Category Archives: Politics

Biden is Making Fools out of Progressive Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Like a lepidopteran Charlie Brown drawn to Lucy van Pelt’s flaming football, congressional progressives keep falling for corporate Democrats’ pathetically predictable, and transparently self-serving, pleas for unity. Support our priorities, the centrists keep urging, and we’ll get around to your stuff later.

How much later?

We’ll tell you later.

“Progressives have grown increasingly accustomed to disappointment with the Biden administration,” the Daily Beast reports with the breaking-news tone of “sun rises in east,” “and now a proposed increase in Department of Defense and law enforcement spending are causing them to air their grievances anew with just months left before the 2022 election.” Insanely — remember, we just left Afghanistan, so war spending should drop precipitously — President Joe Biden’s latest budget proposes a record high of $813 billion in military spending, an increase of $30 billion from last year. He just sent $13 billion to Ukraine. Plus, he wants $32 billion for cops.

Refund the police.

Whether working inside a system diametrically opposed to your values has ever been effective is historically debatable. Since Bill Clinton ditched the New Deal coalition of the working class, labor and Black voters in favor of Wall Street banks and other large corporate donors, it certainly has never worked for progressives inside the Democratic Party.

Impotent and hopeless, members of the AOC-led House Squad and left-leaning senators only have one option left to make a strong political statement: leave the Democratic Party and either join the Greens or form a new progressive party. But that would risk ridicule and marginalization by liberal media outlets like The New York Times and MSNBC, not to mention grassroots organizing, which requires hard work like talking to voters and getting rained upon.

So the squeaky mice of the inside-the-Beltway progressive left are reduced to issuing sad little whines in response to once again getting the shaft.

“If budgets are value statements, today’s White House proposal for Pentagon spending shows that we have a lot of work to do,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), Reps. Barbara Lee (D-California) and Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) wrote in a statement in response to Biden’s GOP-inspired budget.

“It’s a mistake,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said.

“You know, you want to say ‘fund the police,’ cool. But you also talk about police accountability,” added Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York).

These quotes appeared in an article headlined “Left Seethes at Biden’s Big Defense Budget.”

I know seething. Seething is a friend of mine.

“Work to do” is not seething. “Mistake” is not seething. “Police accountability” is not seething.

“I think this year’s number was too much,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Yes — by about 1,000%.

Biden’s Build Back Better infrastructure package, which incorporated some progressive priorities, died because the White House and its corporate Democratic allies in Congress didn’t go to the mat for it; in particular, they weren’t willing to punish DINO Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema by threatening to strip the traitors of their committee assignments.

Increasing the national minimum wage to $15 an hour, a progressive priority for the last decade, is dead under Biden.

There’s been no movement on another key platform plank of Bernie Sanders’ presidential bids: student loan forgiveness.

About 112 million Americans struggle to afford health care, and we’ve lost nearly 1 million Americans to the COVID-19 pandemic, yet Biden, satisfied with his former running mate’s wobbly Affordable Care Act, hasn’t spent a penny of political capital, or cash capital, on Medicare For All.

Besides lessons in humility and patience, what exactly do congressional progressives gain by working inside the Democratic Party? Mainstream legitimacy. But to paraphrase Lyndon B. Johnson, what the hell else is working inside the Democratic Party for if it never pays off?

While the self-identified progressive congressional Democrats spin their wheels, their constituents get a defense budget that Donald Trump would be proud of, higher taxes to pay for more police and soaring prices chomping away at a $7.25 national minimum wage last increased in 2009. (Adjusted for inflation, that’s $5.48 today.)

At this point, progressive voters can only draw one logical conclusion about the decision of AOC, the Squad and other supposedly left-wing congressmen and senators to remain inside the Democratic Party: Their sole purpose is to legitimize and prop up an institution that’s working against them, their ideas and their supporters.

Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of a new graphic novel about a journalist gone bad, “The Stringer.”

It’s Free !

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most misused words in the English language is “free,” as in “it’s free.” Whether it’s the free samples of stuff at Costco, or the free pens and refrigerator magnets they give away at your local bank or car dealership, or the free hip replacement your mother-in-law just received, we use the term freely, so to speak, without ever considering it’s true meaning.  When we say “it’s free,” what we really mean is that someone else is paying for it—voluntarily or involuntarily.  And this is a very important distinction. Because one is morally defensible, while the other is not.  One involves a clear violation of private property rights, enshrined in the Seventh Commandment, while the other does not.  The Seventh Commandment states, “Thou Shalt Not Steal Thy Neighbor’s Goods.” This is the clearest affirmation of private property rights ever handed down.  By The Man Himself.  And it’s etched in stone.  You can’t take someone else’s things, period. And just because you take something from someone and turn around and give it to someone you believe is deserving doesn’t justify it either. The Seventh Commandment is everything the Good Lord ever had to say about “social justice,”–about what is mine and what is thine.

The free samples of some new pineapple/anchovy salsa being handed out by the nice ladies in latex gloves at Costco are not really free.  They are either being paid for by Costco, or the company that makes those dreadful concoctions.  So while Costco is erroneously saying, “Try these free samples,” what they really should be saying is, “Try one of these dreadful concoctions that we or the producer are paying for.”  The same with the pens and refrigerator magnets at your local bank or car dealership. And the customers are likewise incorrect when they proudly tell their spouses, “The pens were free, Honey.”

So, while the merchants and customers are misusing the word free in these examples, if only because it’s convenient, the actions in both cases are not immoral.  Neither action involves breaking the Seventh Commandment nor anyone’s private property rights. Both the salsa and the pens and refrigerator magnets are owned by the parties giving them away. The owners can dispose of them as they wish.  But, in any event, they are not free. Someone had to pay for them.

In the case of your mother-in-law’s hip replacement, however, it is neither free nor morally acquired. The new hip wasn’t free; it was clearly paid for by somebody else, in this case the taxpayer.  And it was not morally acquired, since it involved a breach of the Seventh Commandment and private property rights.  The money to pay for her new hip came out of her neighbor’s pocket, the very party the Seventh Commandment (and the United States Constitution) was designed to protect. The money to pay for the hip was taken from her neighbor by a third party, an intermediary we customarily call the government. Third Party intervention, however, does not legitimize the violation of the Seventh Commandment nor the very private property rights protected by the Seventh Commandment.  If a highwayman robs you at gun-point and tells you they are going to give all your money to the needy, it doesn’t make it right.  It’s still a violation of that pesky Seventh Commandment.

Both the hip replacement and the act of that thoughtful highwayman involve a breach of the Seventh Commandment and the private property rights protected by the Seventh Commandment.  In either case, the ends do not justify the means.  Nor is the hip replacement free.  But if you ask your mother-in-law how much she had to pay for the hip replacement, she would in all likelihood and without a second thought say, “It was free.” What she really should have said was, “My neighbor paid for it, and they didn’t even ask him for permission.”

So the next time you’re about to casually say, “It’s free,” think again.  Because, rightly or wrongly, it really means somebody else is paying for it.

The Artful Dilettante—Conscience of the Second American Revolution

ESG is Even Worse than You Think

Posted on by
Reply

The ideas behind the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) movement have been around for quite some time. However, until recently, they have remained mostly out of the public eye. 

So, what is the purpose of the ESG movement? Initial ESG efforts were aimed at fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), in a push to decarbonize our economy and transition to “clean” energy.

Yet, what if there is more to the transition? What if it goes beyond energy? After all, the “E” in ESG deals with more than just “Environmental.” Issues such as land use and production agriculture must be evaluated for climate risk. What if the transition envisioned by ESG backers includes food production and consumption, mining, and timber? And that is just the “E” in ESG.

It is important to understand that the transition envisioned by ESG backers goes far beyond the source of energy, and it truthfully has little, if anything, to do with the environment. The transition being engineered by ESG backers seeks to remake our society in the vision of our utopian betters.

Most large global corporations, central banks, and Wall Street investment firms are aligned in their support of ESG and NetZero 2050. The Biden administration, through numerous executive orders, has directed all federal agencies to develop ESG goals, policies, and regulations. This unholy alliance controls nearly every sector of our economy. And if you thought the “E” in ESG is bad, wait until they get to the “S.”

Even a casual observer of the news over the past several years has seen the things that form the foundation of our society under attack. The family, parental rights, public education, the Constitution, the free market, free speech, freedom of assembly, man, woman, everything. 

Which brings us to Disney. If you do not believe that the goal of ESG is to fundamentally change our society, our individual rights and freedoms, how do you explain Disney’s latest actions? For instance, Disney recently eliminated the greeting “Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls” at the Magic Kingdom to promote inclusivity. Diversity and inclusivity are very important in the “S” of ESG. Now, who can argue against diversity and inclusivity? Well, the tricky thing about ESG is that the transition also applies to the meaning and intent of words.

Disney’s “transition” started much earlier and goes much deeper, as shown in recent videos and statements. I grew up watching Walt Disney on Sunday nights. Yes, I am that old. And I have to wonder how things got to this point with such an iconic brand. When did the magic leave the kingdom? And why?

In a recent article in the Washington Examiner, Vivek Ramaswamy, author of the bestseller Woke, Inc. pointed to the role that Disney’s three largest shareholders may have played in picking the fight over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill. Who are the three largest shareholders in Disney? BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—do these names sound familiar? Together, these three firms own 15.3 percent of Disney stock. In a publicly traded company that is a lot.

Need proof. Much was made of the news that Elon Musk acquired a 9.2 percent stake in Twitter to become the company’s single largest shareholder. Mr. Musk was even offered a seat on the Board at Twitter. Yes, shareholders owning 15 percent of your stock have your attention.

You may question Mr. Ramaswamy’s assertion, but it is consistent with the ESG movement. As BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said, “Behaviors are going to have to change and this is one thing we are asking companies, you have to force behaviors and at BlackRock we are forcing behaviors.”

If BlackRock and the other ESG movers and shakers are into forcing behaviors, do you think they simply sat by and watched Disney’s halting efforts over the past year before going all in against the Florida legislation? Or is it more likely that there was a phone call or two? As any CEO of a publicly traded company can attest, you take that call. Disney’s actions show that if these large financial institutions were not pushing those decisions, they certainly weren’t opposed. 

Now, you may wonder why BlackRock and other Wall Street firms would weigh in on social issues, parents’ rights, and public education. It will not come as a surprise if you go to their websites and read about their policies and initiatives, in their own words. It is all there, and it is time to take this very seriously.

For more proof, a recent column in Politico’s newsletter, The Long Game, discussed SOC Investment group’s latest shareholder activism efforts to require companies to undergo a civil rights audit focusing on social justice and related issues. They are having some success with companies like BlackRock, Citigroup, and Apple agreeing to conduct the audits. There’s that BlackRock again. 

On their face, it can be hard to understand the intent and outcome of these shareholder resolution efforts. On one hand, this could improve accountability for money that public corporations have given to popular causes. On the other hand, the audit results can be used to push ideology through publicly traded companies. Given everything we are seeing, which is more likely? 

One thing we do know is that as the ESG movement gains momentum large corporations will be the tool to “force behaviors” and complete the transition of our society. Shareholders in these public companies must be involved and educated. I should add that Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street are not the actual shareholders of Disney stock. The true owners are the participants in state pension plans, 401(k)s, and individual investors who employ these money management firms to buy, hold, and vote shares with their money.

 Large corporations are being pushed by financial institutions to adopt ESG policies that you may not agree with or that run counter to your values and beliefs, and they are largely using your money to do it.

 Several states are taking steps to exercise the voting rights under state pension plans and other state funds. These policymakers and state financial officers should be supported in this effort as they face tremendous pushback. They are accused of “meddling in the free market,” but the idea of a free market has gone the way of Disney’s innocence.

How bad is the ESG movement? Judge a tree by its fruit. 

Bette Grande (bgrande@heartland.org) is a government relations manager at The Heartland Institute.

CIA Admits Feeding False Info to Americans about Ukraine.

Posted on by
Reply

Late last year, a Gallup poll showed that Americans’ trust in the mainstream media has fallen to its second lowest level on record. Only seven percent of Americans responded that they have a “great deal” of trust in the media.

That loss of trust has been well-earned by the mainstream media, and it explains the massive growth of independent media and alternative voices on social media. The response to the rise of independent media voices has been a rush to “cancel” any voice outside the accepted mainstream narrative.

Citizens of the Soviet Union would read manipulated media like Pravda not because the regime reported facts, but because truth was hidden between the lines of what was reported and what was not reported. That seems to be where we are in the US today.

Last week an extraordinary article appeared in, of all places, NBC News, reporting that the US intelligence community is knowingly feeding information it does not believe accurate to the US mainstream media for the American audience to consume.

In other words, the article reports that the US “deep state” admits to being actively engaged in lying to the American people in the hopes that it can manipulate public opinion.

According to the NBC News article, “multiple US officials acknowledged that the US has used information as a weapon even when confidence in the accuracy of the information wasn’t high. Sometimes it has used low-confidence intelligence for deterrent effect…”

Readers will recall the shocking headlines that Russia was prepared to use chemical weapons in Ukraine, that China would be providing military equipment to Russia, that Russian President Putin was being fed misinformation by his advisors, and more.

All of these were churned out by the CIA to be repeated in the American media even though they were known to be false. It was all about, as one intelligence officer said in the article, “trying to get inside Putin’s head.”

That may have been the goal, but what the CIA actually did was get inside America’s head with false information meant to shape public perception of the conflict. They lied to propagandize us in favor of the Biden Administration’s narrative.

Those pushing the “Russiagate” hoax through the Trump years claimed that the goal of “Russian disinformation” was to undermine Americans’ trust in our government, media, and other institutions. Isn’t it ironic that the CIA itself has done more than the Russians to undermine Americans’ faith in the media by feeding false stories to establish a particular narrative among the American people?

After the Bay of Pigs disaster, President Kennedy has been quoted as wanting “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” That didn’t work out too well for him. As Senate Majority Chuck Schumer famously told Rachel Maddow in 2020, responding to the-President Trump’s criticism of the CIA, “let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

As more information about the activities of the US Intelligence Community in trying to bring down Trump come out, it appears that, for once, Schumer was right.

It’s time to revisit President Kennedy’s post-Bay of Pigs wish. The CIA using lies to propagandize the American people toward war with Russia is just one of thousands of reasons to scatter a million pieces of that agency to the wind.

Ron Paul

Is it Time to Ditch the Word Capitalism ? Not so Fast !

Posted on by
Reply

Why do you always talk about capitalism and not the market economy? The mere mention of the word capitalism turns so many people off.”

It’s a critical question that I have often been asked. First of all: Yes, it’s true.

For many people, “capitalism” has a bad ring to it, probably all over the world. That is certainly the case in the 14 countries I commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct a survey into attitudes toward capitalism. The survey proved that support for capitalism rises significantly everywhere if only you avoid mentioning the irritating word itself and frame your questions to describe what capitalism means using other words. This was no surprise; it was exactly what I expected. But what is much more interesting is that in nine out of the 14 surveyed countries, there was no majority in favor of capitalism even when the word was not used in the questions. In most countries, anti-capitalist views elicited more support than pro-capitalist opinions, even when we avoided using the word itself.

But wouldn’t it still be wiser to dispense with the word if it irritates so many people? The economist Deirdre McCloskey, whom I hold in high esteem, suggested years ago that the term “innovism” should be used as an alternative because it better describes what “capitalism” actually means. It has not caught on. It is difficult, almost impossible, to introduce a completely new term into the public discussion. After all, 99.99 percent of people don’t even know what such a new word means.

In some countries, people prefer to speak of a ‘market economy.’ In Germany, you often hear people refer to a ‘social market economy.’ However, the meaning of the term has evolved since it was originally popularized by Ludwig Erhard, the German Minister of Economics at the time (1949-1963). For Erhard, “social market economy” did not mean—as it is interpreted today—a third way between socialism and capitalism. The freer the economy, Erhard was convinced, the more social it would be. At the end of the 1940s, the formula of the ‘social market economy’ primarily served to make a return to the capitalist economic system palatable to Germans, which was by no means a foregone conclusion at the time. After all, the National Socialists had used strong anti-capitalist rhetoric, and ‘social’ aspects were already strongly emphasized in Germany at that time.

In contrast to its modern meaning, Erhard regarded the market economy as such as “social”—irrespective of subsequent redistribution efforts, of which he was skeptical. The more successful the economic policy, the more social policy in the traditional sense would become superfluous.

However, the term “social market economy” has long since been usurped by its opponents. Today, everyone in Germany is (apparently) in favor of the “social market economy.” Even representatives of the anti-capitalist far-left party Die Linke profess to be so. That is why I prefer to speak of capitalism, even if perhaps a term such as “entrepreneurial economy” would better capture the essence of what I mean by “capitalism.”

If a term has negative connotations, there is no point in focusing exclusively on changing the word. On the contrary. Those who avoid a word because they are afraid of criticism are only demonstrating their inner insecurity and weakness. And there is not the slightest reason to feel insecure or weak. Before capitalism came into being, most people in the world lived in extreme poverty – in 1820, the rate was 90 percent. Today, it has fallen below 10 percent. The remarkable thing is that in recent decades, the rate at which poverty is declining has accelerated more than in any previous period of human history. In 1981, the rate was still 42.7 percent; by 2000, it had fallen to 27.8 percent, and by 2021 it was below 10 percent. With such a track record, no supporter of capitalism should feel the need to be ashamed or hide.

Too often I have heard people “defend” capitalism by arguing, “Yes, capitalism is by no means ideal and has so many drawbacks, but the bottom line is that it is still better than other systems.”

Why so defensive?

I’ve had good experiences being offensive as a defender of capitalism. I speak at events all over the world on this topic, and I often wear my “I love Capitalism” T-shirt. Even if there are many young people in the audience who tend to be anti-capitalist, they usually respect the fact that there is someone there who professes his views clearly and doesn’t mince his words. And if the term provokes some people—so much the better: because then the discussion about the benefits of capitalism can start immediately!

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

How Can We Stay Free if Nobody Will Fight for Freedom ?

Posted on by
Reply

“Our country is being systematically destroyed,” President Donald Trump said. “We have a president who is challenged, but he’s surrounded by vicious, evil, and very corrupt people who are doing whatever they want to in running our country to ruin.

“With your vote this November we can stop our nation’s decline. We can make America great again.”

America is too divided. You cannot reconcile the unrelenting vicious, evil and ruthless tyranny of socialism, Green totalitarianism and virus fascism with anything like our Bill of Rights. DemComs cannot be reasoned with. We’ve got to totally defeat them, as America has defeated past enemies. After November, you’ll see what I mean.

************

One thing about leftists: They keep their promises. They promise to destroy America, and they have done so decisively and swiftly.

Biden is following through on his threat to use executive orders to confiscate guns.

Get ready for violent crime to go up, as we take more guns away from law-abiding people while continuing to release violent criminals to the streets. And then the elites will congratulate themselves and each other for their overwhelming virtue, and proceed to release more criminals and ban more guns. And then when elections roll around, they will cheat and ensure they remain in power.

What a glorious time to be a violent criminal!

*************

Fauci is now saying he foresees new COVID restrictions with a supposed uptick in cases compared to a month ago.

It’s not over, and it’s never going to be over, because it’s not about health. It’s about control, and about the need of narcissists and sociopaths to feel powerful. If you think your fellow citizens will resist THIS time, then ask yourself why they didn’t resist LAST time?

I’m not sure what’s worse: The actions of tyrants and liars like Fauci; or the complacency of conservatives. “Nobody will follow the restrictions — not this time.” It’s kind of like, “Trump will come back. Don’t you worry. This is America.”

America — if by that phrase you mean “freedom” — is slipping away. The people destroying that freedom are getting away with every single action they take. None of them have lost power, and all of them are rewarded financially and psychologically for what they’re doing.

With no opposition other than in the hearts and minds of people who resent it, what reason is there to think anything will ever change? Get real. Unless or untl YOU are prepared to really fight back and practice dissension and overt resistance, things are only going to get worse.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Nuclear War is on the Horizon

Posted on by
Reply

Some readers have asked why Russia regards Finland’s membership in NATO as a provocation. For the same reason that Ukraine’s membership is a provocation: US missile bases on Russia’s border. The US does not currently have hypersonic missiles, but will sooner or later. Such missiles on Russia’s borders could reach Moscow in 3 or 4 minutes, clearly an existential threat. Along with Finland, Washington wants the bases in Sweden and the Baltic states, and already has missile bases in Poland and Romania.

Whereas Washington intends Finland’s NATO membership as a new provocation, we must not forget two other existing provocations that the Kremlin has declared to be unacceptable: the existing missile bases in Poland and Romania. It makes no sense for Russia to preemptively prevent missile bases in Ukraine and Finland while permitting existing bases to remain in Poland and Romania. Russian intervention against these two bases are likely the next self-defensive actions the Russians will take.

The West’s whore media has done its best to create worldwide indignation against Russia. People worked up into indignation do not perceive the irresponsibility of Western governments in gratuitously threatening Russia with missile bases on her borders. Instead of properly perceiving the placement of the bases as aggression against Russia, the indoctrinated people see Russia’s response to existential threats as aggression.

I have emphasized for years that these provocations of Russia will eventually cross a red line and result in nuclear war. I have long been critical of the Kremlin for not having stopped these provocations by putting down a strong foot. Russia had that opportunity in Ukraine, but the Kremlin chose a course that failed to make the necessary impression that countries that accommodate US aggression against Russia will experience devastation. It is less risky to make this demonstration in a non-NATO country than in a NATO one. Additionally, the Kremlin waited far too long before intervening in Ukraine, thereby giving the US 8 years to arm and train Ukrainian forces. By pussy-footing around in Ukraine, Russia will again be confronted with the same problem in Finland or elsewhere in addition to the two existing bases in two NATO members on Russia’s border. There is no doubt whatsoever that US/NATO have set a path that leads straight to nuclear war. As nothing that is outside the narrative can be published or discussed in the Western world, nothing can be done to stop this insane drive into nuclear war. It is not even possible to discuss this threat in Western foreign policy circles. Again the world is sleepwalking into war, but this war will be nuclear and the final war.

All that the Kremlin has achieved with its restraint and reliance on negotiation with the West is to intensify the pace and level of provocations. NATO’s Stoltenberg is courting both Finland and Sweden for NATO membership promising their membership would be fast-tracked, and likely other benefits including bagfuls of money. This report should wake people up to the real situation, which is expanding conflict. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/finland-sweden-nato-applications-could-be-imminent-after-stoltenberg-suggests-fast At some point existential considerations will force Russia to take the initiative and cease responding to Washington’s agenda.