Mark Steyn: ‘Demography explains most of everything’ [video]

Mark Steyn tells Tucker Carlson: “I’m a demography bore”

That comment was in response to the latest (this time failed) terror attack in a Brussels train station yesterday.

He went on to say: “Demography explains most of everything.”

Yes, agreed Carlson.

Steyn related his comment as  well to the close Georgia House race yesterday to explain that demographic changes in Georgia made it possible for a progressive to even think he had a chance to pull off an upset there.  (Georgia is a leading refugee resettlement state, btw).

Steyn told Carlson in a two minute portion of a longer segment that when your city (in this case Brussels) is 25% Muslim because your country has made the fatal mistake to think that you can replace an aging population with a hostile culture, the country will see increased tension and chaos.  In my view, it will ultimately collapse into an Islamic state.

Carlson asked about Japan, and Steyn told him that Japan has chosen to NOT invite in the third world, that saving their unique Japanese culture was more important to them.  Only time will tell if the Japanese (and the Poles, the Czechs and the Hungarians) can do it.

As I have said repeatedly, only one way to save western societies (and countries like Japan), in addition to limiting immigration, encourage our women to have babies—lots and lots of babies!

Here is the video from last night’s show:

For the Steyn demography segment begin at the 8:20 mark.

If you have never read America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It  by Mark Steyn, you must. Steyn’s 2006 predictions are coming true.

Handel wins handily, Democrats 0 for 4, pollsters wrong again

In an article titled Heavily Funded Democrat Falls Short as Georgia House Seat Stays Republican The Daily Signal’s Rachel del Guidice reports:

Republican Karen Handel soundly defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff in Tuesday’s closely watched, historically expensive race for the congressional seat once held by GOP superstar Newt Gingrich.

Handel, 55, a businesswoman who was Georgia’s secretary of state, had 127,021 votes or 53 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

Ossoff, 30, a documentary filmmaker and former congressional aide who does not live in the House district, had 114,390 votes or 47 percent.

Polls had the race going down to the wire.

Ossoff out spent Handel by a margin of 7 to 1 and lost by 6%. Ossoff spent $200 for every vote he received. It’s the message not the money. President Trump’s message resonates as do his tweets supporting Handel. Presidential tweets cost Republicans nothing but win elections.

Additionally, conservative businessman Ralph Norman (R-SC) defeated liberal Archie Parnell (D-SC) in the special election for Congress in South Carolina’s 5th district.

There are four takeaway points from these four races:

  1. Trump and his make America great again agenda is a winner for Republicans.
  2. Money is no longer king when it comes to winning elections.
  3. The political pollsters still can’t get it right when it comes to predicting election outcomes.
  4. The Democrat Party is in big trouble and needs to rethink what it is doing at the local level. They are out of touch and out of office.

“This is a huge win for conservatives,” Cole Muzio, president of the Family Policy Alliance of Georgia, told The Daily Signal in an email. “A record-setting fundraising haul, busloads of out-of-state volunteers, and national unity around Jon Ossoff could not convince Georgians to vote against their own interests.”

There have been four hotly contested special elections where Democrats have lost. They have lost because voters are voting “in their own interests.” It’s the economy stupid, not Russia.

This race is just another indicator that President Trump’s agenda is in tune with voters. The question is will the Republican congress deliver on repealing and replacing Obamacare, lower taxes, eliminate the regulatory burden on businesses and build the wall.

If Republicans do what they promised the 2018 midterm elections will see America turn deep red.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

White House Pushes Trump Priorities Before Congressional Recess

Ryan Shares Vision for Tax Reform, Pledges Action in 2017

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Republican candidate Karen Handel thanking supporters in Atlanta as the first returns come in Tuesday night in her win over Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. (Photo: Curtis Compton/TNS /Newscom)

Hillary 2.0

Hillary Clinton’s political career is finally dead (we hope)…..but now we brace for the rise of Chelsea Clinton. More Clinton corruption guaranteed.

Only One Political Party Incites Violence

In response to a radicalized Leftist domestic terrorist shooting Republicans at a baseball practice, fake news media said both sides of the political aisle are guilty of inciting violence and should tone down their rhetoric. Disturbingly, in an attempt to sound bipartisan, conservative voices are parroting fake news media’s lie.

This both-sides-are-guilty-lie offends me folks. I have been a black Tea Party activist since 2009; spoken and performed my “American Tea Party Anthem” at over 500 rallies on 14 nationwide bus tours.

Never, I repeat never, have I witnessed language inciting violence coming from the stage or spoken in the crowds. The attendees were hard working salt-of-the-earth Americans. Many of them voted for Obama, but did not vote for him to drive us down the road to socialism.

As a matter of fact, rally organizers were extremely sensitive not to take our disagreement with the president too far. While performing on stage at a rally, I spotted a gentleman in the audience wearing an Obama vampire mask. I thought it was funny and pulled the guy on stage. Immediately, rally management escorted the guy off the stage and later reprimanded me.

While black attendance at Tea Party rallies grew over the years, in the beginning my black face was rare. Attendees repeatedly apologized to me explaining that they opposed Obama’s agenda and not his skin color. Bottom line, Tea Party attendees were good people who loved their country. They simply were opposed to Obama’s vow to fundamentally transform America away from her divinely inspired founding.

And yet, for 8 years, fake news media successfully branded the Tea Party the new KKK in the minds of low-info-voters.

In life there are good guys and bad guys. As a kid, I babysat my siblings after school until mom and dad came home from work. Jerry played in our bedroom building things. Just to be annoying, David would break whatever Jerry built which led to them fighting. Hearing mom’s key in the front door, they would greet her pleading their case. Tired, mom would punish both boys for fighting. I’d say, “But mom that is not fair. Jerry was minding his own business. David is the bad guy.”

Leftists are the bad guys who relentlessly spew hate 24/7, generating violence upon the America flag, whites, cops, Republicans, Conservatives, the rich, achievers and Trump supporters. Trust me folks, conservatives simply do not do that. For 8 years, the GOP was for the most part silent; submissive to fake news media’s ruling that negative comments and opposing Obama was racist.

Leftists’ radicalization begins as early as preschool. Public schools teach white kids that they are born racist, that they owe blacks and they should feel guilty because of their “white privilege“.

Black students are taught white Americans are instinctively racist, the deck is stacked against them and cops murder them practically on sight. Remember Democrats’ despicable ad telling blacks to vote or buy bulletproof vests for their kids to protect them from racist cops?

For far too long, anti-American 1960’s old hippies have dominated public education, teaching our kids that patriotism is racist and America is the greatest source of evil on the planet. 

After decades of filling American’s heads with hate-filled lies, Leftists act shocked when their disciples act-out violently; gunning down Republicans, Black Lives Matter assassinating police and attacking people for wearing “Make America Great Again” caps and t-shirts. 

It is not the nature of conservatives to disrespect our laws. Leftists routinely protest outside of the law, cuss-out and physically attack anyone who disagrees with them.http://bit.ly/2aWycvp

As a seasoned black Conservative activist, it has been my experience that our side desires equal rights for all Americans. We conduct orderly respectful protests, leaving rally sites cleaner than we found them. To divide Americans into angry voting blocs, Democrats tell women, homosexuals, minorities and underachievers that they are victims of America. At Leftist protest events, they f-bomb Trump from the stage and routinely destroy private property. They typically leave mountains of trash after inciting their attendees to commit violence. Leftists outrageously marched on a NY street chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!” Conservatives could never conceive of doing such an evil thing. That is not how our side rolls.

It is foolish for Conservatives to nod in agreement with Leftists that say both sides are guilty of inciting violence and must modify their tone. This lie is another case of Leftists exploiting a tragedy to demonize and silence conservative speech. Conservatives must continue fearlessly telling the truth in love to educate low-info-voters and help Trump make America great again.

PROJECT VERITAS VIDEO: Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

HuffPo Scrambles to Scrub Website Piece on Executing Donald Trump

The Huffington Post scrambled to pull a piece about executing President Donald Trump, written by contributor Jason Fuller, from its website, after a shooting attack at an Alexandria, Virginia, ball field left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise in serious condition, and an aide to another Republican lawmaker, along with two Capitol Hill police, wounded by gun fire.

A Huffington Post writer called for the executive of President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

The shooting seemed a target on Republicans, given the anti-Trump postings of the now-dead shooter, James Hodgkinson.

The HuffPo piece, titled “Impeachment Is No Longer Enough: Donald Trump Must Face Justice,” was published June 11.

And it read, in part, like this:

“Trump’s impeachment and removal from office are no longer enough,” the HuffPo contributor wrote. “Draining the swamp means not only ejecting Trump from the presidency, but also bringing himself and everyone assisting in his agenda up on charges of treason. They must be convicted (there is little room to doubt their guilt). And then —  upon receiving guilty verdicts  —  they must all be executed under the law. Anything less than capital punishment  — or at least life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security detention facility  — would send yet another message to the world that America has lost its moral compass.”

Fuller also called for similar actions against Republican leadership.

“Nothing would do more than to convict them of the highest offense defined by our Constitution, and then to deliver the ultimate punishment. Donald Trump deserves nothing less,” the author wrote. “Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, and Paul Ryan should also share Donald Trump’s fate, for they have done more than practically anyone to protect him and to throw our country under the proverbial bus. In order to survive, we as a nation must deliver the ultimate punishment under the law to all involved in its current destruction.”

The HuffPo pulled the piece in the aftermath of the Alexandria shooting. But The Daily Caller found it and ran it on its own website.

Fuller, meanwhile, showed litte remorse.

He wrote, on Medium:

“What appears to have garnered the most vitriol was my opinion that President Trump and his co-conspirators within the government should be executed for treason if found guilty in a court of law. …

“‘In other words: I want President Trump to be fully investigated, face the charges of treason, and then executed under the law should a guilty verdict be attained. […] I 100 percent stand behind every word that I wrote and make no attempts to apologize or to appease the Trump supporters who are unable to comprehend those words.’

RELATED ARTICLE: The ‘Resistance’ is using any and all means — lies, leaks, lawbreaking, and violence — to overturn the results of the 2016 election

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Common Sense Soapbox: Don’t Be PC, Be Polite by Seamus Coughlin and Sean Malone

As someone who fights on the side of free speech, I’m the first to tell ya, we do have a tendency to strawman political correctness. You may have heard things like “them snowflakes just don’t like being ‘fended” or “they want to suppress the truth!” and though I agree in PC cultures worst form all these things are true, those aren’t the actual arguments they make.

So let me arm you with the intellectual tools you need to successfully contribute to the discussion! And if you’re PC, listen with an open mind- maybe I can change it.

One argument they actually make is that “political correctness” is just a bogeyman term invented to lash out against polite society without seeming crude or uncivil. That what we call “political correctness” is actually politeness, and we just don’t wanna be polite!

But this is just plain wrong. There’s a difference between being PC and being polite, and I can prove it! Let’s look at an example: Jim and Jill.

The Motivations to Be Polite vs. PC

Jill doesn’t like racist humor because it offends others, and she doesn’t want to be a jerk. Jill is polite. Jim doesn’t like racist humor because he believes problematic social attitudes inadvertently contribute to the upholding of systemic power structures that strengthen systemic bigotry and subconsciously influence us to commit acts of violence.

Let me break it down. Jim believes when you say bad words, you contribute to negative social attitudes which cause others to commit acts of violence. For example, trans people have a high suicide rate. When you question modern gender theory, misgender somebody, or commit another similar microaggression, you contribute to a culture which marginalizes non-gender-conforming people, and increases their suicide rate.

This may sound convincing – until you realize this logic can be applied to any group if you’re willing to make the same kinds of assumptions. Veterans and soldiers have a very high suicide rate and aren’t well cared for. But we can still criticize US foreign policy and military action. We even burn flags.

Young men have a very high suicide rate as well. Should male-bashing be a hate crime? We can do all the same mental gymnastics to make either case, and whether or not you’re taken in by them, it’s clear that the motivations for being PC and just being polite are different.

Jill doesn’t want to upset or alienate anyone with her language. Jim believes stumbling across improper uses of language is tantamount to violence.

Jill is a nice person. Jim is an ideologue.

Jill is polite. Jim is PC.

Jill: I’m polite.

Jim: And I’m PC. You know, there’s no difference between us, really.

Jill: I don’t know about that. I mean I want people to be polite, I don’t wanna ban impolite speech.

Jim: Neither do I, that’s just an insane strawman argument. Name ONE country where PC folks have gotten ANY forms of speech banned.

Jill: You mean besides Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland…

Don’t be PC. Be polite!

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin is a comedy writer and animator with a deep interest in politics and morality. A good deal of his work can be found on the FreedomToons YouTube channel.

Sean Malone

Sean Malone

Sean Malone is the Director of Media at FEE. His films have been featured in the mainstream media and throughout the free-market educational community.

Threatening Powder-Filled Letters sent to Republican Karen Handel’s Neighborhood

The left has declared war. The time is fast approaching ……

The D-hajids are emulating their brother-in-arms, the jihadis.

POWDER-FILLED LETTERS WITH THREATENING NOTES SHUT DOWN GEORGIA REPUBLICAN’S NEIGHBORHOOD

‘YOUR NEIGHBOR KAREN HANDEL IS A DIRTY FASCIST … TAKE A WHIFF OF THE POWDER’

BY: Brent ScherFollow @brentscher

Police have blocked off Georgia Republican Karen Handel’s neighborhood after reports that letters containing a white powdery substance and calling Handel a “dirty fascist” were left at homes of her neighbors.

Cops have been going from mailbox to mailbox after finding the “suspicious package,” according to local reports, which also indicate that Roswell police continue to flood to the area.

A neighborhood resident posted a picture of the contents of the envelope. She told the Washington Free Beacon that several letters were distributed and that they contained white powder.

The content of the threatening letter, posted below, contains graphic language.

“Your neighbor Karen Handel is a dirty fascist cunt but I’m sure you already knew that,” the letter says, according to a picture. “Take a whiff of the powder and join her in the hospital you Bourgeoisie motherfuckers.”

“RESIST THE FASCIST TAKEOVER!!!!,” it says. ” STRING UP THE COLLABORATORS!”

Photo of letter posted to Facebook

The situation is being monitored by local WSB-TV by a helicopter.

Handel acknowledged the reports and said her campaign was coordinating with local law enforcement.

“This afternoon we had some suspicious packages delivered to our house and to our neighbors,” Handel said. “The packages contained threatening letters and a suspicious substance. The police were quickly notified and street is now being blocked off. We will continue to coordinate with law enforcement as necessary.”

The incident comes a day after a politically motivated shooting on Republicans practicing for Thursday’s congressional baseball game.

Among the Republicans targeted by the shooters social media rants was Handel, who was labeled by the man as a “Republican bitch.”

“Republican Bitch Wants People to Work for Slave Wages, when a Livable Wage is the Only Way to Go! Vote Blue, It’s Right for You!” James Hodgkinson wrote on Facebook.

Handel responded to the information about Hodgkinson by saying that it is time to “work together in a civil and productive way.”

“I am aware that the suspect recently made vile comments about me on social media,” Handel said in her statement. “It also appears that the suspect targeted members of Congress specifically because he disagreed with their views.”

“We should not allow our political differences to escalate to violent attacks. We must all refuse to allow the politics of our country to be defined in this way,” she said. “Now more than ever, we must unite as a one nation under God. It is incumbent upon all of us to work together in a civil and productive way, even when we disagree.”

Update 4:04 p.m.This piece was updated to reflect comment from Handel.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Georgia. Bookmark the permalink.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Mainstream Media is the Public Relations Firm for Russian Intelligence

The mainstream media has become obsessed with the made up story of “collusion” between Trump and Russia, though there has been absolutely no evidence presented to substantiate such intense coverage.

In a lot of ways, an objective observer could make the case that mainstream media (MSM) is actually colluding with the Russian government.

But before I lay out my case, let’s set the stage.

So-called journalists that work in MSM argue that they are the arbiters of the truth and the guardians of our democracy. Their mission from God, in their narcissistic view, is to protect American’s free speech and keep the government in check.

Let me make this perfectly clear: MSM is not an integral part of our democracy; MSM journalists are not the arbiters of truth. The American people are the only integral part of our democracy and the final arbiters of the truth. We don’t need a biased middleman.

I graduated from Oral Roberts University with a degree in tax accounting. When I worked in corporate America, I was bound by the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA); those standards were my Bible for all things accounting.

Likewise, journalists are “supposed” to be governed by the principle established by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). But of course, journalists in MSM believe they are not bound by the standards delineated therein.

I wrote about this last October, when I critiqued MSMs coverage of the presidential campaign last year. It was discovered that journalists from CNN, New York Times, POLITICO etc., were shown to be aiding and abetting the Clinton campaign and were never pulled off the campaign beat. This was proven through emails sent from the reporters to the Clinton campaign and revealed by WikiLeaks; not with “anonymous” sources.

Recently, I have written several columns explaining how Russia has unleashed a psychological operations (PSY-OPS) campaign on the American people and the mainstream media has been in direct collusion with them.

MSM has been using Russian officials as some of their anonymous sources. Yeah, you heard right, Russian officials. This is how ridiculous Russia’s pys-ops campaign has gotten. The Russians are good.
The story goes like this: MSNBC reports that The New York Times is reporting that an anonymous source tells their reporter, that Jared Kushner is a person of interest in the FBI probe into possible collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia.

Do you have a headache yet? I do. Furthermore, there is absolutely no such legal term in law enforcement as a person of interest! Either you are under investigation or you are not.

More importantly, MSM and their sanctimonious reporters are in total violation of their own code of journalistic ethics, not that MSM ever had any.

According to the SPJ, “The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.” Their four principles are: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent.

How many journalists can say with a straight face that the mainstream media has lived up to these standards?

Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy issued an interesting study in May. The center analyzed coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in the MSM.

A few of their findings were: CNN’s coverage was 93 percent negative, NBC was 93 percent negative, and CBS was 91 percent negative. The New York Times was 87 percent negative, The Washington Post was 83 percent negative, and The Wall Street Journal was 70 percent negative.

Juxtapose that with other facts from the study. Obama got 41 percent negative stories during his first 100 days; G.W. Bush received 57 percent negative coverage, and Clinton received 60 percent negative.

The study didn’t survey any Black media outlets, but I know from personal experience that many of them are far worse than the mainstream media.

Radical leftist Black media like The Root, The Grio, TV One, The Tom Joyner Morning Show are all part of the Democratic National Committee for all practical purposes. Did you know that The Root is owned by Univision Communications and that the company’s chairman is an ardent Clintonite?

Yes, you heard right, The Root—a website which is supposed to be the quintessential platform for Black intellectual thought from the diverse perspectives in the Black community—is run by a company that largely caters to Hispanics.

So, we now have empirical data the supports Trump’s theory of a “dishonest media.”

This whole debate about alleged Russian collusion with Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton is simply the Russians showing everyone that they control the American media, when it comes to how the media covers the Trump Administration. MSM has become the personal public relations firm of record for Russian intelligence.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Black Press USA.

FBI offered Russian bribes to say he hacked DNC Emails for Trump

While the criminal witch hunt against our President continues apace over the nonexistent collusion between Trump with Russia, here’s a blockbuster front page news story virtually ignored by the elite enemedia. The FBI offered a Russian hacker cash and citizenship if he would confess to hacking Hillary Clinton’s email for Trump. There was just one problem: he hadn’t.

These rogue Obama plants within the FBI and other agencies, who are even trying to fabricate evidence to frame Trump, must be removed and prosecuted, or they could be the death of the American republic.

“FBI Probe Into Clinton Emails Prompted Offer of Cash, Citizenship for Confession, Russian Hacker Claims,” by Tom O’Connor, Newsweek, May 11, 2017:

A Russian citizen accused of being a hacker by both Russia and the U.S. has claimed U.S. officials offered to cut him a deal if he admitted to interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

Yevgeniy Nikulin, 29, has found himself in the middle of an international dispute between Washington and Moscow, at the very center of which lies U.S. allegations that Russia sponsored a series of hacks targeting Democratic Party candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in favor of Republican candidate and current President Donald Trump. On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an infiltration of Democratic Party officials’ emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried to pin the email scandal on him.

Nikulin was detained in the Czech Republic for allegedly hacking the servers of major sites LinkedIn, Dropbox and Formspring between 2012 and 2013. While awaiting trial, he claims in an undated letter reportedly given to U.S. Russian-language news site Nastoyashchoe Vremya by Nikulin’s lawyer, Martin Sadilek, that the FBI visited him at least a couple of times, offering to drop the charges and grant him U.S. citizenship as well as cash and an apartment in the U.S. if the Russian national confessed to participating in the 2016 hacks of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta’s emails in July.

Trump initially dismissed allegations of Russian involvement in the election, but has since reversed his position, while denying any personal connection to the hacks. Moscow has vehemently denied interfering in the 2016 election.

“[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Nikulin wrote, according to The Moscow Times.

Nikulin said he refused the deal, but U.S. officials threatened to return. He claims the visits occurred in mid-November 2016 and on February 7 of this year. Czech television has reported at least one FBI visit earlier this year, according to The Guardian, which cited an FBI spokesperson as saying the agency was “aware of the situation,” but declining further comment. The FBI is seeking to extradite Nikulin to face trial in the U.S., something he and his lawyers are trying to fight.

While the U.S. has not publicly acknowledged any connection between Nikulin and the Russian election hacking controversy, Nikulin’s arrest did attract the attention of Moscow. Nikulin is accused by Russia of hacking into and stealing from online WebMoney accounts. The Moscow-based online money transfer system claims 31 million users around the world and Nikulin is charged with stealing $3,450 in 2009, according to the state-owned Tass Russian News Agency. Moscow has also filed an extradition request.

Nikulin, a self-described used car salesman who claims he does not work with computers, denies the charges raised against him by both the U.S. and Moscow. His Czech lawyer, Adam Kopecky, said in January he and Nikulin believed the Russian national was being used as a “political pawn” amid an international feud between Washington and Moscow, according to The Guardian….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: Syrian Muslim refugee (father of six) going to trial for sexually assaulting 6 little girls in public pool

March Against Sharia vs. Pro-Sharia Anarchists – June 10, 2017 – NYC

#War: Powder-Filled Letters With Threatening Notes Shut Down Georgia Republican’s Neighborhood

New German Initiative for the Balkans Exposed As Plot to Eradicate Nation States in Europe

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

The Coming Civil War

The left has been at war against America for decades. The right represents those of us who favor individual freedom and capitalism — and the left are those who want government controls and socialism.

Political violence became an essential and successful means of leftist warfare in the 60’s, the decade of destruction. The success of the violent “student rebellion” in 1964 and the so-called Free Speech Movement has set the table for the left’s warmongering and treason. It was clear from the outset that the “student revolution” violently ushered in at Berkeley in the mid-sixties would come to this. The left is evil, and they mean to destroy our way of life, our freedom and us. It took decades to norm their anti-Americanism, their hatred of freedom and individual rights, but they have reached their tipping point. And the long beaten and battered among us have had it.

The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physical intimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions. (Ayn Rand)

We fought a civil war against the Democrat slave-party. And they have risen and seek to enslave us again. We will not go silently into that cold dark night. We will have to fight this civil war again.

The left is going for the kill — literally. Their target is the most powerful office in the world — the Presidency.

President Trump was elected by Americans who oppose the left-wing coup and are fed up with living under the left’s oppressive boot. Trump is our proxy. We fought back the non-violent way — through the ballot box. From the moment he was elected, the left refused to accept the will of the people. This Russian witchhunt is an “illegal and and unconstitutional mutiny.”

One of the Republican Party’s most distinguished statesmen recently told a closed gathering that a “cold coup” is underway against the president.

One of many coups — legal, cultural, political, violent ….

The Trump-Russia collusion story is nonsense, as its disseminators know better than anyone else. The object of the exercise is not to support the innuendo, but to launch an investigation which can provoke the White House into responses that might be construed as illegal. The intelligence leaks involved in framing the story alone are probably sufficient grounds to put several dozen senior officials in federal prison for double-digit terms. That consideration gauges the scale of the problem: the mutineers have committed multiple felonies, and their downside should the mutiny go wrong is not ignominious retirement but hard time at Leavenworth.

For the moment, the mutineers have the momentum. The Trump administration continues to run on a skeleton staff, with the vast majority of key positions still unoccupied. If my surmise is correct, it was unable to persuade the director of the FBI, the nation’s chief watchdog, to undertake vigorous countermeasures against the mutiny, for example, a comprehensive screening of electronic communications by the reporters who received leaks of classified materials. (more here).

The right has played nice for much too long. Last night, Laura Loomer took to the stage in Central Park and interrupted the Broadway production of Julius Caesar, a play by William Shakespeare that had been politically altered to feature the assassination of U.S. President Donald Trump.

At the moment when Trump was being gleefully murdered — an applause moment for America’s left-wing entertainment elites — Laura jumped on stage and condemned the play for normalizing political violence.

Laura was arrested held by police. The theatre company, by contrast, continues to produce their snuff show, glamorizing and normalizing violent terrorism in America. (more here)

“Stop the normalization of political violence against the right. This is unacceptable.” – Jack Posobiec

Indeed.

Laura was arrested for “trespassing,” but leftwing thugs and goons attack us at demos in support of Trump and Israel. Freedom lovers are beaten at demos against jihad and sharia by left-wing fascists who mockingly call themselves antifa (anti-fascists).

The deck is stacked against us. We must get off the defense.

SCUM
Published June 16, 2017 | By Jack Wheeler

Let’s be crystal clear on this:  the people above are directly responsible for the murder attempt on Republicans in Congress yesterday.

And not just the network talking airheads such as those pictured above, but the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, and the actual shooter they deranged, James Hodgkinson.

They have Steve Scalise’s blood on their hands.  Just as they have Trump’s fake blood of Kathy Griffin’s and Shakespeare on the Park’s.

Let’s focus on The Scum Flagship.  The New York Slimes continues to sponsor the Trump Assassination Play that pretends to be about Julius Caesar, ending with the actor portraying Trump lying dead in a pool of blood:
To The Point calls upon Trump supporters in Manhattan to stage a portrayal of Arthur Sulzberger as Julius Caesar bloodily knifed to death by Caesar’s assassins – at the entrance to the NYT Building at 620 Eighth Avenue.  They should then send a bill to NYC’s Communist Mayor Bill de Blasio demanding to be paid for their artistry as he does The Public Theatre to the tune of 1 million taxpayer dollars a year.

They could follow that up with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria as Caesar lying dead in a pool of blood in front of Time Warner Center at 10 Columbus Circle.  They should then express their hope that Zakaria will praise their “brilliantly interpreted masterpiece” of his killing as he did of Trump’s on May 31:

zakaria-tweet
In fact, Manhattan Trump supporters could then form an acting company to perform weekly Caesar assassination performances in Central Park, featuring the Trump Deranged Celebrity/Journalist/TV-Airhead/Fake News Media Executive or Owner of the Week.

This is such a target-rich environment they could stage a weekly performance for a different Trump Deranged Scum easily for a year and never run out of targets.  For starters, Breitbart has provided a list of 15 celebs who’ve threatened violence upon Trump, such as Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, Robert De Niro, and Stephen Colbert (Warning: disgusting language in the link).

And why limit this to New York City?  You could form your own Shakespeare-in-the-Park Caesar Assassination performances at a public park in your community to leave your local Trump Deranged TV station airhead or city official lying in fake blood.

Or, TTP encourages anyone skilled at Photoshop to depict Kathy Griffin holding the blood-drenched beheaded head of Sulzberger, Bezos, Snoop Dogg, on and on, the list is endless, and put it out on the Internet to go viral.  You could even Photoshop Griffin holding her own head…

(Actually, if you really wanted to stick it to her, you’d Photoshop her holding the bloody head of Mohammed with the caption — in Arabic, natch — “What the Pedophile Prophet Deserves.”  Send it to every Islamic website there is.  She’d go bankrupt spending money on bodyguards.)

Rush Limbaugh was exactly right yesterday (6/14) when he said that Hodgkinson is “the personification of the lunatic base, the deranged base of the Democrat Party.”

It is the Fake News Media that is 100% responsible for creating the now murderous lunacy that has enveloped the Democrat base.  Now it must be forced to accept that responsibility.  We need from them a full mea culpa apology to the American people and to President Trump.

Instead, we are getting despicable lies from the New York Slimes.  We get 2-digit IQ Fake News Libtards like Chuck Todd and Howard Kurtz desperately avoiding FNM responsibility, pleading that everyone (meaning no one) is at fault and for “no finger-pointing” – especially at them.  We get a deluge of murderous Nazi hate from “Progressive Media” lowlifes.

The last thing in the world we need now is “unity” with these Scum.

Some Dems in Congress may be shaken and sobered enough to recover from their TDS, and in them there may be hope.  Even Pelosi Galore said on the House Floor yesterday (6/14) she is praying for President Trump, “that his presidency will be successful” and “that his family will be safe.”

The President yesterday respectfully asked for unity between Pubs and Dems, which was certainly the right and appropriate message at this time.  This was eloquently and graciously expressed:

“We may have our differences, but we do well, in times like these, to remember that everyone who serves in our nation’s capital is here because, above all, they love our country.

We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans, that our children deserve to grow up in a nation of safety and peace, and that we are strongest when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.”

Let us hope that this will ameliorate Democrat Dementia and they will cease being nothing but Loser Obstructionists.  Miracles occur, they could even become patriotic to some degree.

But we’d need some evidence – like their giving up on Plan C in their never-ending Trump Impeachment Crusade.

That said, the Fake News Media remains America’s Public Enemy #1:

trump-tweet-021717
They are not journalists.  They are purveyors of criminal hate and violence.  They have to stop being Scum and start being normal Americans again.  They have to sincerely do a mea culpa.

Until then, every one of them deserves to be faux-murdered in fake blood like Shakespeare’s Caesar.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

The 2016 Election & the Demise of Journalistic Standards by Michael Goodwin

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion. The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that. The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign. But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.” Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.

If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.

The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made The New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

I say this with great sadness. I was blessed to grow up at the Times, getting a clerical job right out of college and working my way onto the reporting staff, where I worked for a decade. It was the formative experience of my career where I learned most of what I know about reporting and writing. Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.

Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it were true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk—that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds, raised his hand for silence, and said (this is slightly bowdlerized): “I don’t care if you have a romantic affair with an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict of interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.

As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke—that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Looking to the Future

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

But the future of journalism isn’t all gloom and doom. In fact, if we accept the new reality of widespread bias and seize the potential it offers, there is room for optimism. Consider this—the election showed the country is roughly divided 50-50 between people who will vote for a Democrat and people who will vote for a Republican. But our national media is more like 80-20 in favor of Democrats. While the media should, in theory, broadly reflect the public, it doesn’t. Too much of the media acts like a special interest group. Detached from the greater good, it exists to promote its own interest and the political party with which it is aligned.

Ronald Reagan’s optimism is often expressed in a story that is surely apocryphal, but irresistible. He is said to have come across a barn full of horse manure and remarked cheerfully that there must be a pony in it somewhere. I suggest we look at the media landscape in a similar fashion. The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.

Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in The New York Times—virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.

But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market alright—half the country!

Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.

As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.

Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena. That would be a great thing. So again I urge you: join the side you’re on.

ABOUT MICHAEL GOODWIN

Michael Goodwin is the chief political columnist for The New York Post. He has a B.A. in English literature from Columbia College and has taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Before joining the Post in 2009, he was the political columnist for The New York Daily News, where he served as executive editor and editorial page editor and led its editorial board to a Pulitzer Prize. Prior to that, he worked for 16 years at The New York Times, beginning as a clerk and rising to City Hall Bureau Chief. He is the co-author of I, Koch and editor of New York Comes Back.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Inprimis Digest.

Pittsburgh Not Paris: And That’s The Way We Like It

President Donald Trump withdrew from Obama’s anti-American Paris Climate Agreement saying, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” 

The Paris Accord was one of many anti-American agreements made by the most lawless anti-American president ever to hold office.

Obama is a Globalist whose “hope and change” for America was/is the destruction of American democracy and sovereignty in favor of socialism and internationalism.

Oama’s anti-American Paris agreement was another attempt to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. Obama joined the Paris Agreement in 2016 without Senate approval, pledging to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) explains,

“The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. . .It empowers one administration to make  legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections.” 

Of course it does. That was Obama’s purpose and was his intention for his globalist legacy Hillary Clinton. The unexpected defeat of Hillary Clinton threw Obama’s eight year Globalist march into disarray. No matter. True to his radical Leftist training, Obama followed mentor Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and reconstituted himself as the leader of the “resistance” movement to overthrow our Constitutionally elected President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump is an unapologetic America-first nationalist and the single greatest obstacle to one-world government in the world today. In spite of intense lobbying efforts from globalist corporations, globalist green lobbyists, globalist U.N. bureaucrats, infamous globalists like Al Gore, and even some family members, Trump recognized the Paris Accord as a very bad deal for American sovereignty and jobs and he kept his campaign promise to withdraw.

Staying in a bad deal for “diplomatic” reasons is absurd. Donald Trump was elected precisely because he does not play diplomatic political games. Trump is an anomaly in politics because he actually means and does what he says.

Surrendering control of the Internet to the United Nations was another one of Obama’s anti-American effort to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. 

The Obama administration surrendered American control of the internet to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) without getting Congress approval, another example of Obama executive overreach. Assigned names and numbers refers to the Domain Name System (DNS) on the Internet which is how a specific web address, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), connects to the correct server and opens a specific website. All of the information including names, numbers, and any other data that DNS needs to do get to the specific website is stored in one central file known an the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

Before the surrender ICANN’s function was to oversee how web addresses on the Internet were passed out and to regulate the IANA. Now, ICANN formally owns the IANA. It is not difficult to see how internationalizing the operation of the Internet could be used to help the globalist elites impose one-world government by manipulating information or access to information worldwide.

Obama surrendered United States technical management of the Internet to ICANN which is a global organization of governments around the world. ICANN includes a Government Advisory, which has representation from 111 states around the world, including 108 UN members and the Holy See, the Cook Islands and Taiwan. Many of these governments are anti-American and pro-globalism.

In the sixties Americans openly criticized Communist countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. In the 21st century after 9/11 Americans openly criticized Islamic countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. Obama’s surrender of Internet control to ICANN makes it possible for the United States to lose our freedom of speech on the Internet – Obama sacrificed American interests to the international community he supports.

Ted Cruz has argued that online freedom is now in jeopardy and that authoritarian governments who are members of ICANN can inhibit freedom of speech on the Internet. Cruz observes, “foreign governments and global corporations will have an increased voice within ICANN moving forward,” which can allow them to censor speech.

It is no surprise that the giant globalized technology companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Cloudflare and Yahoo all support a more globally controlled Internet – of course they do. These giant corporations are run by Globalists whose businesses are global and whose self-interest is in internationalizing the world for greater profits and marketshare. They are using a business profit prism not a human rights prism for policy decisions even though their owners talk of humanitarianism, altruism, social justice, and income equality.

There must be no confusion between global trade and Globalism. Global trade is simply the sale of goods around the world between nations. Global trade can be fair or unfair among nations. If the New World Order of one-world government is imposed then global trade will be a meaningless concept because there will be only one nation, one marketplace, and one government.

Globalism and the New World Order has been romanticized and dishonestly marketed as the international system that will provide the world with income equality and social justice. Songs have been written about Globalism. John Lennon’s “Imagine” is the globalist anthem. Consider its lyrics:

Imagine

John Lennon

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Lennon’s lyrics clearly describe a Utopian New World Order of peace and harmony. So far so good. The problem with Lennon’s dreamscape as the anthem for Globalism  is that it has no relationship to objective reality. The essential quality of dreams is that they are not encumbered by time, space, gravity, people, or any other consideration in objective reality. Dreams are the epitome of subjective reality.

In objective reality all groups large and small have some organizing principle. Families, communities, states, countries – the larger the group the more important the organizing principle becomes.

Lennon’s dreamscape is not encumbered by an organizing principle even though the world is the largest conceivable group. The New World Order most definitely has an organizing principle even if John Lennon does not sing about it. The left-wing liberals singing John Lennon’s song are imagining their own personal dreams of one internationalized world at peace in harmony with all people of the world equal in every way. The problem is their imagined universe has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of one-world government imagined and described in unapologetic chilling detail by elitist aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.

Russell’s one-world government is a binary socio-political system of the ruling few and the enslaved population whop serve them. The left-wing liberals, progressives, and anarchists lobbying for Globalism are the useful idiots unwittingly advocating for the regressive return to a master/slave society of tyranny.

Globalism is a very old song being sung anew by the naive Left and the laughing globalist elite who have successfully duped them.

Americans who wish to preserve their national sovereignty and individual freedoms understand Pittsburgh is the priority not Paris – and that’s the way we like it!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Withdraws U.S. from Paris Climate Accord

Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

The Global Warming-Climate Change Scam: One of the Great Soviet/Russian Deceptions

EDITORS NOTE: Here is KC & The Sunshine Band singing their 1975 hit single That’s The Way (I Like It):

Senator Rubio: ‘America is reaching out its hand to the people of Cuba’

Miami, FL – Speaking ahead of President Trump’s announcement regarding changes to Cuba policy, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) praised the new terms, saying they will empower the Cuban people instead of their oppressors in the Castro regime.

“A year and a half ago, a president, an American president, landed in Havana, to outstretch his hand to a regime,” said Rubio. “Today, a new president lands in Miami to reach out his hand to the people of Cuba.”

REMARKS OF SENATOR MARCO RUBIO:

The Sunday after the presidential election, I was at Dadeland Mall, I was in the parking lot of Dadeland Mall, and I called President-elect Trump on his cell phone to congratulate him on his victory.

And one of the first things he said to me is, “what are we going to do to help the Cuban people?”

A few weeks later, I had the honor of flying with him to Central Florida on Air Force One, and he again, in the midst of that conversation, asked, “what are we going to do to help the Cuban people?”

My wife and I had the opportunity to dine with him and the First Lady in the White House, and in the middle of that conversation he asked,  “what are we going to do to help the Cuban people, and the people of Venezuela who are also living under a dictatorship?”

Six weeks ago in the Oval Office, the president of the United States, gathered with the members of his cabinet, made a very clear decision: we are going to do whatever it takes to empower the Cuban people, so that they can be free and live in a democracy and have economic and political liberties that they deserve, like everyone else in this hemisphere deserves. And he has not faltered in that commitment.

The cooperation, the hard work, the commitment that this White House and that President Trump has shown to this cause, I believe has no precedent, certainly in the modern history of this great cause.

We have been helped by many who have aligned with us, some who could not be here today. I do want to recognize Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González‏ of Puerto Rico, nuestra hermana de la isla de Puerto Rico que está junto con nosotros, that’s who’s with us on this issue.

But what I want you to know, is that in every single one of those instances in which the president spoke about Cuba, he also spoke about Brigade 2506.

Because a few weeks before the election, first the first time in decades, he went to visit their museum, where they endorsed him – meaning the first time in decades that they had endorsed a presidential candidate.

And there isn’t a single time that I have spoken to the president about Cuba that he has not mentioned the brigade.

And that strikes me because it reminds us that, almost 60 years ago, when they were young men willing to fight and to die for the freedom of their homeland, they made an extraordinary sacrifice. And perhaps some of them felt that the time to make a difference for them had passed. But I want them to know that almost 60 years later, they have made a difference. That meeting, and their efforts, I believe as much as anything else, has brought us to this day.

And we just landed at the airport, I had the honor of flying on Air Force One. They have the best M&Ms on the planet. And you can take red lights when you’re part of the motorcade that comes in, legally. Without those crazy cameras. Nevermind, I don’t want to talk about that. [Laughter] Get rid of the cameras, yeah.

And it struck me as the plane landed and we were getting into the cars that brought us here, and we look at the president coming down the steps, he was greeted by dissidents, by freedom fighters, by people, some of whom and on the island of Cuba have suffered greatly in the hands of this repressive regime. And less than a year and a half ago, an American president landed in Havana, greeted by a regime.

A year and a half ago, a president, an American president, landed in Havana, to outstretch his hand to a regime. Today, a new president lands in Miami to reach out his hand to the people of Cuba.

And I close with this. I close with this. Many will characterize this as an effort to punish the Cuban regime. And it will punish the Cuban military that oppresses its people and helps Maduro oppress their people in Venezuela. But more than anything else, this change empowers the people of Cuba. Not the government, not the regime, but the people. So that they can enjoy the freedom and the liberty, with a very clear message: America is prepared to outstretch its hand and work with the people of Cuba, but we will not, we will not empower their oppressors.

And you mark my words. And you mark my words. Whether it’s in six months, or six years, Cuba will be free. And when it is, and when it is, and when it is, I believe that the people on the island and history will say, that perhaps the key moment in that transition began on this day, here in this theater, with each of you, and with a president that was willing to do what needed to be done so that freedom and liberty returns to the enslaved island of Cuba.

Voy a ser bien breve, voy a ser bien breve que es muy difícil para un Cubano y para un senador ser breve pero lo voy hacer porque quiero mandarle un mensaje al pueblo de Cuba. Y este es el mensaje: que antes teníamos un presidente que le daba la mano al régimen que lo oprime. Pero ahora tenemos un presidente Americano que le da la mano a ustedes, el pueblo Cubano. Que los días en cual la politica exterior de este pais ayuda al régimen se están terminando y los días en que la política norteamericana ayuda al pueblo Cubano para que ellos puedan tener la libertad, la democracia y los derechos que se merecen que Dios le ha dado. Y cuando ese día llegue, que Cuba será libre por fin yo les aseguro que este día que estamos aquí hoy, la historia va decir hoy que es el principio del fin de este régimen. Gracias a un presidente llamado Donald Trump que hizo lo que tenía que hacer para que la democracia y la libertad regresa a la isla de Cuba.

Muchísimas gracias. God bless you. Thank you.

Assassinating Congressmen

Gunning down US Congressmen, a sad commentary on the state of America.

We call out the left for its shameless instigating of violence and strife.

It Would Have Been a Massacre by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The horrifying scene at a practice field in Alexandria, Virginia, at which Congressman Steve Scalise was shot in a shocking flurry of gunfire, could have been much worse. Rand Paul pointed out that “it would have been a massacre” had a member of the House leadership not been there. His presence guaranteed that the heavily armed Capitol Police could take him down. Many others present expressed similar feelings. They were sitting ducks. If the offensive gunfire could not be met by defensive gunfire, the bloodshed would have been far worse.

As this case shows – and there are millions more like this one – force must be met with force to stop the violence.

The aftermath will include all the usual questions. What were the gunman’s motivations? Shooter James T. Hodgkinson’s Facebook page shows that he is a supporter of Bernie Sanders and socialism generally. Where did he get the gun? Did he obtain it legally with all the appropriate background checks? What does this scene imply about gun regulations and controls on distribution?To some degree, all these questions are beside the salient point. As this case shows – and there are millions more like this one – force must be met with force to stop the violence. If a murderous monster has the most firepower in the space, everyone else’s life is in the balance. The calls for gun control refuse to deal with this reality. To the extent they succeed in restricting people’s rights to defend themselves and others, they bear moral culpability for an increasingly violent society.

Defense Use

What happened at the baseball park was a classic case of defensive gun use. In the entire debate over guns, this is the point I find most compelling in a practical sense. Despite being raised in a gun-owning family, and having spent many hours at gun ranges and owning some myself, they are not my favorite things, which is to say I don’t really like them. I have no romantic attachment to them at all. I would rather live in society without them.

There is a strong reason for people like me to hope for a wide distribution of guns and firing skills.

And yet a society without guns is not an option. Given this, there is a strong reason for people like me to hope for a wide distribution of guns and firing skills. It is precisely because of my attitude, and others like me, that I hope that there are plenty of others out there, who have my back in case like this.The use of guns for defensive purposes makes the strongest case there is for liberalization of gun laws. Trevor Burris comments:

The prevalence of defensive gun use (DGU) is one of the most hotly debated issues in gun control policy. In the words of one study produced by the National Research Council, measuring DGU “has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.” That’s quite a range, but if it falls anywhere in that range then it is still a lot of DGU.

The dispute about the number of DGUs centers primarily on the definition of defensive gun use and the method of counting it. When the Bureau of Justice Statistics performs the National Crime Victimization Survey they ask about DGU, and they generally reach a number around 100,000. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck and others have criticized that method because many people are understandably unwilling to tell a government agent that they have brandished or fired a weapon in self-defense. They may not know if what they did was legal, and they may illegally possess the weapon, to name just two concerns. Thus Kleck performed surveys designed to reach just defensive gun use without creating biased concerns in his subjects. Through that method he reached the number 2.5 million.

Feeling Safe

This is why the prevalence of private owners carrying guns makes me feel safer. To be sure, there are bad actors but the best foil to them are good actors who serve as a counterforce. Once you pay attention, you see examples everywhere.

Knowing that there is no way for government to ban guns — there is a black market in nearly every country with severe restrictions — the best protection for everyone is for ownership to be widespread and distributed through the population.

So I would like to make a plea to my fellow citizens: please buy guns. Carry them. Keep them in your homes and cars. It’s especially important to do this in public places, where freak murderers could conceivably lurk. The weapons should be loaded and dangerous, capable of killing with one shot.

I want every robber around every corner to hold the expectation that anyone he mugs is carrying a deadly weapon.

I especially desire this, because I don’t want to do this. I don’t like them. I don’t want them in my home. I don’t like shooting at the range. I don’t like looking at them, shopping for them, cleaning them, or even thinking about what they do to others. I loathe violence of all sorts, and hope to never have to use it. I’m a pacifist in spirit.The only way I can really hope to get away with indulging my temperament here is if others are willing to pick up the slack. I want burglars, kidnappers, thieves, and would-be mass murderers of all sorts to believe that every home in my neighborhood is heavily armed and populated by fearless gun owners – and for them to believe that my home is among them.

I want every robber around every corner to hold the expectation that anyone he mugs is carrying a deadly weapon. I would like to sit in theaters, airplanes, and restaurants where the trolls and scum among us believe that they could pay the ultimate price for savagery.

The thing is that I do not want to personally contribute to this cause in any way. I’m not up to it.

For Every Jew a 42

A friend who grew up in Brooklyn in the 1960s said this was a common slogan in his neighborhood: “For every Jew a 42.” It was commonly understood that if the Jews had been heavily armed in Germany, instead of systematically disarmed by the state as they were, the rise of the Nazis would have been checked, and perhaps the Holocaust could have been prevented. Neither he nor his friends were particularly interested in doing this but the point was clear. Today, he too hopes to be a free rider on gun nuts. I’m with him on this point.

What the law is should have nothing to do with our own personal choices about what we like or dislike, do or do not do.

As regards guns, as with marijuana and prostitution, what the law is should have nothing to do with our own personal choices about what we like or dislike, do or do not do. This view seems nearly extinguished in our world today. If you don’t drink sodas, you are happy to ban them. If you don’t like heroin, you think others should be prevented from consuming it. If you don’t like guns, you want them banned.Stand Up For Rights

That’s not how the free society works. The preservation of freedom requires that we be willing to stand up for the rights of others to own and do things we do not like but which harm no one, or, in the case of guns, actually save lives.

For this reason, I have far more respect for the teetotaler who favors a free market in liquor than I do for the heavy drinker who favors them same. Non-smokers should stand up for the right to smoke. And so too should people who do not own guns and have no desire to own guns stand up for the right to possess and carry.

Especially in the case of guns, those of us who do not want to handle guns have a special and personal interest in defending not only gun rights but also the proliferation of weapons among the citizenry. It’s the only way that we can truly deter crime and stop crime in public places when it is unleashed.

The only real means to prevent the emergence of a world safe for criminals and government is to see the proliferation of guns among everyone else. I’m sorry, but I will not do my part in this respect. But I will defend the rights of others to do so, with a sincere hope that they will own, train, and be ready. Yes, I’m a free rider, but gun owners need to know that I’m truly grateful.