How Did Democrats Get So Radical ?

How did Democrats get so radical?

Bill Clinton signed welfare reform and capital gains tax cuts. Although very leftist himself, even Barack Obama was not the full-blown socialist-Communist today’s crop of Democrats are. Joe Biden, a consistent leftist for 50 years, gets to run as a “moderate” alternative to those who seek 90 percent tax rates (evidently he only wants 70 percent). How did it all happen?

The answer is simple: There was nowhere left to go.

Back at the end of Obama’s term, I wrote about how leftists are grouchy. It was before Donald Trump was taken seriously as a presidential candidate. They had already realized all their semi-socialist dreams. They had Obamacare, high taxes, unprecedented regulation and all the rest. They accomplished everything Democrats had promised for decades, and more. The Republican Congress, run by cowards, gave leftists even more than what they demanded. Democrats and politically connected socialists controlled much of the economy. What was left?

There was nothing left…other than the final two legs of the Constitution: The First and Second Amendments.

Going after the right to self-defense — including from the government, most of all — and the right to free speech … that’s what they have left. And they’re going for it. Antifa. 90 percent tax rates. Medicare for all. Free college for all. Guaranteed income for all. Hatred of Jews and Israel — it was always there. Donald Trump is merely their excuse. They wanted it all along, and there was nothing else to go for.

It had to happen, sooner or later. Your underlying premises scream for a consistent conclusion. The party of high taxes, little or no economic growth, perks for the connected rich while punishing real achievement and success — “You didn’t build that” — all had to lead to the only possible, consistent conclusion: totalitarianism.

Leftism/socialism is a hateful philosophy. It’s based on hatred of achievement, profit, individual well-being and success. Leftists either lack these things and envy those who possess competence; or possess competence themselves, and hate themselves for it. Hence the manifestation of socialism. Socialism soothes two of the sickest psychological maladies: Unearned guilt and envy.

You can say you’re not ideological. The fact remains, as I tell people every day in the therapy office: Your ideas underlie your emotions. Ideas are always implicit in your emotions. You cannot escape ideas any more than you can escape emotions. You just can’t!

So that’s it. Leftism had to lead to this. Forget President Trump. He was merely the catalyst. He’s the excuse.

Leftism is the sociopolitical equivalent of suicide-homicide. Yes, it’s THAT bad. Our liberty and freedom are the oxygen we breathe. Our liberty and freedom are what they seek to destroy. There’s no more room for civil differences of opinion. You can’t have civil differences of opinion with people who despise your liberty and want to take it all away. You have to stand up to them as you stand up to any emotional or physical abuser, or any tyrant: Tell them you’re not going to take it anymore, and you WILL fight back.

 

How to Cultivate a Philosophy of Wealth

Author who studies millionaires: How to cultivate a philosophy of wealth

Tom Corley, Contributor
1:11
Adopt these millionaires’ habits to get rich

The non-rich spend their money and save what’s left. The rich save their money and spend what’s left.

One is a poverty philosophy and the other is a wealth philosophy, and only one will help you.

Poverty Philosophy

I spent five years studying the good and bad habits of 177 self-made millionaires and wrote four books, sharing that research. According to my Rich Habits data, those who are poor usually don’t forge the important habit of saving money and, thus, are never able to invest. How can you invest what you don’t have?

If you were never taught the Rich Habit of saving, you automatically default to the Poor Habit of spending — sometimes all of your money. And if you spend everything you make, you eliminate any opportunity to create wealth through prudent investment.

In effect, you abandon one of the least difficult and more certain paths towards accumulating wealth: saving and investing.

1:05
Adopt these habits in your 20s to be more successful in your 30s

Wealth Philosophy

Saving money is crucial to creating wealth because only by saving money can you invest. And this Rich Habit, saving and prudently investing your savings, is one of the three paths to wealth I discovered in my Rich Habits research, and often write about.

What makes this path so important is that it is accessible to just about anyone. Unlike the two other paths (becoming a virtuoso or pursuing a business dream), it isn’t particularly sexy. It does not require any special skills, innate talents, excessive risk or even some outrageous work ethic. The only requirements are saving at least 10 percent of your income and prudently investing those savings.

It does take a relatively long time to accumulate wealth this way — an average of 32 years, I found. Also, in terms of the millionaires in my study, those who pursued this path were also the least wealthy millionaires in my study.

Nonetheless, this is one of the more certain and least demanding ways to get rich.

1:35
Why billionaire Ken Langone negotiates his cable bill

The wealthy who save and invest force themselves to survive off 80-90 percent of their net income by automatically setting aside 10-20 percent of their income with every paycheck.

What I mean by automatic is that they treat saving as if it were a monthly bill – the first and most important bill they must pay each month.

This wealth philosophy elevates savings to the point where it becomes your No.1 financial priority, or No. 1 monthly bill.

When you consider saving your No. 1 financial priority, you are able to engineer your standard of living around it (i.e., keep it low), in order to ensure your ability to keep saving.

How you think about money, your money philosophy, drives your money habits. If you have a Wealth Philosophy, you will see money as a tool to build wealth and you will forge good money habits, enabling you to save and invest prudently.

A version of this article was originally published on Rich Habits.

THERE IS NO HUMOR IN ISLAM

There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.”

AUG 13, 2019 10:00 AM BY HUGH FITZGERALD

Ayatollah Khomeini famously proclaimed: “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.” His own son said he had seen Khomeini laugh only once. It happened when Oriana Fallaci, the celebrated Italian journalist, was interviewing him, and asked him about the chador, the full-body garment that Iranian women were forced to wear in the new Islamic Republic. In fact, she had to wear one for the interview.

“How do you swim in a chador?” Fallaci asked. “Our customs are none of your business. If you do not like Islamic dress, you are not obliged to wear it,” Khomeini replied. “That’s very kind of you, Imam. And since you said so, I’m going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now.” She removed her chador. The interview was called off.

After a day had passed, Khomeini apparently had reconsidered, and Fallaci came back to interview Khomeini; his son Ahmed had asked her not to mention the word “chador” again. But Fallaci did. And Khomeini laughed. After the interview was over, Ahmed told her that it was the only time in his life that he had seen his father laugh.

Last year the Iranian government showed that there is indeed no humor in Islam and no fun in Islam. It shut down a leading newspaper, Sedayeh Eslahat, because in one line of one article, the teeny-tiniest of little jokes was made. Almost a year later, the paper remains closed; there is apparently no sufficient penance for humor.

Here’s the story:

Reports say Sedayeh Eslahat ordered shut by top prosecutor for ‘desecrating’ family of Prophet Muhammad’s grandson.

Iran’s top prosecutor has ordered the closure of a reformist newspaper on charges of “insulting” Shia Islam, according to media reports.

Mohammad Jafar Montazeri ordered the shutting down of Sedayeh Eslahat for “desecrating” the family of Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Imam Hussein, the Fars news agency reported on Friday.

The article that caused offence was about a female-to-male gender reassignment surgery, according to The Associated Press, which cited Iranian media reports.

It was published on the newspaper’s front page on Thursday and carried the headline: “Ruqayyah became Mahdi after 22 years.”

Ruqayyah was the daughter of Hussein and the article was published during Muharram, a holiday in which Shia Muslims mourn the Imam’s death.

‘According to Shia Islam, Mahdi is the name of the 12th Shia Imam who has lived since the 9th century.

In a letter published by Fars, Montazeri said the article caused “protest during these days of sorrow”, and ordered the editor of Sedayeh Eslahat be punished over its publication.

Iran is ranked 164th out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) press freedom index.

In August, Iranian courts jailed seven journalists and ordered them to be flogged publicly over their coverage of protests by the Dervish minority.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said the “horrifying sentences laid bare Iranian authorities’ depraved attitude toward journalists.”

The Islamic Republic clearly does not believe in a free press. It is ranked 164th out of 180 countries in press freedom. Also last year, it shut down a news outlet focusing on Iran’s Gonabadi Dervish minority, which had reported on protests by the dervishes, Sufi Muslims long mistreated by a Shi’a establishment that disapproves of their ways. Two of the outlet’s editors received long sentences. A Tehran Revolutionary court sentenced news editor Reza Entesari to seven years in prison, 74 lashes, two years of exile in the northeastern city of Khaf, a two-year ban on leaving the country, and a two-year ban on political and media activity.

Another editor, Mostafa Abdi, received an even more severe punishment. Abdi was sentenced to 26 years and three months in prison and 148 lashes, in addition to two years of exile in the southeastern province of Sistan Baluchistan and two-year bans on leaving the country and engaging in political and media acts.

In the summer of 2018, there were large anti-government protests in many Iranian cities. Angry crowds shouted “Death to Khamenei” and “Reza Shah,” as well as “Death to Palestine” and “Leave Syria Alone and Deal With Iran.” No newspaper in Iran dared to cover these protests, but of course, videos of the crowds, posted to social media, could not be stopped.

But what was being objected to in the Sedayah Eslahat case was not the contents of the story, but merely a little joke by the editors that apparently was deemed sufficiently “sacrilegious” to warrant not a fine, or a temporary closure, or the firing of an editor, but rather, the shutting down of the whole newspaper. The article was about gender reassignment surgery. It reported; it did not endorse. But the editors thought it would be mildly funny to describe the female-to-male change, in an allusion all Shi’a would instantly recognize, as being one where a female humorously called “Ruqayyah” (the daughter of Imam Hussein, grandson of Muhammad), having waited 22 years for the operation (the girl in the story was apparently 22), changed — remember, it was a joke, just a joke, for god’s sake — into the male “Mahdi” (the Mahdi is the name of the 12th Shia Imam who, the Shi’a believe, has been living, though hidden, since the 9th century). It was not meant to be disrespectful — the editors would have had to be madmen to try that — but rather, an affectionate allusion that all Shi’a would instantly recognize.

This is something the Iranian regime’s dour masters have a hard time comprehending. It’s what sane people of a normally humorous bent call “a joke,” or, if you prefer, une blague, uno scherzo, ein Witz, un chiste, shutka. The Iranian editors, their newspaper now closed for almost a year (with no indication that it will ever reopen), and awaiting their own personal punishment, showed they have a sense of humor. Those in the regime who shut them down, for a single sentence clearly not meant disrespectfully, following the example of their Glorious Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, on the other hand, clearly do not.

Open Borders: The Final Stage of Insanity

Having an open border combined with a welfare state is crazy. It’s like having a really nice house with really nice things inside, and then telling people, “It’s all yours. Come on in any time you want. Take whatever you wish”. What do you think would happen?

It’s stupid not to have locks on your doors. But it’s even more stupid to treat all your things as if they all belong to others. Yet that’s pretty much what we’re doing now in America, or at least we WILL be doing if the leftists, Democrats and RINO types get their way.

It has nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is a great thing — for a free country. In a free country, people are responsible for themselves and themselves only. They can take on whatever responsibilities they wish, but not as an obligation. Only if they choose to do so. The most obvious example of a chosen obligation is to have a child, or a family.

In a welfare state, everyone is responsible for everyone else — under the law. It’s not benevolence. It’s not kindness. It’s coercion. Coercion and kindness do NOT mix.

The problems are so much deeper than the border wall, illegal aliens, and all the rest. The problems go to the core of our society.

We repeatedly elect people into high office who say, “Hey, the more you produce, the more the results of your efforts belong to others”. People who created NOTHING — these 25 or so Democrats running for President — are given the right to treat the products of others’ efforts as their own, and exploit giving them away for political gain. “Look at me! I’m so generous with other people’s money!”

This is sick, wrong, twisted and deranged. It never should have started, and now it’s out of control. You know it’s out of control when these twisted politicians come out and say it’s time for 90 percent tax rates, totally open borders, and a total welfare state.

America is poised to go the way of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba and Venezuela. The level of ignorance for this to happen is almost too much to contemplate. For a country like Russia, Nicaragua or Venezuela to fall for Communism is one thing. It’s like falling from a second or third floor window. For a country like America to do it, it’s like falling from the top of the world’s highest skyscraper. It’s incredibly stupid and horrifically wrong. I can’t believe it’s happening to the extent it has.

Yet it’s where we are: One of our two political parties saying, in effect, “The doors are open. It’s all yours. Nothing belongs to anyone — except to us, the politicians, of course”.

Madness. Will a majority of voters seriously allow it? We will know in a little over a year. The stakes have been very high for America in the past: The Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II. We are at a similar point now.

Our freedom is ours to save. If we don’t act to keep it, we will lose it. And freedom will have perished from the earth. It can’t happen.

by Michael J. Hurd.  http://www.drhurd.com

 

The Abyss of Liberal Ignorance

THE ABYSS OF LIBERAL IGNORANCE

It is hard to judge the race between the presumptuousness and the abysmal ignorance of liberals. Back in the 1950s, for example, Arthur Schlesinger once included among leading conservative thinkers McGeorge Bundy, Wayne Morse, and Jacob Javits. Seriously?! (I can add my own vignette to these “Scenes from Inside the Liberal Bubble,” in the form of the UC Berkeley administrator who said to me once, “It would be great if you could help bring some conservative speakers to campus. Like Olympia Snowe!”)

But Harvard’s Laurence Tribe takes the cake with this Tweet:

I have been meaning for a long time to point out that if racism is the core value of conservatives, they would be massively in favor of abortion, and for having the federal government pay for it instead of backing the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion. We’d be for Planned Parenthood clinics on every corner in big cities, instead of trying to shut off their “indirect” federal funding.

Is Tribe really ignorant of the fact that the majority of abortions are procured by minorities? (Stephen Green runs through the numbers here, reminding us along the way that actual white supremacists such as Richard Spencer do support abortion explicitly because of its racial effects. Who knew that Spencer and Tribe think alike!)

Meanwhile, Scott has already noted how Elizabeth Warren (also Kamala Harris) has repeated the lie that Michael Brown was “murdered” by police in Ferguson, Missouri, and her claim is even generating a raised eyebrow from the liberals at Vox:

Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris marked the five-year anniversary of the Ferguson, Missouri, police shooting of Michael Brown last week with tweets claiming that the cop who shot Brown “murdered” the 18-year-old black man.

But the evidence, including a report released by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, says otherwise. . . the Justice Department’s 2015 report contradicted many of the protesters’ claims, finding that Wilson likely did have reason to fear for his life and didn’t violate the law in shooting Brown.

Here’s the key passage of the Justice Dept. report:

Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101 [Brown’s friend]there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brownas he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution.

Vox concludes: “In other words, this wasn’t a murder or a federal civil rights violation, based on the evidence we have. . . Five years after the shooting, though, major presidential campaigns are still getting the details wrong.”

But as Joe Biden helpfully reminds, for liberals, the “truth” is more important than facts.

Please please liberals: do follow Tribe and the rest in making the 2020 election about “white supremacy.” The Trump campaign thanks you, as it prepares to win 40 states.

Why Young People Turn Socialist

Here’s how a young person turns socialist.

One, envy. Envy is the view, “Others have a lot. I can never have a lot. That’s not fair”. A non-envious person sees success or achievement and thinks, “Wow, if he did that, I can do that too”. An envious person thinks, “He can do/have all that. But I can’t. That’s not fair”. All the young socialists I know are envious.

Two, low self-confidence. “I don’t know how to use my mind. I have no clue.” That’s because of Common Core/public education, in most cases. Such schooling is based not just on leftist dogma, but also on the idea that individual minds cannot think objectively, rationally or independently. Conventional education emphasizes group think and group membership, not the individual achievement of objective, independent thought. That’s a recipe for fear and low self-confidence. Fearful people don’t like freedom. Socialism is the drug for the fear.

Three, false confidence. “My favorite music, sports and other celebrities like socialism and leftism. So it must be true.” Heroes are important, especially to young people. Yet their heroes got where they are by the opposite of leftism — through capitalism, self-interest, drive, determination, ambition and the like. Nevertheless, the false leftist views are validated by a sense that because people of importance — “cool” people — think a certain way, it must be valid. Also, teachers tell them throughout their school years that they’re great, no matter how well they achieve or fail to achieve. Most of them believe it, on the surface level. They relate and “think” with superficial confidence and, not so far beneath the surface, have profound anxiety.

Four, false ideology. Both old fashioned religion/traditional values AND modern leftism say the same thing: Man is his brother’s keeper. Your life does not belong to you. There has GOT to be something bigger than yourself. This can only mean: Your life is not the most important thing to you. Your life belongs to others. It may be OK to care for yourself to a point, but the only valid or moral approach to life is to live for others. This fits with socialism. It’s all the socialists talk about.

That’s pretty much it. Try out this theory with young people you know. See where it fits, where it doesn’t fit or what it does or doesn’t leave out.

 

—Michael J. Hurd

Medicare for All: What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?

Medicare for All”. Who can argue with that? No more struggles with medical care. No more worries about cost or insurance. You simply go to the doctor … and it’s free.

Why SHOULD you have to worry about money?

There are so many fallacies here. One you will hear little about in the coming presidential campaign: the rights of doctors. Also the rights of nurses, and all the allied health care professionals.

Kamala Harris — the last I checked — was the new front runner for the Democratic Party, at least according to the media. A few weeks back, Harris said we simply have to get rid of private health insurance. Her comrades say the same thing. HOW we will do that remains unclear. Will she issue an edict on 1/21/21, demanding that health insurance companies be immediately disbanded? Will the government simply nationalize private insurance companies, invading their offices and seizing their assets, as in a banana republic?

But there’s another factor, regardless of how private insurance is handled. Will doctors be permitted to contract with patients on a private basis? Will hospitals be able to do the same? What if doctors and/or patients don’t want to deal with the government? Or will the federal government MANDATE that all doctors must receive their payment through the government, following all the government’s rules and procedures?

That’s the key. Because once you violate the rights of doctors to make mutually agreeable deals with patients, then you violate the rights of patients at the same time.

Perhaps you’re callous and stupid enough not to care about the doctors. “I’m entitled to my medical care. It’s my right. I couldn’t care less about the people providing it”. Through their evasiveness and non-thinking, I’m guessing that’s about where half the American population is, appallingly. I would place all serious leftist Democrats in this category, because that’s the reasoning they imply when they scream, “Medicare for all”.

But even if we forget the doctors and their rights, as if they were inanimate objects, what about yourself? What does it mean for YOU if you want to take an offer negotiated by a particular hospital or health care provider? What if your life depended on it? What if you don’t have AOC’s, Bernie Sanders’ or Elizabeth Warren’s connections, and you need surgery NOW? You and a hospital negotiate a loan. But the federal government says you must wait your turn, perhaps many months as in Canada or Britain, where they have Medicare for all. What then?

Imagine if the government passed a law saying nobody can home school. Or nobody can go to a private school. EVERYBODY must go to a government-run, government-run school. Would you call it Communism then? And if you would, is Communism what you want for your body, mind and overall well-being? Are you willing to stake your life on the word of politicians who routinely lie every moment of their public lives?

Do you SERIOUSLY think accountable people considered worthy and competent by the likes of our politicians will ensure you live the long, healthy life to which you feel you’re entitled?

If you ARE that stupid, then I suppose you deserve what you get.

I sincerely hope people don’t fall for it when they’re served up the idea of “Medicare for all” in the coming year. So much is at stake here. Our lives literally depend on it.

—Michael J. Hurd