Watcher of Weasels Keeping an eye on the weasels of the world 2017-08-18T03:49:30Z http://www.watcherofweasels.org/feed/atom/ WordPress Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[Where I stand on Charlottesville and Confederate monuments]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13881 2017-08-18T03:49:30Z 2017-08-18T03:46:23Z At Charlottesville, Antifa and Neo-Nazis proved to be birds of a feather; and blacks are right to want to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces. I’ve been rather conspicuously silent about events in the South. As you know, I like to wait until the hysteria settles and facts emerge to [Read More]

The post Where I stand on Charlottesville and Confederate monuments appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

At Charlottesville, Antifa and Neo-Nazis proved to be birds of a feather; and blacks are right to want to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces.

I’ve been rather conspicuously silent about events in the South. As you know, I like to wait until the hysteria settles and facts emerge to throw in my two cents. Here are those two cents, in no particular order:

1. This needn’t have happened. The Charlottesville police stood down, which is a common tactic in Democrat-run cities when the loony Left is on the prowl.

2. Trump is correct that there were good people attending the event on both sides. The young woman who died, Heather Heyer, was one such person — and one, moreover, who had a truly moral, decent mother. I’ve read that there were others there who were not Richard Spencer supporters, but who were supporting free speech against Antifa’s thugs. Still, it was a stupid thing to say.

3. There were innumerable bad people at Charlottesville, both fascist Antifa thugs and fascist White Supremacist thugs. They’re all foul thinks and the Left is genuinely evil in its efforts to paint Trump and his supporters as fellow travelers of those White Supremacists. As a wise teen I know asked, “If you support me, and I hate you and everything you stand for, does that mean that the media gets to say that I support you just because you support me? I don’t think so.” The same teen, incidentally, said “extremism creates opposite extremists.” He hadn’t even read the Daniel Greenfield article from which I quote below when he said that.

4. There is nothing that Trump could have said about Charlottesville that would have assuaged the media. Nothing. And in talking with his supporters, I see them say that, no matter how inartfully Trump phrased things at his press conference, he was correct in the substance of what he said and they continue to applaud his bold frontal attacks against the media.

5. The media has a consistent double standard: Antifa, which is a burgeoning movement and can be seen as the militant arm of the campus Left (just as the KKK was the militant arm of the Democrat Party), is designated as a freedom fighting movement. White Supremacists, who are a teeny fraction of the American population, far less than the KKK was during its ascendancy in the 1920s and probably less than the Antifa mob, whether on campus or off, is treated not only as evil (which it is) but as representative of all conservatives.

6. When Antifa runs out of White Supremacists to attack (and it will, given the latter’s small numbers), the ground will have been laid for Antifa to attack all conservatives on the ground that they too are White Supremacists.

7. Antifa and the White Supremacists have a few things in common: They’re violent and they hate Jews. IowaHawk nailed it:

Antifa purports to be pro-black, but it advocates political policies that have seen the destruction of black communities, everything from generational welfare (rather than help for those who can’t help themselves), to affirmative action (which makes all black achievements suspect), to constant apologies for violent, destructive behavior (which relieves blacks from the responsibility to heal their own communities), to keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (something that leaves them at the mercy of armed thugs). For Antifa and the Left to claim to be not-racist, even as they relentlessly push policies that destroy a community makes Antifa no better than the White Supremacists.

8. Given their similarities, I loath all who showed up at Charlottesville spoiling for a fight and would cheerfully consign both types of fascists to the pits of Hell. (And when I use the word “fascist,” I use it in the accurate sense of groups that rely upon violent tactics to silence speech, intimidate opponents, and create a government to carry out their totalitarian goals, goals that empower the state while dis-empowering individuals.)

9. Muslims or others on the Left who commit terrorist acts are always mentally ill; white schizophrenics who commit terrorist acts are always evil racists. The media is consistent every time. Ann Coulter says it well.

10. The media’s decision to give both these bottom dwellers so much air time is fertilizer for extremism. Daniel Greenfield says it best:

The left killed civil rights and replaced it with black nationalism. The racial supremacism of black nationalism that killed those officers is everywhere. Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi are lionized as brilliant thinkers instead of hateful racists, Amazon has ordered a black nationalist secessionist fantasy from Aaron McGruder and Showtime aired ‘Guerilla,’ a miniseries glamorizing Black Panther terrorism.

But racism is a two-way street. So is violence. Extremists feed into each other.

You can’t legitimize one form of racism without legitimizing all of them. The media may advance this hypocritical position. Obama used the shameful “reverse racism” euphemism that distinguishes between black and white racism. But propaganda and spin don’t change the physics of human nature.

Either all racism is bad. Or all racism is acceptable.

Charlottesville is what happens when you normalize racism and street violence. Every normalization of extremism equally normalizes the extremism of the opposite side.

A civil society depends on a consensus. ‘Racism is bad’ is an example of such a consensus. If you normalize black nationalism, you will get more white nationalism. If you normalize leftist street violence against Trump supporters, you will also get more street violence against leftists.

Extremists want to eliminate the consensus of civil society. They want to destroy the idea that there’s any solution except violence through confrontations that show the helplessness of civil society.

That’s true of black nationalists and white nationalists, of Communists and Nazis, of Antifa and Vanguard, of the tankies and hipster Nazis of the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right. They’re a set of evil twins and when you unleash one, you unleash the other. Their real enemies aren’t each other, but everyone in the middle. The bourgeois normies who don’t want to replace society with their totalitarian nightmare.

Street violence raises the bar so that only the violent will participate in protests. If you “no platform” campus speakers, then the only speakers you get will be those willing to face bomb threats, arson, and physical assaults. If you fire people for their views, political activism becomes the province of anonymous trolls and unemployed street thugs. Extremism limits political discourse to extremists.

If Democrats really want to stop the rise of Neo-Nazi violence, there’s a very easy way. Stop normalizing black nationalism and the Alt-Left. End the racist witch hunts for white privilege. Make it clear that street violence is unacceptable and that racism is bad no matter who it comes from. Allow people you disagree with to express their views without trying to destroy their lives.

(Read the rest here.)

11. Up to a certain point, I agree with those who want to tear down the statues in the South. Immediately after the Civil War, the North imposed its political will on the South, treating the South like a defeated enemy. Defeated enemies don’t get to glorify their political and military leaders. Instead, they need to learn a whole new game.

However, thanks to Lincoln’s assassination, which placed Democrat Andrew Johnson in the White House, Reconstruction ended almost as soon as it began.

Although the Constitution now forbade slavery, the South was able to do its best to reconstitute it’s antebellum ways. The South once again subordinated blacks; it created a dreamy, romantic myth about its pre-war past (a myth supported by such bestsellers as The Klansmen, which D.W. Griffith turned into Birth of a Nation, a film much beloved by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and Gone With The Wind, a fantastic, epic romance wrapped in a mantle of reverence for the antebellum South and its Confederate soldiers); and it erected monuments all over the place as if it had actually won the war. One of the most common representations is of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a brilliant general, an unspeakably cruel man, and an ardent racist who was one of the Founders of the KKK.

For over 100 years, right up until the Civil Rights movement, both to buy Democrat votes and to stitch our riven country back together, political class in D.C. allowed the South to wrap itself in the trappings of victory. Imagine if you will that we had pulled out of Germany in 1945, and the Germans had consoled themselves by constantly returning to the glories of the Third Reich, including blatant discrimination against Jews and the flagrant display of swastikas, along with plaques and statues commemorating Hitler and Goering. Jews, gypsies, gays, etc., would have felt insulted and alienated, and I think the same holds true for blacks.

I am not advocating erasing the images of and honors to all American slaveholders. Things have to be taken in context. Some of the Founding Fathers were indeed slaveholders, but it was legal at the time and they are remembered, not for owning slaves, but for providing an incredible framework for a nation conceived in liberty. We can continue to honor Washington, Jefferson, and Madison for these accomplishments, even while acknowledging that they were flawed men whom history eventually proved wrong.

The Confederacy, however, was on the wrong side of history in its own time. Its values were rejected in bloody fury in real time. Southerners ought never to have been allowed to build monuments to an institution that was righteously destroyed, nor to honor with conspicuous public displays the men that aggressively and violently advanced an inherently immoral system.

The anarchic destruction now raging through the South is wrong because it violates the civil contract of a nation governed by law, not by mobs. Having said that, though, the law, not the mobs, should get rid of public homages to those who fought and lost a war to defend slavery and to those who, long after they lost the war, continued in those discriminatory ways. Amongst the latter, I highly recommend removing from public property anything that honors Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, both of whom were fantastically racist.

I also suggest looking askance at LBJ, who trapped blacks on welfare as securely as blacks were trapped in slavery one hundred years before Johnson’s time. After all, Johnson didn’t act out of the good of his heart. He acted because, as he said, with the passage of his Great Society laws, ““I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

And those are my thoughts.

Photo credit: Punch 2, Charlottesville, August 12, 2017, by Evan Nesterak. Creative Commons license; some rights reserved.

The post Where I stand on Charlottesville and Confederate monuments appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[God forbid anyone might be mistaken for being pro-Life]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13878 2017-08-18T03:43:42Z 2017-08-18T03:43:42Z Only in modern academia is it necessary for people to apologize for their decision not to terminate a pregnancy, lest they be mistaken for being pro-Life. Four times a year, Macalester College, one of the most liberal of America’s Midwestern liberal arts colleges, puts out a magazine for its alumni. [Read More]

The post God forbid anyone might be mistaken for being pro-Life appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Only in modern academia is it necessary for people to apologize for their decision not to terminate a pregnancy, lest they be mistaken for being pro-Life.

Four times a year, Macalester College, one of the most liberal of America’s Midwestern liberal arts colleges, puts out a magazine for its alumni. As one of my friends gets this magazine, I periodically look it over, finding its articles alternately boring, amusing, and outrageous as only Leftist writing can be. In the most recent edition of Macalester Life, which hasn’t even been published to the website, there’s an article about graduates who have been hit hard by life’s tragedies.

All of these graduates have certainly faced hard times. One man was shot, a young woman got breast cancer at 25, a man’s brother died young in an accident, a woman’s daughter had a dangerous brain tumor, and the lives of two graduates who married young were permanently disrupted the man got into a bike accident leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. (If you ever wonder why ER docs don’t ride bikes, that kind of story is why.)

Each of the graduates profiled has faced these hardships with courage and I salute them for that. What I want to write about is a funny bit of hardcore Leftism that got slotted into the story about the last-named couple, the one who married young. I’ve highlighted the language that caught my eye:

Rachel Welch Tschida [class of ’90] was just 20 when her life took a major detour. She and then-boyfriend John Tschida ’89 were Mac students when they discovered that Rachel was pregnant. The couple were both firmly pro choice, Tschida says, but also crazy in love: “We always knew we were going to get married some day, so why not do it then?”

Maybe it’s just my sense of both the tragic and the ridiculous, but I was taken aback by the fact that either Ms. Tschida, or the article’s author, or both, felt it imperative to apologize for having a baby. The mere risk of being thought pro-Life was enough for them to include a large irrelevant piece of information in an otherwise interesting and uplifting look at dealing with tragedy.

Your take, please?

Photo Credit: Beautiful Belly, by Bonbon. Creative Commons license; some restrictions apply.

The post God forbid anyone might be mistaken for being pro-Life appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
JoshuaPundit http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/ <![CDATA[Charlottesville – The Left Finally Gets What It’s Been Salivating For]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13871 2017-08-17T22:37:20Z 2017-08-17T22:37:20Z Charlotttesville, Virginia is a small college city. It is the home of the University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819. Over the weekend, it became the home of a violent melee that resulted in scores of injured and one death. The story of the run up to these [Read More]

The post Charlottesville – The Left Finally Gets What It’s Been Salivating For appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Charlotttesville, Virginia is a small college city. It is the home of the University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819.

Over the weekend, it became the home of a violent melee that resulted in scores of injured and one death.

The story of the run up to these events reveals a great deal. Charlottesville, like many college towns is fairly blue. And the town council decided to take down a statue of Robert E. Lee that had stood in Emancipation Park (formerly known as Lee Park) for decades.

Led by a local blogger, Jason Kessler, a number of people decided to hold a rally protesting the removal of the statue. They were given a permit to do so. Kessler called the rally ‘Unite The Right’ and made the stupid mistake of allowing white supremacists David Duke and Richard Spencer to be part of the rally, which of course allowed the entire rally to be characterized as ‘Nazis’ and ‘White Nationalists.’

This led to the recruitment of a large mob of Antifa, #Blacklivesmatter, and Black Blok ‘counter protestors’ to organize what amounted to an attack on the rally.

The city first tried to appease them by reneging on the permit, after which Kessler took the matter to court and won.

Over the weekend, the city was flooded with both Kessler’s protestors and the ‘counter protestors’, with most of both groups being from outside the area. Contrary to what some of the media would have you believe, there were few college students involved. Most classes at the University don’t start for a few weeks.

Instead, what you had was an attempt to ‘punch some nazis.’ The #blacklivesmatter, AntiFa, and the so-called Black Blok groups came there in force and armed with baseball bats, pepper spray, sticks, metal flagpoles, iron riser bars, urine bombs, knives and spray can bombs, which basically spurt fire at people at a nice distance with the aid of a handy Bic lighter.

A counter demonstrator uses a lighted spray can against a white nationalist demonstrator at the entrance to Lee Park

In other words, the ‘counter protestors’ came to start something. It’s inevitable that violence was going to occur. These ‘counter protesters’ as the media religiously refers to them are the very same thugs that have been burning, shutting down free speech and bashing heads for several years.

Let me be very clear.  There were obviously neo Nazis and active KKK members among the protestors, and I have nothing but contempt for such people.  If I had been a Democrat member of the Senate at a certain time and place, you would never have seen me voting for former Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd as my majority leader. But even Nazis are entitled to freedom of assembly and free speech within certain clearly defined limits.

And with the exception of one cretin who  drove his car into a crowd, the protestors weren’t the aggressors. If they had been the aggressors, there would have been a lot more casualties.

Here’s a factoid that bears this out. A lot of the protestors the media labeled under the catchall of ‘white nationalists’ came strapped. Yet despite being attacked by these leftist thugs, guess what? No one was shot. NO ONE. That’s a huge clue as to who came to peacefully protest and who came looking to perpetrate exactly what happened.

And what actually happened? Well, let’s see.

A number of observers on both sides have commented on the lack of police presence. As the New York Times, of all places, reported:

“There was no police presence,” Ms.Brittany Caine-Conley (a minister in training at Sojourners United Church of Christ) said. “We were watching people punch each other; people were bleeding all the while police were inside of barricades at the park, watching. It was essentially just brawling on the street and community members trying to protect each other.”

Brian Moran, Virginia’s secretary of public safety and homeland security, was watching the events from a command post on the sixth floor of a Wells Fargo bank on the downtown mall. There were sporadic fights. “I compare it to hockey,” he said. “Often in hockey there are sporadic fights, and then they separate.”

Suddenly, people were throwing water bottles, some filled with urine. Some used pepper spray; from his perch on the sixth floor, Mr. Moran saw smoke bombs being thrown. People started clubbing one another. The clergy retreated to a “safe house” — a restaurant nearby.

But according to many witnesses, the police waited to intervene. Ms. Caine-Conley called it “fascinating and appalling.”

Mr. Kessler, too, complained.

In a statement, he said the authorities had “exacerbated the violence” by failing to separate his followers from counter protesters. He said his group had “networked with law enforcement officials” months ago on a plan for maintaining safety, which he said was not followed, and he called the police “under equipped for the situation.”

What the New York Times and most of the media didn’t report was what the police did that exacerbated the violence.

Image result for michael Signer

Even a primary school teacher knows that when you have two kids fighting, the first thing you do is separate them. There are various ways police are trained to do exactly that. Instead, here’s what happened and I have this from people who were actually at the scene in Charlottesville.

Under orders from Charlottesville’s uber progressive Democrat mayor Mike Signer, the protestor’s permit was illegally revoked in defiance of the court order. This happened at 11 AM, after the confrontations had already been going on for some time. At that point, the demonstrators, who were vastly outnumbered by the ‘counter protestors’ were in the park with crowds of ‘counter protestors’ on three sides.

Then the mayor ordered Charlotteville’s police chief, Al Thomas to have the police form a shield wall on the  one side of the park that was still open and  tell the demonstrators  (who still had a legal permit to be there reaffirmed by a federal judge)  that they were an unlawful assembly. And that if they didn’t disperse immediately they’d be arrested.

Related image

Since the police let few if any of the demonstrators through their line, the only ways out were through the counter protestors. It seems like the mayor decided the protestors were all  ‘nazis’ who needed a lesson from the Left’s own brownshirts. And let’s not forget,  the police are not to blame. Just as in Chicago, Baltimore, Berkeley and many other cities, they were ordered to stand down and let the Leftist thugs act out.

What’s astonishing that so few people were injured, with the majority of serious injuries coming from the incident where one of the protestors drove his car into the crowd. The casualties could have been far worse.

Even faced with this carnage, the police pretty much let things go. As one observer mentioned, ‘Yeah, it (the car incident) was intentional.About 40 miles an hour, hit about 15-20 people, crashed into the two cars in front of it, and then backed up and sped away while cops were standing on the side of the road and didn’t do anything.’

The driver, James Alex Fields of Maumee, Ohio fled the scene is his car, a Dodge Charger, but was arrested several blocks away, jailed without bail and charged with suspicion of malicious wounding, failure to stop for an accident involving a death, second degree homicide and hit and run. I’d guess he’s going to be in jail quite awhile and deservedly so. I’m sure many on the Left who ordinarily cringe at the thought of the death penalty for the most inhumane, vicious murderers would happily lynch Mr. Fields and burn his bare feet with lit cigarettes as he swings.

Actually, the Left owes Alex Fields big time. He gave them something they have been desperately  trying to get, a bloody flag to wave and a martyr for the cause in the form of Heather Heyer, the counter protestor he killed. She was certainly no Nazi, but she will now become the Left’s Horst Wessel and put to exactly the same use Horst Wessel was.

Image result for heather heyer

The comparison is spot on. The ‘resistance’ have been using the same tactics Hitler’s brownshirts did for some time.

#Blacklives matter were directly responsible for the violence in Ferguson over the faux Micheal Brown Hands up don’t shoot nonsense, and for helping to burn down and loot a large chunk of Baltimore after the city’s dysfunctional mayor said they could because of some career drug dealer who was trying to injure himself so he could sue the city..

The AntiFa and Black Blok thugs have been responsible for all sorts of violence, especially in Seattle and in Berkeley where they first attacked people standing in line to buy tickets to hear Milo Yianopoulos speak, injured a number of them severely, and then proceeded to do thousands of dollars worth of damage before the police were allowed by the mayor to rein them in.That’s exactly what happened here.

Ask yourself this. Has any politicians on the Left seriously condemned these groups and their vicious behavior? Heck no.Did the media wring their collective hands and condemn this sort of thing? Nope. In fact the media took joy in fanning the flames and absolving these miscreants of any blame.  So we all know the answer to that one.

And just in case you still haven’t gotten the message,  a planned news conference by Jason Kessler, the organizer of what was in fact a perfectly legal rally, came to an abrupt end when a man wearing a plaid shirt punched him and a group of lefty protestors literally chased him off the podium.

You see, what happened in Charlottesville and the way the media is presenting it  gives the Left the opportunity to shut up anyone who doesn’t agree with them by any means necessary.

The Left applauds violence when it’s some of their own doing it, especially if they’re members of certain protected groups. Fascism is just fine and dandy then. Thanks to the ever helpful media, they’ve gotten away with this for quite some time.  All one needs to do is see the Left’s reaction to President Trump’s call for both sides to take a good look at where this sort of thing is headed:

The president’s attempt to to rein things is was unfortunately a failure, because that’s not what the Left really wants. What happened in Charlottesville was merely the opening skirmish of a whole series of planned riots in places like Richmond, Va, Nashville, Atlanta, and Baltimore. And rest assured, there will be more.

And there’s something a lot of these places have in common, with Charlottesville. They all have uber progressive Democrat mayors who can be relied on to reign in the police  and allow the Left’s brownshirts to act out, attack people and riot.

Charlottesville is the Left’s excuse for open season on labeling anyone who doesn’t follow the Left’s totalitarian diktats as a ‘Nazi’, a white supremacist, a ‘hater’ or a white nationalist. And shutting them up either by denying them a platform or physically attacking them. And of course, to do their best to slime a sitting president as one of the ‘Nazis.’

They’re correct when they call for getting rid of domestic terrorism. What they don’t realize is that it will likely not be defined by their terms if this nonsense keeps up.

You could probably put all of Richard Spencer and David Duke’s followers in a 200 seat hall and have lots of seats left over. That isn’t true of AntiFa, #blacklivesmatter, BlackBlokand other assorted Leftist groups engaged in this sort of activity. Nor do the neo Nazis have th epower, organization and financing the Leftist groups do.

Who the real threat to our liberties are and who the real  Nazis are is becoming more and more obvious, isn’t it? The irony is hilarious.

Image result for charlottesville violence

Rob Miller

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com and other publications.

Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.

And connect with him on Linked In.

The post Charlottesville – The Left Finally Gets What It’s Been Salivating For appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Tom White http://www.varight.com <![CDATA[Thanks to the GOP, Single Payer May Be our Best Hope for Controlling Health Care Costs]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13868 2017-08-17T22:01:46Z 2017-08-17T22:01:46Z If you have been paying attention to the Obamacare debacle, it would seem that impotent Republicans have backed us into a corner with their failure to lead on the high cost of medical care. Note that I didn’t write the “high cost of insurance”. Health Insurance is simply a reflection [Read More]

The post Thanks to the GOP, Single Payer May Be our Best Hope for Controlling Health Care Costs appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

surgeon photo
Photo by libertygrace0

If you have been paying attention to the Obamacare debacle, it would seem that impotent Republicans have backed us into a corner with their failure to lead on the high cost of medical care.

Note that I didn’t write the “high cost of insurance”.

Health Insurance is simply a reflection of the high cost of medical services. But with their Obamacare legislation the Democrats were not trying to address the high cost of services, which is the disease. They went after the symptom – the high cost of insurance.

I own an Insurance Agency. We don’t do Life or Health, just Auto. But hardly a day goes by that someone doesn’t ask why they pay so much for insurance.

“Well,” I want to say. “You pay $2,000 a year for car insurance. Last year, your company paid out over $100,000 for the accident you had. You will have to pay $2,000 a year for the next 50 years for the insurance company to break even!”

I know. Insurance companies are evil. So who cares if they lose money, right?

But the sad fact is, if they don’t make money, they will go out of business. And that is not a good thing, trust me.

How do Insurance Companies Make Money?

We see the huge profits that insurance companies make, so the obvious answer to the question is the one the politicians want you to believe. Insurers make money by charging you a huge premium which covers their payouts, costs and profits.

If that is what you believe, you are dead wrong.

When insurance companies set their premium prices that you and I pay, they are calculated to break even on what they pay out in claims. They do not build in profit and expenses like buildings and infrastructure and employees and employee benefits. They make their overhead and profit with careful, short term investments. And most insurance companies actually come up short in what they charge in premiums versus what they pay out in claims. That is called an underwriting loss. And these short term investments actually subsidize their claim payouts. And these investments pump trillions of dollars into the economy and investment markets.

The Truth About Single Payer Systems

If you believe insurance companies make money by charging high premiums, you have them confused with single payer systems. All single payer systems are government. And they have to charge enough to cover all payouts for claims, employee salary and benefits, offices and support staff, computers, etc. And they will not invest a dime in the markets and they will never make money by investing and growing your premium money.

With insurance companies out of the way, the true goal of Obamacare, how do we control prices?

And ponder for a moment what will happen in the markets when the insurance companies no longer invest trillions of dollars. What will happen to your 401K?

With Single Payer, Costs Can Only Be Controlled at the Source – Your Doctors, Hospitals and Pharmaceuticals

Do you like to call your cable company for tech support and be routed to India to someone who barely speaks English? If you do, then Single Payer is for you. Does it matter if your doctor went to Medical School at Johns Hopkins or some school in the Caribbean or Africa? Or just an online medical school?

Because the first thing the government has to go after are the high salaries and benefits of the providers.

US Medical Salary vs UK Medical Salary for Doctors

In the US, a Family Doctor can expect to earn $207,000 while in the UK, a Family Doctor makes between $71,000 and $109,000 (£55,000 and £84,000). And in the US, 52% of family doctors feel adequately compensated, even though they make 2 to 3 times what their counterparts do in the UK.

And if you specialize in something like Cardiology in the US, you expect to make $410,000 (and only 48% of Cardiologists in the US think this is fair compensation) while in the UK you only earn $78,000 (£60,000) as a cardiologist.

Specialist doctors in training can expect to earn around £36,000 ($47,000), but once qualified consultants are some of the most sought after professionals in the industry and get paid between £76,000 and £102,000. ($99,000 and $133,000).

In the US, Orthopedic doctors can rake in $443,000, 3 1/2 times the top pay for UK doctors.

And in a bit of irony, the article cited above for UK Doctor salaries states:

It’s stressful being a doctor and requires years and years of hard work – but you are certainly rewarded financially!

But as you can see, the rewards are far less in the UK than in the US.

(Source for UK, Source for US)

US Medical Salary vs UK Medical Salary for RN’s

Ok, so you hate insurance companies and doctors. What about the ones that do the really hard work like RN’s?

In the US, the average salary for an RN is $71,000 while in the UK an RN makes about $34,000 (£26,300).

So an RN in the UK makes about the same as a travel agent in the US, and the top paid doctor in the UK makes about the same as someone in the US extracting natural gas.

What Happens When you Lower the Salary for Doctors and Nurses in the US?

So what do you think will happen when the government moves in to control costs and sets the salaries of doctors and nurses in the US? And the medical techs and every one else that works in the Health Care industry?

Well, as they found out in the UK, that isn’t enough. They have consolidated a lot of the more expensive diagnostic and treatment equipment to fewer and fewer locations. Now it does minimize the number of machines they need, but it also increases the travel time for you. And the wait times.

And there are always not enough staff to deal with your problem.

How Long Will I have to Wait for my Surgery?

I was in the UK a couple of decades ago when the news was buzzing about women’s health care. In the US, they has come to mean abortion. But in the UK it was all about having to wait months, sometimes more than a year, for real women’s issues like hysterectomies. Women were up in arms at having to wait so long.

So the Single Payer government run health care in the UK came up with a fix. They would set a target wait time of only 18 weeks. Which is still almost 5 months. But this is only for non urgent surgery like knee or hip replacement, cataracts, hernia repair, etc.

And keep in mind that they shoot for 92% in 18 weeks. Some are longer.

Only now, that 18 weeks and 92% is out the window. And some places are so cash starved that they stopped having elective surgeries at all for several months.

And for women needing hysterectomies, you must see your GP first who sets up an appointment with a GYN specialist. And these appointments can take months and often require many calls to your GP that prompt another request because the GYN has not responded.

When Would You Like That Appointment?

“We have one today at 3 PM,” isn’t something you hear in the UK.

Neither is, “When would you like to come in.”

What you get is, “Your appointment is the 26th of next month at 9 AM.” If you get one that quickly.

So if you call your GP and say you feel a growth in your abdomen, it will usually be several weeks before you can get an appointment. And if your GP thinks you may have cancer, he must refer you to a specialist. And they do their best to fit you in in 2 months or so. And the they schedule you for tests. A few more weeks pass waiting for the test appointment. Then they have to go over the results and call you in for a consultation and decision on treatment (if it is cancer). And then they do their best to start treatment within 31 days.

So while you are waiting for one appointment after another with weeks in between you can take comfort in knowing that according to the Cancer Research UK “Many people begin to worry that the cancer will spread during this time. But we know that most cancers usually grow very slowly and this is not likely to happen. Waiting a few weeks for a scan or treatment does not usually affect how well the treatment works.”

What if we cut back on the Costs Now, Instead of Attacking Insurance?

Republicans missed a golden opportunity. They were handed the House, the Senate and the White House. And instead of actually looking at ways to cut back on the cost of health care itself, they continued with the Democrat’s dialog that the problem was the greedy insurance companies. And exchanges and bail outs and Medicaid expansion were the only way to fix Obamacare.

Republicans, by agreeing to repeal and replace bought into government run health care as a solution and that Insurance Companies were the problem.

And since Obamacare became law, Republicans have been bantering around ideas like Tort reform that would relieve some of the financial strain on providers, but that has not been in any proposal I have seen. Instead, the GOP is as stuck at stupid as the Democrats looking at ways to increase competition across state lines and eliminating mandates. They are focused on counting the number of insured blissfully ignorant of the fact that most of the insured can’t actually get treatment because they can’t afford the high deductibles. In essence, millions of Americans have health insurance, but no actual affordable coverage.

The only thing Obamacare even pretended to achieve was making insurance more affordable, not the actual care. And it failed at that.

So we need Single Payer?

We need to lower the cost of health care so people can afford it. Insurance Companies do a brilliant job of growing the pie. They take in less money (more often than not) in premiums than they pay out in claims and make money with short term investments. The government will never invest a dime and every penny paid out for claims as well as overhead must come from premiums or confiscatory taxes.

So between insurance and government run health care, insurance is the only way to get more bang from the buck. But the lack of vision and leadership in Washington has proven that these elected idiots are either clueless or intentionally failing to cut back costs. Or both. We don’t need to cut the salaries of medical providers 200% or 300%. But we have to lower costs. Many of the charges paid by those with insurance subsidize the costs for Medicare and Medicaid patients. Since we have abandoned the free market in healthcare, the best we can do now is go back to the days of price fixing by the government. When I have a test done at the doctor’s office, often the price is unbelievable for a simple test. But when I look at the Explanation of Benefits, the test that cost $100 was paid in full by my insurance for a couple of dollars.

The healthcare providers have hidden their real costs in exorbitant prices for goods and services that do not cost what they are charging. But they have a lot of overhead.

For example,

  • A single Tylenol in a hospital costs $15. You get two at a time. Average cost during a hospital stay, $345
  • A cup that holds the Tylenol costs $10. Average cup cost per stay: $500.
  • Charge to give you the Tylenol $7. Average $90 per stay.

Other things:

  • Plastic bags for shoes, clothes: $8
  • Sterile Water IV Bag: $800 (manufacturing costs about $1)
  • Hold your newborn: $39

How could things cost so much?

Here is an idea. The government now requires restaurants to post calories of their food. Why not require doctors and hospitals to post their prices online for various tests and services? Forget interstate insurance, let’s see how long a hospital can charge $47 for a couple of Tylenol if they have to post it, or how many doctor’s offices will charge $200 for a blood test you can do yourself for $20.

But it looks to me like we have not even considered looking at the cost of services, only the price of insurance.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could bring our own Tylenol and keep our doctor, plan and actually afford to go to the doctor.

But we won’t even look at reducing costs and keeping insurance. But I promise you that after we destroy all of the insurers and have government run single payer health insurance, we will look at costs. And at that point, we will be complaining about wait times and inferior treatment.

The post Thanks to the GOP, Single Payer May Be our Best Hope for Controlling Health Care Costs appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Doug Hagin https://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/ <![CDATA[And the newest “marginalized” “victimized” and “triggered” group is…………..]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13855 2017-08-12T13:18:53Z 2017-08-12T13:13:35Z Before I get into the newest “identity” I must share something. I have decided to identify as a rich, young bachelor who lives in a mansion and beds a different beautiful woman nightly, well except on Sundays, when I bed two hot women! Hey it is my identity, so everyone [Read More]

The post And the newest “marginalized” “victimized” and “triggered” group is………….. appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Before I get into the newest “identity” I must share something. I have decided to identify as a rich, young bachelor who lives in a mansion and beds a different beautiful woman nightly, well except on Sundays, when I bed two hot women! Hey it is my identity, so everyone must accept it! Oh did I mention I also identify as an expert chef? A chef so good that Salma Hayek loves to come over and eat my dishes in the nude? Hey haters don’t you dare trigger me! But on a serious note, Campus Reform brings us triggered Fat LGBT folks!

Montclair State University is offering a “weekly discussion group” exclusively for LGBTQ students who are “fat-identified.”

The “Fabulous and Big” discussion group is one of seven groups sponsored by the school’s LGBTQ Center that are explicitly “closed to anyone who does not share the identity of that group.”

Fat-identified? So they do not actually have to be fat? And how does a person “identify” as fat? I am heavy, can I identify as slim and trim? Or would that identity just make me “privileged”. I mean I already am guilty of “White privilege” whatever the Hell that is, so identifying as slim would give me double privilege.

Also note that the members of such “closed groups” are taught to believe they cannot even discuss any issues with anyone who does not share their “identity”. Tolerance? Diversity? Inclusion? The hell you say! In a nation that rightly rejected separate but equal, we are now being pushed to embrace separation and alienation from anyone not in our identity! Not only must we alienate any “others” but we must force them to grovel for not thinking as we do. We must punish their thought crimes.

Further, we are being trained to think of other identities as our enemies, our oppressors. Talk about a toxic ideology. What the Left is spewing in this nation is venomous. And people, in this case college students are ingesting this venom.

But, I digress, back to the fat offended Lesbos, Gays, and trannies. Oh wait, I forgot that is offensive language isn’t it? I am supposed to be more sensitive. Yes of course. But wait! What if being more sensitive “triggers” me? What if it interferes with or mocks my identity? What of the victimization and oppression I would feel? Where oh where is my safe space? See where this nonsense leads?

According to the school’s description, the “Fabulous and Big” discussion group is open to all “LGBTQ+ individuals who describe themselves as bigger-bodied, fat-identified, plus-size, chubby, [or] thick” to “discuss issues relevant to the community, examine intersections of identity, and discuss experiences.”

Similarly, the LGBTQ Center will offer a weekly discussion exclusively for “queer and/or trans people of color” to “explore their identities and the intersections between race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

I have a question, and yes, it is a serious question? How do the Identity Obsessed keep up with all their intersections, orientations, and identities? I mean seriously they are just making this clap trap up as they go aren’t they? It must be hard to keep making up new absurdities which have no bearing in fact.

Perhaps this is why so many young people are attracted to such identity obsession? Perhaps the rhetoric sounds so complicated and “deep” that students are dazzled by the fancy wording? I mean a professor who talks like that must be super smart right? Wrong! The fact is that 99% of the divisive leftist rhetoric, is complete and utter propaganda. Propaganda designed to create a sense of victimization, and a sense of some false identity. An identity that must be all-encompassing and all important. An identity that must be embraced without question or else. In short it is designed to divide us, and to dissuade people to reject the ideas of individualism in favor of group think. Conformity or else!

That, my friends is the endgame here, division. Division steeped in anger, and bitterness. That old expression that goes united we stand, divided we fall? We are seeing it play out, and it does not have a happy ending. That is unless we begin to embrace individualism and reject the tactic of coddling the dividers, bullies, and malcontents.

Photo by kennethkonica

The post And the newest “marginalized” “victimized” and “triggered” group is………….. appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
mcdanielm https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com <![CDATA[Damond: Police Searching Police]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13846 2017-08-12T06:01:29Z 2017-08-12T06:01:29Z By: Mike McDaniel    In Update 7.2: All Fished Out, I explained, in some detail, the substantial problems with one of the two search warrants served the morning after Justine Damond’s death. Particularly, the warrant to search her home had no basis in probable cause, as absolutely required by the [Read More]

The post Damond: Police Searching Police appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

Justine and Don Damond

By: Mike McDaniel    In Update 7.2: All Fished Out, I explained, in some detail, the substantial problems with one of the two search warrants served the morning after Justine Damond’s death. Particularly, the warrant to search her home had no basis in probable cause, as absolutely required by the 4th Amendment, nor was there any professional reason or need to search it. Her home—and any vehicles—were removed in time and distance from the scene of Damond’s death. They were uninvolved. There was no reason, none at all, to believe any evidence relating to her shooting by Minneapolis PD Officer Mohamed Noor could possibly be found there. In other words, it was an unlawful fishing expedition.

The other issue I explored in that article what the reason for the fishing expedition. Were the officers involved merely incompetent? Incompetent but well-intentioned; trying to be thorough? Or were they corrupt, searching for anything they could possibly use against Damond to assist Officer Noor? It’s possible their motivation was, in part, all three possibilities, but in any case, they found nothing, or nothing they were willing to write on the return to the court. Damond was clean, and there was, predictably, no evidence with any bearing on the case.

It has been my experience that whenever the police conduct a fishing expedition on the home or vehicle of someone they’ve shot, or someone who might otherwise cause them great difficulties, it’s almost always done to try to find something–anything–they could use to harm that person, and to excuse their actions. Is that the case here? Time will tell.

In that article I neglected to note one additional factor: Officer credibility. Police officers, particularly local officers that must work with the same prosecutors and judges throughout their careers, have only one thing going for them: their reputation for competence and integrity. They zealously guard that reputation, for without it, they’re useless. I would never have taken an affidavit/warrant like that produced by BCA Agent Joe O’Brien to a prosecutor or judge. If I had, my reputation would have been shot. Judges speak with each other about such things. That Judge Laurie Miller actually authorized a warrant based on not a shred of probable cause is another matter for another time.

Thanks to reader SPD3454, I now have access to an affidavit/warrant/return written by BCA Agent Brent Peterson, produced on 07-31-17. While it’s not quite as specific as I prefer such things to be—I’ve always been a bit fussy that way; I’m referring primarily to formatting issues—it does, in fact, provide sufficient probable cause for a warrant, and also fills in some of the factual blanks with which we’ve thus far been contending.

Note that the affidavit actually, specifically, and particularly, describes the things to be seized and the place to be searched. Peterson also narrowly explains why he wants to search for and seize that material.

His probable cause statement notes the names of the officers involved, and notes they were involved in an “officer involved shooting.” That phrase means only one thing in the criminal justice system: a police officer shot a citizen, for whatever reason. Peterson does not identify the specific crime(s) that might have occurred, but at least suggests that’s an issue and reason for the warrant.

Here are some interesting factual issues from the affidavit:

*The BCA knew it was an officer involved shooting from the first moment of its involvement. Agent O’Brien danced around this issue in his affidavits.

*Peterson suggests the BCA processed the officer’s uniforms and duty equipment. This could mean anything from taking everything they were wearing into evidence—which should have been done—to merely doing gunshot residue processing of Harrity and Noor’s clothing, etc. As I’ve noted in the past, at the very least, Noor’s handgun and all spare magazines should have been taken into evidence as soon as possible, and because both officers were present, the same should have been true of Harrity. It would be necessary to exclude Harrity as a shooter and to confirm his account of Noor shooting across him through the driver’s window. It also notes that other evidence has been taken from both officers.

What other evidence? Surely swabbing was done for gunpowder residue on Noor’s hands and clothing. Any notes the officers may have done that night must have been seized. The list would surely go on, but without knowing what the BCA was confronted with at the scene, I can’t speculate further.

*Peterson confirms Harrity gave the BCA a statement. Though he does not specify what Harrity told agents at the scene, it’s reasonable to believe he told them there a shorter version of his later, much longer recorded statement. That statement would have been enough to confirm Noor shot Damond. Had that not happened, nothing the BCA did after arriving on the scene makes sense.

*The BCA took “body camera videos,” the vehicle involved and 911 audio and radio traffic audio into evidence. We also learn the MPD issues iPhones to its officers, and the BCA took those from Noor and Harrity as well.

*The affidavit confirms Noor has not given a statement, which also strengthens the probable cause for his official documents.

Peterson repeatedly refers to probable cause, which he actually provides.

The final page is merely required language. This affidavit is, fortunately, clear of the generic, ridiculously broad list of potential things that may or may not be evidence of a crime in some circumstances. It actually meets the requirements of the 4th Amendment.

The warrant, authorized by Judge Stephen Muehlberg, unlike the warrant analyzed in Update 7.2, is also specific and professional. I’ve omitting the second/signature page, as it too is merely required language.

The return is also professionally done, and to the point.

Final Thoughts:

One would hope the superiors of the agents that did the initial investigation, and of Judge Miller, would have a significant chat with them about the 4th Amendment, proper procedures and professional conduct. Unless of course, a political fix is in, or is in the process of being installed. In that case, they would be lauded—quietly—as heroes of the resistance.

As a result of this warrant, we now know a bit more about the case than we did before. One should not imagine that when the BCA presents the results of its investigation to the local prosecutor, every bit of that information will immediately be made public. If the investigation provides a case for the prosecution of Officer Noor, much of the information will be withheld from the public as the case progresses. If it does not, the same will probably be true for political reasons; there will be much the politicians involved will reflexively seek to keep under wraps. However, in either case, sufficient information will be made public through the normal criminal justice process that we’ll be able to get a gradually clearer picture.

As always, I’ll continue to update as necessary. Unless something comes up to require another path, my next article will address the political and cultural issues swirling around the case.

The post Damond: Police Searching Police appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[The Google Gestapo debacle . . . leads to excellent satire]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13844 2017-08-11T20:23:16Z 2017-08-11T20:23:16Z There’s lots of outrage about Google’s war on thought-crimes, but not a lot of satire. Thankfully, what satire there is happens to be WONDERFUL. Google recently made the decision to fire a highly qualified engineer for the thought-crime of suggesting that the Google workplace could encourage a bit more diversity. [Read More]

The post The Google Gestapo debacle . . . leads to excellent satire appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

There’s lots of outrage about Google’s war on thought-crimes, but not a lot of satire. Thankfully, what satire there is happens to be WONDERFUL.

Google recently made the decision to fire a highly qualified engineer for the thought-crime of suggesting that the Google workplace could encourage a bit more diversity. One suspects that it was women such as these who led the baying mob:

Google staff

Most articles I’ve seen have breathed outrage. This one, however, breathes satire — and one of the best satires I’ve read in I don’t know how long:

To: All Google Employees
From: Unoi’m Carasee, Vice President of Mutually Exclusive Propositions
Subject: The Recent Outrage

Dear Google Employees:

[snip]

I believe some of the problem lately has been a simple misunderstanding of my last memo. Unfortunately, I mistyped that Google “approves of free speech.” I meant to write that Google must “approve free speech.” I want all of our employees to feel perfectly free to express themselves however their political, moral, or religious beliefs impel them; provided of course that they receive prior written authorization.

[snip]

I am also pleased to announce the creation of a new employee committee that we are calling Keep Getting Better (KGB). Members of the KGB are tasked with coming up with new and improved ways in which Google can advance its diversity program, with a special emphasis on maintaining proper thoughts at all times.

Read the whole thing and be prepared to laugh.

The post The Google Gestapo debacle . . . leads to excellent satire appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
1
Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/ <![CDATA[Fisking a risible argument that Leftists, not conservatives, are reality-based]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13841 2017-08-11T17:56:05Z 2017-08-11T17:56:05Z After explaining how the Left invented a detachment from reality, Kurt Andersen makes the laughable argument that the Left, not the Right, is reality-based. A Leftist friend of mine told me that novelist Kurt Andersen’s article in The Atlantic, entitled How America Lost Its Mind : The nation’s current post-truth [Read More]

The post Fisking a risible argument that Leftists, not conservatives, are reality-based appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

After explaining how the Left invented a detachment from reality, Kurt Andersen makes the laughable argument that the Left, not the Right, is reality-based.

A Leftist friend of mine told me that novelist Kurt Andersen’s article in The Atlantic, entitled How America Lost Its Mind : The nation’s current post-truth moment is the ultimate expression of mind-sets that have made America exceptional throughout its history, is a “must read.” Although the article is ostensibly about a movement that began in the 1960s, one that saw America abandon facts in favor of emotions and magical thinking, the article is really a very, very, very, very long effort to say that Trump voters are credulous and irrational.

Because I am a nice person, I will not ask you to read the article — unless, of course, you are a glutton for punishment and have endless amounts of time. Instead, I’ve worked my way through this magnum opus to distill the essential points in each paragraph. To save you the time of even reading my summation — which, while long, is still shorter than Andersen’s article — here’s a quick summing up of what he says:

During the 1960s and 1970s, America went crazy. It was mostly the Left that went crazy, especially in academia, where our colleges abandoned truth and, instead, settled for moral and cultural relativism, navel gazing, and Foucault’s “everybody makes it up as they go along” theory. This madness swept the land.

Fortunately, by the 1980s, the Left managed to distill only the purest and truest thought from this insanity. Conservatives, meanwhile, embraced the crazy because they believed in God and distrusted both Big Government and the media. They were aided by the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which allowed the crazies to hit the airwaves. First Rush and then the internet convinced conservatives that there is a God, and that both Big Government and the media deserve to be distrusted.

And that’s how we got Trump.

Andersen’s turgid, long, frequently ignorant, invariably condescending, and very nasty essay boils down to a variation of the saying that “Fascism is always descending on America, but landing on Europe.” According to Andersen, “An unprincipled retreat from reality is always bubbling and burgeoning on the Left, but only reveals itself on amongst conservatives.”

That’s really what Andersen takes 117 paragraphs to say. I know, because I read all of them and, as noted above, I’ve set out below a precis of his wordiness, along with my interlineated comments:

¶1: America is untethered from reality. [True, although Andersen and I disagree about the identity of the untethered segment.]

¶2: Karl Rove invented the phrase “reality-based community” to say that studying reality is not necessary. He was serious. Stephen Colbert was witty and insightful when, a year later, he invented the word “truthiness.” [The phrase “reality-based community” goes back to 1998 and was first adopted by the Left, to describe itself. Rove’s point, assuming he was quoted correctly, was that people with power had the ability to affect reality, something that is completely correct.]

¶3: People in the 1960s, when Andersen was young, were reality-based, but that same decade saw Americans’ retreat from reality. [Agreed — and it behooves all of us to remember that it was the Left that retreated from reality, as Andersen goes on to explain, without ever explicitly calling out the Left.]

¶4: We’re all irrational about some things, but it’s dangerous to go overboard with our irrationalities. Americans are taking the Enlightenment’s concept of free thought as carte blanche to destroy other Enlightenment ideas. [Correct. Again, he and I differ about culprits.]

¶5: Americans believe in the supernatural and in religion. Sometimes the latter challenges the Big Bang theory. [This is the first of Andersen’s implicit and explicit attacks against Christianity.]

¶6: People believe that the government is keeping secrets. [Anderson names the crazy alleged secrets (AIDS, 9/11 attacks, vaccines, etc.), but is remarkably quiet about secrets such as Obama hiding the fact that North Korea had miniature nukes years ago or that Loretta Lynch, aka Elizabeth Carlisle, had a secret meeting with a presidential candidate’s husband — when that candidate had been very, very careless with America’s national security secrets.]

¶7: Americans were credulous and whacked out even before Lying Trump came along. [Again, he’s got a point. He’s just targeted the wrong Americans. For example, I don’t see evidence that Andersen ever spoke up during Obama’s years of lies.]

¶8: Americans live in fantasy land. [See my comment, above.]

¶9: The only true “reality-based” Americans are atheists who believe in anthropogenic climate change, evolution, vaccination, and government probity (at least under Obama), and who think the Bible is nonsense. They’re a small group, heavily outweighed by insane Americans who believe in God and angels, but not in climate change, and who don’t trust government. [Andersen seems unfazed by the fact that the reality-based people have bought into a “scientific” theory about climate that has just a couple of problems: massively falsified data and completely wrong theoretical predictions.]

¶10: The crazies are all over the population and they feed on each other.

¶11: Why is this so?

¶12: Americans can believe anything and everything want. So there.

¶13: All of America’s institutions — TV, academia, etc. — are responsible for this intellectual decline. [Especially academia, although I doubt Andersen and I view the problems with academia in the same light.]

¶14: Respected physicians hawk miracle cures; cable TV has “documentaries” about the supernatural [not to be confused with my beloved, tongue-in- cheekSupernatural, of course]; crazy people are getting tenure. [Again, I don’t think Andersen and I are thinking of the same crazy people.]

¶15: The whole world has gone crazy and that’s how you get Trump.

¶16: Americans have historically combined crazy moxie and genuine virtue. In the past, those tendencies have balanced each other out.

¶17: The first thing that changed this balance was the relativistic 1960s. [As the rest of the essay shows, Andersen believes the 1960s’ retreat from fixed principles started with the Leftist Baby Boomers, but somehow finished with the conservative Trump voters.]

¶18: The second thing that changed the American balance was the technological revolution, which enabled crazy people to find supportive websites.

¶19: Thanks to the second factor, we can all create our own reality. [Just witness the mainstream media’s complete inability to cope with Trump.]

¶20: Other countries have their crazy, but we in America do it better.

¶21: People who don’t know that we do crazy better are shocked that we elected Trump. They shouldn’t be.

¶22: America was created by dreamers and hucksters, from the Salem Witch Trials, to Joseph Smith, to Barnum, to Disney, to Billy Graham, to Reagan, to Oprah, to Trump. These people made America crazy.

¶23: The 1960s created good things and bad.

¶24: The early 1960s gave birth to hippies, the Beatles, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, and Esalen, with the latter (started by Stanford grads) being the coming together of all crazy 1960s thinking.

¶25: The boast by Esalen that it reshaped America’s thinking is not idle. It invented “New Age” thinking for those who don’t want that old time religion, but still believe in the supernatural. It created “a new religion of no religion, and . . . ‘science’ containing next to no science.” It also looked to cultures other than the West for treatments and answers. [Andersen is correct here. Once again, though, he’s wrong in thinking the fallout from this landed on conservatives. You have only to look at the Women’s March, the March for Science, not to mention the claim that you can actually change your gender through magical thinking to realize that the crazy started on the Left and has ended on the Left. It’s the Left’s insanity that brought us Trump, as normal Americans reacted to the Left’s flight from reality.]

¶26: One of Esalen’s founders had suffered a mental breakdown and spent a year in a psychiatric hospital before Esalen. He believed that mental illness diagnoses were power conspiracies meant to destroy visionaries. [And right there, with that belief, we see how we now live in a world in which people of the Left — Esalen’s heirs — believe you can magically change gender or that making up numbers proves climate change is real. The crazy is so entrenched that the same psychiatric movement that once recognized actual mental illness is also on board with the transgender and climate change magical thinking.]

¶27: Esalen made science seem like a government conspiracy against the creative and helpless. Mental illness diagnoses are part of that conspiracy. [Again, transgenderism.]

¶28: The 1960s fed into young people’s belief that the universe revolves around them.

¶29: 1969 saw the final end of reason, when “grown-ups” [read: Leftists] joined into the fantasies of the young folks [read: Leftists]. The Counterculture [i.e., Leftism] was now the dominant culture, complete with moral relativism and a retreat from rational thought. [Andersen obviously didn’t realize that this attempt to indict Trump voters instead spells out perfectly how Leftists went crazy, resulting in conservatives taking the self-correcting step of voting for Trump.]

¶30: Father Andrew Greeley warned readers of The New York Times Magazine that the Baby Boomers were abandoning reason. [These are the same Baby Boomers who populate academia and the media, and who keep producing new generations of young snowflake monsters.]

¶31: In 1970, Charles Reich, a 41-year-old Yale Law School professor caught the kids’ crazy and wrote The Greening of America, which was a massive New York Times best seller.

¶32: Reich was unapologetic in his support for the whole crazy Baby Boomer ethos, which saw each person creating his or her own reality. He defined three types of consciousness: Consciousness I was old-fashioned, hard-working individuals (obsolete, according to Reich), Consciousness II was hard-working corporate drones (evil), and

¶33: Consciousness III was the new anti-war youth culture, which made reality up as it went along.

¶34: Reich loved the way the hippies dressed, but saw them in a serious light as a necessary army to fight Consciousness II (evil corporations and their drones). [Again, in the 21st century, it’s Bernie and his followers spouting this nonsense, not Trump voters.]

¶35: Reich didn’t get the revolution he wanted, because we still have corporations, but Consciousness III led the way to an America that is free of reason and reality.

¶36: 1970s saw the hippie’s craziness go mainstream, leading the way with bestselling books about sentient plants and agribusiness; Uri Geller; and non-religious proof of an afterlife. [Can I say again that all of this craziness still lives on amongst Progressives, not conservatives?

¶37: In the 1960s, academia abandoned reason and reality. [Definitely.]

¶38: Academia’s abandonment of reason and reality infiltrated other fields, including psychology, which did away with the concept of mental illness, believing instead that the so-called mentally ill were being imposed upon by societal drones imposing their will on creative or different thinking. [Let me just say again that this is perfectly in keeping with Progressives who today embrace the fallacious thinking behind transgenderism, while conservatives prefer biological reality.]

¶39: In 1966, two academics published The Social Construction of Reality, which said nothing is real. Everything is cultural, societal, and individual perception.

¶40: Andersen, among others, found the paper profound when it was published.

¶41: UC Berkeley philosophy professor Paul Feyerabend, in 1975, went one further: Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Rationalism, he claimed, is secularized religion, and therefore just as bad as actual religion. Science is just another form of belief. [Again, considering the magical thinker that accompanies climate change “science” and transgenderism, Feyerabend accurately predicted the modern Left.]

¶42: In anthropology, moral relativism became the new paradigm. The thinking and beliefs of other cultures, especially those America had wronged (i.e., every culture except for Western Enlightenment culture), shouldn’t be questioned but must be accepted as the equal of (perhaps something even better than) Western beliefs and practices. [This view, of course, is still the prevailing view in Leftist institutions.]

¶43: In 1968, and for the rest of his career, UC Davis psychologist Charles Tart insisted that drug trips were real experiences that had scientific validity. By the 1970s, his phrase “consensus reality” — a neologism for reality intended to frame his concept of drug-induced reality — became common currency in academia.

¶44: By 1969, social critic Paul Goodman, who had thrilled the young with his work back in the early 1960s, was shocked by those same young people abandoning knowledge and reality less than a decade later. The Baby Boomer cohort “did not believe there was such a thing as simple truth.”

¶45: Since then, conservatives have consistent railed against relativism. Even while they were complaining about it, though, the relativism they hated supported conservative craziness such as gun rights [a craziness the Founders supported two centuries before the Left birthed relativism] and anti-climate change positions [a craziness that seems ever less crazy when compared to the fraud, lies, and failures of the whole climate change movement, not to mention AlGore’s unseemly profiteering]. The Left birthed relativism and the retreat from reality; conservatives perfected it.

[I’d like to remind you at this point that anything that’s not in square brackets is just me summarizing Andersen’s blowsy prose. And if you’re getting weary, we only have 69 of his paragraphs left to dissect.]

¶46: Lefties went crazy by the late 1960s when they protested the Vietnam War in paranoid terms.

¶47: By the end of the 1960s, there was a lot of magical thinking on the Left. What a change, says Andersen, from 1962, when Tom Hayden drafted the founding document for Students for a Democratic Society (aka the “Port Huron statement”). This manifesto, says Andersen, “is sweet and reasonable” and claims a “basic opposition to the communist system.” [It’s sweet and reasonable if you believe a bombastic, wordy document stating that America is a greedy, hypocritical country and if you think salvation lies in a dreamy, gauzy, soft socialism that isn’t soft at all. Looking at it, Andersen’s writing style dovetails perfectly with Hayden’s style. No wonder Andersen characterizes the Port Huron statement as “sweet and reasonable.”]

¶48: And then, in 1969, the horror happened: The Weatherman group split from the SDS group [that is, an SDS subset stripped the gauze and waffle from the Port Huron manifesto, and revealed the hardcore socialism beneath it]. Then, as Andersen says, “kaboom,” because the Weatherman group liked bombs, a sort of muscular socialism, as opposed to Hayden’s delicate reverence.

¶49: But around the same time conservatives went crazy too, because they believed that the screaming campus protesters were dangerous. Also, the government started spying on anti-war groups and Lefties. [Andersen seems genuinely ignorant of the fact that, after WWI, the government was already spying on Lefties; there were just more Lefties on which to spy in the late 1960s.] The CIA and Army Intelligence, proving that the 1960s were a generally whacked-out decade, investigated using ESP for spy-craft.

¶50: The John Birch society was just as crazy as the Left. [The John Birch society, which trafficked in racism and antisemitism, was indeed a nasty bit of work. It also peaked in 1964, when it claimed 100,000 members. After that, unlike Leftism on college campuses, in the media, and everywhere else, it was a fringe group, which conservative thought leader William F. Buckley rightly denounced.]

¶50: American paranoia was helped by JFK’s assassination.

¶51: The John Bircher people were the original paranoiacs, but the Left caught up by 1964, when they came out with a bunch of conspiracy theories, including Jim Garrison’s, about the way the Right killed Kennedy. [Oliver Stone, a hardcore Leftist managed to put together a whole big-budget movie based on Garrison’s theory. These theories still have resonance on the Left, which refuses to acknowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Russia-trained communist when he raised that rifle to his shoulder and fired.]

¶52: Thanks to JFK’s death, Americans are “reflexive conspiracy theorists.” This is shown in novels and movies that trade in conspiracy theory plots. The FBI’s infiltration in anti-war groups, plus Nixon’s machinations, didn’t help. [Again, although he blames all Americans, Andersen is really describing the Left.]

¶53: Eventually, conspiracy theorists on the Left and the Right each went so far around their own bends that they met in the middle on the other side. [But just remember, according to Andersen, conservatives are the real conspiracy theorists.]

¶54: Andersen again says Americans will believe anything, which explains UFO sightings in the 1970s. [I suspect that readily available counterculture drugs also explain lots of those sightings, but that’s just me.] These sightings led to claims about government cover-ups.

¶55: The same sightings led to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, as well as the claim by future president Jimmy Carter (Dem.) that he saw a UFO.

¶56: People started claiming that they had been the victim of alien abductions. [To my way of thinking, contrary to Andersen’s thesis, these claims were nothing new in the American psyche. In the old days, the same people would have claimed satanic possession. Crazy people always match their craziness to the prevailing social paradigms.]

¶57: In the 1960s and 1970s, Chariots of the Gods? made a lot of money riffing off the idea of extraterrestrials. No wonder Carter got elected.

¶58: The 1980s seemed to calm down, with traditional values of patriotism, work, and family returning. [Funny how Andersen doesn’t note that this more normal decade occurred when conservatives were politically ascendant.]

¶59: The 1980s’ seeming normalcy hid the fact that America was now completely delusional, thanks to conservatives.

¶60: Strange religions — Christianity and New Age stuff — grew in size.

¶61: Relativism became the academic norm. There was no truth. [Andersen got that one right.]

¶62: Academia just reflected the outer world, the hazy, crazy America.

¶63: Conspiracy theories became mainstream.

¶64: People claimed imaginary traumas, from Satanists to extraterrestrials, and the establishment put its imprimatur on this. [This was the time when law enforcement and psychiatry teamed together to destroy lives with claims that pre-schools were hotbeds of Satanism. It turned out that psychiatrists and psychologists were hotbeds of weird people promoting toddlers to say horrible things.]

¶65: The only reason America seemed normal in the 1980s is because we’d gotten used to the crazy of the 1970s. Plus television.

[The following paragraph is the first in a section of Andersen’s diatribe explaining why, despite the fact that the Left birthed and incubated the crazy, it’s conservatives who are the real crazies.

¶66: Reagan was a combination of Colbert style “truthiness” and pure entertainment. He set the stage for the 1990s.

¶67: Clinton’s popularity in 1998 spiked when America learned about his Oval Office peccadilloes. This was because it was fun, like reality TV.

¶68: The real crazy began because conservatives did away with the “Fairness Doctrine,” which [cough, cough] had operated to “keep radio and TV shows from being ideologically one-sided.” Without a Fairness Doctrine, Rush came along. [Anybody who thinks the pre-1988 media was centrist has his own problems with reality. I grew up a Democrat under the pre-1988 media and know precisely how hard it worked to present a certain political world view. There’s also the fact that almost all of the major talking heads were eventually revealed to be Democrats, which is kind of one-sided when you think about it.

¶69: With the ending of the Fairness Doctrine, which made media pretend that there was an actual non-partisan viewpoint, all types of irrational Hell broke loose.

¶70: Rush brought an alternative reality to a national audience. For three hours a day, he brainwashed people, paving the way for Fox. [As I’ve pointed out in a post Rush read on air, by carefully analyzing data, rather than presenting neatly-packaged Leftism, Rush de-programs those brainwashed by the mainstream media.]

¶71: Fox News used Rush’s techniques to immerse viewers in “unending . . . propaganda.” [Again, there’s that stunning lack of insight into the “unending . . . propaganda” that was the traditional media before the un-Fairness Act got axed.]

¶72: With the un-Fairness Act gone, Americans, for the first time, got different facts. [Again, a historically ignorant claim. Before TV came along, complete with its heavy-handed, Left-leaning government oversight, America’s print media had vigorously brought a multitude of views to the American people. That’s kind of how our Revolutionary War started, not to mention our Civil War.

¶73: The internet further denied the mainstream media control over the narrative. This made Americans more irrational.

¶74: The web allowed falsehoods and crazy ideas to multiply quickly, before they could be quashed. [Unspoken in this paragraph is Andersen’s belief that all conservative thinking is false and crazy, and it’s a shame it can’t be quashed.]

¶75: By the 1980s and 1990s, as a response to the craziness burgeoning out there, Sen. Moynihan (Dem.) felt compelled to say, for the first time ever, that people were entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts, something no one had said before. [Andersen keeps revealing his ignorance. It was John Adams, two centuries before, who said “Facts are stubborn things.” Also, Andersen doesn’t seem to acknowledge that Moynihan might have said what he did because he was concerned that Democrat hegemony over the media was vanishing.] As far as Andersen is concerned, we’re suffering from too much freedom of speech. It needs to be quashed. I’m not not kidding about Andersen’s view: “However, I think if he and our other Enlightenment forefathers returned, they would see the present state of affairs as too much of a good thing. Reason remains free to combat unreason, but the internet entitles and equips all the proponents of unreason and error to a previously unimaginable degree.” Scratch a Leftist, find a censor.

¶76: The internet, in theory, allows for a democratic free flow of information. Billions of individual preferences in searches will drive truth to the top. [That is, unless Google decides to game the system to drive Leftism to the top, something I doubt Andersen would acknowledge.]

¶78: The internet validates exciting falsehoods. [Kind of like J.K. Rowling’s tweet falsely accusing President Trump of ignoring a handicapped child, something for which she refused to apologize.] Andersen was able to prove this little thesis to his own satisfaction by following up on chemtrail conspiracy theories. [Does anyone really care about chemtrail conspiracy theories?]

¶79: The web makes it easy to get to crazy or false information.

¶80: Religious Americans will believe anything, especially conspiracy theories. [Presumably Andersen exempts from this argument those who believe in the unfalsifiable Religion of Climate Change. Or the equally unfalsifiable claim that Hillary Clinton, a woman who accomplished nothing other than propping up a man, and who jettisoned national security for her own convenience, was the most qualified presidential candidate in American history.]

¶81: Andersen was raised in a Republican household and has occasionally voted for Republican candidates. He disagrees with conservative politics, but concedes that conservatives essentially agree with him “on the essential contours of reality” [whatever that means].

¶82: Lefties can be crazy on occasions, but it’s the right that’s really crazy, because there’s no one on the Left like Sean Hannity or Alex Jones. [Nobody except the panoply of MSNBC hosts, Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Sean King, the earnest and dishonest 60 Minutes’ hosts, Michael Mann, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, every tweeting Hollywood moonbat, etc, etc, etc.]

¶83: Why are Leftists the grown-ups and conservatives the crazy ones? [Yes, that’s really what Andersen offers as a rhetorical question.]

¶84: Religion. Those damn conservatives believe in God. That’s enough to make anyone crazy and delusional. [And yes, that’s really what Andersen offers. Andersen again exempts from this argument those who believe in the unfalsifiable Religion of Climate Change, not to mention the current members of Trump Derangement Syndrome, a malady even more extreme than Bush Derangement Syndrome. ]

¶85: The GOP probably didn’t bring religion and economics together on purpose. It’s just because middle-class and working-class people got poor and Republicans refused to acknowledge this. This turned conservatives into bitter, delusional clingers. [Yes, Andersen really makes this argument, although he doesn’t quote Obama.]

¶86: And just speaking objectively [at least, what counts for “objective” in Andersen’s world], conservatives are just more into conspiracy theories. [Yup, give conservatives an inch and you get . . . GMOs, Monsanto, Russia, Koch Brothers, the vast right-wing conspiracy, etc. Oh, wait, that’s not conservatives, is it? My bad. And Andersen thinks it’s bad when 34% of Republicans believe the elite have a globalist agenda. Apparently Andersen missed news stories showing that Brexit fully exposed the elite EU agenda that’s counter to so many on-the-ground Europeans, or that America’s bureaucracy has declared open war on President Trump (and to Hell with national security, the economy, and all sorts of other necessities for a strong, secure country).]

¶87: Andersen with a straight face says that the Left ended up with the reality high ground after the 1960s and 1970s: That high ground consists of “retreat from Vietnam, civil-rights and environmental-protection laws, increasing legal and cultural equality for women, legal abortion, Keynesian economics.” [Let me count the ways in which he’s embarrassingly wrong: We’d won on the ground in Vietnam when the Left forced a retreat, causing death and suffering to millions; it was Republicans who spearheaded civil rights and the racist Left that turned it into generations of blacks dependent on welfare, along with a political movement that inverted MLK to become obsessed with race, not character; the Left has abandoned anti-pollution and turned it into Gaia worship; the women’s movement, which was once about equity feminism, has morphed into man-hating madness; abortion has turned the Democrats into a death cult, and made life a lot easier for pedophiles; and Keynesian economics are practiced in a way even Keynes wouldn’t recognize and have created a government so big we can’t afford it, putting the whole economy at risk.]

¶87: Conservatives envied Leftists their rational victories. Conservatives accepted gender equality and big government, but reluctantly. But they just weren’t that crazy yet in the 1980s and 1990s. Andersen seems mystified by the fact that, under the conservative aegis Soviet Communism collapsed, violent crime dropped, and law and order prevailed.

¶88: Andersen concludes that the center right was “good.” But the far-Right was still out there and crazy. These crazy, stupid far-Right people actually bought into Reagan’s rhetoric, ignoring the fact that he’d sell out his values in a minute and and didn’t believe what he was saying.

¶89: The GOP also went crazy by embracing libertarianism. Andersen doesn’t like conservative libertarianism. He blames it all on Ayn Rand and says only teenage boys have an excuse for embracing this principle. To him, libertarianism isn’t about small government, it’s about selfishness. [Because, as you know, there is nothing less selfish than using the power of government to take away other people’s money and then to spend it on your pet Progressive projects.]

¶90: Republican leaders are cynical exploiters of the people’s naivete and credulousness. Oh, and Karl Rove is evil.

¶91: Poor, credulous Americans came to believe Rove’s lies. Even though they think they’re conservative, they’re not really. Instead, they’re puppets led around by evil people who say the media is dishonest and that they should take umbrage when called names. [Well, Andersen doesn’t actually admit that Progressives call people with whom they disagree names such as “deplorable,” “bigoted,” “racist,” “homophobic,” “bitter clingers,” “Islamophobic,” “hate-filled,” etc. He just makes it plain that, when called names, conservatives shouldn’t answer back in like terms but, instead, should be polite. You know who also holds to this one-sided, self-theory theory? A narcissist, that’s who. He gets to insult you, but you’re the one picking a fight if you disagree with his characterization.] And what’s really scary to a realist such as Andersen is that these weird, angry people want to do away with the EPA [which is stealing their land and livelihoods], the IRS [which has used its vast power to specifically target conservatives], and the Federal Reserve [which has manipulated money to benefit Democratic cronies].

¶92: And now the truth comes out: Andersen’s parents were conservatives who objected to the Kennedys, unions, and to a “confiscatory” [his quotation marks, not mine] 91% income tax. [Get the feeling he has mommy and daddy issues?] Thankfully for Andersen, his parents balanced their unreasoning objections to Kennedys, unions, and a 91% tax rate by supporting abortion and environmentalism. [I’m also an environmentalist, but that’s not the same as being a religious Climate Changista in the Church of Gaia.] His parents also didn’t believe the government is out to get people. [The Obama and Trump administrations have shown that the government is indeed out to get people, with the Obama administration targeting conservatives and journalists and the bureaucracy targeting Trump with endless illegal leaks.] Oh, and Andersen’s parents, God bless ’em, were atheists, so that must mean they were smart.

¶92: It’s Christians who have done all this craziness. And Christians are evil and want to take over government. Also [unlike the Left, which believes in the Church of Climate Change and, as part of its doctrine, wants to return us to a pre-industrial era and redistribute all of our wealth to Third World countries], these darn Christians refuse to believe in evolution [never mind that Creationism is a belief system that makes no demands on government or tax payers ].

¶93: Christians force presidential candidates to announce that they have a faith — even though the Constitution doesn’t require it. [The Horror!!]

¶94: Indeed, Andersen believes that the fact that conservatives like to elect religious candidates who share their values to all levels of federal government amounts to a violation of the 1st Amendment. [Yes, as you’ve figured out, Andersen really is that stupid. The Constitution says government cannot mandate religion. It says nothing about voters whose values are informed by faith electing politicians with similar values.]

¶95: [After this attack on religion, you knew that Andersen would get to the Scopes Monkey trial, didn’t you?] “Civilized” Tennessee people, according to H.L. Mencken, were hypocrites pretending to believe in religion and creationism to keep their standing amongst the yokels. [Andersen has obviously not grasped that we got Trump, not because conservatives are ignorant, hypocritical yokels, but because Progressives are nasty, condescending, scientifically irrational, greedy, pigs..]

¶96: Andersen has watched Trump since the 1990s and is certain he’s a grifter and a brat, who thinks he’s smarter than other people. [After all, it was Trump who said “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” Oh, wait. No, it wasn’t. That was Obama who never earned an honest penny in his life, going from mysterious college funding to “community organizing.” I guess Andersen missed all that about Obama.]

¶96: Trump is a creature of other people’s fantasies. His businesses are meaningless and he hasn’t done anything worthwhile. [Again, coming from an Obama supporter, this is laughable. Obama entered the White House having allegedly written a book.]

¶97: What sustained Trump is that the conservatives caught the crazy and will believe anything.

¶98: RINOs hate Trump.

¶99: Trump believes vaccines cause autism. [Andersen’s entire political party once believed this. Now it’s a mortal sin. Incidentally, I’m pro-vaccine. I’m just saying, again, that people who espouse nonsense for decades are not in a position to throw stones.]

¶100: Trump ran for president because he knew that [stupid, conservative,] Americans had reached that magical critical mass at which they could no longer distinguish showmanship from reality. [Andersen hasn’t been paying attention to Saleno Zito, who realized that it’s the Left that obsesses about Trump’s showmanship. Conservatives pay attention to, and are pleased with, a substance that involves clamping down on illegal immigration, unleashing a stagnant economy, and correctly identifying America’s friends and enemies.]

¶101: Trump fakes sincerity.

¶102: Trump wouldn’t have won if he’d told the truth. [From someone who obviously supported Hillary Clinton, this may well be the funniest line in this entire turgid, delusional mess. Again, conservatives voters were well able to distinguish showmanship from critical truths about issues as to which the Left has always lied: Unlike Leftists we know that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration, and a nation should not have to tolerate the latter; that Islam is not a religion of peace; that drilling will help us get back to prosperity; and that every single climate change prediction has been wrong and can be propped up only by fraudulent data manipulation. And then there’s the whole Clinton Foundation mess o’ corruption. Hillary is such a failure she can’t even be dishonest well.]

¶103: Trump promised to make “dreams come true.” [Again, only a Progressive would be stupid enough to think that voters took this literally. Although there are such stupid voters out there. I do remember a lot of people saying that, once the “magic Negro” Obama was elected, there would be free phones and no one would ever have to work again.]

¶104: Trump is a creature of the internet, which allowed voters to bypass the media. [Yes, and thank God for that.]

¶105: Trump rode to victory on a wave of conspiracy theories about Obama’s alleged Kenyan birth, about Ted Cruz’s father and the Kennedy assassination, and about Vince Foster’s death. [Obama’s obsessive secrecy about his records is going to breed speculation. As I’ve said forever, I think he claimed on school transcripts to me Kenyan so that he could benefit from affirmation action after the Supreme Court’s “Bakke” decision closed that door for a few years. The Ted Cruz Daddy thing was plain mean and doesn’t reflect well on Trump. As for Vince Foster, it must be Hell on wheels to move in Clinton circles when one considers the number of close Clinton associates who commit suicide. (Some even using amazing dexterity, such as shooting themselves in the back of the head. You’ve got to admire that.)]

¶106: Trump probably believes some of his own lies. [Maybe Obama did too, although I suspect he was more cynical than that. Same for Harry Reid, the dreaded Wasserman-Schultz, Hillary, etc.]

¶107: Now that truth is optional, Trump gets away with lies.

¶108: Trump’s spokesman struggle to answer media questions. [That’s because the media throws at them stupid questions such as whether Emma Lazarus’s poem trumps U.S. immigration law, while it asked Obama spokespeople cute things like “Is he really dreamy to work for?”]

¶109: Unanchored Americans believe the lies told by Trump’s struggling spokespeople.

¶110: David Muir, of ABC, [instead of asking Trump about his dreaminess], asked if he cared that people might believe that illegal aliens vote in large numbers, threatening our democracy.

¶111: Trump responded accurately enough that he’s not alone in that belief.

¶112: American’s belief in Progress is faith, not reality. Other nations don’t believe in all that stuff. [This is funny coming from the same guy who railed against the relativism and other craziness of the 1960s and 1970s. Now, unwinding his convoluted prose, he seems to say that it’s crazy for Americans to believe in their values and not to believe in other nations’ values. ]

¶113: Andersen is still optimist even though his fellow Americans are stupid, insane, and credulous. He’s really incredulous, but it’s true that, despite growing conservative ascendance, America has done amazing things. [Fox Butterfield, are you there?]

¶114: Leftists have to be part of an intellectual resistance. The reality-based Leftists [who believe you can magically change gender by wishing it so, plus cancer causing hormones and mutilating surgery, and that humans are more powerful than the sun when it comes to the earth’s climate] can prevail by being really, really smart. And insulting conservatives.

¶115: It’s going to be hard to make America once again believe the Leftist version of reality. But Andersen’s readers have to do it . . . for the children. [And George Soros is not evil. Really, says Andersen, he’s not. Now the Koch brothers, on the other hand. . . .]

¶116: We need to protect our kids from conservative information.

¶117: Keep fighting. Fight! Fight! Fight!

The post Fisking a risible argument that Leftists, not conservatives, are reality-based appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
1
Puma ByDesign https://pumabydesign001.com/ <![CDATA[YouTube Censors Diamond and Silk.]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13834 2017-08-11T10:01:44Z 2017-08-11T09:33:04Z   YouTube in the latest of its faux attempts to “combat terrorist content on YouTube,” dog whistle for non-Progressive content has declared war on Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardway and Rochelle Richardson aka Diamond and Silk. In their quest to rein in what YouTube, according to its blog* deems “violent [Read More]

The post YouTube Censors Diamond and Silk. appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

 

YouTube in the latest of its faux attempts to “combat terrorist content on YouTube,” dog whistle for non-Progressive content has declared war on Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardway and Rochelle Richardson aka Diamond and Silk.

In their quest to rein in what YouTube, according to its blog* deems “violent extremism and terrorism-related content,” has placed a stranglehold on Diamond and Silk’s videos.

SIDEBAR

I have not included the link to YouTube’s blog here since each time I accessed the blog, Malwarebytes blocked AND alerted me to an attempt by Google (IP: 172.217.9.225) to access my laptop. Bad Google!

END OF SIDEBAR

Washington Times by Douglas Ernst

Lynnette Hardway and Rochelle Richardson of North Carolina, whose support of Mr. Trump and no-nonsense delivery during the 2016 U.S. presidential season turned them into online sensations, said Thursday their YouTube videos have become casualties of the company’s attempt to silence “extremism.”

“@YouTube @TeamYouTube stopped over 95% percent of our videos from being monetized, stating: ‘It’s Not Suitable For All Advertisers,’” the two said in a series of tweets. “Wonder if @YouTube @TeamYouTube stopped the monetization of our videos because we are loyal supporters of the @POTUS. Hummmm. Sounds like Censorship to us, which is a Violation of our First Amendment. A Bias Method used to Silence our Conservative Voices. @YouTube, how was it OK to monetize our videos for the past two years and now those same videos are no longer eligible for monetization?”

The popular duo, who were also paid $1,275 for “field consulting” work by the Trump campaign[…]

Continue Reading

Diamond and Silk are not extremists or terrorists.  YouTube has exposed their hand.

Censorship by any other name, YOUTUBE, is censorship, suppression of free speech, discrimination and considering how many non-Progressives are under assault by YouTube, a lawsuit on the horizon.

By the way, where the heck is the ACLU?

Cross-posted on PUMABydesign001’s Blog.

The post YouTube Censors Diamond and Silk. appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0
mcdanielm https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com <![CDATA[Fire, Fury and Money Laundering?]]> http://www.watcherofweasels.org/?p=13829 2017-08-11T03:30:29Z 2017-08-11T03:30:29Z By: Mike McDaniel   We have, in Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s Communist dictator, a true lunatic. He has, particularly during the Age of Obama, relentlessly provoked America and the international community, and has gotten away with it. Now we have a President that is not afraid to use force, and [Read More]

The post Fire, Fury and Money Laundering? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>

By: Mike McDaniel   We have, in Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s Communist dictator, a true lunatic. He has, particularly during the Age of Obama, relentlessly provoked America and the international community, and has gotten away with it. Now we have a President that is not afraid to use force, and appears, unlike his predecessors, unwilling to kick the North Korea can down the road. The recent revelation that North Korea has miniaturized nuclear weapons capable of being mated with intercontinental ballistic missiles must be tempered with the realization we knew that in 2013, and Barack Obama did his best, with the willing support of a lapdog media, to hide that information. Mr. Trump recently warned North Korea against continuing threats and promised “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

As one would expect, the danger posed by a madman in North Korea is as nothing, to America’s self-imagined elites, compared with Donald Trump. Even American congress critters, including—surprise!—John McCain, have attacked Mr. Trump for daring to say things very much like Harry Truman and even Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton.

A good example of the media’s insanity is explained by the good folks at Legal Insurrection:

“North Korea has threatened to fire missiles at Guam, a US territory home to thousands of US citizens and a major US Air Force base.

What if the missiles fell short or missed the island?

What’s the big deal? It’s ‘just a missile test.’

That was the thrust of CNN host Alisyn Camerota statement this morning:

‘If these missiles, if they do this, and if these go into the waters off Guam, they don’t hit Guam, then isn’t this just another sort of provocation and a missile test? Does it have to be responded to with force?”

Oh sure. Just a test. One wonders how Ms. Camerota would feel if the Norks were shooting missiles at her home. How many would have to miss, and by how much, before she might consider the ordinance to be something more than a harmless test?

Camerota’s guest Gordon Chang had a suggestion that would surely, if implemented, cause the Norks to quake in their little communist boots:

“ALISYN CAMEROTA: Are they just baiting the president? I mean in other words, if these missiles, if they do this, and if these go into the waters off Guam, they don’t hit Guam, then isn’t this just another sort of provocation and a missile test? Does it have to be responded to with force?

GORDON CHANG: No, it certainly doesn’t have to be responded with force. And I think there’s some non-kinetic options that we have that could really put the North Koreans and the Chinese on the back foot.

CAMEROTA: Meaning what?

CHANG: I think the one thing we should be doing is enforcing US law against money laundering.”

All sanctions against North Korea have every done is cause the Norks to demand negotiations. The result of all such negotiations to date has been food, fuel and cash for the North Koreans, and nothing for the civilized world.

Mr. Trump’s comments well demonstrate the chasm between normal Americans and the self-imagined elite, who think Mr. Trump’s mere existence to be a world-shattering disaster. When Mr. Trump says things like this, normal tend to think “about time.” But they worry. Mr. Trump, like Barack Obama, has drawn a red line. His comments aren’t an issue. Failing to back them up when the time comes is.

And as for the elites? They’ll have the vapors over whatever Mr. Trump says or does. Remember their righteous indignation over a Diet Coke and two scoops of ice cream? Fortunately, I suspect Mr. Trump understands this well, and just doesn’t care. He does appear to know who our enemies and allies are, and is apparently willing to treat our enemies like enemies. How can I tell? Consider this from Fox News: 

President Trump on Thursday [08-10-17] doubled down on his ‘fire and fury’ warning to North Korea, saying the country should be ‘very, very nervous’ about even thinking of attacking the United States or its allies.

Pushing back against critics who suggested his comments earlier in the week were too forceful, Trump told reporters: ‘Maybe it wasn’t tough enough.’

‘They’ve been doing this to our country for a long time, for many years,’ the president said of North Korea. ‘It’s about time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country and for the people of other countries. So if anything, that statement wasn’t tough enough. [skip]

“Asked by a reporter what’s tougher than threatening ‘fire and fury,’ Trump said: ‘You’ll see. You’ll see.’

‘If North Korea does anything in terms of even thinking about attacking anybody that we love or we represent or our allies or us, they can be very, very nervous,’ he said.

Trump wouldn’t say if he’s considering a preemptive strike on North Korea. ‘We don’t talk about that,’ he said. ‘I never do.’

‘What they’ve been doing, what they’ve been getting away with, is a tragedy and it can’t be allowed,’ he said.”

Poor Ms. Camerota and Mr. Chang. I hope they’ve been taking their blood pressure medication.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

The post Fire, Fury and Money Laundering? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

]]>
0