"There’s too much money and political power in the lies for the truth to matter."

 

Article by Derek Hunter in Townhall

Democrats Made Me Not Care Anymore

I really do despise these leftists. Not your average Democrat voter, but the activist class. The average voter I just think are too dumb to know that the party they vote for is not anywhere near the party they used to be, nor do they support anything remotely close to what was once considered American. Think JFK – a “liberal,” at the time, who opposed communism and loved the country. He wouldn’t qualify for a daytime speaking slot at the Democrat National Convention today, and if he did land one the AOCs of the party would shout him down. Those are the people I despise.

I know you shouldn’t allow your enemies to define you or influence your actions, and certainly your emotions, because that’s what they want. But in this case, to hell with it and them.

What am I talking about? This video from Barnard College in Manhattan, which costs about $60,000 per year, curating the idea of America as an oppressive, horrible nation and the perpetual victimhood of anyone not white, no matter what.

The video is entitled “Don’t be a Bystander: 6 Tips for Responding to Racist Attacks,” and was produced by the Barnard Center for Research on Women (BCRW). The BCRW, according to their website, “brings scholars and activists together through its working groups, public events, publications, and multimedia projects to advance intersectional social justice feminist analyses and to promote social transformation.”

The group is so progressive and interested in advancing the cause of women that they hired a man, er, trans woman to star in it. Someone named Aaryn Lang who is described as a person who “has made it her mission to better the lives of Black transgender women. She was a cofounder of the Ohio branch of the Trans Women of Color Collective and has played a central role in the Black Lives Matter network since its inception. Along with BLM, Lang was a lead organizer of Black Trans Liberation Tuesday, the first national day of action centered solely on Black trans women.”

In other words, someone who makes their living being a professional victim.

Normally, I wouldn’t care what some left-wing activist did for other left-wing activists, but that’s not what happened here. Barnard is a private women’s college which employs men because they couldn’t find enough qualified women, or something, that costs a fortune to attend. That fortune is, in no small part, covered by federal student grants and loans. It’s private, but not that private.

Still, if someone wants to waste their money there, go ahead. The problem is the progressive rot on these elite institutions – and Barnard has an endowment of almost $500 million – spreads like a cold on a plane with a broken ventilation system.

This video, this poison, was shown to high school students in Colorado. Why? Because progressives are evil and they’re desperate to indoctrinate, or dare I say “groom,” children into their political ideology. And that ideology is one of victimhood or being a perpetrator based on your skin color.

After the trans narrator declares the country “violent” toward trans, gay, black, brown, and disabled people (I must’ve missed a memo on that last one), it then goes on to inform students what to do should they witness a trans or homophobic or racist attack by the left’s sasquatch: the white supremacist.  

Where all these white supremacists roam the streets attacking Democrat voter blocs remains a mystery, but Democrats are not interested in all the anti-Asian attacks in Democrat-controlled cities by people decidedly NOT white supremacists. That’s neither here nor there, just worth mentioning to illustrate the level of manipulation.

Barnard tells viewers, which means this Denver school district, to offer water to minorities in the midst of being attacked, only film their attack if the victim signs off on it, and no matter what you do “don’t call police.”

Why shouldn’t people call police upon witnessing an attack or any sort? Because, according to Barnard, police have a history of beating up black, brown and Muslim people (Muslim is a religion, not a race, by the way, and they come in very possible color (and what happened to the disabled? Why were they left off the list the second time through?)) and they could easily re-victimize them or beat them.

It’s stupid beyond words, and that an institution of higher learning would perpetuate this garbage is pathetic. But worse than that is the fact that an entire political movement is based on this; exists to spread this lie and can’t survive if that lie doesn’t take root in children.

The worst part of all of this is how Democrats are harming real victims of racism, etc. The more they cry “the sky is falling” the less anyone can hear real victims. There aren’t nearly as many as the left would have you believe, but there are still some. The chorus from academia, Democrats and the media continually hyping the lies means they aren’t heard.

There’s too much money and political power in the lies for the truth to matter. As such, I have stopped caring about any of it. I just tune it out. I’ll never apologize or feel guilty in any way from my skin color any more than a black person should apologize or feel guilty about how the slave trade on the continent of Africa was created and operated by black people.

Sadly, that means real victims won’t be heard. The left will go where hustlers like Al Sharpton or Ben Crump go, not where justice needs to. And the very people they claim to care most about will suffer.

Of course, those people are the ones who’ve been suffering under Democrats for generations and still elect more Democrats to dig them out of the hole Democrats dug and tossed them into. That makes it a little hard to care already, but to the extent it was possible to, I did. I just can’t anymore.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2022/08/30/democrats-made-me-not-care-anymore-n2612381 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Who Are You Calling A Fascist, Mr. President?

A  rant.

posted by David Harsanyi at The Federalist

The other day Joe Biden accused voters of the opposition party of turning to “semi-fascism.” This is probably the first time in American history a president has openly attacked the opposing party’s constituents in this way. Grammatically speaking, the accusation could use a little work. What Biden probably meant to say was that 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 are “quasi-fascist” or “increasingly fascistic.”

Then again, Biden, who once alleged that the chaste Mitt Romney was harboring a desire to bring back chattel slavery, is prone to stupid hyperbole. And it’s true that most people who throw around the word “fascist” fail to do so with much precision.* Anyway, our president will probably further explain his thinking on the matter of “semi-fascism” when he gives a prime-time speech about threats to our “democracy” this Thursday—a week after he broke millions of existing contracts and unilaterally “forgave” student loans by executive decree. Biden has engaged in historic and unprecedented abuses of White House power. Sometimes, the chutzpah is staggering.

These days, the word “democracy,” like “fascism,” has lost all meaning. According to Democrats, asking someone to show ID before voting is an attack on “democracy,” but so is the Supreme Court’s handing back power to voters on the abortion issue. When you have no limiting principles of governance, anything that inhibits your exertion of power is seen as anti-“democracy.” If students have loans to be paid, “forgive” them. If you can’t pass a bill, the executive branch should do it by fiat. If the court stops it, pack it. Power is only to be limited when the opposition holds it. When Donald Trump wants to divert money to secure the southern border, it evokes images of 1930s Germany. When Barack Obama  unilaterally bestows amnesty on millions of newcomers, without any debate or due process, it is just and moral … and shut up racists.

A microcosm of this confused thinking can be found in the recent spate of hysterical media pieces about alleged Republican “book banning.” The use of “ban” by the media is more than a category error, it’s an effort to paint parents who use the very same exact democratic powers the left has relied on for decades as book burners. Public school curricula and book selection are political questions decided by school and library boards. Neither have a duty to carry every single volume on racial identitarianism or sexually explicit material simply demanded by some busybody at the American Library Association. We can debate whether these books are harmful or not, but it is neither fascism nor authoritarian to make those decisions.

Anyway, you’re not just anti-democratic for supporting a Republican presidential candidate, you’re now a semi-fascist. Henry Olson disagrees, noting that:

Classic 20th-century fascism was a political philosophy that comprehensively denounced modern liberal democracy. Fascists believed that multiparty democracy weakened the nation, and that competitive capitalism was wasteful and exploitative. Their alternative was a one-party state that guided the economy through regulation and sector-based accords between labor and business.

It’s somewhat more complicated, as most fascist regimes were also propelled by ethno-nationalism and jingoism. The left tends to confuse, or conflate, the blood-and-soil European variety with American nationalism — the kind that a few Nazis in Charlottesville embraced, but which is not even close to the predominant position of Republican voters.

But it is the left that champions government intervention in the economy, with never-ending regulations, subsidies, and mandates that effectively allow for controlling the means of production. Leftists—some incrementally, some less so—are the proponents of nationalizing the health-care system, the energy sector, and education. Again, if progressives have any limiting principles when it comes to intervention in our economic lives, I’d love to hear about them.

The most vociferous defenders of “democracy” are also the ones who sound suspiciously like they want a one-party state. Modern Democrats have stopped debating policy or accepting the legitimacy of anyone who stands in their way. They will pass massive, generational reforms using parliamentary tricks, without any input from the minority. And they don’t merely champion their work as beneficial, they claim these bills are needed for the survival of “democracy” and “civilization” – nay, the survival of the planet. Anyone who opposes saving Mother Earth is surely a fascist. There is nothing to debate. The villainization of political opponents isn’t new, but we are breaking new ground. We live in an era where a failed former CIA director, Michael Hayden—the man who was on watch during 9/11—says that he has “never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans.”

Some may find it a bit fascist-y that the FBI feels free to instruct giant rent-seeking corporations to censor news to help elect their preferred candidate. Or that the White House is in the business of “flagging” “problematic posts” or in the habit of threatening corporations to “root out” “misleading” speech or be held accountable. A “Disinformation Governance Board” that sifts through speech the administration dislikes or a Justice Department that treats those protesting authoritarian school boards as “domestic terrorists” is semi-fascism. When Democrats challenge the veracity of election results, and rely on law enforcement and media to con the public, it is merely democracy at work. When Republicans do it, it’s the “Big Lie” worthy of not only condemnation but state-endorsed censorship.

The modern left, which increasingly sees the world in identitarian terms, is also the enemy of true diversity. As one of my favorites, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, noted long ago, the progressives won’t rest until the person who opposes their orthodoxy “lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated.” This sounds quite familiar to anyone living in an era where the media and government work to deplatform and chase anyone who diverges from orthodoxy out of the public square. There are entire genres of journalism dedicated to helping the left circumvent debate by falsely claiming to have a monopoly on “facts.”

It is curious, as well, that the same people who control basically all major institutions in American life—academia, media, unions, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, trade associations, public schools, publishing, the entire D.C. bureaucracy, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, not to mention the presidency and Congress—claim to be victims of budding authoritarianism. The only major institution free of progressives’ grip right now is the Supreme Court. And the left is engaged in a systematic effort to delegitimize the court for doing its job and limiting the state’s power.

None of this is to say that the right is innocent. I often find myself debating the populist right on issues ranging from the free markets and the role of the state. Abuses of the Constitution should be called out no matter who engages in them. However, progressivism’s crusade to destroy separation of powers, its attacks on religious freedom and free speech, its undermining of civil society, its binding of the economy to the state, and its fostering of perpetual dependency and victimhood, are far bigger long-term threats to the republic than Trumpism—and far closer to the definition of “semi-fascism” than the Republican agenda.

*I am guilty of this, as well. In my book “Nanny State,” I called anyone who proposed limiting my air conditioning a “fascistic monster” and accused those proposing to limit soda sizes of being “Twinkie fascists” who wouldn’t stop until we were saying “Sieg Health” as we choked down cauliflower. But, of course, I’m not the president.

X22 and Red Pill news- August 31

 

Gonna be a (hopefully) great September! (as long as any NCIS LA info I find out is positive Hetty related.). Here's tonight's news:

Zuckerberg’s Admission Of FBI Meddling In 2020 Election Is Even Bigger Than It Seems

Zuckerberg’s admission reveals a deeper scandal: It was the FBI and not social media that stole the election from Donald Trump.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s admission last week that the FBI pushed the social media giant to censor Russian misinformation — and thus the Hunter Biden laptop story, as that’s how the agency and Democrats characterized it — shortly before the November 2020 election is but a breadcrumb of a bigger scandal: the widespread interference by the FBI in the 2020 presidential election with the potential that the bureau coordinated its efforts with the Biden campaign. 

When asked during a Thursday podcast with Joe Rogan how Facebook handles controversial news, such as the Hunter Biden laptop story, Zuckerberg stopped his host to provide a backdrop to Facebook’s decision to decrease distribution of the scandal. 

“The FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, [saying,] ‘Hey just so you know, you should be on high alert,” Zuckerberg told Rogan. According to Zuckerberg, the bureau told Facebook that “we thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election” and that “we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump similar to that so just be vigilant.”

As Zuckerberg told “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast audience, “Hey, look, if the FBI — which I still view as a legitimate institution in this country, it’s a very professional law enforcement — they come to us and tell us we need to be on guard about something, I want to take that seriously.” So, when the New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story on October 14, 2020, Facebook treated the story as “potentially misinformation, important misinformation” for five to seven days while the tech giant’s team could determine whether it was false. 

During that time, Facebook decreased its distribution of the story by making the story rank lower in the news feed. “You could still share it, you could still consume it,” Zuckerberg explained, but “fewer people saw it than would have otherwise.” And while he would not quantify the impact, the Facebook founder said the decreased distribution was “meaningful.”

In a follow-up, Rogan asked if the FBI had specifically said “to be on guard about that story,” meaning the laptop story. After originally responding, “no,” Zuckerberg corrected himself, saying, “I don’t remember if it was that specifically, but it basically fit the pattern.” 

Whether the FBI identified the Hunter Biden laptop story as the about-to-drop Russian misinformation, however, is irrelevant because the warning the bureau provided Facebook proved specific enough for the Big Tech company to censor distribution of the New York Post’s story. And, contrary to fake intel the FBI provided Facebook’s team, the laptop was not Russian disinformation but a true and devastating story showing Joe Biden had lied to the American public when he claimed in September of 2019 that he had never discussed his son’s foreign business dealings. Information on the laptop further implicated the Democrat presidential candidate in a pay-to-play scandal involving Russia, Ukraine, and China.

The implications flowing from Zuckerberg’s revelation are huge and raise a litany of questions that demand answers. 

We Need Answers

First, it is implausible to believe Facebook is the only Big Tech company contacted by the FBI with a warning about Russian disinformation and the bureau’s expectation being that tech executives would then censor the Biden scandal. Rather, it is only reasonable to believe the FBI issued similar false warnings to Twitter and other outlets.

And while Facebook only limited distribution, Twitter completely censored the story, preventing it from being shared at all on the platform. Twitter also temporarily locked Trump’s campaign account to prevent the then-president from sharing the laptop story and suspended the New York Post’s account. 

Did the FBI’s warning prompt Twitter’s censorship as it had Facebook’s? What other Big Tech companies did the FBI contact to paint the Hunter Biden laptop story as misinformation? What network and cable news outlets received a similar message? What about print and legacy media companies? Who within the FBI issued the warnings? With whose knowledge? With whose authorization? Or by whose directive?

A second component to the scandal concerns the FBI’s interactions (or lack thereof) with the Biden campaign. According to John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the Delaware laptop repair shop where Hunter Biden abandoned his laptop in mid-2019, the former’s father approached the FBI on October 8, 2019, on his behalf to alert the FBI to the laptop’s existence. During that meeting, Isaac’s father claimed he told the agent there was pornography on the laptop as well as information about “dealing with foreign interests, a pay-for-play scheme linked to the former administration, lots of foreign money.” 

Isaac’s father left the local FBI office believing the bureau was uninterested in the laptop, but then two months later, in December of 2019, two federal agents appeared at Isaac’s Wilmington repair store with a subpoena and seized the laptop. Isaac had previously made a copy of the hard drive, however, and later provided the copy to Rudy Giuliani who, in turn, gave a copy to the New York Post, prompting the stories the FBI then tried to censor by falsely flagging it as Russian disinformation.

What the FBI did with the laptop after taking possession of it remains unknown, although FBI whistleblowers now claim that “local FBI leadership told employees ‘you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop.’” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson revealed the whistleblowers’ claims in a letter he sent to the inspector general of the Department of Justice last week. That letter further stated that the “whistleblowers allege that the FBI did not begin to examine the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop until after the 2020 presidential election — potentially a year after the FBI obtained the laptop in December 2019.”

If, as the whistleblowers allege, the FBI did not review the content of Biden’s laptop until after the 2020 presidential election, that constitutes yet another scandal because from what Isaac’s father conveyed to the agent in October of 2019, the laptop represented a national security threat. 

The FBI and the intelligence community cannot possibly defend the country from threats if it blinds itself to what those threats are. Nor could the intelligence community properly provide Joe Biden with a defensive briefing if agents remained ignorant of the content of the laptop. And as I previously reported, that content included the revelation by Hunter Biden that he believed Russians had stolen a second laptop with material that put him at risk for blackmail. So if the whistleblowers’ claims prove true, the FBI and the intelligence community put the election of Joe Biden above America’s national security.

Either way, the FBI lied to Facebook and presumptively Twitter and many other media outlets. If the FBI had analyzed the laptop, it knew it was not Russian disinformation; if agents had not yet assessed the material, it had no basis to claim it was Russian disinformation. 

What Did the Big Guy Know?

The question remains, though: What did the FBI tell Joe Biden about the laptop? 

While it would be completely inappropriate for the FBI to bury the laptop and withhold a defensive briefing from the Democrat presidential candidate, it is possible the FBI took that tack to provide Biden with plausible deniability. But once the FBI knew the story was about to break, what did the bureau do, besides lying to Big Tech companies that the story represented Russian disinformation? 

And we know from the Post’s October 14, 2020, story on the Hunter Biden laptop that the FBI had foreknowledge of the Post’s plan to run the story, as did Hunter Biden and the Biden campaign. “The FBI referred questions about its seizure of the laptop and hard drive to the Delaware US Attorney’s Office, where a spokesperson said, ‘My office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation,’” the Post reported. The Post added that “Hunter Biden’s lawyer refused to comment on the specifics but instead attacked Giuliani,” and “the Joe Biden campaign did not return requests for comment.”

After the Post reached out to the FBI and Biden for comment on the story, did the FBI tell Biden how it came to possess Hunter’s laptop and that it appeared legitimate? Or did agents lie to Biden?

Here, a comment Biden made in crosstalk during his October 22, 2020, presidential debate with Trump in Nashville proves intriguing. 

After Biden intoned that the election was about the character of the country, Trump countered, “If this stuff is true about Russia, Ukraine, China, other countries, a wreck — if this is true, then he’s a corrupt politician. So don’t give me the stuff about how you’re this innocent baby. Joe, they’re calling you a corrupt politician.”

“It’s the laptop from hell, the laptop from hell,” Trump continued. 

Biden initially countered by pointing to the “50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan.” “Four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage,” Biden claimed. 

“You mean, the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax?” Trump barked.

At this point, the crosstalk escalated, but Biden could be heard saying, “That’s exactly what — that’s exactly what I was told.”

Was Biden lying? Or did someone tell Biden that the laptop was Russian disinformation? Did the FBI and intelligence community lie to the Democrat candidate about the authenticity of the laptop, rather than provide Joe Biden with a proper defensive briefing? If so, who lied? Who knew of the lie? Who approved the lie or directed it? 

And what about Hunter? Did Biden ask his son about the laptop? What did Hunter say? Did Biden know the FBI was lying about it being disinformation and just go along with that narrative?

These questions barely scratch the surface, with more serious questions concerning whether the FBI plotted with the Biden campaign to push the Russian disinformation narrative and to seek censorship of the story. And before writing that off as a crazy conspiracy theory, remember that it was Zuckerberg — the Zuck Bucks king — who revealed that the FBI had approached him and warned that the about-to-be dumped story was Russian disinformation. So we know the FBI holds responsibility for pushing the disinformation canard to Big Tech, we just don’t know whether agents coordinated the plan with the Biden campaign.

A review of contemporaneous reporting also reveals that the intelligence community pushed the Russia disinformation narrative through leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post. 

The same day the story broke, in reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop article published by the Post, the New York Times reported that “some security experts expressed skepticism about the provenance and authenticity of the emails,” citing “United States intelligence analysts.” 

According to the Times, American intelligence analysts had contacted Burisma — the Ukrainian energy company at which Hunter served a lucrative gig on the board of directors — to learn more about a purported hack of Burisma by “the same Russian GRU unit that was one of two groups that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016.” The Times reported that the intelligence analysts “had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an ‘October surprise.’”

Citing its American intelligence sources, the Times then claimed that “among their chief concerns … was that the Burisma material would be leaked alongside forged materials in an attempt to hurt Mr. Biden’s candidacy — as Russian hackers did when they dumped real emails alongside forgeries ahead of the 2017 French elections — a slight twist on Russia’s 2016 playbook when they siphoned leaked D.N.C. emails through fake personas on Twitter and WikiLeaks.”

The speed with which the New York Times spun the Hunter Biden laptop story, and the assist by the unnamed “U.S. intelligence analysts” suggests a coordinated effort by individuals in the intelligence community to protect Biden’s candidacy by framing the New York Post’s coverage as Russian disinformation.

Less than a week after the New York Post broke the laptop story, the Washington Post likewise bolstered the disinformation narrative based on FBI leaks. “What’s more, numerous news outlets have now reported that the FBI is examining whether the material from Hunter Biden (which supposedly includes salacious stuff) is linked to a Russian disinformation effort,” the Washington Post reported on October 20, 2020, adding that “intelligence officials had previously warned that Giuliani is a conduit for such disinformation.”

The FBI and U.S. intelligence analysts’ peddling of the Russia disinformation narrative to the New York Times and Washington Post further expands the deep state’s culpability in interfering in the 2020 election and also leads to more questions. 

Who provided the media outlets with leaks to spin the Hunter Biden laptop scandal as Russian disinformation? Who knew of the leaks, and who approved them or directed them? And did the FBI and intelligence community coordinate with the Biden campaign in pushing the Russia disinformation narrative to the legacy media?

How Deep Does the Corruption Go?

Other questions concern what prompted “more than 50 former senior intelligence officials” to sign “on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’” Did the FBI or other members of the intelligence community help coordinate that letter? 

Given the FBI took the initiative to prompt Facebook and almost certainly other media outlets to censor the Hunter Biden story, it’s entirely reasonable to think the same deep-state liars would round up former members of the cabal to sign the letter to further the disinformation narrative.

If so, did Joe Biden or his campaign know about the efforts? Or did the Biden campaign merely exploit what the FBI was doing behind the scenes? 

And make no mistake, even if Biden’s team did not conspire with the FBI to cause the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, it exploited the FBI’s gratuitous interference in the election, with the Biden campaign pointing to social media’s censorship as proof that the story was disinformation. 

“Well, look, I think Twitter’s response to the actual article itself makes clear these reported allegations are false and are not true, and I’m glad to see social media companies to take responsibility to limit misinformation,” campaign press secretary Jamal Brown said shortly after the story broke. 

Biden likewise hid behind the spin pushed by the 50-plus former national intelligence agents that framed the laptop as Russian disinformation, as demonstrated by his debate performance highlighted above. 

Whether Biden coordinated with those former deep-staters, or they conspired with the FBI, merits investigation as well because, at the end of the day, the burying of the Hunter Biden laptop story cost Trump the election.

As the Washington Times reported earlier this year after the New York Times belatedly acknowledged the authenticity of the laptop: “Trump pollster John McLaughlin found that 4.6% of Biden voters would have changed their minds if they had known about it, easily enough to flip results in key states. Another survey by The Polling Company showed that even more Biden voters in seven swing states — 17% — would have switched their votes if they had been aware of the laptop and other stories.”

Those poll results confirmed what many conservatives had long thought — that by censoring the laptop story and the Biden family’s pay-to-play scandal, Big Tech stole the election from Donald Trump. 

But Zuckerberg’s admission on Thursday that Big Tech throttled the story at the behest of the FBI reveals a deeper scandal: It was the FBI and not social media that stole the election from Donald Trump. 

New Survey Shows How Weak Minded College Kids Are Scared of Different Views

Duke reporting for RedState 

College was supposed to be fun, I thought.

There once was a time in this country, long ago, when men were men but on occasion, men dressed as women — but it was to get out of the Army, like Corporal Klinger in M*A*S*H.

Also, people had nowhere near the issue of associating with someone who did not hold every view as theirs and were not perpetually offended.

Those were the days.

Nowadays, it seems that your feelings matter more than anyone else’s feelings and those good people must be marginalized and banned for the sin of just having a different view than you. So if you like chocolate ice cream but the mob likes vanilla you need to pay the price by sacrificing your sanity to the spiteful ones.

This crazed mentality is being advocated for by the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as one of my fellow RedState peeps wrote about earlier. From my colleague Nick Arama:

WH Attack on MAGA People Gets Even More Divisive and Dangerous.

From that article…

As we previously reported, Joe Biden and his team are increasing the tactic of trying to demonize millions of MAGA people. Biden called people who supported “Make America Great Again” “semi-fascist,” said he didn’t respect them, and even called them violent.

“The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They’re a threat to our very democracy,” Biden said at a rally in Maryland last Thursday, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. “They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace, embrace political violence. They don’t believe in democracy.”

Then his White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre doubled down on that.

Now, they’re upping that attack to even another level. They’re trying to criminalize their political opposition calling the “extreme MAGA agenda” a “threat to the rule of law.”

Having a different view is a threat to the rule of law, is it? George Orwell in his wildest dreams could not have imagined this scenario.

Now comes word that this crazy mindset has been confirmed in a new poll of college students and their tissue paper feelings are confirming that they can’t stand any thought that is not their own.

From Professor Jonathan Turley’s musings on this…

A new NBC and Generation Lab study of the class of 2025 showed that roughly half of college students refuse to live with someone who voted for a member of a different political party. That percentage is notably much higher with Democrats rather than Republicans.

According to the poll, 46% responded that they would “probably not” or “definitely not” be willing to share a room with someone from another political party. Of those, 62% of young Democrats refused to share a room with a member of the Republican party while only 28% of young Republicans took that position.

That attitude extended to marriage where 52% ruled out a spouse from an opposing party. So much for opposites attracting. Notably, 62% would not work for a company that does not share their political values. It seems Twitter is going to be busy this hiring season.

The poll captures the rising intolerance on our campuses. When I went to college, there was an excitement about meeting and rooming with people from different backgrounds and values. Intolerance has become an article of faith among many students who seek to cancel speakers and professors who hold opposing views.

What a bunch of babies and I’m not sorry that there is really no other way to state it.

These weak-kneed, adult children are going to crumble at the first sign of any slightly difficult situation in their lives and beg Uncle Sam for care. Of course, it should be denied to all of them but the system is already in place to coddle these mental midgets and they will be taken care of — all the while wearing some face diapers to keep themselves safe from the panic that Fauci infected them with.

When I was growing up, America was a place with people brimming with swagger and rugged individuals and was the envy of the world. Now, my country is a place where not only the youth but many other age groups are not even capable of having a disagreement with people who are not bad people but just don’t see things in the exact same light.

How in the hell did we get to this place?

The Energy Economy

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

Let’s say you are an average household with an income around $100,000/yr who has an increase in electricity rates from $300 to $500 due to Joe Biden’s new national energy policy known as the Green New Deal.  That’s $200 more per month for this initial economic/energy “transition” moment.

That extra $200/month equates to $2,400 per year.

That $2,400 per year is static economic activity.  Meaning nothing additional was created, and nothing additional was generated.  The captured $2,400 is simply an increase in the price of a preexisting expense.

Take that expense and expand it to your community of 100 friends and family households.  The $2,400 now becomes $240,000 in cost that doesn’t generate anything.  $240,000 is removed from the community economy.  $240,000 is no longer available for purchasing other goods or services within this community of 100 households.

The economic purchasing power of the 100-household community is reduced by $240,000 per year.

Take that expense and expand it to your county of 10,000 households.  Now you are reducing the county economic activity by $24 million.  In this county of 10,000 households, $24 million in economic transactions have been wiped out.  Meals at restaurants, purchases of goods and services, or any other spending of the $24 million within the county of 10,000 households (approximately 25,000 residents) has been lost.

Now expand that expense to a larger county, quantified as a mid-size county, of 50,000 households.  The mid-sized county has lost $120 million in household economic activity, simply to sustain the status quo on electricity rates.  Nothing extra has been generated. $120 million is lost.  The activity within the county of 50,000 households shrinks by $120 million.

Expand that expense to a large county of 100,000 households, and the lost economic activity is $240 million.

Expand that expense to a small state of 1 million households (2.5 million residents), and the lost economic activity is $2.4 billion.

Expand that expense to a state with 5 million households (approximately 12 million residents) and the economic cost is $12 billion in lost economic activity unrelated to the expense of maintaining the status-quo on electricity use.   This state loses $12 billion in purchases of goods and services, just to retain current energy use.

These examples only touch on household expenses.  The community, county and state business expenses for offices, supermarkets, stores, etc. are in addition to the households quoted.

Meanwhile the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the community, county and state, remains static because the GDP is calculated on the total value of goods and services generated in dollar terms.  The appearance of a static GDP is artificial.  In real Main Street terms, $12 billion in economic activity is lost, but the price or increased value of electricity hides the drop created by the absence of goods and services purchased.

Fewer goods and services are purchased and consumed.  However, statistically the inflated price of electricity gives the illusion of a status quo economy.

Now expand that perspective to a national level and you can see our current economic condition.

Europe is Headed Back to the Dark Ages as Energy Costs Explode

Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

They keep telling us to go green—rely on renewable energy!—but the simple often unstated fact is that the technology isn’t there yet. Many countries in Europe are about to find that out the hard way, as that little thing called “winter” approaches and energy supplies dwindle, in large part due to the Russian war in Ukraine but also as a result of their own suicidal policies. An unfortunate fact that the World Economic Forum and the Biden administration don’t want you to know—the sanctions against Russia have largely failed, and the totalitarian country is doing better financially than ever.

The Wall Street Journal gives us a little reality check:

Russian energy sales have flourished by finding new buyers, new means of payment, new traders and new ways of financing exports, according to oil traders, former Russian industry executives and shipping officials.

In other words, Biden’s sanctions have done squat, and while he’s put the hurt on US citizens and European countries, Russia is profiting handsomely.

Meanwhile, things in England are about to get a little chillier. Energy costs are expected to rise 80 percent in the UK this winter.  I don’t know about you, but my Department of Water and Power bill is already crushing; I can’t even imagine it rising by many thousands of dollars.

According to Axios, here are just a few of the cutbacks European nations are imposing to deal with the crisis:

Cologne’s [Germany] magnificent cathedral — normally lit throughout the night — now goes dark over night. Public buildings, museums and other landmarks — such as the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin — will no longer be illuminated overnight either….
The southern city of Augsburg decided to turn off traffic lights.

Spain: Congress agreed to temperature limitations — air conditioning no cooler than 27 degrees Celsius, or nearly 81 degrees Fahrenheit.
After 10 p.m. shop windows and unoccupied public buildings won’t be lit.

Italy: Air conditioning in schools and public buildings has already been limited in what the government labeled “Operation Thermostat,” starting in May.
Italy is one of the European countries most reliant on Russian energy.

France: While roughly 70% of its energy comes from nuclear power, France has committed to cutting natural gas consumption as well.
Shopkeepers will now be fined for keeping doors open and air conditioning running, a common practice.
Illuminated signs will be banned between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m.

With all those lights turned off, expect crime to go up as well.

Russia meanwhile is so confident in its position that it’s burning an estimated $10 million in natural gas every day rather than sending it to the European Union. Putin’s antics have caused alarm among Europeans as they prepare for the annual cold spell that is not caused by global warming, but is actually caused by the tilt of our planet’s axis:

“This is not normal at all. It’s incredibly volatile,” said Fabian Rønningen, a senior analyst at Rystad Energy. “These prices are reaching levels now that we thought we would never see.”

While moving to a green, “renewable,” magical source of energy is perhaps a laudable goal, it’s ridiculous to try to legislate that into reality when our science simply isn’t there yet. Take it from the world’s richest person, Tesla CEO and SpaceX founder Elon Musk:

“At this time, we actually need more oil and gas, not less,” Musk said Monday during an energy conference in Norway, adding that he’s not someone to “demonize” the fossil fuels. At the same time, “we must have a clear path to a sustainable energy future.”

Not surprisingly, Fox News host Tucker Carlson took notice, and came with his usual fire on his Monday show:

Last year, only about 6% of Germans used wood to heat their homes, but that has changed dramatically. Demand for firewood in Germany has risen so fast that there is none left to buy. You can’t get it, so desperate Germans are now cutting their own wood, scouring the forests like their ancestors for sources of heat.

You can choose to believe that Global Warming is the biggest threat we face, or not. We simply do not have the replacement yet for fossil fuels that would allow us to ban them, and legislating their use out of existence is a recipe for utter disaster.

Carlson sums it up in a bleak conclusion:

Europe is descending into poverty. Did you know that? Had someone told you that?

We have saved Europe over and over again, with our military forces in WWI and WWII, and with our financial might with the 1948’s Marshall Plan. I don’t have confidence that we can do it again.