Friday, January 31, 2020

The rage of The Mob : All Others Must Stand Down! Dave Rubin Says "No Way"!(Podcast)

Photo

‘Cowed Into Silence’: Dave Rubin Warns of Cancel Culture, Mob Mentality
Virginia Allen / /

Dave Rubin, who hosts “The Rubin Report” talk show, joins the podcast to discuss the differences between political liberalism and classical liberalism, his recent encounter with Antifa, and the “cancel culture” phenomenon. Read the lightly edited interview below or listen to the podcast:

Podcast
: https://shows.acast.com/thedailysignal/episodes/013020

Virginia Allen: I’m joined on The Daily Signal Podcast by Dave Rubin, a former liberal and now host of the BlazeTV show “Rubin Report.” Dave, thank you so much for being here.

Dave Rubin: Thanks, it’s good to be here. For the record, believe it or not, even at a Turning Point Student Action Summit, I still do consider myself a liberal in the true sense—

Allen: Yes.

Rubin: … of liberalism. I always feel that that’s important to say.

Allen: Well, let’s start there. Define what that difference is.

Rubin: It’s funny because, in essence, a true liberal, a classical liberal, means that you really believe in two things.

Most importantly, you believe in the individual, so you want individual rights for everybody. Meaning that everyone that is in this great country of the United States with 340-some odd million people, I want everyone that is here legally to have equal rights regardless of gender, or sex, or color of their skin, or national origin, as long as they’re a citizen, etc., etc.

So you believe in the individual above the group. So you believe in the individual above collectivism, let’s say, and that you want the light touch of government.

I know that doesn’t sound very far from conservatism. And by the way, it’s actually not very far from conservatism, which is why I always say now that defending my liberal principles is becoming a conservative position.

Unfortunately, the left and progressives have really mangled the word liberal because, actually, I think if you whittled down what most people here—the 3,000 students at this conference—believe, most of them actually when they say they are conservatives, they now are trying to conserve some essence of liberalism.

I know that’s a little technical and sometimes not the most fun thing to talk about, but it is important because liberalism has nothing to do with leftism, and I think [that is] the thing that I started talking about a few years ago that woke a lot of people up.

Allen: No, that’s a very important distinction to make. So for you, was there a certain moment when you realized that the progressive ideologies that you had held to … no longer really represented you?

Rubin: There were a couple of things that happened over a couple of years actually. At first, I think what happens is leftism, and progressivism, and wokeism, and identity politics, all of these things, these are just the factory settings that we’re all sort of set off with.

Especially for you guys in college now, it’s like you guys are inundated with somehow Democrats, good; Republicans, bad; lefties, nice; conservatives care about money and war; lefties like poor people. All of these things that are not true, but between culture and the way the media works, they all start sort of feeling true. And to break out of those factory settings is very dangerous.

I would prefer that the factory settings be that we’re all individuals and we would prefer that the government not do everything for us and take care of us like we’re incapacitated. But there are moments where we need some government involvement. That’s the way I would rather the base point be.

But we seem to do it the other way, where the government’s supposed to do everything and if you can escape the government, you’re OK. That’s actually much more of a socialist collectivist view of the world.

For me, there were a couple things that broke me out of it, which I’ve talked a lot about. So I’ll give you a different one, because I talked about a few of them in my speech earlier.

One of them was when the Charlie Hebdo attacks happened in January of 2016. Charlie Hebdo was this incredible magazine, satire magazine, in France that had been fighting the power and making fun of government, and making fun of religion, and making fun of all the institutions in France. Forever France has an incredibly rich history of satire.

As you may remember, several Islamists, jihadists, in effect, broke into their offices and killed a bunch of cartoonists. And what I saw happen on the left suddenly was everyone was saying, “Oh, we shouldn’t draw cartoons about things that upset people. We shouldn’t talk about these issues, all of these things.”

And I thought, “Something is deeply wrong here.” We have to be able to talk about bad ideas. We have to be able to make fun of things. That’s the essence of what makes us free. That’s just one of many things that sort of woke me up to what was happening on the left.

And then, and really in a broader sense, it was identity politics more than anything else. The idea that I could sit across from you and say, “Well, OK, here is a white girl of, say, 20 years old. I must know what she thinks about these things.”

What a horrible way of looking at the world. I would hope, and I suspect, that you have all sorts of thoughts that you’ve come up with on your own and that you like to sort of battle out ideas, and hopefully we’ll do some of that right here. That is what you’re supposed to do as a human.

Unfortunately, what the left is offering is, “Oh, you’re born with certain characteristics. That’s how you’re going to be treated forever.” By the way, that Martin Luther King Jr. guy, that was the reverse of what he said.

Allen: For you, as you battled out those ideas and tried to figure out, “OK, what do I think about these issues?”, what were some of those individuals that you really gleaned from, or listened to, or books that you read that were really, really helpful for you?

Rubin: Well, the most famous one is that I did an interview with Larry Elder, when I was still holding onto some of my lefty stuff.

Larry Elder [is] a conservative who happens to be black, that’s just a piece of it, [he] just beat me over the head with facts. I said something about systemic racism, he turned it on me, I didn’t know what I was saying. And he bludgeoned me with facts until I finally sort of had to wave the white flag and go, “Man, this guy actually knows what he’s talking about.” I had to start reevaluating things.

So I would say that interview with Larry Elder probably single-handedly woke me up more than anything else. And by the way, there are millions and millions of views on dozens of clips on YouTube of this. And it’s hilarious because they all say, “Larry Elder Destroys Dave Rubin.”

But then if you look at the comment section, everyone’s like, “I kind of like Dave. He actually took the hit and changed after that.” So it became a really nice moment. I don’t know how many people can say that their best and worst career moment were at the exact same time, but I can truly say that.

I would say reading any of Thomas Sowell’s books on economics, on the libertarian side truly changed me. Randy Barnett, who’s a constitutional law professor from Georgetown University, who talks a lot about the foot vote, why we need states’ rights, really affected me. And people like Peter Thiel; obviously Jordan Peterson; having debates with Ben Shapiro, even on the things that we disagree on.

What I found is that people on the right generally are pretty open and decent. And just because you disagree with them, they don’t think you’re evil. And that’s very refreshing these days.

Allen: You talk a lot about how critical it is for us to be standing up for free speech at this point in time. And this is something that we kind of take for granted in America. We’re born with it. It’s just, “Oh, of course we have free speech.” But how do we really stand against this progressive movement that we’re seeing increasingly on college campuses to really tamper free speech?

Rubin: There is only one answer to it and it sounds cliche, but I truly believe it’s the only one that will work in the long term, which is: Be brave. Be brave.

If you are 19, 20, you’re in college right now, you live in the freest society in the history of the world. And if you’re walking around right now, are self-censoring yourself, well, we’ve lost already. And maybe we have, I don’t think we have. And if we have, I’m still going to keep doing it. So that’s just my burden, I suppose. But you must be brave.

Everyone, the world over, is envious of the United States. We have the First Amendment. That means the government cannot jail you for speech. The government cannot compel your speech. And we’re suddenly walking around afraid to say what we think, afraid to say simple things.

I’m not even talking about crazy, over-the-top things or racist things or being evil or mean. … I meet young libertarians all the time who will say something like, “I’m for low taxes.” And someone will say, “Well, then, you’re racist.” And it’s like, “What?”

And they can explain it. They’ll say, “Well, if they say you’re for low taxes, that means you don’t want to help poor people. And if you don’t want to help poor people, that somehow means you don’t want to help black people, even though there’s more poor white people than black people.” I mean, a series of nonsensical things that they’ve created.

But you better be brave enough to say what you think because you’re right. Freedom doesn’t just magically appear. The Founders ingrained freedom in the documents that have fostered more freedom in these 200 years than anywhere else. But it doesn’t just stay forever. It doesn’t just stay because it’s a piece of paper. We got to keep fighting for it.

I think it’s on you guys now, the college-age conservative or I would say even just more liberty-minded people, it’s on you guys to fix this thing because, unfortunately, the people before you have sort of mucked it up.

Allen: … Not too long ago, you were in Canada for an event and you had an encounter with Antifa?

Rubin: Yeah.

Allen: Can you talk a little bit about that?

Rubin: I mean, Antifa, which they liken themselves as antifascists, right? That’s what Antifa is supposed to mean. But they actually use the tactics of fascists. Fascists use violence to silence their opponents. That’s exactly what Antifa does. But they flip everything on reality. So they’ll call you a fascist.

The event that I did … was with Maxime Bernier, he’s from the People’s Party of Canada, which is, in effect, their libertarian party. So this is just a guy who wants people to live free. I’ve never heard him say anything racist or anything like that. He’s a very lovely man.

But the opener of the event was a Muslim from Canada, who immigrated to Canada, who gave a wonderful speech. But then you have me up there.

We had us talk about … freedom and all these decent, lovely ideas. There was nothing mean or racist or homophobic or transphobic or any of these other buzzwords. But Antifa was outside. They were stopping people from entering.

The clip that went viral was a woman, a 70-some-odd-year-old woman in a walker, was trying to cross the street and they’re in her face screaming that she’s a Nazi and a bigot. Meanwhile, they’re screaming at her husband also who fought the Nazis in World War II. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up.

And these people have become empowered and emboldened because governments and media sort of just let them get away with it. And it’s super, super dangerous and we need to start calling it out for what it is.

You are welcome to protest. When I do talks, as I did here today, I ended the talk and what did I say? “If you disagree with me, come up first.” I always do that.

But you can’t stop people from entering a venue, you can’t shout people down. The more you do that, you shred the very social contract that we have that allows a society to exist. And a lot of people want to burn things down right now. I would rather build things.

Allen: It’s a good perspective to have.

Rubin: Yeah, why not, right? It’s a little harder, but I would rather it.

Allen: All right. “Cancel culture”—That’s a term we’re throwing around a lot, [that] we’re hearing a lot about. You’ve spoken very boldly on this. Can you first define cancel culture and then explain why it is so dangerous?

Rubin: Well, cancel culture is basically the idea that if you say anything that’s against progressive orthodoxy of the day—and that’s the key part of it, that it’s of the day. Whatever they believe to be OK on any given day—that you could be canceled.

And in effect, what canceled means is that the Twitter mob—usually it starts on Twitter—will assault you and then they’ll go to where you work, they will go to your sponsors. If you’re a public person, they will make your life hell until you apologize.

And everyone knows the apology is always inauthentic. Everyone knows the apology is nonsense, but they want you to bow forever. What they’re trying to do is make you submit so that you’ll never say anything again.

So the great example of this is what’s happening right now, as we’re doing this, is two days ago, J. K. Rowling of “Harry Potter” fame, she tweeted in effect that “Men and women have different biological differences.”

Of course, everyone knows that to be true. That’s not an anti-trans statement. The woman’s a lefty. She’s a progressive. Nobody wants trans people to be treated differently under the law, but you can’t deny biological reality. That is not a bigoted statement. But the mob descends on her.

Suddenly media starts writing pieces about how she is a transphobe and a bigot. And GLAAD comes out against her. And the Human Rights Campaign comes out against her.

So far, from what I can tell, she stood up to it. But other celebrities, that all they did was like her tweets, Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker)—the whole point of “Star Wars” is to stand up against fear—he had to apologize for liking her tweet.

These people are embarrassing. It’s embarrassing. You’re going to apologize for saying that men and women have differences. We have differences that are biological. Doesn’t mean I’m better than you. Doesn’t mean you’re better than me.

But in essence, cancel culture is this idea that if you take any non-woke statement and you put it out there, that they can come and get you for it. And we all need to stand up against it.

Allen: College campuses have become such a bastion of this very progressive thinking. So what advice do you have to young people who are conservative but find themselves living among so many liberals, so many people, like we defined at the beginning, not classical liberals, but really that progressive thinking?

Rubin: Two things—and this is exactly what I said in my speech. No. 1, be a little bit better than them. That doesn’t take a lot of work. It really doesn’t.

I mean, these people are often outraged, and angry, and hostile. There’s a reason they’re screaming. Be a little bit better. Meaning, turn the other cheek. Don’t be a pushover, but just when you get into a heated debate with one of these people and they’re screaming at you, don’t scream back. Really try your best at all times to be as calm and rational, as decent as possible.

I think you can actually affect people that way. You know what I mean? If they’re just pushing, pushing, pushing, and you give them a little room, sometimes they’ll just run out of push because they often don’t know what they’re talking about.

So I say be a little bit better, but not to be a patsy, you know what I mean? That’s No. 1.

No. 2, and this is the important one. We have a massive bravery deficit in this country right now. Good people. I suspect many of these people that are watching us right now, who are not bigots and who are not racist, have been cowed into silence because they don’t want the cancel culture and the mob to come for them. They’re preying on that silence. …

For example, when they tried to take out Tucker Carlson, he’s one of the ones they tried to take out all the time.

I have differences with Tucker. I really disagree with them on the big tech stuff right now where he wants government intervention and I don’t. I don’t think that makes him a bad person, I think we have a different political opinion.

But when they’re trying to take out Tucker, it’s not really Tucker that they’re trying to take out. … For The Daily Signal, what they’re trying to signal to everybody else is, “See, if we can take out Tucker, we can take out any of you.” And that’s what, especially when you’re college age, you’ll never be braver than you are right now. You will never be braver than you are right now.

You don’t magically get out of college and hopefully you’re going to find someone that you love and get married and have kids, and maybe you’ll have a dog and a car payment and a mortgage. And then you’re not going to suddenly be 28 and be like, “Now I’m brave and I’m going to take on the world.”

Right now, you can do whatever you want. You’re young, you’ve got all of your life ahead of you where you can define what the world that you’re going to live in will be. We’ll go ahead and do it because … it doesn’t get easier. It’s not easy now, but life is not easy, right?

What would Jordan Peterson say, right? “This is chaos. This is turmoil.” You can figure out a way to put together some pieces here that will make sense. But you better do it, otherwise, they’ll come for you. It just is how it is.

Allen: Dave, thank you so much for your time.

Rubin: Yeah, my pleasure.

Allen: Its been a great discussion.

Rubin: I’ve enjoyed talking to you.

Allen: Really appreciate it.

Rubin: Thanks.

America On Her Knees Works? : A National Disgrace At Work!


Now let's think about the election in November for just a minute. Okay?. Why would anyone vote democrat that believes our country is worth saving for future generations?

Is there any reason not to believe we have a great country and is the envy of the world? Of course not but there are elements in our congress and the greater population that believes living ones knees is perferable to taking a stand for individual freedom and liberty.

How could anyone actually vote to allow others to force America to her knees? Right now that is exactly what is going on in the halls of our congress.

A national organization, a political ''collective'' once known as a ''political party'', believes the only thing that matters is getting and keeping the power for control. The people and their lives are of no concern. The collective is about enslavement of body and mind.

The people are seen only as tools to be used and abused to the collectives ends of getting power. To believe otherwise is foolish and self destructive.

Image may contain: one or more people and outdoor, possible text that says 'Obama 2016 Trump 2020'

Hungary's Border Fence : It Works!

This has been around before explaining how Hungary has taken control of their border. They have great support for this wall. Unlike the United States where socialist democrats demand immigration chaos and conflict and get it.

Although our President is doing a great job of stemming the flow of illegals despite the criminals that inhabit the congress who work to undermine his efforts.

Hungary's New 14 ft. high razor wire electric double fence.

  It would be nice to see this in newspapers and TV.  Hungary's New Border Fence called a 'Spectacular Success'......"





Skeptics who believe a border wall will not stop illegals from entering the United States may want to look at what's happening in Hungary

On the day its border fence was completed, the influx of illegals entering Hungary went down from 6,353 per dayto 870 the next. For the remainder of that month, illegal border crossings were steadily below 40 per day, officials said.

"They don't even try," a local border guard told The Daily Caller News Foundation. "We haven't had a single Muslim migrant in six months."

Prime Minister Viktor Orban's pledge to stop illegals from flowing into the country appears to be a spectacular success.

Hungary's 96-mile long, 14-foot tall double-line fence includes several layers of razor-wire capable of delivering electric shocks. The barrier features cameras, heat sensors and loudspeakers ready to tell migrants they're about to break Hungarian law if they as much as touch the fence, the DC report said.

Nearly every police officer in Hungary is part of a rotation to monitor the border fence at all times. Temporary military bases house the police while they do their rotation.

Additionally, Hungary will train and pay more than 1,000 volunteers to deploy as "border hunters".

Illegals who are caught are arrested and dropped off on the Serbian side of the fence. They don't get a chance to apply for asylum unless they do so at a "transit zone" where they are held in housing containers while their cases get processed, the report said.

In September 2016, thousands of migrants streamed across the border every day as they made their way north to Austria, Germany and Scandinavia.

"It was an invasion," Laszlo Toroczkai, the mayor of Asotthalom, told the Daily Caller. "Illegal immigration is a crime in a normal country. It's not a normal thing to break into a country."

"By mid-year it was well beyond 100,000 people who came across," said Zoltan Kovacs, a spokesman for the Hungarian government. "You should at least have the ability to handle what's going on."

Kovacs added: "You might not like it, it's not a nice thing, but ... the only way to stop illegal border crossings is [to] first build a fence, man it, equip it, and also, in parallel, build up your capabilities in terms of legal confines, legal circumstances to be able to handle what is coming."

It's no surprise the mainstream U.S. media refuses to report this story to the American public. Can you imagine how support for a Southern border wall would spike?

DEAR READERS: Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of this story in readers' news feeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute this content.Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends

Always Take A Receipt for Purchases : Watch for CASH BACK On Receipts!

Again, don't know who wrote this but it's interesting in that when using your credit or debt card we usually don't check the receipt until later when unloading the bags. I don't know if this is a real scam but it makes a lot of sense to check the receipt. It should show at the bottom cash received.

At Walmart they give you a receipt off hand, as does the Kohls that I go to. But a lot of grocery stores don't and I usually don't ask for one. How come? Something to think about.

By the way, always check your receipt listing of purchases that show up on your credit card bill. Nonprofits that you might contribute to have a nasty tendency to automatically take a contribution without your consent.

SHOPS NOW ASK IF YOU NEED A RECEIPT
- (otherwise you don’t get one!!)
LEAVES IT WIDE OPEN DOESN’T IT ! (I’ve noticed this lately) KEEP THE RECEIPT . . . This is worth reading if shopping at stores with a credit card . . . They do not automatically hand you a receipt anymore if the sale is under $30. YOU MUST ASK FOR IT!!!

CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT!!!

An associate bought a heap of stuff the other day while on holiday (over $450) and, when he glanced at his receipt as the cashier was handing him the bags, he saw cash out of $20.  He told her he didn't request any cash and to delete it. She said he would have to take the $20 because she simply couldn't delete it.

He told her to call a supervisor. Supervisor came and said he'd have to take it. He said NO Bloody way!  Because taking the $20 would be a cash advance against his Credit Card and he wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!! If they couldn't delete it, then they would have to delete the whole order.‎

So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order and re-scan everything! The second time he looked at the electronic pad before he pinned in his number and again . . . cash-back of $20 popped up!!!

At that point he told the cashier and she deleted it. The total then came out right. The cashier said that the Electronic Pad must be defective. Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered him any cash after either of the transactions.

Can you imagine how many people went through this check-out line before him and by the end of her shift how much money she pocketed?

His wife went into a Kohl’s Warehouse last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt.  She asked the cashier for the receipt and the cashier seemed annoyed, but gave it to her.

She didn't look at her receipt until later that night when back at their Hotel. The receipt showed that she had asked for $20 cash. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR ANY CASH, NOR WAS SHE GIVEN ANY!!

So she called Kohl’s who investigated, but could not see that the cashier pocketed the money. They then spoke with a friend who works for one of the banks; they told them that this was a NEW SCAM that was bound to escalate.

The cashier will key in that you asked for cash and then hand it to one of her friends when they next come through the check-out queue. This is NOT limited to Kohl’s as they are just one of the largest retailers to have the most incidents.

I wonder how many "seniors" have been, or will be, "stung" by this one?????

To make matters worse... THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME AND AT ANY RETAIL OR WHOLESALE LOCATION!!! IT COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE. CHECK YOUR RECEIPT BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT . . . . .

I SAY AGAIN, CHECK YOUR RECEIPT!!!!!

I've since seen people do just that . . . SO, NOW I'LL START TOO!



Great Cities In Disgrace : Pestilence And Squalor! Who's In Charge?


The only thing you have to know about these two situations is who's in charge? President Trump is in charge of the border and illegals and it's the progressive socialist liberal democrats in charge of the squalor and pestilence that's destroying are greatest cities.

It's the progressive socialist agenda and ideology of enslavement for control!!

Of the top 10 cities that are in default of anything that resembles any kind of common sense, 9 of them are controlled by democrats and have been for decades. Little wonder they are failing to deliver.

Don't vote for this to continue, this is a national disgrace!


Thursday, January 30, 2020

Why Young People Seem Unhappy : It's About A Lack of Leadership and Reward?

Photo
Where do you turn for leadership in times of trouble?
What does social media do to help or hurt solutions?
It's really is all about common sense leadership. Ever wonder why the Trump rallies are so huge and getting larger by the day? People are starved for not having anyone of substance taking a stand for what is important in everyday living.

When presented with the option of having someone in power that states what is obvious to people in the trenches of real life, the flood gates are opened and the people rush in to join.

It seems the overriding agenda for the next generation is escaping responsibility, understanding it's not up to some else to do the heavy lifting for you. Nothing free, everything has cost and to believe otherwise is fatal.

As the song lyrics go in Me And Bobby McGee, 'Nothing aint worth nothing but it's free' sums up the ''lotto'' mentality, if only I could make the big hit. Life boiled down to wishful thinking is a disaster for success. The individual freedom to chose is the beginning.

Life is larger the just the 3X5 screen on your phone. Once you understand this, life becomes a journey of expectation and reward. Only hard work and sacrifice will make it happen.

Why So Many Young People Are Unhappy
Dennis Prager / /

Here are some unhappy statistics:

—In America between 1946 and 2006, the suicide rate quadrupled for males ages 15 to 24 and doubled for females the same age.

—In 1950, the suicide rate per 100,000 Americans was 11.4. In 2017, it was 14.

—According to Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, in the 1980s, there were 32 mass public shootings (which he defines as incidents in which four or more people are killed publicly with guns within 24 hours). In the 1990s, there were 42. In the first decade of this century, there were 28. In all the 1950s, when there were fewer controls on guns, there was one. Fifty years before that, in the 1900s, there were none.

—Reuters Health reported in 2019, “Suicidal thinking, severe depression and rates of self-injury among U.S. college students more than doubled over less than a decade, a nationwide study suggests.” The study co-author Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, said, “It suggests that something is seriously wrong in the lives of young people.”

This data is not only applicable to Americans. As social commentator Kay Hymowitz wrote in City Journal in 2019:

''Loneliness, public-health experts tell us, is killing as many people as obesity and smoking. … Germans are lonely, the bon vivant French are lonely, and even the Scandinavians—the happiest people in the world, according to the U.N.’s World Happiness Report—are lonely, too. British Prime Minister Theresa May recently appointed a ‘Minister of Loneliness.’ … consider Japan, a country now in the throes of an epidemic of kodokushi, roughly translated as ‘lonely deaths.’ Local Japanese papers regularly publish stories about kinless elderly whose deaths go unnoticed until the telltale smell of maggot-eaten flesh alerts neighbors.''

Though people have more money, better health care, better health, better housing, and more education, and live longer than at any time in history, they—especially young people—are unhappier than at any time since data collection began.

Why has this happened?

There are any number of reasons. Increased use of illicit drugs and prescription drug abuse, and less human interaction because of constant cellphone use are two widely offered, valid explanations.
Less valid explanations include competition, grades anxiety, capitalism, and income inequality. And then there are young people’s fears that because of global warming, they have a bleak, and perhaps no, future.

But the biggest reason may be the almost-complete loss of values and meaning over the last half-century.

Let’s begin with values.

America—and much of the rest of the West, but I will confine my discussion to America—was founded on two sets of values: Judeo-Christian and American.

This combination created the freest, most opportunity-giving, most affluent country in world history. This is not chauvinism. It is fact. And it was regarded as such throughout the world. That is why France gave America—and only America—the Statue of Liberty. That’s why people from every country on Earth so wanted to immigrate to America—and still do.

Chief among American values was keeping government as small as possible. This enabled nongovernmental institutions—Kiwanis International, Rotary International, and Lions Clubs International; book clubs; the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts; bowling leagues; music societies; and, of course, churches—to provide Americans with friends and to provide the neediest Americans with help.

But as government has gotten ever larger, many of these nongovernmental groups have dwindled in number or simply disappeared.

Another set of values is what is referred to as “middle class” or “bourgeois” values. These include getting married before one has a child; making a family; getting a job so as to be self-sustaining and sustain one’s family; self-discipline; delayed gratification; and patriotism.

All of these have been under attack by America’s elites, with the following results:

One in 5 young Americans has no contact with his or her father (not including fathers who have died).

In 2011, 72% of black children were born to unmarried mothers. In 1965, it was 24%. In 2012, 29% of white children were born to unmarried women. In 1965, it was 3.1%.

The majority of births to millennials are to unmarried women. Yet, according to a 2018 Cigna study, single parents are generally the loneliest Americans.

Marriage and family are the single greatest sources of happiness for most people. Yet, the percentage of American adults who have never been married is at a historic high. More Americans than ever will not get married, or they will marry so late they will not have children. In 1960, 9% of blacks ages 25 and older had never been married. In 2012, it was nearly 40%.

And I haven’t even mentioned the biggest problem: the loss of meaning in young people’s lives. I will discuss that in part two.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Megan And Harry Want Out? : Good! Leave The Money As Well!!!

Photo
Oh the poor people that want to be real instead of royal.
Why is it that for so many among us everything has to come down to race? And that poor Harry didn't have any idea that his wife was not suited to being controlled by others, including him?

And that this poor couple is under attack because she's half back, and America is racist because poor Barrrack was half black and attacked by the right-wingers for no other reason? Armstrong, you can do better then this!

Oh and this royal couple want out of their crush of royal responsibilities? Good for them but also leave the $3 million a year that Prince Charles, Harry's dad gives him every year to scrape by.

Come on people, let it go! What nonsense to believe that the royals spiting from the traditions of centuries is because of race is one of the biggest reasons, the people, the middle classes have had it with this foolishness and elected people to end it.

Hey Megan and Harry, you want to be free to join those of us in the trenches, good for you. But don't bring the influence of power and money that's not available for the rest of us to bear on what actually goes on in the trenches!! 

Megxit, Trump, and the Generational Divide
Armstrong Williams / /

Far too much ink has been spilled in describing the parallels between a resurgent British nationalism—a la Brexit—and the social currents underlying President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.

Both have been described as the culmination of a backlash against forces of globalization that created a glamorous, globetrotting elite on one hand and, on the other, a wasteland of economic decline and deprivation in both nations’ heartlands.

The savior, as prescribed under both the Brexit and MAGA theories, is to throw off the chains of globalization and go it alone. Hence, Britain chose, quite unequivocally, to repudiate the European Union, and America under Trump has boldly thrown out its role as global arbiter and instead asserted an “America First” agenda.

This divide also has been largely generational. Brexit and MAGA have been overwhelmingly supported by an older, mostly white, middle-class voting bloc in each country. Many among them are old enough to revel in reminiscing about the Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan economies; many saw their fortunes decline in the intervening decades as global elites replaced the white middle class as the new favored group.

Perhaps no figure typified the emergent supremacy of this global elite than Barack Obama, who swept to power on a coalition of unprecedented minority voter turnout and a platform of global reparations—an image so powerfully intoxicating to European liberals that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize without having ended a single war.

In Britain, the unlikely pairing between a beautiful American actress, who happens to be, like Obama, the product of a biracial union, and Britain’s most cherished tribal identity—the royal family—raised another conundrum.

For many young people, Obama’s presidency and Meghan Markle’s ascendance to within striking distance of the British monarchy were powerful symbols of change. Each represented the pinnacle of an optimistic promise upon which many—including the Obamas and the Sussexes—had been raised.

That is, we could achieve a “post-racial” society in which even those who formerly had been treated as slaves and second-class citizens could rise to the pinnacles of power, prestige, and influence; that a British royal could defy tradition and marry an American “commoner,” and one who also happens to be black, and no one would bat an eye.

But alas, this was not to be. If Brexit and MAGA were said to be reactions to globalism, Trump’s ascendance as a singular historical figure was rooted in a reaction to Obama’s transcendence from mere politician to savior of the American left.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose personality and politics draw comparisons to Trump, stands in stark contrast to the youthful hipness of Prince Harry and Markle, the former duke and duchess of Sussex.

And yet, for reasons of happenstance and history, their orbits seem to be set upon an inexorably colliding trajectory.

Although cast as the younger, rebellious, distant heir to the British throne, Prince Harry is no foppish knave, either in presentation or substance.

He served honorably and bravely as a combat helicopter pilot who flew missions in Afghanistan. He is a married father. And he has come to symbolize a faction within British society, one that sees the world as its playground and is eager to throw off the constraints of even gilded handcuffs to live life on their own terms.

For Markle, who ostensibly had no lifelong plans of working as a full-time royal and intended to resume her career as an actress—albeit one with a significant leg up on the Hollywood pecking order, given her marriage—breaking away from the royal family is the only move that could make sense.

“Megxit,” as their decision to forsake their royal duties is dubbed, has been cast as a reaction to the British media’s insensitive, racist attacks on the couple and the constant intrusion upon their privacy.

Prince Harry is no stranger to the spotlight; he initially was rotated out of combat when his deployment plans were “accidentally” disclosed to the media, and his mother Diana’s untimely death has been partially blamed on paparazzi running her off the road.

As Harry poignantly explained: “I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditized to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

But to most of the people left behind in post-Brexit Britain, and to those in America’s “flyover country,” the slings and arrows suffered by the outrageously fortunate on account of their fame and prestige seem far removed.

Like most of the liberal elite they represent, the Sussexes have the resources to escape their imprisonment. Their decision to break away and split their time between Britain, Canada, and California (apparently only after Trump leaves office) reeks of unearned privilege.

If one paid attention to only Obama’s or Markle’s race, one might see the social evolution one is seeking. But if one looks at the social and economic divides they also inhabit, one could also see why the reaction against them, among the working class, has been so stark.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Vriginia Is California's Little Sister? : A Shamless Slide Into Moral Corruption!

The governor shamelessly seeks to destory individual 
freedom and liberty. History repeats itself.
 Photo
Goodness! It's clear enough after watching the 2nd amendment rally in Virginia and that nearly all counties have declared themselves 2nd amendment sanctuaries as a result of government deciding progressive socialism is the ''new wave'' ideology for the state, tells the story of resistance and hope. 

Is it part of the ''Trumpism'' phenomenon that has awaken the people across the country to the ravages of democrat liberalism?

The people understand it's time to reach for the pitch forks. The people know you can run but you can't hide from those that want the power for control of all outcomes. The people clearly 
understand the enemy is at the gate.

The question that remains though is who voted these people into office? And why will anyone ever again vote for more progressive socialist liberal democrats? It truly is a matter of self preservation and national security.

Need more proof? After watching the complete break down of Constitutional law in Washington as the democrats seek to destory the very meaning of law and order as they try and impeach the President of the United State they couldn't defeat at the ballot box.

The progressive democrats are a clear and present danger to the entire country.

Virginia’s Recent Extremism a Warning Sign for Other States
Jarrett Stepman / /

The Old Dominion is trending in an ominous direction, and it’s a problem for the whole country.

On Monday, the Virginia General Assembly ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Advocates of the ERA have argued that Virginia is the 38th and final state needed to add it to the Constitution, though the legal argument for that is dubious.

Nevertheless, if the ERA were to become law, it would almost certainly provide the legal basis to enshrine left-wing social dogmas nationwide, among other negative consequences.

Though the ratification is unlikely to pass legal muster, it generally shows the direction Virginia is heading.

Other states should take note: No matter how conservative your state has been in the past, you’re just one leftist legislature away from radical change.

But there are signs of hope.

The massive pro-Second Amendment protest in Richmond, Virginia, on Jan. 20, which drew more than 20,000 people, signaled that many Virginians are waking up to the radicalism of the newly empowered Democratic majority in the state legislature. It would be wrong, however, to suppose that gun owners are the only Virginians in the crosshairs of the new powers that be.

The reality is that tussles between large swaths of Virginians and their lawmakers may become more frequent as the state moves sharply to the left—which has occurred for a variety of reasons. Among them is the phenomenal growth of the Washington “blob” that continues to ooze out farther and farther into suburban Virginia.

The values of the Washington, D.C., progressive elites are simply becoming pervasive and now dominate in Richmond. And the result of this blue takeover has been a tidal wave of policies that signal Virginia’s new direction.

But gun control isn’t the only initiative on the liberal agenda.

A Virginia House subcommittee recently passed the Virginia Values Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to state anti-discrimination law. These laws have often been a threat to religious liberty.  Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Gregory S. Baylor, who testified against the law, said in a statement:

''Whether they intend to or not, Virginia lawmakers who support sexual orientation and gender identity bills are choosing to coerce uniformity of thought and speech on beliefs about marriage, sex, and gender. That’s a dangerous path, and we respectfully ask Virginia lawmakers to exercise tolerance and respect for the good-faith disagreements we hold across the commonwealth.

The Virginia Values Act would have other specific consequences, too.

The law stipulates that small businesses with fewer than 15 employees would have to abide by strict anti-discrimination laws that require the business to pay for the legal fees of a worker who wins a case, but the workers wouldn’t have to pay the employer’s legal fees if the employer wins the case.

As lawyer Hans Bader wrote, this is a potentially enormous financial burden for a small business and could encourage frivolous lawsuits. It could do significant damage to Virginia’s economy.

Another idea on the table is a new gas tax proposed by Gov. Ralph Northam.

The proposal would add 4 cents per gallon of gas every year for three years to fund his nearly $4 billion rail and transportation plan. This may just be the garden variety tax-and-spend liberalism, but it mirrors the trend in many blue states that treat taxpayers like a bottomless well for spending on various pet projects.

That all of these laws and initiatives have happened in such a short time frame should be a warning for the rest of the country. Virginia is now getting the California treatment, where a stream of aggressively left-wing laws come streaming through the pipeline the moment Democrats take power.

The protests perhaps demonstrate that Virginia still has an enduring gun culture that does not mesh well with a movement whose leaders insist that the citizenry, law-abiding or not, should be disarmed for its own good.

The diverse and peaceful protest in support of a constitutionally protected right, which the national media depicted so shamefully, is a hopeful sign that the people of Virginia will respond to absurd new laws with counteraction.

At the same time, it’s telling that the new powers that be in Richmond aren’t concerned with the opinions of a huge swath of the commonwealth and are willing to push ahead with their ideas whether the people like them or not.

It’s gotten so bad that some West Virginia legislators are now inviting adjacent rural Virginia counties to come join their state.

It’s a novel idea, but the reality is that it’s hard to win on a battlefield or in the realm of ideas if you are always in retreat.

The rapid pace of the Californization of Virginia should be a wake-up call to people in other states around the country. Strident progressivism now drives the Democratic Party, and the pace of its efforts to remake and fundamentally transform American society will happen at a breakneck pace if it’s given power.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Equal Rights Amendment(1972) Still Viable? : Where We Are Today(Podcast)


Does anyone remember the battles over the ERA, Equal Right Amendment from years past? Well the battle goes on. Most people have forgotten what this all about. No longer.

Here is a great summation of where we are today. Very interesting read below or listen to the podcast.

What You Need to Know About the Legal Battle Over Equal Rights Amendment

Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / January 29, 2020

Tom Jipping, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, joins the podcast to explain the Equal Rights Amendment. He also discusses why Virginia technically can’t be the 38th state to ratify it—even though the Legislature claimed Monday to have done so. Listen on the podcast, or read a lightly edited transcript of the interview, posted below.

Podcast : https://shows.acast.com/thedailysignal

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Rachel del Guidice: We are joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Tom Jipping. He’s the deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He is also the author of a new Heritage Foundation report, “The 1972 Equal Rights Amendment Can No Longer Be Ratified—Because It No Longer Exists.” Tom, thank you so much for being with us today.

Jipping: Thanks for having me.

del Guidice: So on Monday, Virginia passed the Equal Rights Amendment, or the ERA. Before we get started, can you just kind of briefly go over what the ERA is?

Jipping: Sure. The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The effort to make it part of the Constitution has been going on since the 1920s, and proposals to send it to the states have been introduced in Congress more than a thousand times over those years.

It got the two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress that the Constitution requires only once and that was in 1972, and that sent the ERA to the states. The Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states must ratify an amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.

In terms of what the ERA says, the version that was sent to the states in 1972 is very short. It simply says that that rights shall not be denied based on sex. And it was increasingly controversial when it was proposed in the 1970s, a lot of states ratified it quite quickly, and then that progress slowed dramatically as different organizations really urged state legislatures to examine not just the words of it, which sound pretty simple, but what it could be used to do.

As a result, a total of 35 states ratified it by the deadline. It did have a seven-year deadline when it was proposed, so that deadline would have been in March of 1979. And then Congress extended it once to June 30, 1982. And when that deadline passed and there weren’t three-quarters of the states on board, the ERA effectively died.

The reason we’re talking about it today is that after about kind of 20-25 years of just sort of sitting there, some ERA activists and some feminist organizations started thinking a little more creatively, if they could get the progress going, could they pick up where they left off back in 1982?

And some made the argument that states could still ratify the 1972 ERA and if they had three more states, that would get them to 38, that was three-quarters, and bingo, it would happen.

So, Nevada ratified in 2017, Illinois ratified in 2018, and now Virginia claims to be the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

In my paper, I explain what really is a pretty commonsense idea. The deadline was a deadline, June 30, 1982. After that date, the ERA no longer existed. It wasn’t pending before the states anymore. So, whatever it is that Virginia says that it did, you can’t ratify a constitutional amendment that doesn’t exist.

If activists want the ERA be part of the Constitution, they’re going to have to start over again. They’re going to have to get Congress to propose it again and get it to the states for ratification. But the 1972 ERA is dead.

del Guidice: So proponents of the ERA, a local Richmond news station had said that these people are saying that the amendment will enshrine equality for women in the Constitution. Would you say, knowing what the ERA is, is that the case?

Jipping: As I said, the debate about what the ERA would or wouldn’t do, either intended or unintended consequences, has been going on since literally the 1920s.

In the very beginning, believe it or not, feminist groups and labor unions strongly opposed the ERA because they said it could be used to prevent legislation that would actually benefit women. Today, those roles are reversed, but there’s a lot of discussion and has been since it was proposed in 1972 about how much mischief it could actually be used for.

… This goes to your question as well, the other debate is whether existing law, either provisions of the Constitution, state constitutions, many states have passed their own ERAs, whether those laws that are in place today, that certainly weren’t in place in the 1970s, provide the legal protection that women need.

There’s certainly debates about those questions. I do think that the threat or the possibility that something even as simple as the ERA could be used, especially in the courts, for all kinds of other things. I think that danger is much more real today even than it was in 1972.

We see all the time groups going to the courts with a Constitution that says one thing and they persuade judges that it says something else. And we end up changing the country in profound ways that were never intended. And I think whether it’s abortion, the LGBT agenda, all sorts of things that would very definitely be on the litigation agenda, should the ERA become part of the Constitution.

del Guidice
: You touched on this a bit earlier, but to drill down into it a little bit more, Virginia is claiming, as you mentioned, to be the 38th state to pass the ERA. So does that mean that it’s now a constitutional amendment? You hinted on this, but just to clarify for everyone listening.

Jipping: The process, and this is laid out by a federal statute, once a state does what Virginia did, it sends what the statute calls ratifying documents to the Office of the Federal Register—that’s an agency here in Washington that publishes the federal register, which is a record of regulations.

Once the Office of Federal Register has received those documents from 38 states, they notify the archivist of the United States and then the archivist does a review of those documents for what the statute calls legal sufficiency. Basically just to make sure that they’re legally sound.

And then if there are 38 states’ ratifications that are legally sound, it becomes part of the Constitution. Congress has no role, they don’t have to take any vote. The president isn’t involved.

So the question is, if the ERA expired in 1982, if it literally was not available for ratification, when these documents get here to Washington and the archivist does his review, what’s he going to say? Can he say that ratification of a amendment that doesn’t exist is legally sound? I don’t think so. But that’s the process that is spelled out in federal statute.

And I suppose almost everything ends up in court at some point in this country. So, I suppose at some point thereafter there might be a lawsuit. But that’s what has to happen next.

del Guidice
: Five states tried to take back their support of the ERA. Can a state do that?

Jipping: Well, that’s an important part of the ERA story. As I said, the effort to get states to ratify the ERA really took off in 1972, and a couple of dozen states very quickly ratified it. Not only did the pace of new states dwindle, but because of the rapidly increasing opposition, as you said, five of the states that did ratify, they rescinded that ratification.I believe those rescissions are valid.

In other words, until 38 states ratify the amendment, it’s not an amendment. It’s not part of the Constitution. It’s still pending. And a state can make its decision, they can change their mind, they can do one thing one year and five years later, undo it if they want. Until that ratification deadline happens, the amendment is pending and as long as it’s pending, states can do what they want to do.

In my opinion, by the deadline, by the 1982 deadline, only 30 states had validly ratified the ERA and they would’ve needed eight more. But my dad said close count only counts in tiddlywinks or horseshoes or something and 35 is just as far away from 38 as 30 is. Either way, the ERA is dead.

del Guidice: In 2019, there was a House committee that passed a bill that would have removed the 1982 deadline for the ERA. So could the Senate and House, hypothetically speaking, retroactively remove that 1982 deadline and let the Equal Rights Amendment move forth?

Jipping: No. As I said, June 30, 1982, the ERA is dead. Congress cannot amend a bill that has failed. That would be like introducing an amendment today to a bill that was introduced three years ago or something like that. It doesn’t exist. A deadline is a deadline.

The Constitution gives Congress a significant authority to propose constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court has held clearly that that includes the authority to set a deadline. Congress did that. The deadline is passed. Everyone knows what a deadline is. The deadline has passed. As frustrating as that might be to some political activists, as much as people might wish that hadn’t happened, it did.

The Congressional Research Service, which, as I’m sure you know, is a well-respected, widely used resource of nonpartisan research—when I worked in the United States Senate, we relied on them frequently—they’ve published a huge work about the Constitution and its interpretation. I mean, it’s literally almost 3,000 pages long, covering every subject imaginable.

And for more than 20 years, the Congressional Research Service has said that on June 30, 1982, the ERA died. We can make, and lawyers can make, any subject really complicated no matter how simple it is, but that’s the deadline. It passed. The ERA is dead.

del Guidice: So you have people celebrating it even still, even though we have this deadline that has passed, and if these advocates still wanted to go about and actually do this the right way, how would they go about doing that? Would they reintroduce it? What are the steps to that?

Jipping: The process is the same as they did for the 1972 ERA. A member of Congress would introduce a joint resolution that includes a deadline, if there is one. It designates whether states must ratify the amendment by legislature or convention. And then it includes the language of the amendment.

If two-thirds of Congress pass that, it gets sent to the states, three-fourths of the states ratify it, it becomes part of the Constitution. So that process has to start over.

As I said, since the ’20s, those resolutions to propose the ERA have been introduced over a thousand times. Everybody knows that that’s the process and that if it doesn’t work the first time, you do it again, you start over.

As I say, I realize that’s frustrating. With the opposition to the original ERA there’d probably be more opposition now, and so the likelihood that it would become part of the Constitution is probably lower.

I can see where they would want to grasp whatever strategy they thought could give them a leg up on that, but this isn’t it. The deadline passed 37 years ago.

del Guidice: Earlier this week, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said per American University Radio, “I am committed as ever to making sure we have and use every single tool at our disposal to make sure the Equal Rights Amendment becomes part of the United States Constitution.” So in his role as Virginia attorney general, is there anything he can do to achieve that?

Jipping: You’ll notice that he didn’t say anything specific about whether the 1972 ERA has in fact been ratified by Virginia. Interestingly, in 1994, the deputy attorney general of Virginia issued an opinion saying specifically, he was responding to a member of the legislature that the ERA was no longer pending and could not be ratified. That was 25 years ago.

So Attorney General Herring I’m not aware has reversed that. What he’s saying is he wants to see the ERA become part of the Constitution. Lots of people do, and there’s a process for that.

del Guidice:
Alabama, South Dakota, and Louisiana, they’re suing the head archivist of United States saying that it would be illegal to add the ERA as an amendment. What’s your perspective on that suit and where do you think it will go?

Jipping: As I mentioned about the process, the archivist is sort of the final step of the process. He has to make that review to make sure that the documents he’s received from at least 38 states are legally sound. He hasn’t done that yet, he hasn’t made any decision on that yet. So the lawsuit is probably a little premature, but they’re focusing it in the right place.

In other words, they’re following federal statute as to what the process actually is. It doesn’t become part of the Constitution unless the archivist issues a proclamation to that effect. So he’s where the buck stops, and that’s the final decision that has to be made. But they’re right to do it, and it really doesn’t matter whether your state has or hasn’t ratified.

I wish that more people, including in this case, feminist groups and so on, … would be more united on the process that has to be followed for our government to function under the Constitution.

We all ought to agree on that, that the Constitution’s rules apply to everyone. No one gets to skirt around a different way, or come up with a way of avoiding what the Constitution requires. Doesn’t matter what your politics are.

We all ought to respect that and insist that the Constitution’s rules be followed. If we do in this case, the ERA has to start over.

del Guidice: Going off of that point, Tom, really quickly, why don’t you think there were Virginia lawmakers—maybe there were a few, I didn’t see any and I could have missed it—that said, “Hey, this deadline has been missed. We have no business doing this”?

Jipping: Unfortunately, I think we have more politicians than statesman in a lot of our legislatures. I saw quotes from members of the Virginia Legislature, including Republicans, who said, “Well, just let the courts sort that out. This is an important time to take a stand so let’s just let the courts figure that out.”

That’s a complete abdication of their responsibility and it violates their oath of office. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and that includes the Constitution’s rules for amending it. And so to simply kind of duck out of that and weasel out of that responsibility and just say, “Ah, the courts will sort it out,”—good grief.

The courts have done enough damage to our country in taking authority away from our elected representatives and away from the people for making these kinds of decisions. That was more than disappointing to hear that.

We ought to have our representatives follow their oath of office, insist on those basic rules, and then we can handle and address our political differences.

But if the system itself is going to crumble because our elected representatives don’t care about it, then we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.

del Guidice
: Tom, you mentioned this a little bit earlier, but saying that everything usually ends up in court at some point in time. So, … depending on what happens with different states ratifying, do you foresee a legal battle at some point with the ERA?

Jipping: Well, I do. If, for example, the archivist were to say, as I think he should, that the last three states to supposedly ratify—that would be Nevada, Illinois in Virginia—their ratifications are not legally sound, and shouldn’t be recognized, then I suppose there might be states in left-wing groups that would go to court to try to force him to do that.

… There’s a lot at stake with something that is this symbolic, something that has been around this long. It stands for an awful lot, both positively and negatively. So a lot of political interest would see, one way or another, that their interests are tied up in the ERA, and that usually means that someone will go to court.

del Guidice: You can find Tom’s report, “The 1972 Equal Rights Amendment Can No Longer Be Ratified“—Because It No Longer Exists on heritage.org if you want to learn more about it. Tom, thank you so much for being with us on The Daily Signal Podcast.

Jipping: Thanks for having me.