PODCAST: The Reasons Women Aren’t Happy Today

Listen here to the full podcast, which features an interview with Mona Charen and a discussion of a new study showing kids don’t play as much outside, or read the lightly edited transcript of the Charen interview below.

Katrina Trinko: Joining us is Mona Charen, the author of the new book “Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense.” Mona is a columnist, a contributor to National Review, and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Mona, first I wanted to touch on something you bring up in the intro to the book: Women aren’t happy. You note that women’s happiness has declined since the early 1970s, that women are significantly more likely than men to be on antidepressants. Is there a relationship between women’s dissatisfaction and feminism in your view?

Mona Charen: I think there is a connection because I think that one of the things that the feminist movement did is it removed something from the lives of women that’s very important to them, and that is security. Women need security because we are more vulnerable than men. We’re the ones who are smaller and weaker. We are the ones who have babies, who nurse babies. Security is very important to us. Because of the decline of marriage and the more raw, sexual environment that women are forced to live in now, there’s less security than there used to be.

Trinko: Interesting. As someone who hates being out of my comfort zone, I can relate to that. You also mentioned in the introduction to your book [Facebook Chief Operating Officer] Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In”. Obviously that’s an enormously influential book. It’s encouraged women to lean in to their careers, even if they’re having children—to essentially still be aggressive on the career front. What do you think about Sandberg’s advice and can women have it all?

Charen: Women can have it all, but not all at once. We are lucky that most of us can expect to live long lives, and there’s time enough to do everything in a sequential pattern, not necessarily all at once.

I also resist this idea of having it all because I believe that to be our fullest and best selves, we have to also focus on giving to others and not just living for ourselves. When I was a mother and when I was with my kids, I felt that I was where I really needed to be. That was a good feeling, and it made me happy. There was another part to your question about having it all. What was it?

Trinko: Well, women can have it all, but it sounds like you’re saying …

Charen: Yes, women can, but again, I would just push back a little bit on this idea of having as being the goal. I think we should all want to live rounded lives where we give and receive love to one another.

Trinko: Good. What do you think about sexual assault right now, particularly on college campuses? What is the right approach to this matter?

Charen: Well, conservatives have made a point of saying that the 1 in 5 or the 1 in 4 statistic is not true, and I agree, that is not. It’s an exaggeration, but I think conservatives have gone a little too far in stressing only the stories about mattress girl and others or the University of Virginia case, a rape on campus where they turned out to be hoaxes, because there really is a problem.

There really is a lot of very bad behavior going on. Conservatives should not be perceived as indifferent to the mistreatment of women or the rape of women. It is happening in numbers way beyond what should be tolerable.

That’s my plea is to take it seriously and begin to examine what is going wrong between the sexes. Why is there so much sexual assault? I point to a number of things, the hookup culture, the excessive drinking that characterizes dating life now (if you can even call it dating), and the confusion about sex where people aren’t getting clear signals about what is acceptable and what isn’t. The whole regime of so-called affirmative consent is confusing and unhelpful.

Trinko: Yeah, it seems like many of these people are saying, “Well, you didn’t read my signals.” It’s like, well, how could someone you’ve met a couple hours ago …

Charen: Exactly.

Trinko: … read your signals? Maybe the bigger question is why are you having this intimate activity right away?

Charen: Yes.

Trinko: I make a point of trying to read a lot of feminist takes just to keep that in mind. Obviously the term toxic masculinity is used a lot.

Charen: A lot, yeah.

Trinko: What do you think about that term, and in general, what should we be doing about the boys right now?

Charen: One of my critiques about feminism is that they have a tendency to disparage men as a sex. To say even the phrase toxic masculinity …

Imagine toxic femininity. Feminists would be up in arms if there were such a term being bandied about, much less whole courses about it in men’s studies departments. Look, men are human beings. They have strengths and weaknesses. Masculinity brings with it some serious problems, like aggression, like a huge sex drive that has to be controlled, but masculinity also brings with it a self-sacrifice, a willingness to be brave and to protect those who are weak and vulnerable.

One of the things that I cite in my chapter on this where I’m talking about toxic masculinity are the cases where for example, when that shooter entered the theater in Aurora, Colorado, no fewer than four young men covered their girlfriends with their own bodies to protect them.

Trinko: Wow.

Charen: Three died doing so.

Trinko: I did not know that.

Charen: You can say what you want about men and about masculinity, but that’s part of masculinity, that natural, self-sacrificing heroism.

Let’s be fair to men. If men have become very sexually aggressive and insensitive, maybe it’s because all of the rules about dating have been thrown out the window, and we live in a culture that is drenched in pornography and in which we are told that the old standards about courtship and dating are completely passe.

Trinko: Actually, you just mentioned pornography, and I think that’s something that we don’t really talk about very much publicly, which is interesting. You see that studies show that an enormous number of people are looking at it, including some women as well. How do you think that forms part of the problem between the sexes right now?

Charen: I think it’s a huge part of the problem. I think it definitely invades people’s imaginations and infiltrates what people think is normal behavior. The Harvey Weinstein story with some of the behaviors that he engaged in were just so grotesque. I thought, “Where did he get these ideas like masturbating into a potted plant?” No normal woman would have ever told him that that was a turn on. He had to have gotten that from some pornographic thing somewhere.

Trinko: Yeah, I think it’s definitely shaping desires. It seems every, I don’t know, [every] few months you read another story about high schoolers or college girls feeling they have to engage in some new behavior. They’re told, “Oh, well, I saw it in porn.”

Charen: Yeah, exactly. I’m sorry, but it used to be that boys would think they were lucky if a girl would let him kiss her or touch her somewhere, right. Now boys are making these demands that women do things to their bodies to make themselves appealing that are totally unnatural and weird. Is this progress?

Trinko: Not in my view. A lot of conservative conversation focuses on what’s wrong with the current culture, but are there any positive ideas that could help women lead more fulfilling lives?

Charen: Absolutely. One of the things that I liked in the research for my book is that I’ve found there are countercultural movements afoot. There’s a professor at Boston College called Kerry Cronin who has assigned dating to her students and taught them how to ask someone out on a date and how to go out on dates. She gives advice in class about how to do it. The students support each other, and they’re very enthusiastic.

Under her rules, the students have to be home by 10 p.m. There can be no drinking on the date. It can’t be a movie because there has to be an opportunity for conversation. In any event, and they have to ask someone they’re genuinely interested in, not just a friend to get out of the assignment, I suppose. It’s just reintroducing these things, reintroducing the idea of romance. I think it might just catch on.

Trinko: Yeah, I think it might. It’s always interesting to me. I’m a bit older than a college student, but at the same time, it seems that so many people in the overall millennial generation are more comfortable being physical with a stranger than being verbally intimate.

Charen: Exactly. I said to one of my sons that they can’t protect their bodies, but they do protect their souls. They put up walls so that people can’t really get to know them.

Trinko: Absolutely. You see that a lot on dating sites. Now one critique I imagine the left would say about this book is that essentially it’s wanting to go back to the 1950s. Is that your ideal era?

Charen: No.

Trinko: Let’s say you could wave a wand and change society. What does it look like?

Charen: If I could wave a wand and change society, I would change it to 2018 to the habits of people who are living right now but who happen to be college graduates. If you look at the patterns of dating and marriage and childbearing of the college graduate cohort in our society, you don’t have to go back to the 1950s, they’re doing it right now. Their patterns of finishing school, getting married, and having babies in that order, it hasn’t changed very much from the patterns that used to characterize everybody in the 1950s.

Some people say, “You want to go back to the 50s.” No, I just want all of our people in every income category, especially those at the bottom who need the support of families even more than the people at the top, to be able to benefit from having a mother and a father in the home, having two incomes, having that stability and that great start in life.

Trinko: OK, thank you very much, Mona. Again, she’s the author of the new book, “Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense.” Check it out.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: .

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: .

The Daily Signal podcast is a 25-minute weekday podcast that shares the news highlights conservatives need to know and features an in-depth interview. Subscribe on iTunesGoogle Play, or SoundCloud.


Muslim Who Squeezed $3M Out of SPLC for Calling Him an Anti-Muslim Extremist Says Others Also Wrongly Labeled

A left-wing organization is wrongly labeling others as “hate groups,” a Muslim leader who works against Islamist terrorists says.

Maajid Nawaz recently settled out of court with the Southern Poverty Law Center for over $3 million after he challenged it for listing his left-of-center group as extremist.

“I want them to understand that something clearly went wrong in the processes here,” Nawaz said Friday on “Fox & Friends.” “If it could have gone wrong for me, which is such a clear case, then there are others.”

Listing Nawaz and his research group, Quilliam, as anti-Muslim extremists cost the Southern Poverty Law Center $3.4 million in a settlement payment paired with a video apology.

In 2016, the SPLC had labeled Quilliam, which markets itself as the “world’s first counter-extremism organization,” as an anti-Muslim hate group for its calls to reform Islam. Nawaz, who is British and a former radical Muslim, moved to sue the SPLC on grounds of defamation.

The matter was settled out of court June 18, with the SPLC agreeing to pay the $3.4 million and issue a public apology.

“I grew up respecting the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their work against the KKK, in particular, was something, somebody like me … grew up appreciating,” Nawaz said in the interview on “Fox & Friends.”

The SPLC has been in the news in recent years for labeling mainstream conservative organizations, including the traditional values group Family Research Council and the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, as hate groups. They and others say the liberal group does so to those it disagrees with to raise money.

Nawaz, who calls himself a liberal politically, said his inclusion on the SPLC’s list of hate groups was “shocking.”

Labeling someone an anti-Muslim extremist is dangerous because “that’s putting a target on our heads for the jihadists to come and kill us,” he said.

“These are serious allegations that terrorists take very, very seriously, and they go after people like us,” he said.

Nawaz said he told the SPLC that “we agree on more than we disagree when it comes to challenging extremism,” and that he wanted to understand how he had ended up on its list.

Nawaz said he believes that the SPLC’s apology was sincere, and that his inclusion on a list of hate groups was a “genuine mistake.” But, he said, he is “still trying to explore and get to the bottom of this.”

COLUMN BY

Jeremiah Poff

Jeremiah Poff is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


Earning Billions Impoverishes Nobody—Quite the Opposite

Donald J. Boudreaux

The fixed-wealth fallacy of redistributionists.

by Donald J. Boudreaux


The Quotation of the Day is from page 4 of Alan Reynolds’s excellent 2006 book, Income and Wealth (original emphasis):

The two young founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, quickly made something like $12 billion each by greatly facilitating our information, education, and shopping efficiency. Why should anyone care how much money the founders of Google, Apple, or Microsoft made? Some might object that they earned a larger share of income, but in what sense can we regard their income as shared? Google is something new—without Google there could be no income from Google. The Google founders have their income and you have yours. What they earn has nothing to do with how much or how little you can earn, except that their invention may help you earn more (personally, I feel as though I owe them a really big check).

Indeed so.

People who obsess over differences in monetary incomes—people who leap from observing large differences in monetary incomes to the conclusion that something is thereby amiss and requires “correction” (always by giving a relatively small handful of people an enormously unequal share of power over others)—typically operate with the mistaken presumption that the amount of material wealth in the world is fixed. The very same mistaken presumption is at the core of most arguments against free trade. Neither the redistributionist nor the protectionist understands economic processes or economic growth.

Reprinted from Cafe Hayek

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Mercatus Center Board Member, and a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University.

Planned Parenthood targets ‘younger folks’ with F*** Everyone campaign

We have reported on the push to promote underage sex and pedophilia by socialist Democrats. Well now we see ads promoting “sex with everyone” ads appearing in New York City.

Photo by Planned Parenthood New York.

In an ADWEEK article titled “Planned Parenthood Wants to Protect Your ‘Freedom to F*ck’ With New Fundraising Effort: The campaign targets younger folks in NYC” Katie Richards reports:

Dear New Yorkers: Planned Parenthood of New York City has an important message for you all. If you want to continue to love and sleep with the person (or people) of your choosing, you might want to think about making a donation to the organization’s NYC chapter (which served over 60,000 New Yorkers in 2017).

Read more.

The Official Democratic Store sent out an email on May 23, 2018 introducing it’s “Democratic collection” of Gay pride shirts, lapel pins and campaign buttons.

On the same day the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) reported:

The producer of the children’s film, “Show Dogs,” has pulled the film from theaters around the world and will recut it, removing two scenes that seemed to groom children for sexual abuse. This film is about a dog that goes undercover at a dog show competition – harmless enough except for the story arc where the only way for him to win and save the day was to allow unwanted touching of his genitals, while his coach practiced it with him and encouraged him to just go to his “zen” place. Yes…I know…it is hard to believe this was in a children’s film, to begin with. [Emphasis added]

You may read more about the film “Show Dogs” on the NCOSE website by clicking here.

What does homosexuality have to do with child abuse?

PubMed.gov is a resource on research done on homosexuals and child abuse. PubMed.gov lists a 2001 study by the California School of Professional Psychology titled “Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons.” The abstract reads:

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered. [Emphasis added]

The following is a graphic from a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) online slide presentation, “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults”  breaks down the incidence of HIV among young men ages 13-24. In 2011, an astonishing 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual (“male-to-male”) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases among young men ages 20-24 were from “gay” sex:

HIV-Young-Adult-Males-2011-CDC

Democrat Socialists (formally known as the Democrat Party) are pushing underage sex. Their bed mate is Planned Parenthood who is now publicly promoting “the freedom to f***.

Does it get any worse than this?

RELATED ARTICLES:

REPORT: NY Governor Cuomo Grants Conditional Pardons To Dozens Of Sex Offenders. Guess Why.

Court Drops Bogus Charges Against David Daleiden for Exposing Planned Parenthood Baby Part Sales

Permission Accomplished: Parents Have Sex-Ed Say at RNC

What kind of country would fund a group whose best advice is “F*** everyone?” Ours.

Last week’s ad from Planned Parenthood was the perfect example of the pornographic messages conservatives are fighting to stop in America’s sex ed curriculum. Every day, the headlines are full of horror stories about what students are learning with — or more likely, without — their parents knowledge. And at least one political party is doing something about it.

From Fairfax County to East Penn Schools, moms and dads are flooding districts with complaints for glamorizing dangerous sex acts, gender confusion, and the LGBT agenda. In some cases, like Pennsylvania, parents are suing just for the right to see the videos their kids are watching. In others, moms and dads have absolutely no idea what’s being taught because the school refuses to tell them. That needs to end now, the Republican National Committee has declared. In its summer meeting that wrapped up this weekend, the RNC passed a unanimous resolution demanding that state legislators do more to protect kids from the outrageous curriculums sweeping the nation.

It’s time, said Virginia’s National Committeewoman Cynthia Dunbar, to put sex-ed decisions back where they belong — in parents’ hands. Under the RNC’s new language, the party will put its energy into “parents’ rights” provisions that would force school districts to get moms’ and dads’ written permission before moving forward with any sex-ed material. “I’m thrilled this resolution passed,” Cynthia said after the vote. “This should not be a partisan issue. Parents everywhere deserve the right to know what their children are being taught and afforded an opportunity to consent to it.”

Of course, Americans’ frustration over sex ed have been boiling over for quite some time. When “Activist Mommy” Elizabeth Johnston floated the idea of a protest, she was overwhelmed by the response. Thousands of people from around the world joined in her Sex Ed Sit Out in April, a sign of the growing irritation over how states are handling such a sensitive topic.

For the last several years, FRC’s Cathy Ruse points out, liberal school boards have tried to use “opt out” provisions to shield themselves from criticism. (“Hey, we don’t force it on anyone, you can always opt-out!”) But in reality, most parents have no idea that they can pull their kids out of class — or worse, that they’d even need to. A lot of parents trust their local schools — and the districts have taken advantage of that trust by misleading them about the true content of sex ed. In Fairfax County, for example, some of the lessons labeled “abstinence” weren’t about abstinence at all!

Forty years ago, when sex ed was two hours on the basics of human development and reproduction, the opt-out system might have worked. But it’s completely inappropriate for today’s radical, graphic, and age-inappropriate sex ed. Thank goodness the Republican National Committee agrees! It’s time to stop letting schools exploit parents, who would never dream that their son’s eighth grade teacher would give him a lesson with 18 mentions of “anal sex” or tell their seventh grade daughter that she was born in the wrong body because “biological sex is meaningless.”

The Republican National Committee made sure to address these “family planning” sex-ed programs in its 2016 platform. Together, the delegates called for sexual risk avoidance (abstinence) education that makes saving sex until marriage the responsible and respected standard. But this is the first time the RNC has directly taken on the tactics of the far-Left, so our hats go off to the RNC for joining us in this fight and demanding parents have a say!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Pompeo Rolls out the Welcome Mat for World Leaders

Freedom Takes a Nosedive at Warren Air Force Base

LGBTQ Totalitarianism in Boston: The Destruction of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade

Court Drops Bogus Charges Against David Daleiden for Exposing Planned Parenthood Baby Part Sales

Law Center Defeats New York Attorney General’s Attempt To Silence Pro-Life Sidewalk Counselors

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has won a significant legal battle on behalf of Christian pro-life sidewalk counselors sued in a New York federal district court by the New York Attorney General’s Office (“OAG”). In a 103-page opinion issued last Friday evening, U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon rebuked the efforts of the New York Attorney General’s Office to silence sidewalk counselors who regularly assembled outside of Choices Women’s Medical Center (“Choices”), a Queens abortion clinic, to plead for the lives of the unborn.

Former Attorney General of New York Eric Schneiderman who later resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

Last summer, June 20, 2017, at a much-ballyhooed press conference held outside Choices, then-Attorney General of New York Eric Schneiderman (who later resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct), concluding a massive year-long investigation, announced his federal lawsuit against thirteen sidewalk counselors with the astonishing remark that this is “not a nation where you can choose your point of view.”

TMLC attorneys Tyler Brooks and Kate Oliveri represent two of the thirteen counselors sued by OAG, Angela Braxton and Jasmine Lalande.

Tyler Brooks commented, “A radical state attorney general abandoned his duty to enforce the law fairly in favor of pursuing an ideological campaign intended to silence pro-life Christians. The federal court, however, has seen through the State of New York’s efforts and made clear that the free speech of Christians will not be censored simply because some people on the left do not like it.”

Kate Oliveri added, “In denying the State’s preliminary injunction motion, the district court judge protected the true victims of harassment: the pro-life sidewalk counselors. Judge Amon sent a clear message to the New York Attorney General’s Office that the First Amendment does indeed guarantee the right of citizens in New York to have their own viewpoint.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel praised the great cooperation between TMLC attorneys and attorneys associated with the Thomas More Society and Liberty Counsel, who represented the other Defendants.

In its lawsuit, OAG alleged that the thirteen sidewalk counselors violated federal, state and New York City laws prohibiting the obstruction of abortion facilities, and harassment and intimidation of women who were seeking abortions. It petitioned the federal court to create a sixteen-foot buffer zone around Choices abortion premises and levy fines, attorney fees and compensatory damages against the Defendants.

An extensive preliminary injunction hearing was held between February 12 and March 6, 2018. In addition to videos, photographs and other documentary evidence, OAG called seven witnesses and the Defendants called ten witnesses. On May 22, 2018, Judge Amon heard oral arguments on OAG’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In her 103-page opinion and order, Judge Amon denied the OAG’s motion finding that the OAG had failed to substantiate any of its allegations against the Defendants.

For years, Choices has had security cameras trained on its entrance. And in June 2016, the OAG installed a high-mounted surveillance camera to capture the exterior of Choices’ main patient entrance surrounding sidewalk. Moreover, OAG investigators obtained additional video evidence in undercover operations where they approached Choices, pretending to be patients and their companions, while wearing hidden cameras recording video and audio.

Despite these investigative activities, Judge Amon found that not a single video introduced into evidence substantiated the OAG’s allegations against the sidewalk counselors.

The Court also heard testimony from several Choices employees and escorts, including Merle Hoffman, the owner of Choices who proudly accepts the title “Millionaire Abortionist” and who has said that pro-life advocates should be considered the “American Taliban.” Judge Amon found the witnesses produced by the OAG were not credible.

OAG can appeal Judge Amon’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. However, the appellate court is required to defer to the findings of fact made by Judge Amon, making any such appeal very difficult for the State.

Click here to read the Court’s opinion.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured illustration is by Getty Images/Redux

How ‘Green’ Energy Subsidies Transfer Wealth to the Rich

When the Golden State Warriors, who won three of the last four NBA championships, signed All-Star Demarcus Cousins, sports pundits across the country offered the same opinion: The rich just got richer.

In many respects, the same holds true for energy subsidies.

Federal energy programs promise ambiguous policy goals such as abating climate change, spurring innovation, or reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy. But they often lead to situations that help the rich at the expense of middle- and lower-income Americans. That’s because when the federal government gets involved in the energy business, it transfers billions of dollars to the production and consumption of politically preferred sources and technologies—and many of those involve the poor transferring money to the rich.

For instance, a recent study by the Pacific Research Institute found that more than 99 percent of subsidies for electrical vehicles go to households with incomes of $50,000 or higher, and nearly three-quarters go to households with an annual income of $100,000 or more.

Poorer Americans can’t access the $7,500 tax credits because of the high prices of electric vehicles, even after accounting for the generous subsidies, which means they help pay for the subsidies through their taxes but can’t themselves get eligible for the subsidies or other benefits, such as carpool lanes.

To make matters worse, some major car companies are forced to sell electric vehicles at a loss to comply with state mandates and regulations. As Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute explains:

California, along with the nine states that have adopted California’s policy, mandates that zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) comprise a set percentage of the automobile market. The mandated minimum market share for ZEVs is currently scheduled to grow from 4.5 percent of sales in 2018, to 22 percent of the market by 2025; and Gov. Jerry Brown is even contemplating a complete ban on sales of cars with internal combustion engines after 2040.

Complying with these mandates requires companies to maintain ZEV credits that equal their share of the mandate, based on the company’s specific sales. Acquiring sufficient credits requires manufacturers that do not sell enough ZEVs to either sell ZEVs in California at a loss, purchase credits from companies whose ZEV sales exceed their credit requirements, or pay a $5,000 fine per credit that the company is short.

Consequently, the sales mandate has become a subsidy to companies, such as Tesla, that sell more ZEV-qualified vehicles than required by the mandate; and, a penalty on companies whose ZEV sales fall short of the required mandate. The $700 million earned by Tesla via these credit sales, which does not even account for all the credits Tesla has amassed, exemplifies that these subsidies and penalties can be substantial.

Energy subsidies benefit not only wealthy individuals, but also wealthy companies in the form of blatant corporate welfare. The federal government’s loan guarantee program is another subsidy program where government-backed loans have, time and again, gone to companies that simply don’t need any support from the taxpayer.

You don’t have to scratch too far beneath the surface to see that some of these projects have financial backing from giant tech firms, massive energy utilities, large investment banks, and other successful corporations.

The Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program granted more than $1 billion in loans for Nissan and Ford to retool their factories. This program is simply a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to these massive companies. These companies should have no trouble financing a project without government-backed loans if they find it is worth the investment.

Eliminating favoritism in markets will benefit all Americans—individuals and businesses alike—not just the privileged few.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

Bryan Cosby is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by nrqemi/Getty Images.

Democrats Caught In Vile Attack On Wife Of Trump’s Florida Co-Chair

The deteriorating state of the American left and the Democratic Party was on vivid display again in a recent, ugly controversy in Florida that Democrats initiated, then tried to shrug off and finally back-tracked on after media coverage exposed it.

A Democrat running for local government office posted on Facebook about an issue facing voters in November. Joe Gruters, the chairman of the Republican Party of Sarasota, a state representative and the co-chairman of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign in Florida, responded to the issue. One of the first responses to his comment was this:

“..you never did answer my question about when and where I can grab your wife by her pu**y. Get back to me on this.”

Obviously this vile piece of nastiness was a reference to Trump’s old statement from the Access Live video several years ago, which Trump apologized for and for which he rightly received considerable condemnation from Republicans at the time.

Alone, it was just a one-off from a nasty individual. But this repugnant comment was “liked” many times, including by a local Democratic candidate running for the School Board. This candidate was subsequently forced to apologize when the local ABC affiliate did a story on it — which came only after the Republican Party of Sarasota put out a statement condemning the comment, the “like” by the School Board candidate and the willingness of the original Democratic author of the post to keep it up. The statement called on the Democratic Party to disavow the statement and its candidates’ involvement in it.

The Democratic Party did neither. But after the media exposure and public fallout became clear, the vile comment was taken down the next day. Of course, that could have happened immediately. It could have happened after Gruters brought it to the attention of the initial Democrats’ posting. It could have happened when the Republican Party issued its statement. But it did not happen until it was exposed in the media and the Democratic Party measured the response in this red part of Florida.

As bad as all of that was, the really telling part is that the Sarasota County Democratic Party issued an official statement saying that while the comment was inappropriate…“make no mistake that this fake outrage by the Republican Party of Sarasota about a ‘like’ of a comment on a Facebook page is a clear attempt to distract the voters and to score political points.”

Fake outrage?

It seems pretty likely that if anyone suggested they wanted to know when they could grab the private female parts of one of the Democrats’ wives or daughters or mothers, their outrage would be most sincere. Too many Democrats have learned nothing from the lessons of the 2016 election. Instead of understanding how they disconnected from so many Americans, the lesson they took is that because Trump said something vile, they can therefor say anything with impunity. Wrong lesson — for them and the country.

It’s also clear that if Republicans had not highlighted the nastiness to the local media, the Democrats were fine with leaving the comment and its supporting approvals up. Most people recognized that the outrage over this was real and legitimate, particularly for candidates asking voters to put them in office.

Perhaps Democrats need to step back and rethink spending the past 18 months in a daily cyclone of ginned up, hate-based outrage over every act of the Trump administration. It has impaired their ability to distill genuine outrage from the fake.

And its impaired the ability of the nation to participate in any sort of issues-based, civil debate.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Reasons Women Aren’t Happy Today

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

America Needs an In-Kind Deterrent to Russia’s Political Warfare

Summary: President Trump can take quick and practical steps to protect American elections from Russian interference by developing a deterrence capability.

Background: Russian interference in the American political process is nothing new. It goes back to the 1920s.

The West never insisted that Russia make a permanent break with the Soviet past by releasing the Soviet archives and uprooting the old KGB. Many of the old Soviet political subversion agent networks remain in place. Specifically, Russia never disclosed the extent of past Soviet “active measures” (i.e., non-violent and even violent influence operations) and we must presume that the continued secrecy is to maintain agent networks and retain a Soviet-like subversion capability.

Trump’s statements: Following the Helsinki Summit, President Trump acknowledged the depth and scope of Russian subversion against the United States and said he would not tolerate it. “I let him know we can’t have this,” he said of Putin. “We’re not going to have it and that’s the way it’s going to be.” He noted on Twitter that “President Obama knew about Russia before the election. Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign?”

Apply a Deterrence Strategy: Trump can cheaply and quickly build his own enforcement tools without an Act of Congress. Those tools are the ability to retaliate against Putin for any interference in the American political system. Like nuclear deterrence, that ability has to be on par with the threat. Nuclear deterrence has helped prevent the Kremlin’s aggression for more than six decades. The United States can apply a similar strategy against Russian subversion of America’s political system.

Show Putin the Ability – and the Will – to Exploit his Vulnerabilities: Putin’s hold on power is more fragile than it seems. Strict information controls and news censorship, combined with the occasional murders of investigative journalists, show that the Kremlin fears exposure of the systematized corruption of Putin’s rule. The territorial and political integrity of the Russian Federation is also vulnerable. Russia’s control structure is plagued with unsustainable strains. Centralized power in Moscow has come at the expense of the rest of Russia, much of which is seething over Putin seizing political authority from the regions and sucking out their wealth to the corrupt oligarchs in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Autonomy and independence movements across Russia are growing: Not only along ethnic and cultural lines, but among ethnic Russians who resent the police-state controlling them from far-away Moscow. Ethnic Russians are declining in absolute numbers in their own country. In Siberia, massive illegal immigration and investment from China could cause the region to split away.

WHAT DO TO? CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL BRIEF.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Left’s Unhinged Opposition to Trump Plays Into Putin’s Hands

New Border State Congresswoman Urges Review of All US Ports of Entry for Security Threats

VIDEOS: Flames of Hatred — Socialists Who Burn Our American Flag

The fake news media melts down over a flame being held near The New York Times. What have they ever said about these socialists who burn our American flag?

“What is it that everyone thinks is going to happen next? The peaceful transfer of power? Calm elections? We’re destroying ourselves from the inside and apparently the Maxine Waters of this world think that’s a great thing.” —Dana Loesch

New Report Shows Every Congressional District Benefits From Tax Reform

What would you buy with $26,000? A new car? A year of college tuition? A down payment on a house?

This is not a hypothetical question. New research from The Heritage Foundation shows that the average American household can expect about $26,000 more in take-home pay over the next 10 years thanks to the tax reform that Congress passed last year.

But where can you find the “average” American? With Heritage’s new online tool, you can see how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will benefit the typical taxpayer in every congressional district. We’ve tailored our research to where you live. (Check it out here.)

The big takeaway? Wherever you live, typical taxpayers in every congressional district will see a tax cut in 2018.

You may have noticed this phenomenon already as your employer has started deducting less from your paycheck this year. The average American household can expect to pay about $1,400 less in taxes in 2018. But depending on where you live and how many kids you have, the numbers can look different.

In communities that had high tax bills last year, such as Palo Alto, California’s district (CA-18) represented in the House by Anna Eshoo, or one of New York City’s Manhattan districts (NY-12) represented by Carolyn Maloney, the average tax cut could be as much as $3,000.

Lower-income communities, such as areas near Phoenix, Arizona, (AZ-7) represented in the House by Ruben Gallego, as well as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (PA-2) represented by Dwight Evans, will see much larger percentage decreases in their tax bills. Tax reform benefited these communities by cutting their income taxes on average by 18 percent or more.

Moreover, Americans with children will benefit tremendously from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. A married couple filing jointly with two children will see their tax bills fall by $2,917.

The tax cuts, however, will have much larger effects than just letting Americans keep more of their money. Since tax reform passed, more than 600 companies have announced more jobs, more bonuses, higher wages, charitable giving, and new investments in the U.S. Many of them explicitly cited the tax cuts as the reason for the bonuses and investments.

Businesses are in the midst of the longest-running trend of adding jobs to the U.S. economy in our history.

In the coming years, the tax cuts will continue to raise wages, increase investment, and expand economic opportunities. Americans will in fact benefit twice from the tax cuts—once from paying less in taxes, and again from higher pre-tax incomes.

But this future is not certain. Many of the tax cuts expire after 2025, and some in Congress are determined to repeal them well before then. If the tax cuts are made permanent, our estimates suggest take-home pay after 2025 would be about 1 percent higher, corresponding to $600 per year for someone making the median U.S. income.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is fundamentally important for Americans all across the country. It’s time to protect our paychecks and our financial well-being by telling Congress to make our tax cuts permanent.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Adam Michel

Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Portrait of Parker Sheppard

Parker Sheppard focuses on dynamic economic modeling as a senior policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Portrait of Kevin Dayaratna

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin Dayaratna

Kevin D. Dayaratna specializes in tax, energy and health policy issues as senior statistician and research programmer in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Podcast: Tax Reform Leads to More Cookies, Not Crumbs


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by mediaphotos/Getty Images.

Trump Outfoxed Them Again

Trump is wise for not falling into democrats’, fake news media and the Deep state’s trap of saying Russia tampered with our election. Russia has tried to impact our elections forever. While 12 Russians were indicted in the Russia collusion investigation, no Americans were indicted. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated that Russian tampering had no impact on the outcome of our presidential election. In other words, Trump won fair and square

Conservative pundits who joined the American left’s and Deep state’s chorus demanding that Trump admit Russian tampering still don’t get it. What part of the American left and Deep state’s contempt for fairness or truth do these conservatives not understand? The American left and Deep state are laser-focused on kicking Trump out of office by any means necessary.

All they are interested in is Trump gifting them with a sound bite they can distort and lie about to harm him. If Trump said Russia tampered but it did not impact our election, fake news media would report, “Trump admits Russian tampering.” MSNBC would report, “Trump practically admitted he colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary.” Nowhere in the fake news media frenzy would you hear the second part of Trump’s statement; “…it did not impact our election”.

We know the drill folks. How many times must leftists lay “gotcha” traps for conservatives/Republicans before our side gets it? When will Republicans and Conservatives understand that they cannot play nice, appease, try to reason with or find common ground with leftist fanatics? These evil hate-filled people want Conservatives, Republicans and Trump politically dead. Period. It is not an exaggeration to say many political elites and leftists want our president physically dead.

Years ago, I was speaking and singing on a national bus tour with Tea Party Express. After a long day of Tea Party rallies, our team had dinner at a restaurant. A team member got the manager to turn the TV to Saturday Night Live because Sarah Palin was a scheduled guest.

The comedy skits portrayed Sarah as stupid. Several of my fellow team members laughed and thought it was great for Sarah to poke fun at herself to show that conservatives/Republicans are not ogres, but really nice people. I did not laugh. I thought Sarah’s appearance was a huge mistake. Saturday Night Live’s leftist producer’s goal was to brand this brilliant female governor an idiot. Sadly, in the minds of far too many, the left’s branding of Sarah stuck.

I even began hearing conservatives/Republicans say Palin is stupid and toxic and must be gotten rid of. This angered me because I thought, so this is how we treat our courageous warriors. While the American left’s and Deep state’s 24/7 campaign to destroy Trump is unprecedented in its hate, rage and vitriol, their attempt to destroy Sarah was extremely hot and heavy.

Leftists who portray themselves as paragons of superior compassion even viciously attacked Trig, Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome son

And yet, Sarah never wavered in boldly standing up for God, family and country; traditional principles and values which have made America great. I and millions of Americans loved her for it.

A few days ago, I heard fake news media report something Trump supposedly said. I can’t recall what it was, but the report was a total lie. So, why in the world should Trump try to get on the good side of these people who purposely distort and lie about everything he says and does?

It is wise that Trump typically doubles down rather than apologize for anything he says and does. The American left and deep state would regard any apology as a crack in Trumps armor – blood in the water; an opening to attack him with even more distortions and lies. The Trump-hating-behemoth is not about being fair, balanced or reasonable. Everything they do and say is about removing Trump from office and destroying the lives of himself and his family, even 12 year old Barron

An outrageous New York Magazine headline proves my point, “ Mueller’s New Indictment Points to Collusion With Russia.” What the heck are these people at NY Mag talking about? Mueller’s investigation said Russia tampering did not impact a single vote in Trump’s victory. And yet, NY Mag is distorting this truth to mislead low-info voters to still believe the absurd lie the American left and Deep state have promoted for almost two years: that Trump stole the election from Hillary. This is the dishonesty we are up against regarding fake news media. Again I ask, why on earth should Trump try to appease these people?

I love Trump expressing his disrespect for fake news media; continuing to boldly stick-it-to-them – while steamrollering over them with his Make America Great Again agenda. All I ask is that we stay firmly in Trump’s corner, assuring him that We the People have his back.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Mark Peterson/Redux for MSNBC.

VIDEO: Why Politics Matters in Religion — Because everything is at stake.

TRANSCRIPT

Why do politics matter? Why are we devoting some of our resources to this? What does it all have to do with the Faith?

Those are legitimate questions, and here are the answers.

First, the U.S. bishops, pretty political animals during the past 50 years or so, have really become political in the last five years or so. What was pretty much known privately and in some select circles is now a secret no longer, and that is that the U.S. bishops taken collectively are dyed in the wool Democrats, supporters of the Party of Death in nearly every instance. It is the bishops who have become political and invested loads of their resources in the form of money, time and personnel into supporting Democratic Party politics.

In the rare instances they — probably — disagree with the party chieftains, like abortion and contraception, they just fall in lockstep by turning decidedly quiet and uninvolved. And on the whole homo-fascist movement sweeping across America, they have offered almost no resistance whatsoever, which is understandable given the enormous numbers of sodomites among them or their respective clergy.

On everything else on the agenda of the Party of Death, the bishops have completely thrown in with. They are deceiving Catholics up and down the body politic by pretending that their positions on immigration, climate change and social justice are Church teaching, which they absolutely are not. But, make no mistake, it is the bishops who have thrown down this gauntlet of trying to advance socialism through the electorate by use of their offices.

They get loads of money from their Democratic lawmaker buddies for pretended poverty issues, which all too frequently are really efforts to get more Democrats elected, one way or another. Notice, for example, the outrage from the USCCB over the recent ruling that union workers can’t be compelled to pay union fees which are used to support political actions they disagree with. Extorting money from politically conservative union workers has been a long time tactic of union mobs — almost all Democratic — and the U.S. bishops, with the exception of the solid Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, just couldn’t resist slamming the Court.

Notice the decided lack of cheering in the ruling on the baker gay wedding case — it just goes on and on.

If it’s Democratic, they support it. If it’s not, they attack it, and so it goes.

Notice the hypocrisy of the diocese of Helena, Montana earlier in the month for yet another example of railing against priests who attended Trump’s rally on July 5, yet later it emerged that the very diocesan official, Msgr. Kevin O’Neill, who slammed them for appearing at Trump’s rally appeared at the inauguration of the Catholic pro-abort governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, who also happens to give thousands of dollars to the cathedral, as records show.

Things have intensified to a white-hot intensity in the culture the past few years because the grip that the Left had on American culture is now deeply threatened, and the war is on. And precisely where this war is being fought tooth and nail is in the realm of politics.

That’s exactly why the bishops have ramped up their level of intensity, along with every other concerned group desperate to seize the future of the country right now in the present, and it is exactly the present fight that will dictate the future. Everyone involved in the fight knows that. That’s why the massive war over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court is just that — a war.

It’s why bishops won’t condemn pro-abortion Catholic politicians and deny them Holy Communion. It’s why there is still, almost half a century later, no national collection from the U.S. bishops for the right to life effort. Under no circumstances can the U.S. bishops anger their Democratic Party allies, so they join in when they can, which is most of the time, and fall silent on the few occasions they need to.

All of this is massively misleading to American Catholics who don’t get to keep close track of all this because they are busy trying to build their lives and raise their families. The bishops get to wrap their phony positions up in the robes and make them appear Catholic when they are not Catholic at all. This is an offense against truth, charity and justice and must be combatted.

They won’t tell the faithful that they have spent billions of your dollars on, not just sexually abusive priests, but homosexual sexually abusive priests because that admission would tick off the Democratic leadership.

So tell a half-truth instead and try to sweep the reality under the rug. So yes, politics do matter, elections do have consequences, and the bishops are largely on the wrong side of all this because they no longer make the Faith their first priority and have instead made money the goal. They are both used and being used in the world of politics and it is the duty of faithful Catholics to expose every bit of this. Their activity has nothing to do with saving souls or bringing people into the one true Faith.

If they won’t do it, then we have to.

The Rise of Democrat Socialism in America

Democratic Socialists of America logo. The symbol of a rose in a fist is used by the Socialist International “and many of its member parties” such as the French Socialist Party (PS). The British Labour Party has used a red rose as its symbol since the late 1980s; the rose replaced the party’s previous symbol, the red flag.

Democrat Socialism is a separate movement and is not the Liberal Democrat Party most Democrats voted for in the past. It should not be included in the Democrat Party. It is a separate philosophy and should be identified as a separate Party . 

Democrat Socialism is a misnomer. There is nothing democratic about Socialism. Socialism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. History shows that Socialism and Communism do not share a democrat philosophy but are both fascist in nature. Socialists and Communists both propose utopia but end up with a dictator. Can you name one major Socialist country not ruled by a dictator? Along the way most Socialist and Communist countries have killed millions of their citizens in their march to Socialism and Communism.

In order to make Socialism more palatable its proponents added the name Democrat in front of Socialism. It is a distinct movement that has little in common with Democrat liberalism.  If Democrat Socialism was only a name it would not be so serious. However in co-opting the name it has made substantial strides in manipulating liberal Democrat senators and congressional members and the media to join with it.Their name identifies them a liberal Democrats but nothing could be less true. Liberal Democrats are being duped by a name.

Below is an article that appeared in the Associated Press (a liberal media outlet). I quote:

“There is little distinction made between the terms “democratic socialism” and “socialism” in the group’s literature. While Ringelstein and other DSA-backed candidates promote a “big-tent” philosophy, the group’s constitution describes its members as socialists who “reject an economic order based on private profit” and “share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”

Members during public meetings often refer to each other “comrades, wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx.”

Unless liberal Democrats wake up to what’s happening to their Party they may not only lose future elections but may lose their country.  


Democratic socialism surging in the age of Trump

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A week ago, Maine Democrat Zak Ringelstein wasn’t quite ready to consider himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, even if he appreciated the organization’s values and endorsement in his bid to become a U.S. senator.

Three days later, he told The Associated Press it was time to join up. He’s now the only major-party Senate candidate in the nation to be a dues-paying democratic socialist.

Ringelstein’s leap is the latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization that, until recently, operated on the fringes of the liberal movement’s farthest left flank. As Donald Trump’s presidency stretches into its second year, democratic socialism has become a significant force in Democratic politics. Its rise comes as Democrats debate whether moving too far left will turn off voters.

“I stand with the democratic socialists, and I have decided to become a dues-paying member,” Ringelstein told AP. “It’s time to do what’s right, even if it’s not easy.”

There are 42 people running for offices at the federal, state and local levels this year with the formal endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization says. They span 20 states, including Florida, Hawaii, Kansas and Michigan.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Democrats’ embrace of Socialism reflects the desperation of a party losing control of the judiciary and regulatory state

Venezuela Surpasses Weimar As Hyperinflation Expected To Hit 1,000,000 % By Year End

NY Times on Democrat Party’s Aggressive Push to the Socialist-Left

Socialists Unite! Bolshevik Bernie And Ocasio-Cortez Campaign Together In Kansas.

Hell in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba puts Democrats and their beloved S-word on the spot in Florida

National Sovereignty vs Globalism: One, Two, Three Strikes, You’re Out!

The world is currently divided between those who seek internationalized one world global governance and those who demand national sovereignty. Western countries are bifurcated internally along the same political lines. In the United States two political teams have emerged who are in a tournament that will determine the future of America.

The International Team composed of leftist Democrat players and Republicans In Name Only (RINO) are challenging the National Team pennant holders for the championship title. The International Team is following their general manager Obama toward socialism – the prerequisite for internationalized global governance called Globalism.

The National Team composed of American patriots who support individualism, national sovereignty, the Constitution, and the rule of law have elected their MVP President Donald Trump to fend off the collectivist challengers and take America to the championship games to preserve their national title. What does it all mean?

The geopolitical landscape is changing and the draft is underway. The International Team has chosen the UN flag as its banner, identity politics, the European Union, open borders, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamism, anarchy, and activist judges to play on their team.

The National Team has chosen to fly the American flag, the Constitution, the rule of law, protected borders, legal immigration, and traditional secular American norms that do not recognize the authority of Islamic Sharia law to play on their team.

The two teams have opposing playbooks. The International Team relies on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and the colluding globalist mainstream media to create cognitive dissonance and disorient the National Team. Alinsky’s playbook instructs the team on how to target MVP player President Trump and focus on taking him out of the game by any means to win the World Series. The International Team is playing offense.

The National Team is playing defense and relies on the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and President Trump’s direct communication with the fans to win the game.

Over the strenuous objections of the National Team, the League hired their globalist mainstream media cronies as umpires to call the game in favor of the International Team. CNN was selected as the 1st base ump, MSNBC on second, NYT on third, and the Washington Post covered home plate.

The International Team huddled and decided the best way to move their anti-American globalist agenda forward was to elect legacy candidate Hillary Clinton to succeed general manager Barack Obama so the first pitch had to destroy Bernie Sanders. Strike 1.

Next, the International Team decided that an insurance policy was necessary to implement their globalist agenda in the unlikely event that their MVP, Crooked Hillary, lost the presidential election. The International Team huddled and decided on the old “hidden ball trick” certain that it would hide the malfeasance of general manager Obama. Under Obama’s leadership falsified accusations of Russian meddling and collusion with MVP Trump were filed with the League and used to secure FISA warrants that resulted in the Mueller “investigation” designed to throw POTUS out of the game.

The hidden ball trick is a play of deception that works like this. The pitcher throws to first for a pick-off but the runner is safe. The first baseman pretends he is throwing the ball back to the pitcher but actually hides the ball in his glove. When the runner steps off the base he is tagged out – the hidden ball trick. Strike 2.

The International Team has Mueller playing first baseman and Schumer on the pitcher’s mound. It is the bottom of the 9th, MVP Trump is safe on first, the score is tied Internationalism 2 Nationalism 2. There is a full count – 3 balls 2 strikes. Schumer throws the ball to Mueller at first, Mueller fakes throwing the ball back to Schumer hoping that President Trump will leave the base and be impeached. President Trump has a big smile on his face and turns to Mueller saying, “Throw the ball Mueller – do you think I cannot see what you are doing??”

Rosenstein, the manager of the International Team, comes running out of the dugout frantically screaming, “TIME OUT! TIME OUT!” President Trump watches Rosenstein with amusement and smiles again.

This is where we are in history at this very moment – the action has stopped. Soon play will resume with Devin Nunes at bat followed by Jim Jordan and Tom Fitton. The National lineup is formidable. Schumer is nervously looking around trying to decide on his next pitch. Fast ball? Curve ball? Slider? What to throw with so much at stake?

Let’s examine the possible outcomes – Strike 3 “You’re Out! Game over!” or “Ball 4″ and the game continues.

The sweat is pouring down Schumer’s face, Rosenstein is worried that Schumer will start crying and walk Nunes – it happens. Nunes walks to first and Trump advances to second base. The crowd goes wild. Jim Jordan is at bat. Rosenstein goes to the mound to calm Schumer. They both look up at the general manager’s box and see Obama and his cronies Clapper, Comey, Rice, McCabe, Lynch, Brennan, and Strzok all screaming “STRIKE HIM OUT! STRIKE HIM OUT!”

Rosenstein leaves the mound and Schumer looks to his catcher Pelosi for a sign. It doesn’t help – Schumer walks Jordan. Nunes takes second and Trump moves to third. Tom Fitton is at bat. Rosenstein is wild and motions to the bullpen for a relief pitcher. Maxine Waters struts to the mound. The crowd is screaming hysterically, “SHE CAN’T PITCH! SHE CAN’T PITCH!” Fitton readies himself staring at Waters. Waters winds up, the pitch is on the way, with the crack of his bat the ball is gone!!

This is the shot heard round the world, “Nationalism wins the World Series! Nationalism wins the World Series!” The National Team wins the World Series!!

Tom Fitton waves to the roaring crowd – the noise is like thunder. Fitton, the Judicial Watch lawyer turned baseball player has done it! MVP Trump crosses home plate waving his MAGA hat in the air and waits for Fitton to come home. Devin Nunes crosses the plate, then Jim Jordan, and finally the National Team hero Tom Fitton. What a team! What a victory!

The National Team has beaten Obama and his cronies and defeated Globalism in the World Series – but of course the International Team does not accept the win and has filed their grievance with the United Nations Baseball League citing Russian interference.

But what about the alternative outcome? What if President Trump had been tagged out or Maxine Waters strikes Tom Fitton out? Let’s find out.

Maxine Waters struts to the mound. The crowd is screaming hysterically, “SHE CAN’T PITCH! SHE CAN’T PITCH!” Fitton readies himself staring at Waters. Waters winds up, the wild pitch is on the way, the ball misses the plate but the Washington Post home base umpire screams “YOU’RE OUT!!”

What happens after the game if Strike 3 is called and the International Team wins the World Series?

A win for the International Team means that the Mueller “investigation” has successfully influenced the outcome of the midterm elections and the House Democrats pick up enough seats to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Removing President Trump ends the game by removing the greatest obstacle to globalist one world governance. Then what?

The celebrations won’t last long because there is a serious problem with the Democrat’s leftist/Islamist team roster – the Islamist players have no intention of sharing the World Series title with the International Team even though they have been drafted as players. The owners of the International Team know this but they think they will use the Islamist players to help them win the World Series and then trade them or otherwise dispose of them. Not so fast.

The Islamist players are nihilists who take their instructions from Allah and the Islamist leaders in their home countries. Nihilists have no regard for human life. Islamists fully intend to establish a worldwide caliphate ruled by supremacist Islamic sharia law. The Islamist players are not playing by Saul Alinsky’s rules – they play by sharia laws. Islamists do not value life on this earth so they are lethally dangerous not only to the opposing to team but to their own team members. If their home leaders tell them to release nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons these players will do so believing that their jihadi terror will destroy the infidels (including their teammates) and transport themselves to jihadi bliss.

English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell wrote unapologetically about who will ultimately control the world in his 1952 classic The Impact of Science on Society. Russell explained that science would necessarily prevail – what arrogant aristocrat Lord Russell could not imagine is that when science falls into the hands of jihadi nihilists there is no controlling the outcome. Lethal science in Western hands is restrained by a desire for life. Lethal science in the hands of nihilists is the end of the world.

America must support American nationalism, individualism, the Constitution, and the rule of law. President Donald Trump is America’s MVP and his America first agenda must be supported at the polls in the November midterm elections. Freedom loving Americans must get out and vote for candidates who support the National Team. We simply cannot allow the International Team of leftist Democrats and colluding RINOs in Congress to gain a majority and launch impeachment proceedings against President Trump because he is the existential enemy of one world government.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Goudsmit Pundicity.