A Glimmer of Hope for the Future

Keeping informed about current events can be a depressing business.

Over the past few months, dozens of Americans were gunned down at a country music concert in Las Vegas. Mass murders have occurred during worship services at churches in Texas and Tennessee, and yet more people seem worried about fictitious or grossly exaggerated problems such as police nationwide wantonly murdering unarmed black teenagers. Liberal activists appear to be more concerned about preserving a woman’s right to abort an unborn child, or climate change, than they care about real, very dangerous problems that aren’t being taken seriously enough.

Over time, that can get depressing, and even demoralizing. The dark mood may become exacerbated by watching a seemingly endless stream of liberal anarchists express anti-American sentiments on national television, only to find out that some of these buffoons actually earn income as college professors, which apparently gives them ample free time to post inane,  insensitive, and idiotic comments on social media about having the privilege of teaching “future dead cops” or “all I want for Christmas is white genocide.

Tucker Carlson appears to have a gift for finding these people. These liberal activists have not only infected the academic ranks at colleges and universities across America, they are even teaching at the middle school and high school level.

And don’t forget that Yvette Felarca of BAMN gets paid to be a social studies teacher in the Berkeley Unified School District, although she appears to spend more time protesting at the University of California-Berkeley or (as both plaintiff and defendant) in court than she spends teaching in the classroom.

However, the title of this article is not intended to be deceptive click-bait. There really is hope for the future. He calls himself “Kid Gadsden.” Just watch the video below.

The teacher’s claims in this “debate” are based purely on emotion, not evidence or facts.

Conversely, Kid Gadsden uses valid and accurate information from reputable sources to thoroughly decimate her argument. The comedy begins early, when the teacher accuses this young man of skewing the information he has offered to refute her arguments.

When Kid Gadsden replies that “his” statistics originally came from the FBI, the teacher abruptly changed course and blurted: “The FBI? Do you know how many coverups happen in the FBI?  All you’re doing is perpetuating your own thought process, so you’ll always get your information from establishments that are ceded (SIC? She also said grounded — I believe she meant “founded”) in white supremacy.” That particular moment in their exchange reminded me of something that dear old Dad used to say: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.”

Really — what the heck was that response about the FBI supposed to mean?

It’s equally difficult to comprehend exactly what the teacher was trying to say around 3:37 in the video, as she was trying to talk over the student while he was still speaking.

It sure sounded like she said this:

Cops are devils. White cops are…you can’t tell me any different.

If that is indeed an accurate representation of what she said, Kid Gadsden’s response was perfect: “Wow!” Nothing more needed to be said.

Does America need teachers to fill the heads of our children with this hateful, racist, divisive, and untrue nonsense? Should this woman be in a classroom?

Before you answer, wait until you finish watching the video. It gets even better. In fact, the entertainment is just getting started. At around the 6:00 minute mark, the teacher proclaims to her class that she’s smarter than the dictionary. It has never occurred to me personally that I should brag about being smarter than an inanimate object.

Nor do I have the hubris to claim that my brain contains more knowledge than a dictionary, because I know it doesn’t. By the same token, I’d be comfortable comparing the knowledge contained in my brain to hers. Clearly, she isn’t even as smart as this kid.

The climatic moment of the teacher’s total nuclear meltdown occurs about three minutes later, when she says:

If you’re gonna actually say that black and brown people are not killed with impunity (by white cops) in this country, then you are misguided. You are perpetuating white supremacy.

Irony alert: “Kid Gadsden” is Latino.

This teacher has officially gone way beyond the pale by this point. She just (falsely) accused her student of being a white supremacist, simply because he challenged her argument with evidence. She should be fired, immediately, for giving all the good teachers across America (and there are many) a bad name.

She is an embarrassment to the entire teaching profession.

Especially for a high school student, Kid Gadsden appeared to be extremely well informed about current events. It sounded as if he might have watched the same Larry Elder interview (below) that I saw on the Rubin Report prior to the impromptu debate with his teacher.

In order to win any debate, a participant must apply logic and reason to evidence that supports their points, assuming the goal is convincing their opponent their argument is superior. Arguments made from authority are inherently fallacious, and ad-hominem personal insults (like calling the other person a racist, or white supremacist) are tantamount to a concession of defeat.

Even so, the exchange between the student and teacher was not a completely wasted opportunity. It became a teachable moment for the entire class. Kid Gadsden brilliantly demonstrated to his classmates the best way (and the only successful way) to decisively triumph in an intellectual debate against an esteemed opponent.

By having the better argument.

A New Odd Couple: Pope Francis and Jerry Brown

Pop Quiz: what does California governor Jerry Brown and Pope Francis have in common? No, it isn’t a trick question. “Nothing” is not the correct answer.

Just for the record, although Pope Francis is pictured on the left in the photo above, that isn’t Governor Moonbeam shown on the right. Recently, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (who knew such a thing existed?) held a three day workshop at the Vatican titled “Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution, and Health”, a fact that inspires this very serious question…why?

Why on earth does Pope Francis seem far more concerned about the threat of climate change than say, radical Islamic terrorism? Shouldn’t we at least be as worried about the imminent threat of being murdered by a terrorist as we are about vague threats to the environment that may or may not come true over the next 100 years?

Pope Francis was quoted as saying this:

Some forms of pollution are part of people’s daily experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the poor, and causes millions of premature deaths. People take sick, for example, from breathing high levels of smoke from fuels used in cooking or heating. There is also pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general. Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.

Pope Francis and I apparently agree on the idea that we humans seem incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things. However, that may be the only opinion we share in common on the subject of climate change, and what humanity should do about it. At any rate, I’m absolutely certain that we should not be listening to Jerry Brown for “expert” advice on the subject of global warming.

This story reminds me of the infamous hole in the ozone layer that scientists briefly used during the 1980s to cause a sense of panic in the general public, warning that the use of chloroflourocarbons created “acid rains” that were slowly destroying the atmosphere and enlarging the hole in the ozone layer, gradually making the Earth uninhabitable. Fast forward 30 years, and amazingly, the “irreparable” hole in the ozone layer has somehow healed itself, in spite of science’s best and most dire predictions, and is now (by some “miracle”) approximately the same size it was in 1988.

Included in the introduction to the materials for the Vatican’s climate change workshop was this interesting paragraph:

Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning leads to increased risks of extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, fires, severe storms, floods which in turn have major health effects. For example: a single heat wave event, which occurred in Europe in 2003, claimed 70000 lives; 250,000 excess deaths were attributed to droughts and famines during 2011-2012 in the horn of Africa. Tropical storm Haiyan claimed more than 7800 lives in the Philippines; heat waves in Pakistan and India lost at least 4000 people to the 2015 heat wave. While we cannot claim these extreme events were caused by anthropogenic climate changes, we know that the probability of exposure to extreme events is increasing significantly due to climate change. These extreme events affect the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.

Notice how the “experts” admit that their litany of natural disasters cannot be attributed to climate change in the paragraph where they desperately attempt to link those same natural disasters to climate change. Besides, whatever happened to the idea that science and the church are supposed to be non-overlapping magisteria?

And why is the abnormal fear of climate change now considered a tenet of Catholic faith?

This question has also probably occurred to the reader by now: what does Jerry Brown have to do with the Pope and climate change? It turns out that Brown was invited to speak at this Vatican “workshop” on climate change, where he said that addressing the problem of climate change will not only require science, but a “religious commitment.”

In my opinion, it was a mistake for Pope Francis to invite Jerry Brown to speak at his workshop on climate change, where Brown suggested that the world needed to be brainwashed into believing in climate change and then “something” (higher taxes) could be done to solve the problem (even though experts have also said that we’ve already passed the point of no return).

Spending trillions of dollars to lower the earth’s temperature by only a fraction of a single degree might not provide the best return on investment, in fact.

Personally (assuming I had any power or authority within the Catholic church) I would strongly be opposed to anyone evangelizing a message saying that people should be brainwashed so they might believe in something they don’t. Pope Francis and Jerry Brown appear to have formed some sort of a new “Odd Couple” but unfortunately, this new act doesn’t seem to be a comedy.

We can’t even tell which of the two is supposed to be Felix Unger.


Who’s funding sedition?

Liberals love to hate the Koch (sounds like “Coke”) brothers because of their reputation for supporting conservative and libertarian political causes through a nonprofit they founded that’s called Americans for Prosperity. The organization’s motto is “We protect the American Dream by fighting each day for lower taxes, less government regulation and economic prosperity for all” — what could possibly be wrong with that?

Plenty, according to the people at OurFuture.org.

Their website ominously warns “But the Koch brothers are a symbol of a greater problem of the power of money in politics—in particular, the ability of some über-rich people and large corporations to put their massive thumbs on the scale of democracy in ways that manipulate and ultimately overwhelm the will of the people.”

However, reality (and O.C.D. people like me) present a problem for our liberal activist friends at OurFuture.org. Several years ago, minimal research at a different website called OpenSecrets.org revealed that the Koch brothers weren’t even among the top 50 political donors — which means they really aren’t behind the really big money in politics. Big money tends to go to liberal Democrats, possibly because their votes are less expensive.

We cannot safely assume Republican integrity isn’t also for sale. The fact that a number of Republicans campaigned on repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act but then voted to kill the repeal proved that Republican politicians aren’t more trustworthy than Democrats. Unfortunately, we may only deduce that Democrat votes are cheaper votes to buy.

Supporting free speech is wonderful and noble, but bankrolling criminal gangs poorly disguised as protesting mobs is an evil and disruptive act of sedition. Some of these masked “Antifa” types have committed wanton acts of violence, and destroyed private property in broad daylight.

Adding insult to injury, on several occasions the police have allegedly been ordered to “stand down” by the Democrat politicians in charge of liberal enclaves such as Berkeley (during protests to prevent speeches by conservative pundits) and Baltimore (to protest the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody.) For example, in the video below, a cowardly mob swarms and attacks a nonviolent counter-protester in broad daylight, brazenly committing felonious assault while the police just stood there and watched it happen.

(Editorial note: YouTube has removed this video. Censorship at its finest.)

If the incident shown in the video doesn’t disturb you, then you also shouldn’t object to the targeted victim pulling out a concealed weapon and shooting four or five of his attackers, either.

And it will happen, sooner or later. People do have the legal right to protect themselves.

During the 2016 election campaign, an act of sedition occurred when people were transported by bus into North Carolina, specifically for the purpose of creating mayhem and social unrest. The police in Charlotte later revealed to the media that 70 percent of the criminals arrested during the protest possessed out-of-state driver’s licenses.

The website Zero Hedge reported that George Soros has funded much of this activity through his Open Society Foundation, but this is nothing new.

George Soros has been buying power and influence in Washington since the scandalous days of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Soros was the money behind MoveOn.org and made major donations to Media Matters. More recent financial records indicate that through the OSF, Soros gave $650,000 to the Black Lives Matter organization, to help fund the riots that took place Ferguson, Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.

While Soros hasn’t been credited with funding Yvette Felarca and BAMNsomeone with deep pockets has to be paying the legal fees for all the harassing litigation they have filed against Troy Worden and the Berkeley College Republicans. Their strategy seems to be to bankrupt the student organization with an endless stream of frivolous lawsuits. Everyone opposed to these anarchist tactics to divide Americans should support the Mr. Worden and the Berkeley College Republicans with a donation to his legal defense fund, found at this link.

Someone is funding this insurrection. But who’s behind it? It isn’t only George Soros, although it’s a pathetic joke and a travesty of justice that he gets a tax benefit as he buys political power through his “charitable” organization. Nevertheless, George Soros is far from being the only liberal activist with deep pockets and an insatiable desire for buying power in Washington.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer recently tried to launch a $10 million dollar advertising campaign calling for the impeachment of President Trump on Fox News, but the television network returned his money after viewers reacted negatively to the ads. Apparently a majority of the audience of Fox News would prefer for the president to first commit an impeachable offense. Normally, one would suspect that a super-successful hedge fund manager like Mr. Steyer would be making smarter investments with his fortune, but of course he has every right to let his money speak on his behalf.

There’s also billionaire hedge fund manager Jim Simons, who supports political action committees (PACs) of liberal Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows, and apparently the same is true for hedge funds — both Simons and conservative political donor Robert Mercer are partners in the hedge fund known as Renaissance Technologies, which manages a tidy $30 billion in assets. That’s right — two of the biggest political donors in the last election cycle, one liberal and one conservative, both earn their income from the same company.

Nor should we neglect to mention the political contributions from Harvey Weinstein and the “intelligentsia” of Hollywood — or the influence of liberal internet entrepreneurs in social media (Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook) and search engines (Eric Schmidt of Google.) However, the average American cannot literally compete head-to-head with people like George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg or Tom Steyer, because the average American doesn’t have an extra $10 million dollars to burn.

Even so, it’s very important to remember that George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Jim Simons all earn a great deal of income by investing and managing money that actually belongs to other people. Even they must replenish what they spend or eventually they run out of money.

Empty seats and lost revenue due to the current fan boycott of the NFL has been noted by the people who write the checks. According to adweek.com, top advertisers have begun threatening to cut ties with the league. Papa John’s Pizzas now blames the NFL for the nationwide decrease in Sunday pizza sales. Money talks, as the old expression goes. There is strength in numbers.

As individuals we may not be able to compete with the wealth of a George Soros, but whenever we have been united as one nation, nothing has ever been able to stop the American people. Boycotts do work. One can ruin a person’s career, especially if that person happens to be a conservative. When liberal activists discovered that the developer of JavaScript had opposed Proposition 8 in California, founder Brendan Eich was forced to resign from his own company, Mozilla Corporation, by the threat of a boycott of the company’s products.

NFL players can grumble all they want about being denied their right to protest (which isn’t true) while representing their employer “on the job”, which average Joe Taxpayer also cannot do, but they are apparently oblivious to the fact that without the fans, the players won’t have jobs.

There is a special name for football games played without fans — they’re called scrimmages. The brutal truth is, when fans no longer care, the games no longer matter.

Nothing grabs a person’s attention like the sudden loss of significant income. People who can afford to travel from one state to another in order to join some ginned-up protest probably don’t work for a living…but they are getting money from somewhere. Dry up the money behind these ne’er-do-wells, and this problem will soon fade from memory.

Perhaps the solution to ending sedition in America will be making hedge funds illegal.

Physicist Sean Carroll claims to know what happens when we die

An online publication called The Express reported that physicist Sean Carroll claims to know what happens when we die as if it was some recent revelation, but it was actually old news. In this particular interview, Dr. Carroll said:

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die.

But in fact, several years earlier Dr. Carroll had appeared as part of “Atheist Q+A” on a podcast titled The Point With Ana Kasparian, and pretty much said the same thing.

Sean Carroll certainly talks a good game, boasting that reason and scientific evidence support his atheistic worldview. He has also asserted that the laws of physics support his contention that monism is true, which would mean that consciousness and the human brain had been proved to be inseparable. This would also mean that when our physical body dies, our consciousness would immediately cease to exist, as if a light switch had been flipped.

There’s a couple of little problems with his claim. For one thing, Dr. Carroll simply isn’t being honest when he submits a claim that no evidence exists which might contradict his current worldview, and that he would take such evidence seriously if it did.

Furthermore, he couldn’t be more wrong — and physicists should always keep in mind that “wrong” is not an absolute state, but remains subject to gradation.

Dr. Carroll failed to clarify in the Express interview that he wouldn’t actually look at any evidence which might conflict with his current beliefs, especially if said evidence allegedly conflicted with the so-called “laws of physics.”

In case you’re wondering how might I know what Dr. Carroll believes, the answer is pretty simple. Several years ago, I wrote and asked him.

After watching his performance on “Atheist Q+A”, I emailed Dr. Carroll to question his audacious claim that he knew what happens when we die. Specifically I asked Dr. Carroll if he was familiar with any of the more famous examples of corroborated veridical NDE information, such as the rather well-documented case involving Pam Reynolds.

Dr. Carroll’s polite but terse reply was something to the effect that he didn’t bother to investigate any phenomena which might contradict the so-called “known” laws of physics. In other words, Dr. Carroll doesn’t care that hard scientific evidence appears to completely destroy the arguments for monism by preemptively assuming that it isn’t possible for such evidence to exist.

However, Dr. Robert Spetzler, the surgeon who operated on Pam Reynolds, claimed that the unusual preparation of the patient for the standstill operation made it literally impossible for Pam to have overheard and later recall specific details of a conversation between two surgeons on her team by using her normal sense of hearing. Nor should she have been able to describe the equipment used in her surgery with uncanny accuracy, given the fact she was heavily sedated, with her eyes taped shut before the special equipment used for her surgery was ever removed from its packaging.

This seems to leave only two different possibilities as the most likely explanations of Pam’s alleged experience: either she truthfully and very accurately recounted details of an out-of-body experience in which she learned new information that could be easily corroborated using eyewitness testimony and medical records, or with her doctors Pam conspired to produce false evidence of dualism, as part of some bizarre, elaborate fraud.

“Other” explanations simply won’t work in Pam’s case. Hallucinations don’t include specific details that can be verified as true and accurate memories upon investigation. The rare condition known as anesthesia awareness doesn’t explain how Pam could hear in spite of clicking nodules secured in her ears for the purpose of drowning out any ambient noise. The specific details of actual events and descriptions of objects that Pam accurately recalled after her surgery could never be dismissed as lucky guesses.

All Dr. Carroll needs to do to prove his claim that the human mind ceases to exist when the physical brain no longer functions would be to compare the EEG record from Pam’s surgery with the other records from her surgery. If the EEG shows any sort of brain activity at the same time the conversation between the cardio-vascular surgeon and Dr. Spetzler took place, it would be a significant step toward confirming Dr. Carroll’s belief that Pam’s experience literally cannot be possible. Conversely, absence of brain activity at the time of the conversation would confirm that either supernatural phenomena or a very bizarre conspiracy was at work.

In either event, someone with Sean Carroll’s credentials should be able to investigate these claims to the same degree as Dr. Michael Sabom, but apparently Dr. Carroll is more committed to justifying his atheism than to seeking real truth.



What Happened to the Antifa Civil War?

Once upon a time (in 1970, to be precise), Hollywood made a movie with a title asking an interesting question: Suppose They Gave a War And Nobody Came? Unfortunately, it was released the same year as the hit “war comedy” M.A.S.H. starring Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould, so the better question might have been What If They Made a Movie That Nobody Watched?

Which reminds me of the “AntiFa Civil War” that was supposed to take place on November 4th — what happened? Where were all the protesters, watching college football? According to Newsweek, some people had actually bought into the claim that “Antifa-bred supersoldiers were going to behead white people in town squares across the country” — seriously?

And someone actually believed that nonsense?

The words Antifa and super-soldiers would seem to form an oxymoron in one’s mind. A more apt description for them might be super-stupid cowards. The only way I could see an Antifa protester cutting off someone’s head is by sneaking up on an unsuspecting victim who’s asleep. These aren’t exactly the sort of people who tend to excel in hand-to-hand combat. The Antifa crowd are the type who excel at hitting a person when their intended victim isn’t looking. They can’t win the debate on the merit of their argument, and they can’t win a fair fight against equal numbers.

Now it seems they can’t even persuade mindless sheep. Only a few #NeverTrump protesters turned out in the typical liberal havens such as Portland and New York City, but outside of Berkeley, enthusiasm for anarchy seems to have dramatically waned.

Regardless, Barney’s of New York seems to believe the leaders of the Antifa crowd might have a great deal more money than common sense. The luxury retailer offers the aspiring Antifa protester his or her own genuine “Anarchy Cotton-Blend Field Jacket” (complete with hand-written graffiti) at the bargain price of only $375.

The average Bernie Sanders supporter might even feel like they’re stealing the jacket at these prices!

Interestingly, with their advertisement Barney’s may have inadvertently given us the best explanation why no one showed up for the announced civil war last weekend.

Protesters simply didn’t know what to wear!

And naturally, being a business run by greedy capitalists, Barney’s would know how to seize upon the opportunity and take advantage of this newly-discovered niche market. As someone aspiring to become a greedy capitalist, it seems to me the same market could be served by the savvy entrepreneur after a trip to the local Army-Navy surplus store.

With $375 and a Sharpie, the opportunist could conceivably turn fifteen or so secondhand field jackets into $4 -$5,000 in net profit — assuming people actually buy these jackets, of course, and at Barney’s prices. It would be deliciously ironic for the rich “anarchist” fool to provide a revenue stream for shrewd capitalists, especially just in time for Christmas shopping.

Is this a great country, or what?


The #NeverTrump Crowd

Donald Trump is not a conservative. He’s a populist. It’s very important to understand there is a fundamental difference between a conservative ideologue and a populist campaigning on a conservative platform, because that’s the key to understanding President Trump.

Ideologues tend to refuse to budge or compromise on their core beliefs, while populists are far more concerned with getting things accomplished. For example, pro-choice ideologues might agree with the stated position of Planned Parenthood, which asserts that even infanticide should become a legal option in the event of a botched abortion.

Conversely, pro-life advocates might argue that even the “day after” abortion pill is wrong, because it prematurely terminates a human life. A populist might propose a compromise position, perhaps suggesting the abortion pills that only work immediately after conception be allowed in order to reach an agreement on a total ban of late-term abortions.

Normally I’m not the type of person who usually joins a crowd, and especially not when the crowd  seems in danger of raging out of control. I didn’t jump on board the “Trump train” as soon as it started pulling out of the station. Instead, I waited until our choices had boiled down to either Trump or Clinton before deciding to give him the benefit of my doubt, and my vote. (I adamantly refused to waste my vote on the equivalent of Ross Perot 2.0 in the 2016 campaign, also known as Evan McMullin, the last gasp hope of the “Never Trump” crowd. For the record, that’s exactly how Bill Clinton got elected in 1992 — dividing the vote of conservatives.)

While his campaign rhetoric clearly articulated conservative ideas and beliefs, it wasn’t clear that Trump would be any different than any other politician and could be trusted to follow through with his promises, once elected. After all, it was a well-known fact that Trump had donated tens of thousands of dollars to the uber-liberal leader of the Democrat Party, Chuck Schumer.

On a number of occasions, in interviews recorded years or even decades prior to his running for office, Trump’s personal ideology seems to echo liberal Democratic social and economic policies, not the more conservative principles of his campaign rhetoric. He was pro-choice before he was pro-life. Therefore, conservatives had every reason to be concerned about how Trump  might govern prior to the election.

Since his election, I’ve been pleasantly surprised, and even pleased to note that Trump has been doing virtually everything in his power to fulfill his most conservative campaign promises. He tried to get the Affordable Care Act repealed and replaced. Now Trump is currently pushing for tax reform. Illegal immigration has dropped precipitously, while the economy has shown clear and unmistakable signs of explosive growth. The utter destruction of ISIS now seems to be only a matter of time, a fait accompli. In short, Donald Trump appears to have an indefatigable desire to accomplish the goals he set for his presidency, and seems to be enjoying some measure of success despite nearly overwhelming opposition to his administration from the media as well as significant elements of both political parties.

No. I’m not a Donald Trump fanboy in disguise. I’ve never watched a single episode of The Apprentice, eaten a Trump steak, or read The Art of the Deal. I don’t follow him on Twitter, either — though I thoroughly understand Trump’s need and desire to maintain a direct link to his supporters outside the filters and strong media bias, I honestly cringe when I read or hear about some of his more infamous tweets. It would be ludicrous to suggest that I’m drunk on Trump’s brand of kool-aid.

On the other hand, the incredibly biased and unfair media coverage of Trump is rather breathtaking to behold, and having the opposite effect that it theoretically should — instead of alienating me from Trump supporters, it’s driving me to become one. Frankly, I’m amazed that statistics can show that the media’s coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative, and yet he still seems to be able to function as the Commander-in-Chief. Even the Washington Post admits than nine out of every ten stories about Trump is negative.

Many of them later prove to be poorly sourced and provide false or distorted information — the very reason Trump began using the expression “fake news”, which the media now hilariously accuse him of falsely claiming to have coined the phrase. Really? That matters?

It isn’t terribly surprising that the media adored former President Barack Obama — he’s handsome, articulate, historic, and most importantly, liberal, just like most of them. What was shocking was the degree to which they would ignore Obama’s transgressions no matter how serious they appeared to be. Even a college student in J-school could have connected the dots between the transparent lies that ranged from “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” to “Benghazi was about an internet video.” But it’s very surprising, and somewhat troubling to see how far the media will go in their efforts to destroy Donald Trump. Much like the NFL, they don’t seem to understand what their patrons actually want from them…from the media, we just want the truth. It seems rather obvious that the media provides invaluable assistance to the liberal Democrat politicians leading the Never-Trump crowd.  Nor is it surprising that liberal Democrats would vehemently oppose a serious threat to their power — a populist campaigning on a platform constructed of primarily conservative planks.

However, it’s difficult to ascertain the motives of conservatives that joined the Never-Trump crowd and gleefully criticize those who refuse to abandon Trump in spite of the never-ending criticism.

BREAKING: Truck on bike path kills 6 in Manhattan

A truck rented from Home Depot was deliberately driven in a bicycle lane in lower Manhattan today, killing six cyclists and injuring at least fifteen others.

Police have captured the driver of the truck. Reports suggest that an second occupant of the truck escaped with a gun, and other witnesses reported hearing gunshots.

The incident is being investigated as a terrorist attack.

[UPDATE #1 — Police identify suspect.] Sayfullo Saipov from Tampa, Florida, has been identified as the driver of the van. Reports indicate Saipov shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and exited the vehicle while brandishing fake guns. Eight people have now been reported dead.

[UPDATE #2] Saipov, who immigrated to the United States from Uzbekistan in 2010, left a note in the rental truck he used that gave ISIS credit for the attack.

A Fair Share of the Tax Burden

Liberal Democrat politicians love to insist that their priority, when tax reform becomes the topic of discussion, is to force successful people to pay “their fair share” of taxes. The wealthy are frequently described as greedy people who gained their wealth at the expense of the poor.

However, according to the latest statistics from the Office of Management and Budget, the top 20 percent of American taxpayers currently pay a whopping 95 percent of all tax revenue collected. In other words, 80 percent of American taxpayers are currently getting a free ride at the expense of the people working hard to achieve success. Is that what is considered equality in the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

Or is this in reality the land of the greedy, and the home of tax slaves?

For most of my life, corrupt politicians with insatiable appetites for taxpayer dollars to be used to buy votes from their constituents have demonized Americans for creating wealth, and convinced the majority of the citizens (a.k.a. beneficiaries) that punishing success is somehow good and noble, instead of being wicked and evil.

However, those same politicians and the media don’t hesitate to play favorites. They vilify wealthy Americans perceived to be conservative such as the Koch brothers, but ignore wealthy liberal donors like Tom Steyer, who just funded a $10 million dollar advertising campaign calling for the impeachment of President Trump, and of course George Soros, who has funded a wide variety of groups and activities designed to benefit liberal Democrat politicians.

Ironically, in the video above, filmed during the presidency of Bill Clinton, Soros is described as “Donald Trump without the humility.” Now, just let that thought marinate in your brain for a few minutes. Soros is such a hypocrite that he claimed he was only trying to “do the right thing” when he helped Nelson Mandela develop strategies to protect the economy of South Africa from unscrupulous currency speculators like himself, but then he declines to register his investment firm with the Securities and Exchange Commission. avoiding the same regulations that he helped impose on his competition. Political donations and “philanthropy” are used to buy these people political influence.

Similarly, the U.S. tax code has been weaponized and used to pit Americans against each other in a perpetual battle of class warfare. The tax code is a monstrous but clever method to manipulate the behavior of the majority. Because builders and everyone else in the real estate business wants people to buy houses, the tax code incentivizes home ownership. Children are also considered a deduction by the  tax code. If Americans really understood the lies, half-truths and deceptions being used to manipulate them, the vast majority of the general public would be outraged. But most regular people don’t have the slightest idea what politicians are really saying when they talk about our money.

Normal families use zero-based budgeting — meaning if you have zero dollars, that’s approximately how much money you can spend. As an example to illustrate the point, let’s say Joe Blow and his family earns $2,000 per month. The mortgage is $800, and utilities another $200. That leaves $1,000 for groceries, a car payment, entertainment, and everything else the Blow family needs. If Joe gets a raise, the monthly budget adjusts upward. If he loses his job, they will be forced to survive on any savings until new employment can be secured and the income stream replaced. If Joe tries to print his own money, he’ll get arrested for counterfeiting.

Conversely, the federal government uses baseline-budgeting, which has no relationship to reality whatsoever. If Joe’s income stream dips, he’s got to conserve money, so Joe is probably going to cancel the cable service, and eat hamburgers instead of steaks. The federal government never cuts back. They can legally print money whenever they want. But their rhetoric grotesquely distorts reality for ordinary Americans. When politicians are shrieking about so-called draconian spending cuts to the federal budget, they are lying. The federal government almost never cuts spending. In reality the politicians are only arguing about reductions in the future rate of increased spending.

Remember when Democrats in Congress kept harping that children would starve because of draconian cuts to the funding of school lunch programs? It sounded horrible, evil and cruel. There was only one problem. None of it was true. There was never going to be a reduction in the amount of money being spent on school lunches. They were arguing about a reduced percentage in the rate of increase to be spent on school lunches in future years.

President Trump is the first chief executive in recent memory to actually implement targeted, real spending cuts to specific federal programs. Even though the dollar amounts were more symbolic than meaningful in terms of reducing the deficit or lowering the debt, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Trillions of dollars in wealth have been redistributed from wealthy Americans who have achieved success to greedy politicians in Washington. Just enough of the proceeds are shared with the people who pay no taxes to buy their votes, so the vicious cycle may continue.

It isn’t fair that twenty percent of the population bears 95 percent of the tax burden. It’s immoral, and it ought to be criminal. But it shouldn’t be a surprise. Politicians are some of the greediest and unscrupulous people on earth. The highest tax bracket for a U.S. taxpayer in 2017 is a whopping 39.6 percent, yet for a politician, that still isn’t high enough. The evil rich must be punished, unless they also happen to be political donors.

By comparison, God only asks for 10 percent of our income.