Thursday, July 7, 2022

Shinzo Abe Has Been Shot, Gravely Injured in Assassination Attempt


The very popular Shinzo Abe, a longtime friend of President Trump, stepped down as Prime Minister of Japan in 2020, but has been campaigning for various politicians as he remains active in politics.   An assassin shot him moments ago:

TOKYO — Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was shot and gravely injured while campaigning Friday in south-central Japan, according to public broadcaster NHK.

Abe, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, was giving a speech in the city of Nara when he was shot around 11:30 a.m. (10:30 p.m. Thursday ET). NHK, citing the local fire department, reported that Abe was in a state of “cardiopulmonary arrest.” It said the suspected shooter appeared to have been apprehended.

Elections for the upper house of the Japanese Parliament are Sunday. Abe, 67, who stepped down in 2020, was campaigning for other members of the governing Liberal Democratic Party but is not a candidate himself. (LINK

UPDATE:  Shinzo Abe was shot from behind by a 40-year-old assassin using a shotgun.  Shooter fired two shots.  Shinzo Abe fell after the second shot. UPDATE 2: NO VITAL SIGNS

Pictures below of Abe and the shooter.  Warning.  Disturbing.

Shooter:

Donald Trump and Shinzo Abe were close friends long before Trump entered politics.




Abolish the House of Representatives

In the face of assaults on federalism and fundamental rights, it is time to strike a counterblow against the tyranny of the self-proclaimed majority in favor of deliberative government and diversity.


Democrats are sure that the only thing keeping America from becoming a paradise are those pesky, 233-year-old checks and balances on “democracy.” In particular they have their eyes on the Senate, in which each state, no matter how thinly populated, how Christian, or how flyover, gets two representatives.

Our Democratic friends tune out all of our usual arguments about federalism, the union as a compact of sovereign states, minority rights, and the need to ensure that major social and political changes are supported by more than a minimal winning coalition. So I suggest a practical education in place of all this failed discourse. In any case, abolishing the Senate or giving it the dubious blessing of “rep by pop” is basically impossible within the Constitution, which proclaims that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Instead of abolishing the Senate or reforming it into another House, but with bigger desks, we patriots should propose the opposite remedy for Democrats’ unrealistic expectations from the large and diverse country they are condemned to share with us: Americans should abolish the House of Representatives.

In the original scheme of the founders, the House, directly elected by the people, in which each state was allocated representatives according to its population, was supposed to ensure that the people’s representatives have control or at least a share in control over taxation, warmaking, commercial policy, and the whole panoply of legislation. Today’s House hardly can claim to represent the people any better than the president or the Senate: when a House seat is to be filled in a “midterm” election, without the distraction of a presidential, Senate, or governor’s race, only a minority bother to vote at all.

This is perfectly rational behavior on the voters’ part. Even if one rejects, as one should, the so-called paradox of voting—the claim that it is odd for people to vote even though an individual has only an infinitesimal chance of deciding the outcome—the truth is that the winner of almost every House race is decided when the congressional districts are drawn up. For a well connected and powerful congressman such as Jerry Nadler, no “jerry-mander” is too tortuous or absurd to make sure that he is returned. Here a picture is worth 1,000 words:

Indeed, very few people can name their own congresscritter, but even those who can rarely have the access or confidence that their representative effectively represents their views and concerns. And why should they believe themselves represented when a representative such as Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who rarely manages to get 100,000 votes in her carefully drawn pistol-shaped district, has the same voice and the same vote in the gerrymandered House as Abigail Spanberger (D-Calif.) who polls more than twice as many?

Moreover, the House has not managed to do its jobs or stand on its prerogatives: The House has exceedingly rarely forced the executive to go to Congress before going to war. The House let the Obamacare bill be drafted in the Senate, making a mockery of the constitutional requirement that all taxes originate in the House. The House has failed to use the weapon of impeachment to check the Obama and Biden Administrations’ scofflaw immigration policies. Maybe a House that did its constitutionally appointed work and fairly represented the people would be worth keeping, but that is not the House we have.

Getting rid of the Senate would require the consent of every state, but getting rid of the House of Representatives is comparatively easy—an ordinary Amendment would do, and an ordinary amendment can be passed by 34 of the 50 states through the convention process whether Congress and the president like it or not.

Abolishing the House would begin the painful and difficult process of constitutional reform by disposing of a deadweight institution that has not lived up to the founders’ hopes for it. It would make the United States more like the Democrats’ much-admired European Union, where the directly elected European Parliament is a powerless talking shop, but all real decisions are made by the European Commission or the European Council, in which each of the 27 EU member states has equal representation.

Federalism is under assault, consensus politics is under assault, and the fundamental rights and liberties of the people are under assault. In the face of these assaults, it is time to strike a counterblow against the tyranny of the self-proclaimed majority in favor of deliberative government and real diversity of opinion. We can do all those things with one simple move, by using our constituent power through the amendment process to abolish the House and let the far more successful and estimable president, Senate, and federal judiciary get on with the nation’s work.

Will we miss the House? If you are worried that we will, remember the wisdom of the Hag in C. S. Lewis’ Prince Caspian: “Who ever heard of a witch that really died? You can always get them back.”



X22, On the Fringe, and more- July 7

 



Busy day of gif making. Here's tonight's news:


The Disappearing American? ~ VDH

There are historical downsides—economic, cultural, social, and military—to nations that shun child-raising.


“Help wanted” and “Now hiring” signs are everywhere. Flights, construction projects, and healthcare services are delayed—or unavailable—due to labor shortages.

Hourly and monthly wages spiral. There is a growing disequilibrium between the number of available jobs and the declining pool of workers needed to fill them. 

What is going on?

During the nearly two-year-long COVID shutdown and economic downturn, firms cut costs by laying off millions of employees. 

As a result, some in their early- or mid-60s simply retired early and never came back to work.

Federal and state governments also vastly expanded financial support to the unemployed. Other workers figured they would not make all that much more by working and so are staying home on government checks.

Still other former full-time employees became used to the new, more leisurely lifestyle and are loath to return to a full 40-hour work week.

Employers also are now convinced that a hard recession is on the early 2023 horizon when the trillions of dollars of newly printed money run out.  Many are willing to put up with worker shortages now, rather than hire too many employees only to have them idle when consumer demand soon crashes.

Still other workers fear yet another COVID pandemic and are not eager to return to daily contact with the public.

The government has no idea how Americans remain sick with the mysterious “long COVID” chronic aftermath of the infectious phase of the disease.

Well over 100 million Americans have likely had COVID. An estimated 10-30 percent do not recover for months—or even years.

So, millions of COVID long haulers remain either unable to work or can only work part-time. 

Yet no one yet has fully calibrated the effect of newly disabled millions on the American economy.

Add up all these dark clouds and America is experiencing a perfect storm, in which only 61 percent of the able workforce is currently officially employed.

Unfortunately, there are also even longer-term, structural labor problems for the U.S. economy that make it unlikely a new larger generation of workers will soon surge into the labor force. And for now, Silicon Valley has not produced its long promised artificially intelligent robots that would allow machines to do much of the work of people.

True, there are more potential parents than ever before. And the American population has soared to over 330 million.

But our population is radically leveling off. 

In just 14 years the fertility rate has crashed from 2.12 to 1.64—meaning that both citizens and resident aliens in America are not replacing themselves.

While past demographic momentum has led to an all-time population high, the United States has already peaked demographically. And it will soon shrink and further age.

Thirty years ago, America had 80 million fewer people, but a quarter-million more annual births.

What explains the disappearing American?

Historically, as Westernized cultures become more affluent and leisured, whether it’s ancient Rome or modern America and Europe, they birth fewer children—even as their appetites for more household and personal help spike.

Life apparently is seen as too enjoyable to invest years in raising children. Americans are certainly marrying later. They are having fewer children—and in their 30s rather than 20s.

Women now make up nearly 60 percent of undergraduate college students. Female professional careers and delaying or avoiding birth are seen as essential to future family incomes.

Given that men who pass on college now account for 70 percent of enrollment declines in undergraduate education, there are far too few college-educated males for the new majority cohort of college-educated women.

The real gender crisis in America are these listless and stalled 20-something men. Too many are still living at home, not fully employed, often in debt, hooked on social media, video games, or satisfying their appetites—and with scant interest in marrying, much less raising children.

Figures on annual abortions remain hotly disputed. But the number of annual reported abortions still ranges between somewhere from more than 600,000 to just under 900,000.

There may be almost 20 abortions for every 100 American pregnancies—or one in five pregnancies that are terminated.

Our popular culture reflects this multifarious growing reluctance to raise children. And currently only 65 percent of children grow up in families with both parents.

The 2012 Obamacare ad, “The Life of Julia,” fixated on the new ideal American woman: a single parent of one child, unmarried, and utterly reliant on nearly 65 years of government support.

The 2013 follow-up bookend ad fetishized “Pajama Boy.” He was supposed to be a typical prolonged-adolescent, man-child—sitting at home in his child-like footie pajamas, sipping hot chocolate.

“Pajama Boy” was likely the sort that “Julia” had no intention of marrying. 

There are historical downsides—economic, cultural, social, and military—to nations that shun child-raising.

They shrink in size, age, no longer believe in transcendence, become mostly agnostic or atheistic, and obsess on the self.

And sometimes they eventually become dysfunctional—and slowly disappear.



Donald Trump Continues to Live Rent-Free in Joe Biden's Head


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

We are only a year-and-a-half into Joe Biden’s presidential tenure, and things are not going well–and that’s not my opinion. That’s the opinion of a full 85 percent of the American public who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. It’s impossible to hide the sky-rocketing inflation, the crashing stock market, the record gas prices, and all the foreign policy failures. Biden has, objectively, been a disaster.

So, what is a president to do when his administration is collapsing around him? Blame Donald Trump, of course. While speaking in Ohio on Wednesday, Biden let it be known that Trump still lives rent-free in his head, and that the lease has just been renewed.

I get that Biden’s brain is mush, but you’d think he’d remember the global pandemic that took place in 2020 before spouting off about job losses. State-level lockdowns happened across the country, putting the economy into an artificial coma.

Apparently, Biden recalls none of that though, instead choosing to blame “trickle-down economics” for the job losses under Trump, a contention so devoid of reality as to make an asylum patient ask Joe what the heck he’s talking about. Does he think it’s 1985 and Ronald Reagan is still president? Trickle-down economics? Really? Never mind that the economy was booming under Trump until COVID hit, making Biden’s critique rather absurd.

Things just got weirder from there. At another point, a phone started to ring in the audience. Biden then proceeded to joke that it was Trump calling him.

Everything about that clip is just odd. The first thing you see is Biden struggling to read his teleprompter, looking intently ahead, doing his best to not jumble his words while using his “working man” voice. Then he suddenly starts talking about Trump calling him, before spitting out something that sounds like “vi-shirt-on-ha-lie.” Is he speaking some kind of Arabic-derived tongue? I don’t know, as I’m admittedly not fluent in Biden.

He then scratches his nose before grinning and putting his angry eyes back on, to keep reading the teleprompter. But when someone tells a joke, it’s worth asking what the joke actually was. Why would Trump be calling him, and how is that funny? The crowd did their part in making the old man feel good about himself, though, acting as if he had just delivered the greatest line of comedic genius in history.

Biden mentioned Trump yet again while talking about pensions, claiming “Trumpsters” would “literally take them out.”

I’ll admit that Biden isn’t wrong about that. Yes, Trump supporters would take out government payments for union pensions because they are a giant grift unfairly paid for by taxpayers. Was that supposed to be some kind of own? Besides, I’m pretty sure there are a lot more people than just Trump supporters who oppose taxpayer-funded, union bailouts.

Rounding things out, Biden also did his creepy whispering things again because none of his handlers can get him under control.

To put it succinctly, when the current president is spending all his time obsessing over the former guy, that current president is losing. Biden may not perceive much these days given his mental decline, but he knows enough to know he’s been an abject failure. With no accomplishments to talk about, all he has left is making awkward, false mentions of Donald Trump.

And look, while I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, it’s still sad to watch a guy crumble like this. He can barely speak, his jokes make no sense, and he’s been reduced to squinting at a teleprompter, just hoping to get through another event. Someone should really step in and stop this elder abuse.




It’s Not ‘Minority Rule,’ It’s The Point

Against  the  Jacobins !



One of the more popular grievances from the contemporary left revolves around the notion that our nation has been subverted by “minority rule.”

Here is the pollster Nate Silver:

Despite the various, very serious threats to American democracy, things would *mostly* be fine if the balance of elected power more closely reflected the popular will (e.g. Senate seats proportional to population, no Electoral College, less gerrymandering).

Silver is confusing the inability to coerce others with minoritarianism. It is not a serious threat to American democracy that New Yorkers are unable to dictate Oklahoma’s abortion laws. Nor that Texans can’t compel Rhode Islanders to adopt their gun laws. It’s the point.

Elites like to mock the proles when they point out that we don’t live in a democracy. But the system Silver believes problematic tempers divisions. It is the core idea of American governance. If the United States is more divided than it ever has been in modern times, as a New York Times reporter recently claimed, we have even less reason to dispense with the mechanisms and institutions that diffuse power and constrain one side of the divide from lording over the other.

The anti-constitutionalist’s argument usually has two strands that (illogically) intersect. The first is to assert that the Constitution is a work of slave-owning white men who used antiquated and counterproductive ideas that undermine modernity and “democracy.” The second is to argue that we have absolutely no idea what the founders intended, anyway.

When conservative-turned-progressive Max Boot — the gulf between technocrat interventionist and Constitution-averse leftist isn’t as wide as you imagine — says that “American democracy is broken,” his plan to fix it is to effectively dispense with states. “The Founders,” notes Boot, “never envisioned such an imbalance between power and population. It undermines any pretense that we are still a democracy.”

Boot’s contention only makes sense if a person is ignorant of the founding bargain between states. As many people have already pointed out, the first American census in 1790 found that Virginia, then the most populous state, was home to around 20 percent of the population. Today, California, our largest state, makes up around 12 percent of the nation’s population. No one complained about the disparity of the Senate in 1790 — or, as far as I know, 1890 or 1990, for that matter — because the “imbalance” was literally codified in the founding document (which, incidentally, mentions “democracy” zero times).

We know that the framers “envisioned” small states having an equal say because in Federalist 62, James Madison grapples with the undemocratic nature of the Senate but comes to the conclusion that it is an “advantage” that, “No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States”(emphasis mine). The Senate works exactly as it was envisioned.

Well, OK, not exactly. Senators have abdicated their constitutional and institutional responsibilities, and become partisan cheerleaders for executive abuses, whining when courts hand them back the responsibility of governing, as it did with West Virginia v. EPA (bad “democracy”). One doubts Madison envisioned Chuck Schumer, who implores the president to circumvent Congress and shows greater loyalty to the Democratic Party than he does the Constitution. Enacting the 17th Amendment was a big mistake. We need less direct democracy, not more.

Another popular way to claim we live under minority rule is to attack the Supreme Court for handing back issues unmentioned in the Constitution to voters.

In a piece headlined “This July 4, let’s declare our independence from the Founding Fathers,” The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman offered a slew of collegiate-level gripes about the Constitution’s alleged limitations. Tucked into the piece, Waldman claims that the right believes the “Founders were essentially perfect, and only we conservatives are capable of interpreting their will.”

A person would have to aggressively avoid reading anything from or about actual textualists to type that sentence. Even during this term, even last week, “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court were disagreeing on what the Constitution means. It is not only that conservatives are capable of interpreting the will of the founders, it is that they’re the only ones willing to try.

At some point, though, the judicial branch is required to look at the Constitution as written. Otherwise, we’re left with a banana republic where capricious politicians held hostage to the vagaries of the moment abuse state power and invent “rights” on the fly, which is, of course, what Waldman wants.

Boot also claims that conservatives see the founders “as demigods.” The Supreme Court, he writes, “has just upheld abortion restrictions and struck down gun restrictions based on the dubious claim to be channeling the Constitution’s drafters.” The court didn’t “uphold abortion restrictions” or “strike down gun restrictions,” it adjudicated the constitutionality of laws. In Dobbs, the court, after 50 years of judicial decree, handed the abortion issue back to voters (also bad “democracy”). And in New York, the court found that “bearing” arms outside the home was a constitutional right — no court, incidentally, has ever found otherwise — and thus, New York bureaucrats are no longer allowed to arbitrarily stop citizens from practicing a right.

You might believe the Constitution has it wrong, but there’s nothing remotely “dubious” about justices ruling that the Constitution doesn’t concern itself with the issue of abortion, even tangentially, but clearly states that we have a right to “bear arms.” There is no confusion, either, on what the founders had to say about the Senate or the Electoral College. Now, though I do not consider anyone a demigod, I most definitely consider Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s views on stable governance more meaningful and enduring than the impulses of a shapeshifting pundit who would rather be ruled by Stalin than a constitutionally constrained, duly elected president. I’m a patriot like that.

The chances of amending the Constitution to create a proportional Senate or to rid it of the Electoral College are infinitesimal. But the normalization of these ideas — furthered by people unable to deal with the existence of a multiparty state — delegitimizes institutions and corrodes the rule of law. It’s working, because leftists seem to be increasingly convinced that obtaining a majority in the imaginary race for the popular vote (which no candidate has ever won because none has ever run for the title) gives them license to ignore process and rights.

The diffusing of the federal government’s power over states and the state’s power over individuals isn’t “minority rule.” It’s one of the most indispensable, if imperfect, ways to ensure that a diverse people can rule themselves.



Godfather actor James Caan dies at 82

 

US actor James Caan, who rose to fame as Sonny Corleone in The Godfather, has died at the age of 82.

A leading man in Hollywood through the 1970s who continued to act into the 2000s, he won an Oscar, an Emmy and four Golden Globes during his career.

Mr Caan's family thanked fans on Thursday for an "outpouring of love and heartfelt condolences".

The New Yorker, known for his partying lifestyle, was married four times and leaves behind five children.  


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62087285   




Red-Pilled YouTuber Talks Leaving the Left and Exposes an Interesting Fact About Political Division

Brandon Morse reporting for RedState 

Misha Petrov, a young woman, uploaded a video in June to her YouTube page that would garner quite a bit of attention and elicit a ton of responses, most of them absolutely in agreement with her.

The video centered around how Petrov had considered herself a Democrat like most people her age. She was neck-deep in leftism, especially in her university where radical leftist politics was being shoved down her throat at all times, even in classes that had nothing to do with socio-political matters. She couldn’t get through a math class without it being woke.

Soon, Petrov found herself unable to continue identifying with the left and as her video states, she left it. This includes her university which had sunk so far into wokeness that it stopped being a place of learning.



One of the interesting things Petrov brings up in her video is the fact that, prior to her realization, she was under the impression that very few people in this nation were actually conservative. She was led to believe that it was a small, almost cult-like group of racists and bigots, due in large part to the way social media algorithms work.

Because she was surrounded constantly by mainstream content, she was under the impression that leftism was the most dominant political ideology in America, as the more she engaged in it the more it was recommended to her by social media.

She had a moment of awakening when the documentary “The Social Dilemma” pointed out that social media algorithms feed political division. It didn’t help that some of her friends were drifting more and more to the left and spouting talking points and attitudes from groups like Black Lives Matter.

Petrov said she posted the clip from the documentary to her socials and not much later, received a handful of text messages from her friends asking why she posted it and if she’s a Trump supporter now.

“They were ready to attack me,” said Petrov.

“They were proving my point,” she continued. “I can’t really post or say anything without people getting defensive or offended, and it really made me miss the days when we could all say ‘oh, let’s agree to disagree.'”

Petrov would be pushed further away from the left as her university descended into madness. Men would walk into women’s restrooms under the claim they were trans but would put no effort into looking like a woman at all, and assignments from professors would focus on identity politics and trigger warnings. Soon, Petrov would walk away from the hypocrisy and infantilization she was being forced to embrace.

Petrov’s tale exposes a very interesting flaw in our society, and it’s a flaw that works in favor of the left. More specifically, the radical left.

For those who have never seen “The Social Dilemma,” I recommend you go see it as soon as possible. It exposes some very shocking things about how social media platforms and the people behind them have far more control of your mind than you might actually think, especially if you tend to engage in social media often.

Algorithms are primarily geared toward keeping you hooked and engaging. If you don’t turn notifications off on your phone, for instance, your social app will bump you at various points in the day where it learned that you’re the most susceptible to looking at it. If you’re susceptible to political posts that gear more toward conservative/libertarian ways of thinking, you’ll be fed that more often, making you want to engage and interact with the site even more.

This continuous feed of right-leaning information feeds right-leaning thought. The same is happening to people on the left, the only difference is that the left’s reliance on sensationalism and identity politics puts leftists into the mindset that they truly are up against real evil.

The young are especially susceptible to this since they have no true real-world experience to understand that sensationalism is all an act. It doesn’t help that this is being reinforced by professors and teachers in schools and universities. It should surprise no one that we have a young population in America that is so highly offended, infantilized, and ready to fight anyone who merely suggests even talking it out.

Being young in America and separating yourself from the left actually takes some bravery.

All in all, the left is being lied to in general. Many act the way they do, not because they themselves are evil, but because they don’t know any better. They need help, and there are many fronts we need to battle the left over if we’re to free these mental and emotional prisoners.