What Rush Means To Us, And To Me


 What Rush Means To Us, And To Me
 Article by Kurt Schlichter in "Townhall":

It’s a tribute to the great Rush Limbaugh that the reaction to his cancer diagnosis by the tens of millions of people he inspired was not to be devastated but to focus and to resolutely offer their thoughts and prayers in his fight. And he will fight – he’ll fight this like he has fought everything and everyone else that tried to take him out over the last third of a century. He is the archetypal conservative brawler, a no-apologies, no-excuses conservative who never submitted, never allowed himself to be domesticated and neutered by the elite. At the same time, he is gracious and a charity juggernaut. We love him for his strength and wit, and the left – to judge by its vicious, hateful glee over the news – has never forgiven him for either.

But then, the glory of Rush is that he doesn’t ask to be forgiven.

Here’s how I learned about Rush. I was back from the Gulf War in mid-1991, out of the Army and staying with my parents for a few weeks before I went to LA to start law school. One day, a guy I grew up with who lived across the street told me, “You gotta hear this Rush guy!”

“What’s a Rush?”

“Rush Limbaugh!”

That’s when this all began for me. Sure, I was conservative already, but I was kind of on my own. Lots of us were – millions of us thought we were the only ones who thought like we did. Back then, being a conservative meant you waited for the National Review and maybe the American Spectator to show up in your mailbox. That was it. That was the whole conservative media. You social media cons are spoiled. We were the conservative diaspora.

And conservatism was still nice. Nice worked for Ronald Reagan, but he had a spine of steel. Nice did not work for George H.W. Bush. He would dive bomb a Japanese destroyer and send me and half a million others off to war, but get into an undignified political brawl? Oh well, I never! He got pummeled.

But Rush was not interested in submission. He was interested in conservatism, raw and undiluted. And he gathered us together and demonstrated that we were not alone.

For me, Rush was preaching to the choir, but then the choir needs preaching to too. Yet, his most vital function is to create new conservatives out of mushy libs who were that way purely out of habit. I can’t count how many other conservatives I’ve met who were liberal until they heard Rush. The lies the liberals told about him were often the first liberal lies these converts noticed – they tuned in expecting a monster and got a good natured, funny but uncompromising conservative who won millions of people over through the power of the common sense of his message. People wondered that if liberals were lying to them about Rush, what else were they lying about?

My friend Andrew Breitbart, the other great non-governmental conservative visionary of the last 50 years, wrote about how he was converted and inspired by Rush. That’s the importance of Rush to our movement – he generates conservatives out of liberals and moderates, all by talking to them like they are adults.

But while freedom and the Constitution sell themselves, don’t underestimate Rush’s technical skills as an entertainer. Today, I occasionally substitute for incredible radio hosts like Hugh Hewitt and Larry O’Connor – every conservative host traces his lineage to Rush. And doing that job gives you an appreciation of what it takes and what Rush does. You stare at that mic looming in front of your face and realize you have 11 minutes until the next hard break to fill with coherent thoughts that will keep hands off that dial. But Rush has done that for decades, making it look easy (it’s not) and without the crutch of guests. It’s all him.

There has never been anyone like him on radio, and never will be again. But there will be many who were mentored by him whether Rush knew them or not.

People say there would be no Trump without Rush, but it’s more than that. There would be no conservatism without him. Our movement could have been strangled in the cradle, but Rush nurtured and grew it off in what had been the abandoned wasteland of AM radio where the smart set never bothered to venture.

He started in the three-network era and singlehandedly busted that liberal monopoly on discourse. Rush ignored the gatekeepers and simply tore down the whole gate. Oh, they tried to stop him. They tried to force him off the air, because they feared the unstoppable combination of unparalleled talent promoting the ideology of human freedom backed with the courage to never quit. He could have walked away years ago. He could have taken his money and retired. But he’s there, every day, working in the cause of freedom.

How they hate him. His announcement was met by determination and faith from his friends and vile delight by his enemies on the left. Did you see a single major Democrat take to social media to wish him well? Keep that in mind when they invite you to disarm.

Remember, they hate Rush not for anything he did, but simply for articulating American freedom effectively and without equivocation. They want him to die, literally, because they disagree with what he thinks, so how do you think they feel about you? Again, consider that the next time a Democrat tells you to give up your guns. 

I think back on the countless hours I spent with Rush in my car and smile. It seems like he’s always been there, a voice of sanity during the Clinton years, the Bush 43 years, Obama years, and the Trump era. He’s been there pretty much my whole adult life. A lot of you younger cons never knew a time before Rush. He was always there when you turned on the radio, doing his unique thing, not part of any other network or organization, entirely sui generis.

He’s Rush.

And though I never met him, he’s been amazingly gracious to me. Every once in a while, my phone will go nuts, and I know the great Rush Limbaugh has read one of my Townhall columns on the air again, and no doubt mispronounced my last name!

Rush, you can pronounce “Schlichter” any way you please. If not for you, I probably would not be a columnist, or an author, or an occasional radio host. Thank you.

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3568779094875723507#editor/target=post;postID=1130160758547416370

When Your Pet Bites You.



You have to love when a Democrat plan comes together. Democrats want open borders, they want the illegals to pour into America. What happens to the Democrats when they lose control?

America dies.

What does thousands of unskilled, uneducated illegals give America?

Antifa Threatens Pelosi’s Challenger: “When the Cameras Aren’t Around, I’m Gonna Fuck You Up”



Over the weekend, Scott Presler and his crew headed to San Francisco to do a little community service (a/k/a clean up trash, used needles, human feces, and more from the streets) and partnered with the San Francisco GOP. Yes, there is such a thing as a San Francisco GOP, and they’re actually gaining membership. That could be because their chair, who is also challenging San Fran Nan, actually stands up to bullies.

That chairman, John Dennis, was confronted by Antifa thugs during the cleanup (as was Presler). Before getting to that confrontation, it’s worth noting some of the disgusting conditions they saw.



And, right next to food trucks – human feces.



Eventually, Antifa confronted Dennis, who grew up in a housing project in Jersey City, New Jersey. After Dennis told him he disagreed with him, the man said that more than disagreeing with Dennis, he wanted Dennis dead.



There’s no dispute about what these people want to do to law-abiding Americans who want to take care of their fellow citizens. After Dennis asked Antifaman why he was so angry and acknowledging that the two probably disagree, Antifaman says:
No, I actually want you dead….Because you’re a piece of s**t….Because you’re racist.

The two traded barbs back-and-forth, then finally Antifaman had enough and said:
Bruh, I’m gonna catch you when all the cameras aren’t around, and I’m gonna f**k you up.

Dennis’ reply: “You’ve got the wrong guy. You’ve got the very wrong guy.” And he’s believable.

Chris Matthews is Not Happy With the Dem Field; ‘Bernie Sanders is Not Going to be President, Okay?’



MSNBC host Chris Matthews is not happy with
the field of Democratic candidates, not at all.

He is convinced that Bernie will be the big winner of the Iowa caucuses and he’s probably right about that. Matthews predicts that Bernie will at first be riding high, as Warren once was until she was scrutinized.

Bernie will be scrutinized, he says, and once voters “figure out who the guy is,” it’s over.

Trump was asked about Bernie and said, “I think he’s a communist.” Should Bernie win the nomination, the Trump campaign will hammer that message from now through Election Day and probably defeat Bernie by a landslide just as Richard Nixon defeated the far left Sen. George McGovern in 1972.

Matthews gets it. He understands that most Americans won’t be too excited about Bernie’s $16 trillion (not a typo) climate change plan.

Speaking with his colleagues Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on “Morning Joe” yesterday, Matthews said, “What are my thoughts? I’m not happy. I’m not happy with this field. I think they have to find a candidate for president that can beat Trump.”
Scarborough asked, “You don’t think anybody in this field – ” He is abruptly cut off by the increasingly agitated Matthews.

“I’m looking, I’m still looking,” Matthews barked.

“What’s the problem?”

Matthews continues:
Obvious problems, they’re all problems. Bernie Sanders is not going to be president of the United States, okay? I look back at the ’72 race, I was a young volunteer for the DNC… I’ve got to tell you, it feels a lot like it. A lot of giddiness, a lot of excitement, thrill about this guy.
[Matthews is referring to former Sen. George McGovern (D-SD) who lost to President Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. political history.]
He excited the party completely, blew away a really good candidate like [then-Sen. Edwin] Muskie, a very good guy, blew him right out of the water because he had some issues.
Now analytically, a couple of things have happened. Warren was riding high, I thought she was going to sweep through everything…What happened, she got a lot of scrutiny…All of that stuff got killed… and guess who’s gonna get it now? Bernie’s gonna get it now.
Bernie’s gonna ride high and he’s finally gonna get scrutinized about his whole life, his ideology, his whole life. Who did he root for all of his life, who is this guy? It’s not just the nice, good stuff like health care. Why does he say the stuff he says about [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro and people like that…people have got to figure out who the guy is. I think I know because I’ve dealt with these guys all my adult life. They’re usually the guys at the card table at an antiwar rally. There’d be some old guy with some old literature from his socialist party or that, trying to sell it, trying to latch on the antiwar movement. There’s always guys like that…
I know him, but I think the country is going to get to know him and I think we’ve got a problem. We’ll see. But, you know, nobody is going to be saying it tonight. They’re gonna be cheering, ‘good ole Bernie.’ I think he’s gonna win big tonight, real big, real big.

Watch the video below.



Rand Paul’s Irrefutable Case...


The American Spectator

Rand Paul’s Irrefutable Case 
Against Socialism


Rand Paul’s new book, The Case Against Socialism, provides clear and compelling evidence as to why socialism begins with alluring promises and ends with starvation and even death for some.

Socialism is being promoted this political season with the appealing argument that the government can provide endless amounts of free entitlements. The promises are disingenuous because someone has to produce the goods and services as well as pay the taxes on those goods and services.

During his lifetime, Andrew Carnegie grew wealthy, but so did the economy. This was because the Industrial Revolution reduced poverty as wages rose. Thanks to free markets in much of the world, “extreme poverty” has now been reduced to 10 percent. While Carnegie may have been significantly wealthier than most of the population at the time, his wealth also benefited most of the U.S. population: he gave away most of his money before he passed, creating the modern library system, hospitals, scientific research centers, and universities. Without the wealth of Carnegie, many would have continued to live in abject poverty.

Rand Paul states, “Despite income inequality, the poor have made incredible gains.” Many times, the poor make incredible gains because of the wealth of the top earners, like the poor benefiting from Carnegie’s wealth. Paul then goes on to quote Deirdre McCloskey: “millions more have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, lower child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, a vote, and a shot at university and respect.”

Money invested in the private market with entrepreneurs increases production and reduces prices. This is why America has a greater abundance of goods and a very high standard of living, despite various levels of income inequality. Socialism seeks to abolish any type of inequality, especially income inequality, but ultimately ends in tyranny as the top socialist leaders continue to nurture their greed for power.

Rand Paul points out, “Socialism promises equality and leads to tyranny.”He quotes Richard Ebeling saying, “under a regime of comprehensive socialism the ordinary citizen would be confronted with the worst of all imaginable tyrannies.” A prime example of this is found in Venezuela, where starvation and death have been the order of the day in recent years. Paul emphasizes this when he explains that “the terrible constellation of ideas called socialism … reached its pinnacle under Chavez and Maduro that devastated Venezuela.” Venezuela is quickly headed towards the fate that Russia once faced: the death of millions of citizens due to the socialist policies of the country’s leaders.

Socialism promotes bloated government because the leaders control all aspects of life. Eventually, citizens lose all freedom, which is the outcome in Venezuela. The results of Bolsheviks, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Kim Jong-un, and Mao Zedong are all destructive to society. Cambodia’s Pol Pot (a socialist) caused the death of over two million of his citizens in one of the worst genocides in world history, murdering over 20 percent of the entire Cambodian population.

Current American politicians contend that the socialism they want is different, that the socialist leaders who promise income equality are not interested in more power. Rand Paul reminds us of hundreds of years of history and quickly disabuses this argument.

Centralized government wouldn’t simply provide your health care, your child care, your college education, and your employment; it would controlyour health care, your child care, your college education, and your employment. Socialists want you to believe that if you put the needs of the whole before the needs of the individual, society will be better off and completely taken care of. What they fail to realize is that individuals are what make up the whole. A byproduct of self-reliant individuals is their contributions to the whole.

This Nazi slogan rings true with many socialists today: “the good of the community before the good of the individual.” The road to hell for a country is filled with concern over the common good before the good of the individual, and Paul explains why this is so: “As long as socialists continue to promote the will of the collective over the rights of the individual, it remains a danger that the determiners of the ‘collective will’ may determine to carry out policies for their own self-interest, their own power, or even their own petty prejudices.”

We must work hard to make sure we continuously protect the rights of the individual. Without the rights of the individual, free markets and entrepreneurs cannot thrive and make the lives of underprivileged citizens vastly better.

Rand Paul warns, “Socialism as an economic and political system is an avoidable disaster,” but he concludes on a positive note: “My hope is that the next generation will understand that free markets and free people have produced better health, longer life expectancy, and reduced poverty and suffering around the world. My hope is that they will choose liberty.”

Rand Paul’s The Case Against Socialism is a must-read for every voter, politician, and student in America.

Bob Luddy is the Founder and CEO of CaptiveAire.

Bolton now promotes the anti-Trump agenda of Schiff and Pelosi



Nobody elected John Bolton to anything. 

That reality is at the core of what appeared to frustrate Mr. Bolton and numerous other senior presidential aides during my time working in the West Wing for President Trump.

As a staffer, if you have a policy disagreement with the president, you have two options: You either subordinate your views to his and fulfill his wishes — or you quit. That does not mean you shy away from making your case behind closed doors — and in my experience the president encouraged dissenting views — but once the president makes a decision, it is your job to execute it with the same vigor you would if it had been your idea all along. 

That was the entire premise of my book, “Team of Vipers,” which laid out in great detail the exasperation of working in an administration where the duly elected president is undermined by people who refuse to subordinate their views to his, or have selfish motives, or have visions of grandeur and think they know how to run their country better than he does — or in Mr. Bolton’s case, some combination of all of those. 

It is well known that Mr. Bolton favored a much more adventurous foreign policy than the president, or as many of us who worked with or around him often said, “He basically wants to carpet bomb the planet.” And since the president would not let him, Mr. Bolton has apparently decided to seek retribution by publishing a book that the National Security Council says contains Top Secret information.

You see, for all Mr. Bolton’s many faults and weaknesses, he is no dummy. His colleagues viewed him as shrewd, calculating and deliberate. He picks his spots, carefully. So for those who know him, it is hardly a surprise that he waited until just the right moment to insert himself into the national debate — at a moment of historical significance — to shift the spotlight onto himself in dramatic fashion.

And suddenly, as a result of this self-serving betrayal of the president, Mr. Bolton has magically transitioned from being dismissed or ridiculed by much of the mainstream media, to being placed on a pedestal as an honest broker, rather than the disgruntled former staffer he clearly is.

After all, any reasonable reporting would have to point out that in August 2019, before Mr. Bolton was fired from his post, he said in an interview that combating “corruption” in Ukraine was a “high priority” for the president, while making no mention of any nefarious quid pro quo. In that clip, it sure sounded like Mr. Bolton was in lockstep with the president’s anti-corruption Ukrainian agenda. But now that it is time to sell a book, he has decided to change his mind?

There is a disturbing trend in mainstream media coverage in which aides who undermine the president are glorified, as if there is something patriotic about subverting the agenda of a man democratically elected by the American people. In a typical moment in history, these people would be derided as anti-democratic and dangerous threats to our entire system.

There is a popular Internet meme that even the president has occasionally posted on social media, in which Mr. Trump is staring, stone-faced straight ahead and pointing at the camera, and the caption reads: “In reality they’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

There is some truth to that. 

For all of the president’s many accomplishments in office — and I would contend that he is the first politician in history to be eviscerated by the media for actually fulfilling his promises — his greatest accomplishment of all may be somehow getting his opponents to expose themselves to be — or to turn themselves into — exactly what he says they are. 

Throughout this absurd impeachment debacle, members of Congress have largely shown themselves to be the spineless opportunists he told the country they were. The “fake news” media has gotten so out­raged at his broadsides — and committed to showing Mr. Trump to be unfit for office — that they continue to lurch from one half-truth or manufactured narrative to the next.

And the Swamp — of which John Bolton has been a decades-long denizen — has sought to sink Mr. Trump’s presidency at every turn. Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating has steadily risen, as he’s focused on methodically implementing policies that actually improve the lives of American citizens, while Democrats have allowed their every waking moment to be consumed by their hatred for Mr. Trump.

But if Mr. Trump’s approach to the job can be summed up in “America First,” Mr. Bolton’s entire career could be summed up in “Bolton First.” And in some ways that is hardly a surprise — we all knew he was a self-promoter. We just never imagined he would also become a promoter of the failed agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. Say it ain’t so, John. Say it ain’t so.

• Cliff Sims is the author of “Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House” and a former special assistant to the president and director of White House message strategy for President Donald J. Trump.

Mila: 'No regrets' for French teen targeted for criticising Islam

A teenager has sparked a national debate about blasphemy in France after an Instagram post calling Islam a "religion of hate".
Mila, 16, posted her comments online after receiving homophobic abuse from a Muslim commenter.
She received death threats and has not attended school since.
But Mila has refused to back down, saying in her first television interview that she "wanted to blaspheme".
She has since deactivated her Instagram account.
The post has sparked a huge debate in France over freedom of speech. The country has no national blasphemy laws and has a rigidly secular constitution.
Police initially opened two investigations: the first into whether Mila was guilty of hate speech, and the second into her online attackers. They have since dropped the hate speech case as Mila was expressing a personal opinion on religion and not targeting individuals.
On Tuesday, Interior Minister Christophe Castaner told the National Assembly that Mila and her family were under police protection.

What did Mila say?

Appearing on the Quotidien programme on the TMC channel, Mila apologised for insulting people who practise their religion "in peace" and said she regretted the "vulgarity" of her words and their spread online.
But she defended her remarks. "I have absolutely no regrets about what I said, it was really my thought," she told the interviewer.

Mina said her life was "clearly on hold" amid the controversy. She had to leave school because of the threats against her, saying she could have been "burned with acid, hit, stripped naked in public or buried alive".
On Monday, education minister Jean-Michel Blanquer said that authorities were trying to "return her to school peacefully so that she can have a normal life".

How did the controversy start?

The controversy began on 18 January, after Mila did a live broadcast on her Instagram account. After speaking about her sexuality she was called a "dirty lesbian" by a Muslim commenter.
In response, Mila posted an attack on Islam. "I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hate," she said, before using stronger words to attack Islam.
"I am not racist. You cannot be racist towards a religion. I said what I thought, you're not going to make me regret it."

Critics said her comments were offensive. Some sent her death threats, and others posted her personal information online. The head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, Mohammed Moussaoui, said nothing justified death threats no matter how serious her remarks.
Supporters defended her right to attack Islam, and the hashtag #JeSuisMila (I am Mila) started trending in France. Opponents hit back with the hashtag #JeNeSuisPasMila.
French justice minister Nicole Belloubet waded into the controversy, saying that death threats against the teenager were "unacceptable".
However, Ms Belloubet herself was criticised after arguing that an attack on religion was "an attack on freedom of conscience". French Senator Laurence Rossignol gave Ms Belloubet "0/20 in constitutional law", saying that in France "it is forbidden to insult the followers of a religion but one can insult a religion, its figures, its symbols". Ms Belloubet later said her comments had been "clumsy".
Mila's cause has been embraced by the far right. National Rally leader Marine Le Pen said Mila had "more courage than the entire political class in power for the past 30 years".
 In October, French President Emmanuel Macron warned against "stigmatising" Muslims or linking Islam with the fight against terrorism.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51369960

Trump Will Sell Alaska To Russia If We Don’t Impeach Him



Lead House Impeachment Manager Congressman Adam Schiff of California claimed during closing arguments in the Senate impeachment trial Monday that President Donald Trump will sell a U.S. state to the Russian government if not removed from office.

If “abuse of power” was not impeachable, Schiff argued, “then a whole range of utterly unacceptable conduct in a president would now be beyond reach.”

“Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election, or decide to move to Mar-A-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war.”

Schiff’s fearmongering of consequences conceived in pure fantasy come as the impeachment case against Trump officially collapsed on Friday after the Senate declined to hear new witnesses testify at the trial.

A vote on the president’s acquittal is now expected to come on Wednesday, exonerating the president of the three-and-a-half year impeachment effort launched by the Democrats even before Trump took office in 2017.

House Democrats launched an impeachment probe in September after an anonymous whistleblower complained that Trump was using the power of the Oval Office to extract concessions from foreign leaders, a common practice among American presidents.

The whistleblower complaint however, alleged Trump was conspiring with the Ukrainian president to interfere in the next election in exchange for nearly $400 million in military aid that was ultimately released to the Ukrainian government despite no investigations that Democrats have charged Trump with demanding.

Democrats however, rushed impeachment proceedings in the House to vote on two articles of impeachment the week of Christmas. By a partisan vote, the House voted to send two articles to the Senate accusing Trump of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” with two Democrats joining Republicans united in opposition and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard voting present.

Now as the Senate impeachment trial finally concludes without new witnesses as Democrats begged, Trump’s acquittal this week is almost certain.

Why Socialism Often Leads to Tyranny


Why Socialism Often Leads to Tyranny

Socialism and communism lead to underperforming economies and the loss of individual opportunity for generations.


There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that communism leads to tyranny. Mention the countries North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung’s China, East Germany, and Venezuela, and most people immediately think of an oppressed population with almost no economic opportunity and no political freedom. The words communist dictatorship roll off the tongue like the two words have gone together forever. In fact, in an extreme irony, communism, ostensibly the most egalitarian form of government, in two cases led to the least egalitarian form of government: royalty or the rule of one family over time. The Kim family in North Korea and the Castros in Cuba have been ruling their countries like the kings and queens of old for some time.

Sometimes it is argued that the personalities involved lead to tyranny, not communism or socialism. Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Erich Honecker, and Pol Pot are all bad people, but the personalities at the top matter little. Once a communist form of government is established, tyranny is the only result, regardless of which government official Game of Thrones’d their way to the top. Let’s examine the causal links that make communism a living hell for the people who have to live with it.

A Government That Is Giving You Things Can Take Them Away

The good news is you are entitled to housing, education, health care, and food. But that doesn’t mean people no longer have to work. The Soviet Constitution of 1936-Article 12 stated that “Labor in USSR is a duty and honorable obligation of each able citizen according to the principle: ‘Those who don’t work—don’t eat.’”

  A government that controls everything can quash dissent by changing the economic situation of anyone who is pointing out their defects.
If you persisted in demanding your right not to work, you wound up in the gulag, so thank God you live in a free enterprise, democratic society.

The real issue that needs to be addressed here is that a government that controls everything can quash dissent by changing the economic situation of anyone who is pointing out their defects or is involved with the opposition. In a communist society, all jobs, all levels of education, the national police, the medical system, the judicial system, the electoral system, the housing stock, the food distribution system, the military, the press, and all forms of transportation are controlled by the central government.

Write an insightful article about how a local government official is making a huge mistake (if you can find a computer to write it on), and you may find your apartment changed to the worst one available in a city where you don’t want to live. You could be reassigned from the job you trained years to get. For those of you who think the government using the medical system to advance its own interests is the fevered paranoia of a deranged libertarian, I would remind you that the Hong Kong protestors have developed a separate medical network rather than use public hospitals.

Socialism and Communism Are Bad Economics That Must be Implemented by Government Force

When most of us interface with the outside world, we expect the highest possible pay for the work we do, and when we buy things, we expect the highest quality at the lowest possible price. Economics adds up those personal tendencies over millions of people in large, complex societies and comes up with a few simple rules that describe economic behavior. Supply and demand, marginal revenue and marginal cost, the theory of money, and specialization and exchange are really just simple rules that take all people’s actions and abilities into account and arrive at a solution that balances the overall societal equation.

Communists and socialists don’t like these simple economic rules and come up with their own, such as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (your needs are generally unlimited), which conflicts with human nature. When you implement policies that conflict with human nature, you have to use force to implement them.

Stalin privately admitted that 10 million people died, either from starvation or resistance to the forced farm collectivization.
One example of arbitrary socialist economics is Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s drastic intervention in the electronics businesses of Venezuela in 2013. The government of Venezuela basically arrested the managers of one electronics store chain and forced the company to sell its products at lower prices. A few people got a cheap television on a one-time basis thanks to coercive government intervention, but you can bet that any ability to buy quality electronics at a good price in Venezuela is now gone.

A more serious example of communist economics is the Soviet farm collectivization of the 1930s. All the private, family-owned farms of the Soviet Union were converted to large collectivized farms. Stalin privately admitted to Churchill that 10 million people died, either from starvation or resistance to the forced farm collectivization. With a communist dictatorship, when a leader goes off the rails, there are no moderating forces that bring compromise or allow negotiation for alternative paths to lead a society toward its goals.

Every person who works in a communist society is paid by the government and knows they will be paid whether the organization they are working for provides goods or services to customers or not. This is very different than a society where most companies are private and employees know that if the company or the part of the company they work for doesn’t sell products that pay the companies expenses, they won’t be employed anymore. A communist society also has no private company competition to provide improved, cheaper, and higher quality goods and services.

A communist society’s productivity is a mere fraction of the productivity of an economy based on capitalism and free enterprise. The work ethic deteriorated so severely in the Soviet Union that a saying began circulating among the workers: “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” For a society to operate at an economic level much lower than its potential for generations is a loss that can never be regained.

Local versus National Police

One great defender of liberty in the United States that never gets much credit is your local police department. They enforce the laws we all care about—murder, assault, robbery—but they report no higher than the local mayor or county supervisor and are paid for by local taxes.

Decentralized power is a power that defends liberty.
Communist societies are very top-heavy. They all have national-level police departments with ominous-sounding names that enforce the one true ideology over the entire country. In many communist countries, these national-level police forces turn family members against each other by asking children to turn in their parents if they say or do something against the government. One phone call seals your fate if you are a dissenter or independent thinker who is questioning how the government is doing things.

To think about this concretely, imagine some high-level government official in the United States said another political party needed to be eradicated by force and/or locked up in prison. They’d have to get the law passed and then get thousands of local police departments to enforce it—a daunting task. Decentralized power is a power that defends liberty.

Socialism Can Lead to Communism

Socialism is communism-lite. They believe in nationalizing some industries and or important societal functions but not all. Socialists will usually nationalize utilities, transportation, and large industries that tend to have labor problems. Here, the personalities involved matter a lot. Socialist governments either respect the prior governmental rules of free elections, separation of powers, and individual choice, or they push for complete government control of everything by their political party and end up allowing no dissenting political parties or individuals.

To understand whether socialism leads to communism, we will study two cases. The first case is Britain after WWII when socialist parties were elected to national political office. The second case is Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1999 on a socialist platform.

The British economy performed poorly under socialism, and the British people elected politicians who believed in free enterprise and turned things around.
These post-war British socialists took it pretty seriously. They nationalized coal, electricity, steel, and the railways and set up the National Health Service to provide government-run health care. Farms and grocery stores were allowed to be private, and the British electoral system was left to allow free and fair elections. After a number of years, the British economy performed poorly under socialism, and the British people elected politicians who believed in free enterprise and turned things around. Socialism doesn’t always lead to communism, and Britain pulled back from the brink when they saw that the socialist promise led to everyone being worse off.

In Venezuela, the democratically elected Chavistas pushed for governmental control and brought in Cuban intelligence agents to assist them in quashing dissent and controlling the population. Venezuela had a special problem in that the government tried to force businesses into selling goods and services at a loss, implemented draconian currency controls, and were then surprised when the businesses stopped operating. The result in Venezuela was that stores had no goods on their shelves, hospitals had no medicines or machines that worked, and ordinary people took to looking through trash for food. Various political maneuvers were implemented by the Chavistas, the legislature was restructured, the judiciary was stacked, and the electoral system was compromised.

Now, any political avenue for changing the government in Venezuela is gone, and they have the very dictatorship that characterizes communist societies, along with a broken economy that works very poorly, even by communist standards. If you want to implement communism, you start up mass production of staples, implement rationing, and wink at the black markets that spring up. In Venezuela, the socialists pushed their way through to dictatorship and tyranny, and a complete economic breakdown was the result.

Most Politicians Will Use the Power at Their Disposal to Protect Their Interests

As I’ve said before, a communist society controls almost every personal, educational, political, and economic aspect of society. When faced with a government that has all those levers of control, you can be the toughest, meanest, smartest person and have people who agree with you—and your chance of changing the people in charge of the government is very low.

When a communist government moves on to a more open, pluralistic society, it is almost always because the people at the top decide communism is a bad idea.
Once the communist party in any given country has command over almost every control point, they all seem to have enough competence to use that authority to stay in power. Someone joked to me once that communism is the Hotel California of political systems—once you are in it, you can never leave. I can think of very few cases where “the people” overthrew a communist government. When a communist government moves on to a more open, pluralistic society, it is almost always because the people at the top decide communism is a bad idea and it is time to move on.

Gorbachev opened the door, and communism fell in the Soviet Union. When communism fell in the Soviet Union, the countries in Eastern Europe that had communism forced on them threw off that yoke. In China, the people at the top decided to allow some free enterprise and individual opportunity to spring up while not giving up political control.

What a Healthy Society Looks Like

A healthy society proactively avoids concentrating all power and resources in one party or person. This is more than just having multiple political parties and elections. It is the deliberate structure of society so that layers of local government, private companies, private or local educational institutions, civic organizations, judicial and police systems, individuals with personal wealth, non-profits, and religious organizations act as a brake on any party or person that goes off the rails and attempts to implement a dictatorship over society as a whole. A healthy society has private businesses that have to serve customers to stay in business.

The next time you vote, look past the siren song and vote for someone who understands where freedom and liberty really come from.
In a healthy society, politicians are given power relating only to their function: legislating, performing legal judgments, or managing a very specific, well-defined part of the government. Checks and balances with other offices of government are implemented to further reduce the power of government officials. The next time you get angry at the person your fellow voters put into office, remember that limited government is the tool that makes it so that leader can do fewer things that affect your life.

The siren song of socialism and communism is alluring. Perhaps it is human nature that we want to be taken care of in all circumstances and be assured that no other person has material circumstances much better than our own. But the record is crystal clear. Socialism and communism lead to underperforming economies, loss of individual opportunity for generations, equality implemented by everyone being poor except the party apparatchiks, lack of innovation and progress, and incredible political and religious oppression. The next time you vote, look past the siren song and vote for someone who understands where freedom and liberty really come from.

Why Impeachment Failed



House Democrats rushed through a botched process and then complained bitterly and endlessly that Senate Republicans wouldn’t do their work for them.

Unless more incriminating evidence emerges to dramatically alter public perception, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is effectively over.

It’s comforting, no doubt, to believe that Trump has survived this entire debacle because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president did. But while partisanship might be corrosive, it’s also the norm. In truth, Trump, often because of his own actions, has likely engendered less loyalty than the average president, not more.

It’s difficult to recall a single Democratic senator throwing anything but hosannas Obama’s way, which allowed the former president to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on the Constitution to the next. In 1998, not a single Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton, who had engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons, despite the GOP’s case being methodical and incriminating. Attempting to impeach a president for lying under oath to a federal grand jury in a sexual-harassment case in an effort to obstruct justice was, as Alan Dershowitz and many others argued, “sexual McCarthyism.” Few Democrats, though, claimed Clinton was innocent, because no one could credibly offer that defense; they merely reasoned that the punishment was too severe for what amounted to a piddling crime.

The chances of any party’s removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible. It’s never happened in American history — unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon — and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by.
Perhaps if the public hadn’t been subjected to four years of interminable hysteria over the United States’ imaginary decent into fascism, it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of “vital” Ukrainian aid that most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.

And perhaps if institutional media hadn’t spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion — a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial — the public wouldn’t be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.

You simply can’t expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.

Beyond the public’s mood, the Democrats’ strategy was a mess. House Dems and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations, declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history. (I’m not exaggerating.) When it comes to Trump criticism, everything is always the worst thing ever.

Even if Trump’s actions had risen to the level of removal, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were quite possibly the worst possible messengers to make the case. These are not the politicians you tap to persuade jurors; they’re the politicians you pick to rile up your base.

Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over the past couple of weeks, the man reeks of partisanship. Not only because he’s been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more than one occasion, but because he personally played a sketchy role in helping the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward.

Lots of Americans rightly believe that a large faction of Democrats has been looking to impeach the president from Day One. Nadler happened to be someone who was actually caught scheming to do it.

Even then, instead of spending the appropriate time building a solid case, subpoenaing all the “vital” witnesses, and laying out a timeline, House Democrats, by their own admission, rushed forward. They justified taking shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election.

That wouldn’t have been a big deal if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse, by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks. She did so despite having zero standing to dictate the terms of the trial, no constitutional right to attempt to dictate them, and no political leverage. In the end, she got nothing from Mitch McConnell for her trouble.

Meanwhile, Democrats had spent most of the House hearings focusing on the specific criminal offenses of “bribery” and “extortion” — poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized “quid pro quo” didn’t play as well with the public. If, as seems likely, it’s true that Americans are more familiar with the concepts of “bribery” and “extortion” than with the concept of a “quid pro quo,” that just means they have clearer expectations regarding the evidence needed to substantiate those accusations. And the Democrats didn’t have such evidence. They didn’t even bother including the former “crimes” — no, you don’t need a violation of criminal law to impeach, but the word was incessantly used by House Dems anyway — in their open-ended articles of impeachment, which were expressly written to compel Senate Republicans to conduct an investigation for them.

The House had no right to demand that, and the Senate had no reason to comply. So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment, Democrats began dropping one “bombshell” leak after the next — the same strategy they deployed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings — to try and drag out the spectacle and maximize the political damage. It didn’t work.

Some of us would certainly have preferred that more Republicans concede Trump’s call was unbecoming and, in parts, inappropriate, even if it didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Those who did, such as Alexander and Pat Toomey, had a better case to make in dismissing the need for any witnesses. Trump’s actions, though not ethically “perfect,” fall under the bailiwick of presidential power. Voters can decide his fate soon enough.

Democrats, though, keep demanding that Republicans play under a different set of rules. The Constitution, a document that is under attack by the very people claiming to want to save it from the president, worked exactly as it should in this case. The House is free to subpoena all the “vital” witnesses Republicans have supposedly ignored, and then send a new batch of impeachment articles. Impeachment isn’t tantamount to a “coup,” any more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt.

Pretending that Republicans are motivated by historically unique strains of partisanship, and acting like democracy is on the precipice of extinction simply because you didn’t get your way, though, is nothing but histrionics.

Why Are Liberals Such Hypocrites?

Musk has added $13.5 billion to his net worth this year by Monday, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
 The second-in-line Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 1.45% CEO, has added $9.05 billion.
The 48-year old started the year at number 35 on the list, according to Bloomberg, and is now the 22nd richest person in the world with a net worth of $41 billion.
Any yet neither Liberal offerred 1 Billion dollars for the Homeless or gave an extra 1 Billion to the Federal Government in support of paying moretaxes.
Hmm...... one wonders why.

Corruption Coverup – Nadler Schedules FBI Oversight Hearing With Chris Wray on Same Day as Impeachment Vote


Good grief, could House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler be any more transparent with his intentions here?  Knowing all eyes will be on the Senate impeachment vote at 4:00pm on the same day, Democrat Chairman Nadler schedules the House oversight hearing on FBI (FISA Misconduct) for 10:00am Wednesday, February 5th, to bury it.


FBI Director Christopher Wray has not been scheduled to face any questioning or public scrutiny by any legislative oversight body since the Inspector General report highlighted gross corruption and FBI misconduct in the December 9th, 2019, FISA report.

Additionally, the DOJ/FBI response to the demands of the FISC were also extended to February 5th.  The corrupt institutions, and the administrative state that surrounds them, are working overtime to avoid any exposure and national discussion about misconduct that should alarm everyone.  Why? Because they targeted Donald Trump… So, bury it.

Remember, the questions within this hearing are important.  The DOJ/FBI has admitted they need to sequester all evidence in all cases that stemmed from the Carter Page Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant; and they are hunting for that information.

A quiet (oral) request from the DOJ/FBI was noted in a late Friday release from FISA Court Presiding Judge James Boasberg a week ago. [LINK]


The previous deadline was January 28th. As noted the FISC granted a one week extension until February 5th. [Some Possible Ramifications Outlined Here]

This is a hot mess. Remember, IG Horowitz said he only found evidence of a FISA warrant against Carter Page, no other Trump campaign or Trump administration official was investigated using a FISA application. That statement is a little more important now.

As I go back through my notes seeing if I can identify the downstream consequences impacted by a rather stunning sequestration effort, I find myself wondering if the HJC case(s) for 6(e) material and Don McGahn testimony might even be part of the pull-back material as a derivative of the special counsel probe’ use of the Carter Page Title-1 surveillance warrant. After all, there had to be an investigative reason for Mueller to want the renewal on June 29, 2017, long after Carter Page was gone from the Trump orbit.

Remember, the special counsel team used some form of pre-existing warrant authority to capture all of the Trump transition team emails and communication from the GSA, and then lied about it to the Trump White House. Perhaps National Security Letters (NSL’s).

The DOJ/FBI previously agreed to “sequester” all information and evidence received as an outcome of all four FISA warrants issued against Carter Page. Meaning, all material, in any court proceeding or subsequent secondary warrant on another target, application, filing, motion, prosecution or downstream use of the information gathered and obtained.

The DOJ and FBI stated they will now assemble all materials, from any location, that stemmed from the Carter Page FISA warrants. In essence, the FBI will now look and retrieve any evidence that stemmed as an outcome of the Carter Page FISA warrant. Some of this material *may* (perhaps likely) will be in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation.

[ie. a proverbial search for the fruit of a poisonous tree. Where is it?]

Once the sequestration has taken place, the DOJ will then be able to determine to the court what collateral impacts they have identified.

Worth noting in the second paragraph of the original order: “pending further review of the OIG report and the outcome of any investigations or litigation.” This was a statement made by the DOJ in response to the FISC. It is possible the ongoing investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham is part of this encompassing statement.

The second page of the order by Judge Boasberg is essentially him relaying the law surrounding FISA applications; warning the DOJ that false material submissions -which the DOJ has just admitted- are illegal; and Boasberg wanting to know answers to the same questions many of us have.

Essentially, Judge Boasberg is asking: what did the FBI do with the Title-1 surveillance warrant they received from the court? What material did they collect? Was that material then used in other proceedings and: “disseminated to DOJ prosecutors and other persons outside the FBI”?

The presiding fisa judge also wants to know what the DOJ is doing. Explain what “further review of the OIG report” means? Inform the court what “related investigations and litigation” pertains to, etc. The DOJ/FBI now have until February 5th to respond:
.