Pollster Scott Rasmussen conducted two separate surveys, each covering 1,000 “Members of the Elites.” The results are remarkable, not to say shocking. But the starting point is, who was defined as “elite” for purposes of these surveys?

The Elites are defined as those having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000 annually, and living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile. Approximately 1% of the total U.S. population meets these criteria.

Ten thousand people per square mile represents a high-density urban environment. But in that context, $150,000 a year is no princely salary. Nationwide, it takes far more–around $650,000 annually–to be in the top 1% in income. A person who lives in a big city and earns $150,000 is not, in any financial sense, elite.

So the key element in Rasmussen’s formula is having a postgraduate degree. Basically, what we are surveying here is people with graduate degrees who live in cities, the large majority of whom don’t make a great deal of money. Many in that group are probably women, although Rasmussen says the survey results were “lightly weighted” by gender, age and race. Rasmussen also defined a subcategory of “Ivy League elites,” consisting of graduates of one of the eight Ivy League schools, plus Northwestern, Duke, Stanford and the University of Chicago.

These “elites,” so defined, are living in another world than the rest of us. They are extraordinarily loyal to the regime; 84% of them approve of Joe Biden’s performance as president. I wouldn’t have thought you could get that high an approval rating if you sampled the Democratic National Committee. And 70% of the “elites” trust the government to do the right thing most of the time; that rises to 89% among those who are “the most politically active members of the elite.”

These elites even trust journalists: 79% have a favorable opinion of them, as do 84% of the “Ivy League elite.”

When it comes to policy, these people are crazy. Forty-seven percent say that America suffers from too much freedom, compared with only 21% who think we have too much government control. Among the Ivy League elite, 55% say America is too free, with only 15% saying we have too much government.

So how do the elites want to limit our excessive freedom? A shocking 77% say they favor the “strict rationing of gas, meat and electricity.” That basically means living in a poor, totalitarian state like the USSR. And by 89% to 10%, the Ivy League elites want to see “strict rationing” of these most basic commodities.

These “elites” are fascists. Large majorities want to ban gas stoves (69%), gasoline powered cars (72%), non-essential air travel (55%), SUVs (58%) and air conditioning (53%). The Ivy League elites are even worse: the corresponding numbers are 80% for gas stoves, 81% for gasoline powered cars, 70% for non-essential air travel, 66% for SUVs, and 68% want to ban air conditioning. There is no polite way to put it: they are fascists.

There is more at the link. The people whom Rasmussen has identified are obviously dangerous to our democracy. If they take over, we are finished. More study needs to be done to figure out who, exactly, they are, so we can root them out and negate their influence. In the meantime, some moderate measures probably need to be taken. Like abolishing the Ivy League.

John Hinderiker

A pitfall of the fallen human mind is how narratives shape our perception of the world, even outweighing facts and common sense. For example, nuclear power is one of the safest ways to generate electricity. According to the Our World in Data report, nuclear is 99.8% safer than coal in terms of deaths per unit of power. Yet because of three dramatic accidents and the press surrounding them — Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011 — nuclear power is widely perceived as extraordinarily dangerous and in need of claustrophobic regulation.

Similarly, a narrative pushed by many in the press aims at rendering something else radioactive: homeschooling. As a Washington Post analysis found late last year, homeschooling is America’s fastest growing form of education. Around 2.7 million students are homeschooled in America today, up by about a million since before the pandemic. For Washington Post reporters, this is scary.

One article described homeschooling as a “largely unregulated practice once confined to the ideological fringe,” whose rise in popularity is leading critics “to sound alarms.” In it, an emeritus Harvard Law professor ominously warned, “Policymakers should think, ‘Wow—this is a lot of kids.’ We should worry about whether they’re learning anything.’”

A school board member from Florida echoed their concern: “Many of these parents don’t have any understanding of education. The price will be very big to us, and to society. But that won’t show up for a few years.”

In a Washington Post story from December 2, Peter Jamison recounted the tragic death of an 11-year-old California boy named Roman Lopez, from severe neglect and abuse. Though, as in most such cases, the story involved a broken and blended family — a factor children’s rights activist Katy Faust points out is a consistent risk — according to The Washington Post, the thing to blame was that Lopez’s stepmom said she was homeschooling him.

“Home education was an easy way to avoid the scrutiny of teachers, principals, guidance counselors,” suggests Jamison. Yet, he admits,

“Little research exists on the link between homeschooling and child abuse. The few studies conducted in recent years have not shown that home-schooled children are at significantly greater risk of mistreatment than those who attend public, private or charter schools.”

And the Post wasn’t finished. Nine days later, the Post devoted an article aimed at debunking the work of homeschool researcher and advocate Brian Ray, who has long argued that homeschoolers outperform their public-schooled peers. With little content to criticize Ray’s methodology, the Post devoted space to quoting anti-home-schooling activists and Ray’s aggrieved adult daughter.

And then, three days after Christmas, the Post ran another article by Peter Jamison on the growing fear among home-schooling families that state funding in the form of vouchers will come with increased government oversight. Leaving little doubt where he stands on the issue of state oversight, he threw in a story about a network of Nazi homeschoolers in Ohio.

These articles reveal not only the biases of Washington Post reporters and their willingness to use scare stories in place of data but also expose crucial questions they are unwilling to ask, as well as assumptions about the role of parents and the state when it comes to education.

To simultaneously note how home schooling has exploded in popularity but, in almost every article, refuse to ask why the popularity, is at best, a stunning lack of curiosity. If asked, I suspect the parents of the over two-and-a-half million home-schoolers in America, would say something about endless school closures during COVID, ideological indoctrination in public school classrooms, the fact that standardized test scores are at a 30-year low, and that administrators and school boards act and, at times, articulate that they know better, and parents should butt out.

Perhaps many parents concluded they could do a better job teaching their kids. Perhaps they didn’t think they should “butt out.” Perhaps they are not comfortable with the lack of oversight in classrooms and over teachers and school boards. Perhaps, they are skeptical of the “experts” who are “sounding alarms” about homeschooling while ignoring the massive failures of the current state-run system.

Ultimately, The Washington Post’s breathless attacks on homeschooling reveal an unquestioned assumption that children belong primarily to the state and not to parents. The rise in homeschooling, Christian schooling, parent-run charter schools, and other innovations show that more and more families are rejecting that assumption. In doing so, they are acknowledging the biblical expectation that parents, not the state, are ultimately responsible for teaching and raising children.

If the press wants to keep giving homeschooling the nuclear power treatment, they should also develop some curiosity about why so many parents are choosing, often at great sacrifice, to take their children’s education back into their own hands. And they should ask what that says about the status quo.

Christian Post

Democratic Reps. Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff of California are pushing a bill to ban the sale and use of glue traps to catch rodents.

“Glue traps are ruthless, inhumane, and can be dangerous to the health of humans and their pets,” Lieu said, according to a press release. “There are numerous other ways to trap small animals that don’t prolong their suffering. As a proud member of the Animal Protection Caucus, I’m pleased to introduce this bill to stop the needless suffering of these animals.”

The press release indicates that Schiff is an original cosponsor. He is currently running for U.S. Senate.

People responded to a post about the proposal on social media.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time.

“Democrats won’t secure the border or stop the human trafficking of the Mexican drug cartels, but they will propose laws to protect literal rats,” Sean Davis tweeted.

“It’s very comforting to know that our politicians are focused on protecting the well being and dignity of rats,” Matt Walsh wrote.

“Man that’s okay with brutally murdering babies is now concerned with how we kill rodents, calling it ‘inhumane,'” someone tweeted, along with a clown face emoji.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, supports the proposal.

“PETA thanks Rep. Ted Lieu for his compassion and leadership in introducing the Glue Trap Prohibition Act of 2024,” PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman said, according to Lieu’s press release. “This crucial legislation can help protect vulnerable species of wildlife and save tens of thousands of small animals each year from being injured, permanently disabled, and killed by dehydration, injury or starvation in these primitive, cruel traps.”

Blaze Media

https://rumble.com/v47oevo-tucker-carlson-america-is-being-invaded-and-no-one-is-doing-anything-about-.html

January 16, 2024 | Sundance | 299 Comments

I doubt there is another website on the internet with as deep a Nikki Haley research file as CTH [SEE HERE]. She even has her own drop down category box, which we created the moment Nikki Haley stabbed Sarah Palin in the back.  You see, Nikki Haley would not exist in the world of politics if Sarah Palin had not shown up to rally support for her in the 2010 SC primary race.  But immediately after gaining all the benefit, Haley dismissed Palin, much like Ron DeSantis recently dismissed President Trump.

Taking away all of the pretending, it was very clear several years ago that Nikki Haley was the DeceptiCon to watch in 2024.  You might remember in early 2016, when the GOPe was meeting in Sea Island trying to figure out how to defeat Donald Trump, they picked Nikki Haley to deliver the 2016 State of the Union rebuttal.  That speech was entirely constructed as an attack on candidate Donald Trump.

Haley was always going to be the DeceptiCon candidate because she has always been for sale.  Haley doesn’t have actual defined positions or policies; instead, she follows political orders and does whatever the donors and corporations tell her to do.  Nikki Haley is the prototypical UniParty politician, and it comes as no surprise her campaign focus is to use Democrats to change the demographic of the Republican New Hampshire primary.

The billionaires who back Nikki Haley want the status quo to remain.  They are pouring millions into her campaign for one purpose, to remove President Trump.   Her key moment is this upcoming New Hampshire primary race.  If she comes close or wins, they will keep funding her.  If she fails to win in New Hampshire, Haley will collapse quickly as her loss in her home state of South Carolina is virtually guaranteed.

(NBC) – Former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley is facing pressure from some of her top fundraisers to either seriously compete with, or outright defeat, Donald Trump in next week’s New Hampshire primary, after finishing third on Monday in the Iowa caucus.

“I would still like to see her get somewhere, but the mountain she has to climb is enormous,” Andy Sabin, a New York businessman and Haley fundraiser, told CNBC. “As much as I like Haley, I don’t even know what Trump could do to stop himself right now.”

Sabin plans to help raise money for Trump if Haley doesn’t make it through the primary season, despite previously telling CNBC he wouldn’t give the former president “a f—ing nickel.”

“He may be the only choice I have,” said Sabin.

Several Haley fundraisers who spoke to CNBC conceded that, unless she gets a very close second to Trump or manages to pull off an upset win in New Hampshire, the race could effectively be over for her after that. (read more)

However, all is not bad news.  “In Davos, Switzerland, a wealthy investment banking executive and Haley donor told CNBC on Tuesday that he’s now convinced Trump will be the Republican nominee and go on to defeat President Joe Biden in November.” 

Nikki Haley has one shot to keep the NEVER TRUMP money flowing…. New Hampshire. That’s it.

With the full support of the professional republican apparatus, and if she can fool enough republicans, and if the apparatus around her can find enough Democrats, then millions will be funneled into her campaign.   However, if she falls short in New Hampshire, it’s over.

The Nevada and South Carolina “NEVER TRUMP” groups will not align for Haley without a preceding victory in New Hampshire.

Want to get rid of Nikki Haley?  Crush her in New Hampshire.