Tuesday, November 16, 2021

‘Yellowstone’ Reveals Much About America, Just Not What Critics Say

The series is seemingly impervious to today’s demands
 about revised history, systemic racism, and corporate tyranny. 
That's the cornerstone of its success.


Taylor Sheridan’s “Yellowstone” — a captivating, contemplative neo-Western drama and the Paramount Network flagship series — is beginning to embody its own premise and characterization, perhaps the most important of which is it ain’t goin’ nowhere, just like series patriarch John Dutton’s cattle ranch in Montana. Its fourth season premiere on November 7 drew a staggering 8 million viewers, a statistical reality that’s gotten the industry’s attention and reveals much about America in 2021.

“Yellowstone” follows the internal and external conflicts of the Dutton family and the patriarch’s sixth-generation cattle ranch under constant attack by modern versions of age-old enemies — corporate land developers, an increasingly radical and politicized Indian reservation, and the legacy and reach of America’s first national park. In other words, it’s a riveting ensemble drama surrounded by every defining characteristic of rural America today: the multibillion capitalist industry, a sordid history with indigenous peoples now “commercialized,” and an ever-growing federal government.

Not only is the series an effective, resolute modern Western that intentionally reveals its characters and conflicts meticulously to maximize dramatic impact, but it’s a story about America’s history that’s faulted yet fulfilling. It reminds Americans of what our past endured to make the present possible, and how a simple parable can evoke depth and meaning far beyond postmodern expectations.

Yet the drama’s most fascinating phenomenon — as both a streaming series and a metaphor for America — is how the recent premiere revealed the range and spectrum of its initial criticism slowly evolving into reluctant critical acclaim, and even more importantly, its demonstration that much of this country is willing to confront the past to understand the present in a more meaningful, though painful, way.

There’s a reason Westerns were uniquely American: the frontier will always be a defining characteristic of the country’s history and Manifest Destiny — accepted or not — remains a fundamental element of the American Dream. So “Yellowstone” is a “modern-day King Lear in the American West,” a streaming series version of “The Searchers,” the story of a brutal ethos that’s fundamental to taming the frontier but ultimately unwelcome in the civil society it helps create, preserve, and protect.

Criticism Speaks Volumes

But beyond civilized survival, “Yellowstone” is living out its own message as a series facing monumental opposition, yet rallying the support of an ignored, forgotten audience. It’s an undeniably American story about identity, history, and community. And the criticism it has garnered speaks volumes.

Last year, as Sheridan’s series trudged through its third season, critics offered mocking commentary like, “Yellowstone is still the most popular show you’ve never seen or heard of,” giving credit to “the production’s massive street team of parents telling their millennial and Gen Z offspring that they watched something called ‘Yosemite.’” Keep in mind that was when streaming numbers totaled about 4 million. A year later, they’ve doubled.

So what did mainstream critics do? They doubled down. Just accuse Yellowstone of racism, patriarchy, and a depiction of America that doesn’t exist anymore — or shouldn’t exist anymore — and then describe how it’s just another ensemble familial internecine drama like “Billions” or “Succession,” except in this case it’s “the most anxious, white, myopic, [and] male American show on TV.” Or if that doesn’t work, maybe critics could target its “big, messy, soapy collection of testosterone-fueled cliches and smattering of one-liners and soliloquies,” likening it to “Dallas” and “Dynasty” decades back. That’ll do it, that’ll make it go away. Right?

Quite simply, make the show’s impact, resolute gist, and authenticity its insurmountable problem. But it never worked. The series isn’t designed to please progressive sentiment — casting based on demographics or equity depiction — nor is it willing to “revise” a national history that’s always been honest and sincere about its sins.

‘Yellowstone’ Is a Slow Burn

Paramount’s “Yellowstone” is the embodiment of Taylor Sheridan’s core attributes as creator, writer, and director. He provides a mesmerizing world of natural landscapes, environmental wonders, and national history through a stark, violent story. And fittingly, the ensemble cast — beautiful actors torn down to their bare forms — depicts either rugged men and women who couldn’t care less about the world changing for the worse or self-serving activists leaving behind their frontier past for profit and prestige. For better or worse, these are real people with meaningful priorities; priorities bigger than themselves.

And for Kevin Costner’s first foray into serialized television shot entirely on location in Big Sky Country, his depiction of John Dutton, baron and patriarch of the family ranch, is a fitting climax and culmination of his career. Always the passive, “grimacing and graveled” protagonist, he embodies the character — and implicitly the editorial voice of the series — in a way only he could handle. Whispered one-liners and steel-eyed stares emulate John Wayne’s legendary gravitas, though Costner’s not a caricature from a generation past. He’s today’s version of the anti-hero willing to do anything to preserve history, protect his family, and solidify our future.

So it’s no surprise “Yellowstone” is that quintessential “slow burn.” It’s just that in 2021 mainstream media criticisms sound like a Slate or The Atlantic review of “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.” And that brazen reality is entirely to Sheridan’s credit — and Paramount’s profit — because it assures the audience that “Yellowstone” as a message in and of itself is sweeping, sentimental, and sentient.

Show Resonates with Record Viewership

The reason viewership is setting records is simple. Even if we find him hostile or lacking humility, Yellowstone’s sympathies lie with John Dutton. He’s relatable and resonant, exemplary though imperfect, a neo-Western anti-hero who not only represents a viewer’s personal journey, but the state of America’s current struggles known by many, respected by few. He may be an imperfect guardian of the Manifest Destiny he symbolizes, but he knows he’s the only guardian left.

The idea that “Yellowstone” is seemingly impervious to today’s most explicit and ludicrous demands about “revised history,” systemic racism, or corporate tyranny is exactly the cornerstone of its seemingly ignored success. Because it’s that America between New York and Los Angeles, that Red State America, that America willing to know its past and value the lessons learned that is identifying with “Yellowstone.”

If nothing else, the realistic depiction that life is struggle, that virtue is earned, that American masculinity and social civility is still alive and well is what makes “Yellowstone” so resonant. And it’s not idyllic or idealistic, nor is it meant to be. With ownership, there’s mastery. With freedom, there’s interference. There’s simply what must be done to protect and preserve.

For a series about American exceptionalism, the show’s strength is precisely its stunning realism. Yes, it’s cinematic and dramatized. But it’s the modern portrayal of what once was done — a frontier harnessed and tamed in the late 19th century — now fighting for its footing against the very enemies it created.

Manifest Destiny came and went, but “Yellowstone” is now the story of America fighting its own legacy. So in that sense, the dramatic arc, the devoted, growing viewership, and even the constant negative critical reaction proves the story’s legitimacy. Because it’s not just a story about an American family steeped in American history — it’s an expression of America itself.


The Biden Administration Believes Things 'Can't Get Worse' but I've Got Some Bad News

Bonchie reporting for RedState

Last night, Redstate reported on the internal battle waging between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. But while Harris is responsible for many of her own woes, there’s no doubt that the tensions raging within the current administration are heavily exacerbated by the actual condition of the country.

In short, when things are going well, it’s easy to get along. When failures begin to mount, the finger-pointing begins.

But the disagreements emerge when it’s time to assign blame for that reality. Harris’ staffers, in typical fashion, blame Biden for not defending her forcefully enough instead of the fact that she’s an awful politician and incredibly inauthentic. Meanwhile, Biden’s staffers note that Harris is unfocused and shows no competency to handle the problems she’s been given to tackle.

The question, though, is how low can this White House fall? I’ll get to my prognostications on that in a moment, but to set things up, another report dropped this morning that exposes the administration’s current state of mind. They seem to acknowledge that things are bad, but also believe they “can’t get worse.”

Privately, many administration officials and allies contend that the state of affairs cannot get worse, thinking that Biden and the Democrats have hit their floor in negative approval ratings, according to people familiar with their thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private conversations. By next year’s elections, top Democrats say, the national environment will look dramatically different. They project confidence that the coronavirus pandemic will fade, allowing Americans to fully return to their normal lives, and that supply chain bottlenecks and inflation will also ease, allowing the economy to improve.

“Folks need to calm down,” said Anthony Foxx, the former transportation secretary in the Obama administration. “That’s the main thing the Democratic Party needs to do. Stop bloviating over the sky is falling. It’s not falling. Biden has made some extremely tough decisions in his first year in office, and it’s natural that the public will look at those changes in the composite and be somewhat skeptical of them. Hopefully, the longer play is one that will bear out, but this infrastructure package is a major achievement.”

I’ve got some bad news for Biden: Things absolutely can get worse, and they will.

The idea that the national environment will look “dramatically different” by next year is a pipe dream. Yes, perhaps COVID-19 will have receded more (though, seasonality will likely have it spiking again just before the election), but the inflationary woes are going to be long-term, with the economy remaining a top issue for voters.

Further, it’s important to understand the needle that the administration is trying to thread. First-term mid-terms are historically a bloodbath for the party in power regardless of how good or bad things are going. That dynamic is not going away, and the idea that the infrastructure package is going to raise Biden’s approval enough to save his party is laughable. Nothing in that boondoggle is going to be tangible for normal Americans. That’s especially true over the next year, where essentially none of the funded projects will be completed.

If Biden’s only “accomplishment” is the infrastructure bill, flanked by more failures than one can keep track of, a red tsunami is going to sweep across the country. We’ve already seen the preliminary waves crash on the beach via this year’s elections. In order to prevent a total wipeout, Democrats would need to not only defy history but complete perhaps the biggest political comeback in American history.

Given that, in what way has Biden shown any ability to adapt and rebound? He’s a stubborn old man to the extent he even makes his own decisions. Certainly, his handlers have no desire to change course, having fully bought into the far-left agenda. If anything, what we are seeing now is akin to George W. Bush in 2006. That administration thought things couldn’t get worse either, but again, things can always get worse.


X22, James Red Pills America, and more-Nov 16


 



Evening. Here's tonight's news:


Retract Every Russian Collusion Story and Fire Everyone Who Wrote Them

In a healthy society, public apologies, not mealymouthed caveats and explainers buried in the entertainment guide, would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper and website.


As the Democratic National Convention descended into chaos in July 2016, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, co-founders of Fusion GPS, high-tailed it from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia to staunch the political bleeding following the release of damning internal emails that showed party honchos had rigged the process in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Simpson and Fritsch, serving multiple paymasters at the time including Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, had a plan to divert media attention away from the crisis: spin a dark tale of collusion between the Kremlin and Donald Trump to stop Hillary Clinton from winning the White House. 

Russian hackers were already blamed, without evidence, for infiltrating the DNC email system and giving the correspondence to WikiLeaks. Expanding on that accusation by revealing the secretive work of Christopher Steele, portrayed as a “former Western intelligence officer,” to friendly journalists successfully changed the subject.

“They wanted to have some discreet conversations with a few reporters to let them know they might be able to help with stories about Trump, particularly on Russia,” Simpson and Fritsch wrote about themselves. 

One of the first reporters they met with in Philadelphia was the Washington Post’s Tom Hamburger, a longtime former colleague of Simpson’s when both worked for the Wall Street Journal. “[Knowing] he could be trusted, Simpson decided to tell Hamburger about the Steele work on a promise that he would keep it mum. Simpson laid out the basic allegations in the first Steele report. He mentioned the alleged golden shower episode at the Ritz-Carlton,” referring to a purported recording of prostitutes urinating in front of Trump in a hotel room in 2013.

Hamburger, based on his subsequent catalog of reports on imaginary Russian collusion, was more than happy to help his pal and former co-worker. Numerous articles written by Hamburger are footnoted in Simpson and Fritsch’s book, including one article on Sergei Millian, a target of Simpson’s chop shop to bolster the collusion narrative. “Sergei Millian, Identified as an Unwitting Source for the Steele Dossier, Sought Proximity to Trump’s World in 2016,” Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman wrote in February 2019. Millian, the reporters claimed, not only was a dossier source but also substantiated the existence of the infamous “pee tape.”

The Post, however, recently changed the headline on that story to instead read, “Belarus-born businessman sought proximity to Trump’s world in 2016.” Why? Because the original story is untrue. 

Courtesy of a new indictment brought by Special Counsel John Durham, the public—and the entire news media—now knows for certain that Millian was not a dossier source. Accompanying the newly-branded defamatory article is a note by the editor: 

An earlier version of this story published on Feb. 7, 2019, referred to previous reporting in The Washington Post that Belarusan-American businessman Sergei Millian had been a source of information for a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump. In November 2021, The Post removed that material from the original 2017 story after the account was contradicted by allegations in a federal indictment and undermined by further reporting. References to the initial report have been removed from this piece.

The Post added the same caveat to a March 2017 hit job on Millian, also bylined by both Hamburger and Helderman, with another twist: 

The original account was based on two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide sensitive information. One of those people now says the new information ‘puts in grave doubt that Millian’ was a source for parts of the dossier. The other declined to comment.

Unlike the paper’s treatment of Millian, the identity of the anonymous sources will remain protected by the Post’s editor.

In a separate article explaining the Post’s corrective actions—laughably published in the paper’s Style section rather than the front page or editorial section—Paul Fahri, a media reporter, wrote that the “decision to edit and repost the Millian stories is highly unusual in the news industry.” Fahri scoffed that “Trump has repeatedly denounced the dossier as false, framing it as the centerpiece of a malicious effort financed by his political opponents to damage him.” (Farhi referred to Fusion GPS as “an investigative firm.”)

Trump, of course, is right. But Fahri’s mention of the former president is somehow supposed to discredit those allegations as more far-fetched “conspiracy theories” from the Bad Orange Man.

But the Post should not just unapologetically correct the phony stories on Millian; every single article, column, and video that supports the now-debunked Russian collusion hoax should be retracted with a lengthy explanation. Tom Hamburger, who was in cahoots with Simpson from the start and met with Simpson and Christopher Steele in September 2016 to accelerate the narrative weeks before the presidential election, should be fired. Immediately.

So, too, should Helderman. And Post editors should force the pair to return the Pulitzer Prize they won, along with several New York Times reporters, in 2018 for “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”

This unfolding scandal is not only about how inaccurately the media covered Sergei Millian or the bogus Steele dossier. There was no collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russians. Period.

And everyone knew it at the time. Tom Hamburger knew it, Rosalind Helderman, everyone at MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and more knew it was fabricated garbage peddled by a well-known paid smear merchant who was disguising another paid political operative as a “western intelligence officer.”

It was intentional, not “one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history,” as Axios’ Sara Fischer described it in a roundup of other news organizations that still refuse to acknowledge misleading reporting and editorializing on the Steele dossier—again, a red herring since coverage of phony election collusion exceeded beyond allegations contained in the dossier.

“CNN and MSNBC did not respond to requests for comment about whether they planned to revisit or correct any of their coverage around the dossier,” Fischer reported. “The Wall Street Journal told Axios, ‘We’re aware of the serious questions raised by the allegations and continue to report and to follow the investigation closely.’” Mark Maremont, a Journal reporter, first disclosed Millian’s name in a January 2017 article, suggesting he was responsible for a “compromising video” on Donald Trump.

David Corn, author of an October 31, 2016 article for Mother Jones titled, “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump,” that was sourced directly by Steele and Simpson right before the election, told Erik Wemple, the Post’s media critic who commendably called out high-profile dossier propagandists in a lengthy series last year, that he has no plans to retract his previous reporting. “My priority has been to deal with the much larger topic of Russia’s undisputed attack and Trump’s undisputed collaboration with Moscow’s cover-up.”

Fischer claims a “reckoning” is hitting newsrooms across the country. With the exception of a cowardly response by the Post’s editor, that’s about as accurate as the dossier itself. A true reckoning would involve more than a few editor’s notes or burying collusion coverage down the media’s deep memory hole.

In any other honorable profession, one that still takes itself seriously and is capable of self-policing to preserve the tattered shreds of integrity and accountability that remain, mass firings, not faux “reckonings,” would empty newsrooms. Reporters, columnists, cable news hosts, and paid contributors would be shown walking papers. Editors would step down in humiliation. Public apologies, not mealymouthed caveats and explainers buried in the entertainment guide, would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper and website; talking heads would make amends to the victims—including Donald Trump—for this reckless, destructive hoax and also to their audience for intentionally misleading them for years and then announce their early retirement.

Collusion between Donald Trump and the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the 2016 election never happened—but every news organization, big and small, contributed to spreading this lie. It’s breathtaking malfeasance on a scale unrivaled in American history. The media should not be permitted to proceed with business as usual.

Fire them all.


Coronavirus Poll Shows French Grossly Exaggerate Threat of COVID

 

A poll which correlates with results from other countries shows that the average French person grossly exaggerates the threat posed by COVID, believing the infection to fatality ratio is over 16 per cent, when it is actually 0.1-0.3 per cent.

The survey results appeared in a study published by Frontiers in Psychology and were also cited in an article by Mike Hearn, a former Google software engineer.  


According to Hearn, the shocking results of the poll illustrate how “governments and media have catastrophically failed to educate the population about Covid correctly.”

While the actual risk of dying from COVID is around 0.1-0.3 per cent (and is highly dependent on age group and co-morbidities), people in France think the actual IFR is over 16 per cent.

Hearn points out that this grossly inaccurate judgment of the threat posed by COVID has actually “got worse over time,” while people’s faith in the efficacy of the vaccine is also massively erroneous.

“If you previously believed that you had a 16% chance of dying if you got Covid, you were very likely to rush to hospital immediately on presentation of more or less any Covid-like symptoms,” writes Hearn.  


“If you now believe that the vaccine reduces this risk to negligible levels then you’re very unlikely to bother unless you become quite seriously sick indeed, because to do so would effectively be a repudiation of the advice of government, scientific and medical authority. And if there’s one behavioural difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated that is more plausible than any other, it’s that the vaccinated are self-selecting for strong faith in scientific claims by authority figures.”

The poll results match with attitudes in major countries across the world, where relentless government fearmongering has resulted in people believing COVID to be far deadlier than it actually is.

As we previously highlighted, a poll conducted in summer 2020 found that the average American believed 9 per cent of the population, around 30 million people, had died from coronavirus when the actual figure at the time was less than 155,000.

People in the U.S. also believed that 20% of Americans had caught coronavirus, 20 times higher than the number of confirmed cases.

In Sweden and the UK in particular, people also vastly overestimated the number of lives COVID-19 had claimed, with the average Brit thinking coronavirus had killed 100 times more people than the actual figure.   


The fact that people are so ruthlessly vehement about demanding everyone follow mask and social distancing mandates is explained by this totally out of proportion fear of COVID, which in large part has been driven by the weaponization of behavioral psychology along with unethical and totalitarian fearmongering.  


https://summit.news/2021/11/16/poll-shows-french-grossly-exaggerate-threat-of-covid/  




Why the Rittenhouse Case Has Changed Everything

The Rittenhouse case is a clinic in exactly why 
Americans have a right to an AR-15.


“You don’t need an AR-15,” U.S. News and World Report told readers just three and a half years ago. ThinkProgress in 2018 published a piece called, “The myth that civilian gun ownership prevents tyranny.” When Ben Shapiro justified private ownership of guns to counter potential tyranny in the United States, CNN’s Piers Morgan guffawed contemptuously. “Do you understand how absurd you sound?” Morgan asked Shapiro in 2013. Until recently, people laughed at the idea that an AR-15 could be used for legitimate self-defense purposes. 

Nobody is laughing anymore, not even the gun control people.

Now we have videos of Kyle Rittenhouse with an AR-15 slung around his shoulder as he waded into a riot-plagued community to hand out bandages and protect property. In the summer of 2020, the mobs ruled and nobody dared oppose them. They toppled beautiful works of statutory art. They burned businesses and even a police station. They seized real governmental control over several city blocks in one of the country’s most important cities. Revolutionaries established other “autonomous zones,” in Washington, D.C., Portland Oregon, and Asheville, North Carolina. Nobody dared enforce rules regarding private property, social distancing, curfews, or even murder.

A year later, the rule of law has finally begun to reassert itself. When the Rittenhouse trial judge dismissed the gun charge, it may have spelled doom for the prosecution’s theory of the case. The charge was key to muddying the self-defense theory, and recasting Kyle to look like an aggressor for the mere fact that he possessed the firearm. Like his leftist overlords, the prosecutor has pushed the “he-shouldn’t-have-been-there-with-a-gun” narrative as justification for convicting Rittenhouse. On that night, the streets belonged to the righteous mob. Anyone who opposed anything the mob did was, by then-candidate Biden’s definition, a white supremacist.

The mob in Kenosha sent a fearful message: You better not anger the mob. Because if the mob can burn down Kenosha, no suburb is safe. Making Americans feel unsafe in the face of unrestrained political violence was what the summer of 2020 was all about. As one author wrote of the violence and looting in the summer of 2020, “it seems to have gotten white people’s attention as the uprisings reach their neighborhoods. I hope every white person knows that whatever injustice or fear they might feel is only a shadow of what Black people have carried with them their entire lives. It’s why we march. It’s why we protest. It’s the message we’ve been trying to convey.” 

For months now, the media has been reprising its disgraceful smears against the Covington High School students by heaping lie after lie on the frenzy of lies about Rittenhouse. The media needed only to know the race of the Kenosha shooter and the politics of the victims. That was enough to invent the rest of the story to fit the narrative. 

But one thing the media can’t hide are the basic facts. No longer can Americans be told that the AR-15 is not a legitimate tool for self-defense. The mob physically attacked Rittenhouse three times—each of which attacks easily could have led to Rittenhouse’s death. Had Rittenhouse not had the AR-15 to defend himself, he might not be alive today. Everyone who watched the trial saw it. 

The Left doesn’t want to punish Rittenhouse for murder. It wants to prevent others from standing up to future mobs to protect themselves. The Left rules with fear and the threat of mob action is its most potent weapon. If Americans know they can legally protect themselves from the mob, the mob will lose its power. That’s why Rittenhouse’s example is so powerful and why the Left is so angry at him. History warns that whether the costume is bolshevik red or fascist black, the mob is the vanguard of tyranny. Denying the threat of the mob cannot be separated from the prevention of tyranny.

Americans have been secretly filling up their closets with firearms for the last several years. By one estimate, there are approximately 17 million AR-15s and similar rifles in private hands. When faced with a violent mob, a pistol with 10 rounds really isn’t enough to stay safe. The Rittenhouse case is a clinic in exactly why Americans have a right to an AR-15.

As the jury retires to deliberate, we can’t really know for sure what the final outcome will be until the verdict is announced. But, thanks again to the Constitution, Rittenhouse received a public trial and anything short of an acquittal will revive jury intimidation allegations. Americans saw that the media lied to them about the facts of the case. While that suits many, even a few leftists expressed shock and surprise at the level of deception. 

Police and 500 National Guard troops have begun positioning to quell the violence expected following the Rittenhouse verdict. It’s one indication that the authorities expect a not-guilty verdict. But there’s another reason to think there may not be another riot in Kenosha if Rittenhouse is vindicated: Rittenhouse will be free to return to his community to protect it. And so will countless more inspired by his example to hold the line against the Left’s political violence.


Feds Warn of Rise in ‘Domestic Violent Extremists’ - But Where Are They?

 Feds Warn of Rise in ‘Domestic Violent Extremists’ – 

But Where Are They?


Look in the mirror.


Diversity is our strength, y’all, and so here is some good news: a new bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security that took effect Thursday notes that “the Homeland continues to face a diverse and challenging threat environment.” But before you start celebrating diversity too enthusiastically in this case, be aware: the diversity that they have in mind means that they think you and I are part of the threat now as well.

They say that the threat is coming from both “domestic violent extremists and those inspired or motivated by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences,” and they really aren’t all that interested in the threat from those foreign terrorists: USA Today noted that “FBI Director Christopher Wray referred to the rising domestic terror threat, telling a Senate committee that domestic terror cases had more than doubled since early 2020.” If you’re wondering why you haven’t heard about all this new domestic terrorism, it’s because you’re not looking in the place where the feds are finding it: in your mirror.

We know this because the ostensible president’s handlers, and even Old Joe Biden himself, have repeatedly warned about a “white supremacist” terror threat that is supposedly the greatest threat the nation faces today. The only thing this scenario lacks are actual white supremacist terrorists. And so they have to be invented. Old Joe and the establishment media defamed Kyle Rittenhouse as a white supremacist last year, doing everything they could to make him fit their ridiculous myth of violent, racist, right-wing fanatics menacing the good and decent spiritual descendants of the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy, the fine young men and women of Antifa.

Rittenhouse is by no means the only one. Virtually everyone who dissents from the Leftist agenda is a “white supremacist” and/or a “violent extremist” these days – even me. A few months ago, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an organization created by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube to police terrorism on the Internet, bizarrely designated my organization Jihad Watch a “violent extremist” group, despite the fact that pretty much all we do is type, and report on jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world. In response to a letter from my attorney demanding a retraction, the GIFCT wouldn’t back down. Those who designated Jihad Watch as a “violent extremist” group explained that we reported on violent activity – terrorist bombings, murders, etc. – and that this in some way “dehumanized” Muslims.

They didn’t bother to explain how reporting on jihad terror activity dehumanized Muslims. They couldn’t have explained it, as it would have been impossible to explain. It is absurd on its face, as absurd as saying that reporting on. Nazi activity dehumanized Germans. The response to my attorney’s letter was essentially the increasingly common Leftist argument that speech that dissents from its party line is violence, and hence must be shut down.

That’s that, at least for now. So when you hear the DHS warning about a rise in the number of “domestic violent extremists,” now you know why: because ordinary, law-abiding Americans who utter inconvenient truths are being smeared with this label. And remember: if they can do it to me, they can do it to you. Remember also: it won’t stop with labeling.

Meanwhile, the DHS bulletin warned of the possibility of terror attacks in the coming weeks, as “several religious holidays and associated mass gatherings” are now approaching “that in the past have served as potential targets for acts of violence.” At the same time, however, officials conceded that intelligence agencies have not found any “imminent and credible threat to a specific location in the United States.”

Nevertheless, they are suggesting that alleged right-wing extremists who are enraged at Biden’s handlers’ gallop toward authoritarianism might strike: “The ongoing global pandemic continues to exacerbate these threats, in part due to perceived government overreach in implementation of public health safety measures.”

Oh yeah, there are jihadis around as well: “Further, foreign terrorist organizations and (domestic violent extremists) continue to attempt to inspire potential followers to conduct attacks in the United States, including by exploiting recent events in Afghanistan.” This is because al Qaeda and ISIS “celebrated perceived victories over the United States and encouraged the use of violence by their followers and supporters to further their objectives. These foreign terrorist organizations will likely continue to maintain a highly visible online presence in an attempt to inspire U.S.-based individuals to engage in violent activity.”

The part about jihadis possibly plotting to strike inside the United States is certainly true, and there is abundant attestation of it from the open and unapologetic words of the jihadis themselves. But the clear implication of the DHS bulletin, that the threat the jihadis pose to the U.S. is secondary to a terror threat from Americans who are angry at the federal government’s outrageous overreach in the less than ten months that Joe Biden has pretended to be president of the United States, is as baseless as it is ominous. And much more like it is coming.


Not Only Is Inflation Here To Stay, Joe Biden’s Going To Make It Worse

The sustained inflationary surge doesn’t just risk cutting the value of our dollar savings by almost a third, it also risks seeing the United States plunged into serious international conflict.



The dollar is buying less food, fuel, and other necessities these days. Inflation, something Americans who were around in the 1970s contended with, is making an unwelcome comeback. Contrary to the repeated assertions of the Biden administration and its allies, inflation may be with us for a while.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) jumped by 0.9 percent in October, rising 6.2 percent from 12 months prior. If annualized, that 0.9 percent rate would hit a double-digit inflation pace of 11.4 percent. The last time inflation hit double digits was from 1979 to 1981, when that three-year run devalued the dollar by 11, 13, and 10 percent annually before Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker and President Ronald Reagan wrung it out through tightened monetary policy and productivity increases.

We’re not likely to see either soon, as any increase in interest rates would immediately lead to a catastrophic increase in interest payments on the national debt, while President Biden’s regulatory policies and tax uncertainty are acting to discourage productivity investments.

The gloomy inflation news comes on the heels of a terrible Department of Labor third-quarter productivity report showing a 5 percent decline, the steepest drop since 1981. The same report indicated the price of labor per unit of output increased 8.3 percent at an annualized rate. The productivity decline was deepened by the early retirement of older, highly productive workers who were replaced by less experienced workers who are being paid more to entice them into the workplace, E.J. Antoni, a Ph.D. economist colleague at the Texas Public Policy Foundation told me.

The CPI was particularly bad for Americans at the lower end of the income spectrum, Antoni added. Middle-class consumers have started to substitute less expensive food in the place of higher-cost beef (up 20.1 percent year over year) and pork (up 14.1 percent). As a result, prices for eggs and chicken parts, staples for lower-income Americans, rose 11.6 and 10.2 percent, respectively. Energy was up 30 percent from a year earlier.

So, how much inflation might we still have in store? How might it compare to the President Jimmy Carter era of stagflation — a time of low productivity and high inflation?

Gauging Pent-Up Inflation

One way to roughly gauge the amount of pent-up inflation would be to look at the national debt and GDP from a similar year to this one.

Comparing today to 2007, the onset of the Great Recession, when the United States last embarked on a splurge of massive deficit spending, we can get an idea of the built-up potential for inflation. We see that U.S. GDP was $14.5 trillion compared to $23.2 trillion in the third quarter of 2021. The national debt was $9 trillion in 2007 and is now $28.4 trillion. Inflation over the period devalued the dollar by 33.5 percent.

Considering these three basic factors together implies that the dollar could lose another 55 percent of its value, because when the increase in the money supply exceeds the value of economic growth, that means there are more dollars in the system relative to the amount of goods and services available for purchase.

That inflation has only just started to materialize is likely due to another factor: velocity of money. In other words, how quickly do all those trillions of dollars out there change hands? Velocity is almost half of what it was at its peak in 1997, just before the Great Recession.

When the dollar loses its value, inflation is the practical result. A 55 percent loss of value equates to inflation of 122 percent, meaning that you’d need about $2.22 after that much inflation to pay for what a dollar pays for today.

Why Government Deficits Devalue the Dollar

Why does deficit spending by the federal government put the dollar at risk of losing value? In simple terms, inflation happens because more dollars are chasing relatively fewer goods — there’s only so many goods and services available at a given time and when the number of dollars goes up and more goods and services aren’t produced, then prices start to rise.

Here it’s important to note that the national debt isn’t necessarily inflationary by itself. When the government spends money, that money can come from three basic sources: taxes, borrowing, and printing more money.

Raising taxes to pay for spending isn’t necessarily inflationary, as dollars are taken out of the economy and then those same dollars are spent in the economy, just on different things than people would have if they had kept their money. Borrowing money also isn’t necessarily inflationary because dollars are taken out of the economy and loaned to the government to spend.

But when the government borrows money, it creates an asset — Treasury securities. Created bonds and notes, as assets, can be borrowed against. Their creation increases the money supply. Lastly, if no one loans the government money to purchase its debt, the Federal Reserve does so. In this case, the amount of money in circulation jumps immediately. It’s inflationary.

It’s sobering to realize that at the end of 2007, the Federal Reserve held about $891 billion in securities. By the first week of November 2021, that amount grew almost ten-fold to $8.6 trillion.

But the overall national debt is $28.4 trillion. What happened to the other $19.8 trillion? Well, that’s held by individuals, funds, and other governments.

How Would Dollar Devaluation Affect Inflation?

The dollar’s further decline, potentially quickly, could happen if holders of U.S. debt decide it is too risky relative to the return to hold those assets. As the debt is sold off, the Federal Reserve becomes the buyer of last resort with highly negative implications for the dollar, since dollars not loaned to the federal government must be, in essence, printed by the Federal Reserve when it buys debt with nothing more than an entry into an accounting ledger.

What might a 55 percent monetization of the dollar — a decline in the value of the dollar that reduces the value of debt at the same time — look like? As an example, if it was spread out over six years, we’d see the price of goods and services go up at 14 percent per year.

At this point, all the national debt we’ve accumulated to date would come back into balance with the size of the economy (in real terms, not inflated dollar terms) as it was before the onset of extraordinary monetary and fiscal measures meant to address the Great Recession — the same amount of dollars chasing the proportional amount of goods and services.

But the Biden administration anticipates another $7.4 trillion in federal deficit spending over the next six years, bringing the national debt up to $35.8 trillion. Assuming the economy grows at a sluggish rate (due to Biden’s anti-growth policies) of 2 percent per year over those six years, the dollar might lose a total of 65 percent of its current value, essentially being worth 35 cents of today’s dollar.

No Clean Formula for Inflation

We also know from history that inflation isn’t simply a clean formula — psychology, economic variables, and even international affairs affect inflation. For instance, the inflation of the 1970s wasn’t just about soaring federal deficits relative to GDP. When President Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls in 1971, that discouraged domestic oil production. At the same time, Nixon took America off the gold standard.

These actions had a significant effect on OPEC, a cartel of oil-producing nations, which found that its leverage over America significantly increased. American oil production peaked in 1970 — and it would take until 2018 to surpass that record year.

Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar, no longer convertible into gold at a guaranteed rate by the U.S. government, became a less valuable store of wealth. As a result, OPEC wanted more dollars for its oil. This led to two oil shocks in 1973 and 1979, which pushed inflation higher while hurting U.S. productivity. Things got bad enough that the Carter administration initiated a phased deregulation of oil prices in April 1979, a policy Reagan accelerated in 1981.

During most inflationary times, wages are what economists call “sticky,” meaning they generally rise more slowly than the inflation rate, resulting in a decline in the standard of living for workers. Inflationary times are thus also usually associated with increased labor strife and demands for higher wages and benefits.

Devalued Dollar’s International Ramifications

Lastly, and perhaps most ominously, a dollar losing its value — with the expectation of more loss to come — has an effect internationally. Most obviously, this can take the form of foreigners being less willing to accept dollars, invest in the United States, or hold our growing debt. This can happen quickly — within hours and days.

Further, this borrowing can also result in a significant increase in interest rates, since, seeing the risk of higher inflation or the greater likelihood of default, lenders demand a greater rate of return in the form of higher interest. Interest rates can also rise when the Federal Reserve cuts back on its purchasing of the Treasury’s securities. Recall that the bank prime rate hit 21.5 percent in December 1980 as the Federal Reserve acted to cool inflation by limiting its Treasury purchases; it’s 3.25 percent today.

Interest rates are an important consideration since national debt payments must be kept current. The federal government will spend about $300 billion on interest payments for the national debt this year — about $2,400 per household. If interest on 10-Year Treasury notes doubles from 1.5 to 3 percent, interest payments would reach $640 billion, almost as much as the $753.5 billion that America will spend on defense this year.

There’s another consideration as well. A nation’s currency is a component of its national strength. A currency being buffeted by inflation shows other countries that the nation issuing that currency has troubles, both economic and political. As a result, a declining dollar may embolden America’s adversaries, who may correctly surmise that America is weakening and less capable of generating the effort needed to defend its national interests.

Thus, the sustained inflationary surge crushing our financial security doesn’t just risk cutting the value of our dollar savings by almost a third, it also risks seeing the United States plunged into conflict far more deadly than the desultory wars of the past 20 years.