Perhaps the person who had addressed his envelope had disrespected him because he is a member of a minority group.
Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists' announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.
Barack Obama is president. Kim and Kanye and Brad and Angelina are members of multiracial households. One might think that professors finally have cause to teach their students to be proud of America for overcoming racism. Not so fast, Professor X warned.  His talk was on microaggression, defined as slights that prove that America is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist, that is, discriminatory against handicapped people.
Professor X projected a series of photographs onto a large screen. In one, commuters in business suits, carrying briefcases, mounted a flight of stairs. This photo was an act of microaggression. After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can't climb stairs.
I appreciate Professor X's desire to champion the downtrodden, but identifying a photograph of commuters on stairs as an act of microaggression and evidence that America is still an oppressive hegemon struck me as someone going out of his way to live his life in a state of high dudgeon. On the other hand, Prof. X could have chosen to speak of his own working-class students with more respect.
Yes, there is a time and a place when it is absolutely necessary for a person to cultivate awareness of his own pain, or of others' pain. Doctors instruct patients to do this -- "Locate the pain exactly; calculate where the pain falls on a scale of one to ten; assess whether the pain is sharp, dull, fleeting, or constant." But doctors do this for a reason. They want the patient to heal, and to move beyond the pain. In the left, I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest, from one's history of incest to the inability of handicapped people to mount flights of stairs.
9) Selective Outrage
I was a graduate student. Female genital mutilation came up in class. I stated, without ornamentation, that it is wrong.
A fellow graduate student, one who was fully funded and is now a comfortably tenured professor, sneered at me. "You are so intolerant. Clitoredectomy is just another culture's rite of passage. You Catholics have confirmation."
When Mitt Romney was the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, he mentioned that, as Massachusetts governor, he proactively sought out female candidates for top jobs. He had, he said, "binders full of women." He meant, of course, that he stored resumes of promising female job candidates in three-ring binders.
Op-ed pieces, Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon posts erupted in a feeding frenzy, savaging Romney and the Republican Party for their "war on women."
I was an active leftist for decades. I never witnessed significant leftist outrage over clitoredectomy, child marriage, honor killing, sharia-inspired rape laws, stoning, or acid attacks. Nothing. Zip. Crickets. I'm not saying that that outrage does not exist. I'm saying I never saw it.
The left's selective outrage convinced me that much canonical, left-wing feminism is not so much support for women, as it is a protest against Western, heterosexual men. It's an "I hate" phenomenon, rather than an "I love" phenomenon.
8.) It's the thought that counts
My favorite bumper sticker in ultra-liberal Berkeley, California: "Think Globally; Screw up Locally." In other words, "Love Humanity but Hate People."
It was past midnight, back in the 1980s, in Kathmandu, Nepal. A group of Peace Corps volunteers were drinking moonshine at the Momo Cave. A pretty girl with long blond hair took out her guitar and sang these lyrics, which I remember by heart from that night:
"If you want your dream to be,
Build it slow and surely.
Small beginnings greater ends.
Heartfelt work grows purely."
I just googled these lyrics, thirty years later, and discovered that they are Donovan's San Damiano song, inspired by the life of St. Francis.
Listening to this song that night in the Momo Cave, I thought, that's what we leftists do wrong. That's what we've got to get right.
We focused so hard on our good intentions. Before our deployment overseas, Peace Corps vetted us for our idealism and "tolerance," not for our competence or accomplishments. We all wanted to save the world. What depressingly little we did accomplish was often erased with the next drought, landslide, or insurrection.
Peace Corps did not focus on the "small beginnings" necessary to accomplish its grandiose goals. Schools rarely ran, girls and low caste children did not attend, and widespread corruption guaranteed that all students received passing grades. Those students who did learn had no jobs where they could apply their skills, and if they rose above their station, the hereditary big men would sabotage them. Thanks to cultural relativism, we were forbidden to object to rampant sexism or the caste system. "Only intolerant oppressors judge others' cultures."
I volunteered with the Sisters of Charity. For them, I pumped cold water from a well and washed lice out of homeless people's clothing. The sisters did not want to save the world. Someone already had. The sisters focused on the small things, as their founder, Mother Teresa, advised, "Don't look for big things, just do small things with great love." Delousing homeless people's clothing was one of my few concrete accomplishments.
Back in 1975, after Hillary Rodham had followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, she helped create the state's first rape crisis hotline. She had her eye on the big picture. What was Hillary like in her one-on-one encounters?
Hillary served as the attorney to a 41-year-old, one of two men accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. The girl, a virgin before the assault, was in a coma for five days afterward. She was injured so badly she was told she'd never have children. In 2014, she is 52 years old, and she has never had children, nor has she married. She reports that she was afraid of men after the rape.
A taped interview with Clinton has recently emerged; on it Clinton makes clear that she thought her client was guilty, and she chuckles when reporting that she was able to set him free.  In a recent interview, the victim said that Hillary Clinton "took me through Hell" and "lied like a dog." "I think she wants to be a role model… but I don’t think she’s a role model at all," the woman said. "If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys."
Hillary had her eye on the all-caps resume bullet point: FOUNDS RAPE HOTLINE.
Hillary's chuckles when reminiscing about her legal victory suggest that, in her assessment, her contribution to the ruination of the life of a rape victim is of relatively negligible import.
7) Leftists hate my people.
I'm a working-class Bohunk. A hundred years ago, leftists loved us. We worked lousy jobs, company thugs shot us when we went on strike, and leftists saw our discontent as fuel for their fire.
Karl Marx promised the workers' paradise through an inevitable revolution of the proletariat. The proletariat is an industrial working class -- think blue-collar people working in mines, mills, and factories: exactly what immigrants like my parents were doing.
Polish-Americans participated significantly in a great victory, Flint, Michigan's 1937 sit-down strike. Italian-Americans produced Sacco and Vanzetti. Gus Hall was a son of Finnish immigrants.
In the end, though, we didn't show up for the Marxist happily ever after. We believed in God and we were often devout Catholics. Leftists wanted us to slough off our ethnic identities and join in the international proletarian brotherhood -- "Workers of the world, unite!" But we clung to ethnic distinctiveness. Future generations lost their ancestral ties, but they didn't adopt the IWW flag; they flew the stars and stripes. "Property is theft" is a communist motto, but no one is more house-proud than a first generation Pole who has escaped landless peasantry and secured his suburban nest.
Leftists felt that we jilted them at the altar. Leftists turned on us. This isn't just ancient history. In 2004, What's the Matter with Kansas? spent eighteen weeks on the bestseller lists. The premise of the book: working people are too stupid to know what's good for them, and so they vote conservative when they should be voting left. In England, the book was titled, What's the Matter with America?
We became the left's boogeyman: Joe Six-pack, Joe Hardhat. Though we'd been in the U.S. for a few short decades when the demonization began, leftists, in the academy, in media, and in casual speech, blamed working-class ethnics for American crimes, including racism and the "imperialist" war in Vietnam. See films like The Deer Hunter. Watch Archie Bunker on "All in the Family." Listen to a few of the Polack jokes that elitists pelted me with whenever I introduced myself at UC Berkeley.
Leftists freely label poor whites as "redneck," "white trash," "trailer trash," and "hillbilly." At the same time that leftists toss around these racist and classist slurs, they are so sanctimonious they forbid anyone to pronounce the N word when reading Mark Twain aloud. President Bill Clinton's advisor James Carville succinctly summed up leftist contempt for poor whites in his memorable quote, "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."
The left's visceral hatred of poor whites overflowed like a broken sewer when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. It would be impossible, and disturbing, to attempt to identify the single most offensive comment that leftists lobbed at Palin. One can report that attacks on Palin were so egregious that leftists themselves publicly begged that they cease; after all, they gave the left a bad name. The Reclusive Leftist blogged in 2009 that it was a "major shock" to discover "the extent to which so many self-described liberals actually despise working people." The Reclusive Leftist focuses on Vanity Fair journalist Henry Rollins. Rollins recommends that leftists "hate-fuck conservative women" and denounces Palin as a "small town hickoid" who can be bought off with a coupon to a meal at a chain restaurant.
Smearing us is not enough. Liberal policies sabotage us. Affirmative action benefits recipients by color, not by income. Even this limited focus fails. In his 2004 Yale University Press study, Thomas Sowell insists that affirmative action helps only wealthier African Americans. Poor blacks do not benefit. In 2009, Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford demonstrated that poor, white Christians are underrepresented on elite college campuses. Leftists add insult to injury. A blue-collar white kid, who feels lost and friendless on the alien terrain of a university campus, a campus he has to leave immediately after class so he can get to his fulltime job at MacDonald's, must accept that he is a recipient of "white privilege" – if he wants to get good grades in mandatory classes on racism.
The left is still looking for its proletariat. It supports mass immigration for this reason. Harvard's George Borjas, himself a Cuban immigrant, has been called "America’s leading immigration economist." Borjas points out that mass immigration from Latin America has sabotaged America's working poor.
It's more than a little bit weird that leftists, who describe themselves as the voice of the worker, select workers as their hated other of choice, and targets of their failed social engineering.
6) I believe in God.
Read Marx and discover a mythology that is irreconcilable with any other narrative, including the Bible. Hang out in leftist internet environments, and you will discover a toxic bath of irrational hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition. You will discover an alternate vocabulary in which Jesus is a "dead Jew on a stick" or a "zombie" and any belief is an arbitrary sham, the equivalent of a recently invented "flying spaghetti monster." You will discover historical revisionism that posits Nazism as a Christian denomination. You will discover a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization and American concepts of individual rights and law. You will discover a nihilist void, the kind of vacuum of meaning that nature abhors and that, all too often, history fills with the worst totalitarian nightmares, the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem.
5 & 4) Straw men and "In order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs."
It astounds me now to reflect on it, but never, in all my years of leftist activism, did I ever hear anyone articulate accurately the position of anyone to our right. In fact, I did not even know those positions when I was a leftist.
"Truth is that which serves the party." The capital-R revolution was such a good, it could eliminate all that was bad, that manipulating facts was not even a venial sin; it was a good. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. One of those eggs was objective truth.
Ron Kuby is a left-wing radio talk show host on New York's WABC. He plays the straw man card hourly. If someone phones in to question affirmative action – shouldn't such programs benefit recipients by income, rather than by skin color? – Kuby opens the fire hydrant. He is shrill. He is bombastic. He accuses the caller of being a member of the KKK. He paints graphic word pictures of the horrors of lynching and the death of Emmett Till and asks, "And you support that?"
Well of course THE CALLER did not support that, but it is easier to orchestrate a mob in a familiar rendition of righteous rage against a sensationalized straw man than it is to produce a reasoned argument against a reasonable opponent.
On June 16, 2014, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a column alleging that a peaceful Muslim was nearly verbally lynched by violent Islamophobes at a Heritage Foundation-hosted panel. What Milbank described was despicable. Unfortunately for Milbank and the Washington Post's credibility, someone filmed the event and posted the film on YouTube. Panel discussants, including Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel, made important points in a courteous manner. Saba Ahmed, the peaceful Muslim, is a "family friend" of a bombing plotter who expressed a specific desire to murder children. It soon became clear that Milbank was, as one blogger put it, "making stuff up."
Milbank slanders anyone who might attempt analysis of jihad, a force that is currently cited in the murder of innocents -- including Muslims -- from Nigeria to the Philippines. The leftist strategy of slandering those who speak uncomfortable facts suppresses discourse and has a devastating impact on confrontations with truth in journalism and on college campuses.
2 & 3) It doesn't work.  Other approaches work better.
I went to hear David Horowitz speak in 2004. My intention was to heckle him. Horowitz said something that interrupted my flow of thought. He pointed out that Camden, Paterson, and Newark had decades of Democratic leadership.
Ouch.
I grew up among "Greatest Generation" Americans who had helped build these cities. One older woman told me, "As soon as I got my weekly paycheck, I rushed to Main Ave in Paterson, and my entire paycheck ended up on my back, in a new outfit." In the 1950s and 60s, my parents and my friends' parents fled deadly violence in Newark and Paterson.
Within a few short decades, Paterson, Camden, and Newark devolved into unlivable slums, with shooting deaths, drug deals, and garbage-strewn streets. The pain that New Jerseyans express about these failed cities is our state's open wound.
I live in Paterson. I teach its young. My students are hogtied by ignorance. I find myself speaking to young people born in the U.S. in a truncated pidgin I would use with a train station chai wallah in Calcutta.
Many of my students lack awareness of a lot more than vocabulary. They don't know about believing in themselves, or stick-to-itiveness. They don't realize that the people who exercise power over them have faced and overcome obstacles. I know they don't know these things because they tell me. One student confessed that when she realized that one of her teachers had overcome setbacks it changed her own life.
My students do know -- because they have been taught this -- that America is run by all-powerful racists who will never let them win. My students know -- because they have been drilled in this -- that the only way they can get ahead is to locate and cultivate those few white liberals who will pity them and scatter crumbs on their supplicant, bowed heads and into their outstretched palms. My students have learned to focus on the worst thing that ever happened to them, assume that it happened because America is unjust, and to recite that story, dirge-like, to whomever is in charge, from the welfare board to college professors, and to await receipt of largesse.
As Shelby Steele so brilliantly points out in his book White Guilt, the star of the sob story my students tell in exchange for favors is very much not the black aid recipient. The star of this story, still, just as before the Civil Rights Movement that was meant to change who got to take the lead in American productions, was the white man. The generous white liberal still gets top billing.
In Dominque La Pierre's 1985 novel City of Joy, a young American doctor, Max Loeb, confesses that serving the poor in a slum has changed his mind forever about what might actually improve their lot. "In a slum an exploiter is better than a Santa Claus… An exploiter forces you to react, whereas a Santa Claus demobilizes you."
That one stray comment from David Horowitz, a man I regarded as the enemy, sparked the slow but steady realization that my ideals, the ideals I had lived by all my life, were poisoning my students and Paterson, my city.
After I realized that our approaches don't work, I started reading about other approaches. I had another Aha! moment while listening to a two minute twenty-three second YouTube video of Milton Friedman responding to Phil Donahue's castigation of greed. The only rational response to Friedman is "My God, he's right."
1) Hate.
If hate were the only reason, I'd stop being a leftist for this reason alone.
Almost twenty years ago, when I could not conceive of ever being anything but a leftist, I joined a left-wing online discussion forum.
Before that I'd had twenty years of face-to-face participation in leftist politics: marching, organizing, socializing.
In this online forum, suddenly my only contact with others was the words those others typed onto a screen. That limited and focused means of contact revealed something.
If you took all the words typed into the forum every day and arranged them according to what part of speech they were, you'd quickly notice that nouns expressing the emotions of anger, aggression, and disgust, and verbs speaking of destruction, punishing, and wreaking vengeance, outnumbered any other class of words.
One topic thread was entitled "What do you view as disgusting about modern America?" The thread was begun in 2002. Almost eight thousand posts later, the thread was still going strong in June, 2014.
Those posting messages in this left-wing forumpublicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace. Thus, when Obama bombed, you didn't hold any anti-war rally, because you didn't hate Obama.
I experienced powerful cognitive dissonance when I recognized the hate. The rightest of my right-wing acquaintances -- I had no right-wing friends -- expressed nothing like this. My right-wing acquaintances talked about loving: God, their family, their community. I'm not saying that the right-wingers I knew were better people; I don't know that they were. I'm speaking here, merely, about language.
In 1995 I developed a crippling illness. I couldn't work, lost my life savings, and traveled through three states, from surgery to surgery.
A left-wing friend, Pete, sent me emails raging against Republicans like George Bush, whom he referred to as "Bushitler." The Republicans were to blame because they opposed socialized medicine. In fact it's not at all certain that socialized medicine would have helped; the condition I had is not common and there was no guaranteed treatment.
I visited online discussion forums for others with the same affliction. One of my fellow sufferers, who identified himself as a successful corporate executive in New Jersey, publicly announced that the symptoms were so hideous, and his helpless slide into poverty was so much not what his wife had bargained for when she married him, that he planned to take his own life. He stopped posting after that announcement, though I responded to his post and requested a reply. It is possible that he committed suicide, exactly as he said he would -- car exhaust in the garage. I suddenly realized that my "eat the rich" lapel button was a sin premised on a lie.
In any case, at the time I was diagnosed, Bush wasn't president; Clinton was. And, as I pointed out to Pete, his unceasing and vehement expressions of hatred against Republicans did nothing for me.
I had a friend, a nun, Mary Montgomery, one of the Sisters of Providence, who took me out to lunch every six months or so, and gave me twenty-dollar Target gift cards on Christmas. Her gestures to support someone, rather than expressions of hate against someone -- even though these gestures were miniscule and did nothing to restore me to health -- meant a great deal to me.
Recently, I was trying to explain this aspect of why I stopped being a leftist to a left-wing friend, Julie. She replied, "No, I'm not an unpleasant person. I try to be nice to everybody."
"Julie," I said, "You are an active member of the Occupy Movement. You could spend your days teaching children to read, or visiting the elderly in nursing homes, or organizing cleanup crews in a garbage-strewn slum. You don't. You spend your time protestingand trying to destroy something -- capitalism."
"Yes, but I'm very nice about it," she insisted. "I always protest with a smile."
Pete is now a Facebook friend and his feed overflows with the anger that I'm sure he assesses as righteous. He protests against homophobic Christians, American imperialists, and Monsanto. I don't know if Pete ever donates to an organization he believes in, or a person suffering from a disease, or if he ever says comforting things to afflicted intimates. I know he hates.
I do have right-wing friends now and they do get angry and they do express that anger. But when I encounter unhinged, stratospheric vituperation, when I encounter detailed revenge fantasies in scatological and sadistic language, I know I've stumbled upon a left-wing website.
Given that the left prides itself on being the liberator of women, homosexuals, and on being "sex positive," one of the weirder and most obvious aspects of left-wing hate is how often, and how virulently, it is expressed in terms that are misogynist, homophobic, and in the distinctive anti-sex voice of a sexually frustrated high-school misfit. Haters are aware enough of how uncool it would be to use a slur like "fag," so they sprinkle their discourse with terms indicating anal rape like "butt hurt." Leftists taunt right-wingers as "tea baggers." The implication is that the target of their slur is either a woman or a gay man being orally penetrated by a man, and is, therefore, inferior, and despicable.
Misogynist speech has a long tradition on the left. In 1964, Stokely Carmichael said that the only position for women in the Civil Rights Movement was "prone." Carmichael's misogyny is all the more outrageous given the very real role of women like Rosa Parks, Viola Liuzzo, and Fannie Lou Hamer.
In 2012 atheist bloggers Jennifer McCreight and Natalie Reed exposed the degree to which misogyny dominates the New Atheist movement. McCreight quoted a prominent atheist's reply to a woman critic. "I will make you a rape victim if you don't fuck off... I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow… Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your asshole… I'm going to rape you with my fist."
A high-profile example of leftist invective was delivered by MSNBC's Martin Bashir in late 2013. Bashir said, on air and in a rehearsed performance, not as part of a moment's loss of control, something so vile about Sarah Palin that I won't repeat it here. Extreme as it is, Bashir's comment is fairly representative of a good percentage of what I read on left-wing websites.
I could say as much about a truly frightening phenomenon, left-wing anti-Semitism, but I'll leave the topic to others better qualified. I can say that when I first encountered it, at a PLO fundraising party in Marin County, I felt as if I had time-traveled to pre-war Berlin.
I needed to leave the left, I realized, when I decided that I wanted to spend time with people building, cultivating, and establishing, something that they loved.

So, I'm a liberal.

 So, I'm a liberal.

I have an old friend who posted the following declaring why she is a liberal. I’ve copied it here due to the fact that I believe this group to be one of the most well informed I’ve ever been a part of. I am preparing a response to her ‘open letter’ and would appreciate any insight any of you may have.
There are sixteen points she’s made here so don’t feel as if you have to say something about everyone of them.
Thanks
***********************************************
Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: Not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period.
2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.
3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.
5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.
6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.
7. I am not anti-Christian, I simply believe in separation of State and Church. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.
8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.
9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).
10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.
11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.
12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.
13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun. (Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine).
14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?
15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.
16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. We should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t we be?
I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.
So, I'm a liberal.