On May 29th, Dr. Cornel West was being interviewed on CNN. In that interview, he referred to America as “a failed social experiment.” The next day, Elon Musk launched Bob and Doug into orbit using his revolutionary Falcon 9 rocket, and the equally stunning Dragon capsule, which Bob and Doug named Endeavor, after the now-retired Space Shuttle that had given them both their first ride into space in what was, in comparison to the Dragon capsule, a remarkably 20th Century-looking vehicle. You could hardly call that a failed social experiment.
So which one of these two visions of America is true? Well, the sad reality is that they both are.
Cornel West’s rage-fueled Blue America is a land divided by racial hatreds which, according to West and his colleagues, continues to get worse with each passing year. And yet, the SpaceX Demo-2 launch showed men and women from all racial backgrounds pulling together, their very lives quite literally in each others hands. Musk and his Red America had done something that the entire governments of China, Russia, the European Union and even the United States had failed to do: usher in a 21st Century Space Race II using what used to be called Big Dumb Rockets, but which now delicately (if spectacularly) alight on what is essentially a floating postage stamp in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, named Of Course I Still Love You. That was not just a success; it was, as Elon Musk pointed out after Bob and Doug had reached orbit, a uniquely American achievement. Endeavor is, after all, private property.
It’s clear that Two Americas exist today; not side by side but each inside the other. And that got me wondering what made them so different. Listing the attributes of Team Red vs. Team Blue showed me just how far Team Blue has departed from the historical American norm; it was actually kind of fun — and kind of sad — to stack the attitudes and motivations of Red America and Blue America against each other.
When Cornel West refers to this country as “a failed social experiment,” he’s right. His Blue vision for America is an utter catastrophe. But Red Team is alive and kicking. And, I might add, we are actively recruiting. If sharing this video helps you swing people into a happier and more productive life, feel free to use it in any way you can. That’s what it’s there for.
<iframe title="America&#039;s Failed Social Experiment: Are You On Team Red or Team Blue?" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eRPo_cNfOM8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Bill Whittle

WHITTLE: Two Americas: Are You On Team Red Or Team Blue? [Video]

Conservatism

Cornel West

Elon Musk

Progressivism

Social Justice

On May 29th, Dr. Cornel West was being interviewed on CNN. In that interview, he referred to America as “a failed social experiment.” The next day, Elon

description

noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1

robots

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whittle-two-americas-are-you-on-team-red-or-team-blue-video/

twitter:card

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/06/Bill-Whittle.jpg

twitter:image

Bernie Sanders.

WHITTLE: This Land Is His Land

2020 Election

Bernie Sanders

Communism

Josef Stalin

Russia

Socialism

Bill Whittle is the writer/presenter of “The Cold War: What We Saw” podcast, available on iTunes. Let’s say you just got married. You and your young bride

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whittle-this-land-is-his-land/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/02/13744A65-8FE9-4807-959F-38A591B4C127-scaled.jpeg

I was very fortunate to have been asked to write and present a four-part podcast on the Space Race to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11’s historic landing on July 20, 1969.
Early in the process, as I was writing the outlines for the four segments, I realized that four hours gave me time to do much more than chronicle the flight of Apollo 11. Four hours gave me enough time to cover the entire Space Age, from Sputnik 1 to Falcon 9 Heavy. And it was somewhere around this time that I also realized why ever-growing numbers of people have come to believe that the lunar landing didn’t happen — in fact, it could not have happened, due to a number of damning facts heroically uncovered by the small handful of valiant souls too intelligent and too fearless to be duped like the rest of the Sheeple.
The reason the moon landings seem impossible to young people today comes down to one, simple thing, and that is incrementalism. To people born after the Apollo Program, the moon landing is presented to them as if it were something that parachuted into our living rooms one evening as we were watching the Carol Burnett Show: Our top story this evening: Man has apparently walked on the moon! Film at eleven.
If you are asked to look at the flight Apollo 11 like this, then it truly is such a miracle that it simply cannot be true. But if you look at Apollo 11 compared to Apollo 10, which two months earlier had flown to the moon, began the descent, and then aborted to lunar orbit, as planned, after dropping to 50,000 feet… then all of a sudden Apollo 11 doesn’t seem quite as miraculous. Now Apollo 10 seems miraculous!
To learn more about the Apollo 11 mission, subscribe to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/apollo-11-what-we-saw/id1471188269">“Apollo 11: What We Saw.”</a>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1L_11fggn0Q" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Of course, Apollo 10 was a test of the Apollo Lunar and Command/Service modules in lunar orbit. Incredible! But Apollo 9 was pretty much the same mission, only in earth orbit: a full-scale shakedown of the Lunar Module: extraction from the Saturn 5 third stage, docking, rendezvous, engine tests of both spacecraft — all of it — only in earth orbit instead of being tested at the moon. Miraculous!
Actually Apollo 9 was pretty mundane compared to Apollo 8. With the Apollo mission schedule thrown into chaos by the Lunar Module not being ready on schedule, NASA faced a choice: wait three months doing nothing, or… realize that right at that moment, you had a Saturn V ready to go; you had a thoroughly tested command and service module ready to go; you had a flight crew with a lot of experience ready to go; and you had the moon. Why not just improvise? We were going to have to go to the moon on Apollo 10 to prep for Apollo 11, so why not send Apollo 8 to the moon without a lunar module just so we’re not looking out the window at a Saturn V, capsule and crew getting rusty while waiting for Grumman to deliver the LEM? So they sent Apollo 8 to the moon for ten orbits, then brought them home. Miraculous!
Of course, the Command/Service modules had been wrung out over what turned out to be nearly 11 miserable days by the crew of Apollo 7…
I was determined to show that there is no point between a Fourth of July bottle rocket and a footprint in the Sea of Tranquility where you had to insert “and now a miracle occurs.” For those of you not as familiar with the incrementalism of the Space Race, perhaps this example from Episode 3 of What We Saw will make things a bit easier to relate to:
<blockquote>When the Wright Brothers set out to build a flying machine, they did not start with blueprints for an F-22 Raptor, with advanced stealth capabilities, retractable landing gear, over-the-horizon radars and air-to-air missiles, with a range of 1,839 miles, a service ceiling of 65,000 feet at speeds up to 1,500 miles per hour, and controlled by advanced, fly-by-wire avionics where computers interpret the pilots control inputs and then 30 times a second makes minute corrections to all of the hydraulically powered control surfaces, and a minimum service life of 8,000 hour of flight time. That was a little beyond their reach.
What they did build was a lightweight wooden skeleton, fabric covered wings, a home-built, 12 horsepower engine, controlled by simple levers and wires to deform the wings and simple rods to raise and lower the elevator. It didn’t fly to 65,000 feet; it got to perhaps 30 feet. It didn’t fly at fifteen hundred miles an hour but at twenty; it’s maximum range was not almost 2,000 miles but rather 850 feet — less than two tenths of a mile — and it’s total service life was not 8,000 hours but a hair over two minutes. It was badly damaged by a gust of wind on the first day it flew and it never flew again. 
You will never understand how we landed on the moon if you do not understand the difference between the Wright Flyer and an F-22. Building an F-22 from scratch is utterly impossible. But a rickety test vehicle called the Wright Flyer is not too far from a fabric-winged WW1 fighter, like the Sopwith Camel which is not too far short of a wooden-skinned monoplane, like the Hawker Hurricane, which naturally leads to a steel and aluminum turbocharged P-51 Mustang. Sometimes, breakthroughs like the jet engine occur, giving you the F-86 Saber just a couple of years later. From the Saber you go to supersonic flight in the F-100 and the F-4 Phantom, fly-by-wire appears with the F-16 Viper, and stealth with the boxy-looking F-117. Throw in advanced radars on the F-15 Eagle, state-of-the-art weapons and engines on the F-18 Hornet, and then with a little elbow grease you can look up and see a sixth-generation F-22 Raptor. </blockquote>
Now while I don’t deal specifically with the &#8220;moon landing hoax&#8221; hoax, I am amazed at how shockingly thin and how easily explainable the so-called &#8220;impossibilities&#8221; turn out to be. Just as a notable example, you will hear conspiracy theorists say that traversing the Van Allen radiation belts “would fry the astronauts like they were in a microwave oven.”
As it turns out, both the Van Allen belts and microwave ovens do in fact exist. Since microwave ovens do not cook with radiation but rather with (spoiler alert!) electromagnetic microwaves; there is no way to compare the two. There is, however, a way to measure the radiation levels in the Van Allen Belts. Most of the radiation intensity is in the inner belt. Both inner and outer belts surround the earth at the equator. But the Earth&#8217;s equator is tilted 23.4 decrees to the plane of the solar system — which is what gives us the seasons, parenthetically — and the orbit of the moon can be tilted by about 5 degrees beyond that. The short form is that during one lunar orbit — about 28 days more or less — there are narrow time windows when you have to fly right through both belts to get to the moon. Most of the time, however, a direct path to the tilted orbit of the moon will take you well over or well under the inner belt, and you end up just nicking the outer one simply because it is so large.
Now that shrewd, can-do, rocket-science decision to fly either over the belts or under them, rather than choose those narrow launch windows that would take them right through the Van Allen belts, nevertheless did end up giving the crews of Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 some additional radiation dose, and since, as I mentioned, the Van Allen belts really do exist, we can calculate what that additional dose came to. The answer is that they took, on average, 1.5 REM (roentgen equivalent man) more on the moon missions than they would have taken at a Starbucks in Santa Monica. And the government has strict limits on just how much radiation certain workers (nuclear plant engineers, medical imaging technicians, airline flight crews, etc.) can receive each year without danger to their long term health.
That limit is 5 REM per year. In other words, the passage through the Van Allen belts gave them roughly one-third of the maximum allowable dose for one year. That’s why they didn’t all die of Space Cancer.
So, on one hand, we have 13 launches of the Saturn V rocket, each televised live and witnessed in person by millions of people, myself included, and on the other hand we have some guy saying that the radiation would fry the astronauts as if placed in a device that does not emit any radiation at all.
In Post-Truth America, simply stating these things is a political statement unto itself. When I wrote What We Saw, I was determined to insert no domestic political commentary whatsoever. What we ended up with was an epic story of human beings living and dying to do the hardest thing ever attempted, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.

WHITTLE: Understanding Apollo

I was very fortunate to have been asked to write and present a four-part podcast on the Space Race to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11’s

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whittle-understanding-apollo-bill-whittle/

GQ Magazine recently ran a <a href="http://https://www.gq.com/story/hillary-clinton-illustrations-unpublished-2016">story</a> featuring some of the many, many, many, many, many progressive certainties dreams that failed to come true when Hillary Clinton caused Hillary Clinton to miss Hillary Clinton&#8217;s historic coronation as the nation&#8217;s first felon female president.
&#8220;A lot died when <a href="http://www.gq.com/story/mike-pence-hamilton-devious-as-hell">Donald Trump</a> won the presidency&#8212;facts, optimism, our will to exercise,&#8221; wrote Liza Corzillo, the writer of the piece in what used to be called Gentlemen&#8217;s Quarterly, which is no longer neither quarterly nor about Gentlemen, but rather a monthly mag about New York metrosexuals and the men and occasional women who love them. &#8220;Not least of which were some incredible <a href="http://www.gq.com/story/hillary-clinton-presidential">Hillary Clinton</a> victory cartoons that never saw the light of day.&#8221; Whhaaaaat?!
Follow the link if you have the mental and intestinal fortitude to see them all; meanwhile, I will translate the remarks made by the illustrators into historically accurate and reasonable English.
<div class="image"><img alt src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/love_trumps_hate.jpg" /></div>
Ward Sutton&#8217;s entry is a great place to start. Love Trumps Hate is, as you know, what the black-booted, black-shirted, black-masked, black hoodie wearers scream when a mob of them beat some unarmed person unconscious in the street because they hold a different opinion. Lovingly.
&#8220;I think she had the potential to be a tremendous success as president.&#8221; Mr. Sutton was quoted as saying. &#8220;Also, it&#8217;s high time we had a woman in charge!&#8221; You bet, Ward! If Hillary had been elected that would make having a woman in charge three terms in a row!
It is not mentioned in the text, but if I had to guess I think that this was based on a photograph of HRC watching the women&#8217;s volleyball team practicing for the 2016 Olympics in Rio.
<div class="image"><img alt src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/inspired.jpg" /></div>
This entry, by Leah Goren, sums up Hillary&#8217;s appeal to women so charmingly, don&#8217;t you think? Inspired to be a woman at work today. You can tell she is a woman at work today, because unlike those not-really-women Republicans, Hillary-supporting women show that they are more than a match for the Patriarchy by drawing flowers all day. Not, you know, doing Republican things such as running winning presidential campaigns like that non-inspirational, non-woman Kellyanne Conway.
Leah is inspired to be a woman at work today by imagining Hillary Clinton, hard at work at the desk of the State Department, reviewing the hundreds of millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation received and what changes the government of United States of America will have to undertake in return for all of that cash.
It&#8217;s nice to see that Hillary has on her desk (L-R) a personally-autographed head shot of Chloe Grace Moretz, a picture of daughter Chelsea in the fabulous wedding dress paid for by the non-profit Clinton Foundation, and I was especially moved by the gold-framed photo of Hilary posing with the one person who could make her progressive agenda possible: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 
<div class="image"><img alt src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/wei.jpg" /></div>
Jeng Wei says of the above that &#8220;I was watching a few of Hillary&#8217;s past speeches for reference, and the sketches ended up being more of an immediate response.&#8221; Can we all agree that Jeng Wei, in a series of quick sketches, has captured exactly who Hilary Clinton is, what she stands for, and why she was running for office in the first place?
<div class="image"><img alt src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/smile.jpg" /></div>
&#8220;I wanted to capture a thoughtful, happy expression with eyes looking toward the future,&#8221; artist Lauren Tamaki says of her striking work, pictured above. The post-election abandonment of this illustration is particularly tragic because an extensive Google images search reveals that there is not one single extant photograph of Hillary Rodham Clinton looking either thoughtful or happy. We must cherish this historic document, and ensure that it survives for the ages.
<div class="image"><img alt src="https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg/public/uploads/2017/03/hillary_flag.jpg?itok=joN2nwR0" /></div>
Finally, the best of breed: GQ itself commissioned artist Cun Shi to depict a brilliant, confident, charming, tough-yet-kind, patriotic President of the United States of America. GQ, alas, did not go with this design because no one could identify the person depicted in the drawing.

You can find all of Bill&#8217;s work at www.BillWhittle.com

love_trumps_hate

Dreams Of Madam President

Hillary Clinton

GQ Magazine recently ran a story featuring some of the many, many, many, many, many progressive certainties dreams that failed to come true when Hillary

https://www.dailywire.com/news/dreams-madam-president-bill-whittle/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/09/love_trumps_hate.jpg

President Trump spoke for about an hour at CPAC on Friday. There had been a lot of speculation about his reception &#8211; he polled 15% at last year&#8217;s CPAC, as I recall &#8211; and the cremation heat of the Trump / Never Trump conflagration seems to be dying down to the embers.
Here was a unique opportunity: speaking to a fired-up crowd giddy with the elation of a win after all these horrible, year-after-year litanies of decline and destruction by President Obama.
Trump came out to thunderous applause. He may have polled 15% here last year, but this year he got 100% of the room and it was an electric moment for those of us who have been fighting a rear-guard action these last two terms. Here, at last, was a chance to go on the offensive; a chance to tell the base what is happening, why, and what they can do to help him.
Credibility is an expensive character trait. I&#8217;m not speaking of President Trump now, but rather of myself. I wanted to like that speech very much. But I thought President Trump was terrible today; I personally have never seen him worse. The speech sounded like something from last year, and I mean July of last year. I didn&#8217;t hear anything new and it seems like he said nothing new three times.
I have done something like two hundred live speaking events, and while half of those performances were below average, I nevertheless know what it looks and sounds like to phone one in, and I thought Donald Trump had a golden opportunity today that he simply missed. I was really quite disappointed.
But hey. Maybe the man was off because he was exhausted. He&#8217;s done more actual work in a month than Obama did in eight years. As a matter of fact, maybe I am the one who was exhausted; I&#8217;d just done five hours of live commentary for two consecutive days on hamster rations of sleep and the people I spoke to after the event thought he was terrific.
But I have seen him terrific, and this was not one of those times. But here&#8217;s the thing that probably makes my carping about a speech pretty much moot.
At this time last year, CPAC had the feel of a hospital visit to a terminally ill patient&#8230; something bad was going to happen and you could see it coming and there didn&#8217;t seem much to be able to do about it except grit your teeth and try to soldier on. Ultimately, the rift between the Trump / Never Trump wings of the formerly deceased and now all-powerful Republican party was not, and was never, going to be bridged by rhetoric. It was going to be settled by actions.
Before the election, the question for those of us with serious doubts about this man came down to, basically, this: was Trump a closet Democrat who was pulling a fast one on Republicans? Or were comments like putting his sister on the Supreme Court a kind of media-baiting political genius? Or both. Or neither?
Well, we don&#8217;t have to speculate any more. There is actual data now, and those data points are marked PENCE, TILLERSON, MATTIS, SESSIONS, ACOSTA, CARSON, PERRY, DeVOS, KELLY, COATS, HALEY, POMPEO, PRUITT and McMASTER. If you had told me that if Trump were elected we would get only Mattis, or DeVos, or Gorsuch then that would have been good enough for me. To get all of them (thanks Harry Reid!), each of them strong, no-nonsense personalities and not obsequious political lapdogs, is beyond my wildest imaginings. And when it is said and done, the man who has often fallen so short rhetorically has made a spectacular declaration of nominees that will be echoing through this nation&#8217;s history long, long after the lights went out in the main ballroom at the Gaylord Hotel on Friday, February 24, 2017.

Look At Trump’s Deeds, Not His Words

Donald Trump

Republican Party

President Trump spoke for about an hour at CPAC on Friday. There had been a lot of speculation about his reception – he polled 15% at last

Look At Trump&#039;s Deeds, Not His Words

https://www.dailywire.com/news/look-trumps-deeds-not-his-words-bill-whittle/

I just got back to the hotel after a midnight tour of the monuments with my Russian fiancée. The Capitol Building, despite all of the chicanery, is absolutely magnificent in its classical circular symmetry. The twenty-foot Statue of Freedom that crowns the dome is still the spindle around which the world rotates.
The Washington Monument is so tall and gracefully proportioned that you have to stand at the base of it to realize just how shockingly massive that structure is. Lincoln sits in grim majesty, as if keeping an eye on those miscreants at the end of the national mall. Jefferson stands alone, away from Washington and Lincoln, and all of the war monuments; looking at the placement of the building and the statue inside it you get the impression that the architect of freedom is somehow too regal, too aristocratic to mix with the lesser gods just across the pool of water.
And as we were closing this evening&#8217;s majestic tour, we stopped briefly in front of the Boehner Monument. The memorial to the former Speaker of the House is a seedy, shabby, 24-hour, booze and cigarette shop lit by a fluorescent tubes that flash and hiss intermittently. I personally feel this is more than he deserves.
John Boehner recently said that the full repeal of Obamacare &#8220;is not what&#8217;s going to happen.&#8221;
&#8220;They&#8217;ll fix Obamacare, and I shouldn&#8217;t have called it repeal and replace because that&#8217;s not what&#8217;s going to happen. They&#8217;re basically going to fix the flaws and put a more conservative box around it.&#8221;
More immortal rhetoric: &#8220;And all this happy talk that went on in November and December and January about repeal, repeal, repeal&#8212;yeah, we&#8217;ll do replace, replace&#8212;I started laughing, because if you pass repeal without replace, first, anything that happens is your fault. You broke it.&#8221;
You keep laughing John. Your political philosophy as the Leader of the Opposition to government-controlled government control was reflected in the transcendent quotations engraved across the front of the Boehner Monument:
ARE YOU GOING TO FINISH THAT?
And, of course,
MAKE IT A DOUBLE
You were the leader of a party that gave Republicans the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, specifically to stop that power-mad, ankle-deep control freak from turning over a little girl&#8217;s kidney operation to the competence and professionalism of the DMV. We gave you the tools, John, and we didn&#8217;t ask for much, so forgive me for finding you finding this funny not funny at all.
What do you believe, Mr. Former Speaker? Is there anyone in the United States of America who can tell me what your principles are? Can you?
You had one job, John. Just stop the destruction of the Constitution you swore to defend. The Obamacare mandate was a tax, but if it had been called a tax it never would have passed. When you sneer that all that is going to happen will be to &#8216;fix the flaws&#8217; in the Affordable Care Act, I think you are missing the point &#8211; again.
The Republicans do not have the power to fix the flaws in the ACA because the flaws in the ACA violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is not something that you, or Barack Obama, or Loretta Lynch can simply decide not to enforce at your convenience.
That law states that the total entropy of a system always increases over time. Things go from complex to simple, from differentiated to uniform, from discrete sources of light and heat to a tepid blob of structureless soup.
It&#8217;s entropy, John: it is easier to have the government take care of you than it is to take care of yourself. It is easier to borrow than it is to repay. It is easier to tax a business than it is to run one. It&#8217;s easier to play a video game than it is to study to be a brain surgeon. It&#8217;s easier to get a spray-on tan to look healthy than it is to do actual work out in the sun and be healthy. And so on.
The nation&#8217;s capital has monuments to the great men who have fought this tide of entropy; men who have brought order from chaos and not the other way around; men who fought and died to preserve delicate freedoms against the indestructible granite state that has to control every aspect of our lives.
You had history in your hands, you smug, insufferable little man. You had a chance to stand against the tide of tyranny, but that requires courage, dedication, intelligence, hard work, perseverance and above all character. All of these anti-entropy qualities take skill and especially effort, and you were far too lazy for that.
So you keep laughing, John. We are going to do it right in front of your eyes. And now, if you don&#8217;t mind, shuffle off into the sunset trailing a cloud of booze breath and stale smoke. Those of us who love this country have work to do &#8211; immeasurably more work to do than we would have if you had been even a slightly better man.

The Boehner Monument

Health Care

John Boehner

Obamacare

I just got back to the hotel after a midnight tour of the monuments with my Russian fiancée. The Capitol Building, despite all of the chicanery, is

https://www.dailywire.com/news/boehner-monument-bill-whittle/

&#8203;Now before you say anything, I know this is a little out of character for me. But I plead the Fifth! Steve Green, the Vodkapundit, put a fifth of scotch into me and there is a deadline to fill so here we are, my friends.
Hanging around with Steve Green is an amazing experience. He has the constitution of a yak. Steve Green cannot die until the EPA can find a safe place to bury his liver. They dip surgical instruments in his blood to sterilize them.
I met Steve and Scott Ott back in CPAC 2009. This would have been a month after that communist swine Obama was elected. Yeah, you heard me. CPAC in 2009 was like a funeral viewing, only not so cheerful or peppy.
Today was very different. People are smiling. It rained in California again. The drought is over. Hooray!
That said, while the mood is better, it seems to me that there is nothing like the crackle and energy of that first CPAC of mine. I&#8217;d been an admirer of Steve&#8217;s work at Vodkapundit, as well as Scott Ott&#8217;s satire at Scrappleface. They were fans of my essays at Eject! Eject! Eject! Of course, we were not the glamorous, magnificently paid internationally known celebrities we are today. Just simple bloggers pounding away on the internet because we felt, in those post 9/11 years when we all started, that we had to do something for America&#8230; even if it was only blogging, for God&#8217;s sake. 
Steve, Scott and I met for the first time in the lobby of the hotel. We went across the street to a very cold booth, had breakfast, and a half-hour later we had the idea for Trifecta, which became Right Angle. We have done something like five thousand episodes since then.
One evening in CPAC 2009, I got a call from a loose acquaintance of mine named Andrew Breitbart. He asked me if I wanted to go to dinner with Ann Coulter. I said &#8220;boy howdy!&#8221;
We went to an expensive restaurant in DC. The night was historic, really: it was the last time in recorded history when Your&#8217;s Truly shut up for a while and listened to these two people; titans, really, which was remarkable since all of us, Steve and Scott and I especially, seemed to be just regular shmoes called to try to do something about the fate of the country we all loved, and continue to love.
Even then, going to a restaurant with Ann Coulter was a unique experience. I have been around a few famous people before, and I know what it looks like when someone is staring at a person, trying to be sure if they were famous or not. I saw that with Ann, but I also saw real anger at her and after hearing some of her personal stories I simply marveled at her physical and moral courage.
Back then, politics on the internet was new and we all felt a sense of electrical excitement in the air: we regular guys &#8211; sad, isn&#8217;t it? &#8211; were going to have to stand up and do what the immortals had done before us: get out there and defend the country in this new war of images and ideas.
It&#8217;s been almost five years since Andrew died of a heart attack. Steve and Scott and I still have the passion to do four or five shows a week for eight years without missing a single week. CPAC 2017 is filled with bright-eyed young people who are now, suddenly, not just the campus weirdos but the ones speaking for a party that has won the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and at least one &#8211; if not two or three &#8211; Supreme Court picks. So things are better but not as exciting. Maybe we too felt the romance of being in opposition to the most powerful forces on the earth. And what was a passion remains a passion, but now it is a business as well, and we owe our livelihoods to our ability to convince people like you that while TV is free, and the internet is free, we need to get you to pay for TV on the internet. We all know that this is the future of news, but it takes a while for the dust to settle from the asteroid impact that wiped out the Mainstream Media dinosaurs.
What has not changed, however, is the most important thing of all. To actually meet our audience; to hear people tell you that you have helped to change their lives&#8230; that has the same, undiluted effect today as it did when we started the game in earnest in 2009. You people are so kind, so sensible and so fundamentally honorable that it has forced all three of us to become better people in order to rise to your standards. You have, through the rigors of a fire assay, forced us as individuals and as a movement to find the gold within ourselves and to present that gleam in the service of the idea of what America is, and for that we are genuinely and eternally grateful.

Drunkblogging CPAC – Day One

CPAC

​Now before you say anything, I know this is a little out of character for me. But I plead the Fifth! Steve Green, the Vodkapundit, put a fifth of

https://www.dailywire.com/news/drunkblogging-cpac-day-one-bill-whittle/

The F-35 Lightning II is not just the most expensive aircraft ever built. Costing in the general vicinity of $400 billion dollars or so, it is the most expensive weapon ever built &#8211; by far.
By how far? Well, the latest generation aircraft carrier &#8211; the Ford class, which is the first new design since the first of the Nimitz class carriers was commissioned in 1975 &#8211; is itself over-budget at $13 billion dollars per ship. In other words, for the money already spent on the F-35 project, you could purchase thirty of the newest, largest and most advanced aircraft carriers in the world.
Thirty aircraft carriers.
The jet has had some teething problems. Many of these problems could be categorized by a specific engineering concept. Pardon my jargon, but the problem as defined by the best aeronautical designers and engineers is that it doesn&#8217;t work.
Several weeks ago, I was disturbed, angered and not at all surprised to learn that the F-35C &#8211; the Navy variant of the one-size-fits-all lunacy that we have not seen since the flying-bus &#8220;fighter,&#8221; the F-111 &#8211; was causing the vast majority of pilots moderate to severe pain during the catapult shot. They had difficulty in reaching the controls and reading the instruments, both of which &#8211; airspeed, anyway &#8211; are handy things to have as you are hurled into the roiling waves a mere six stories above oblivion with the World&#8217;s Biggest Warship several yards behind you and bearing down on your splash point at 30 knots.
It looks like the entire ejection seat mechanism will have to be replaced for the Navy variant. You might have thought that with $400,000,000,000 in pocket change, Lockheed Martin might have thought this through just a wee bit better and perhaps discovered a severe and very dangerous design flaw while the aircraft was actually being shot into the sky.
Not too long ago, there was a huge stink when the F-35 was flown against the 70&#8217;s era workhorse it was designed to replace: the venerable F-16 Fighting Falcon, which Air Force guys call the Viper. In close-in dogfighting, the F-16 cleaned its clock.
Proponents of the F-35 claim that this is misleading. The F-35 has an extraordinary radar and sensor system that gives the F-35 an all-aspect capability. That means that unlike the F-16 and other legacy fighters, the F-35 does not need to be able to out-turn the Snake because it does not need to be behind the target in order to fire its air-to-air weapons. That off-aspect capability was the go-to argument for the jet and the entire program.
The Air Force currently has two main air-to-air missiles: the long-range, radar-guided AIM-120C AMRAAM, and the AIM-9X, the latest in the venerable line of short-range, heat-seeking missiles called the Sidewinder.
But!
Recent tests not only revealed that the aircraft caused pilots severe pain on a cat shot. They have just revealed another problem &#8211; trifling, really: the Navy&#8217;s F-35 experienced &#8220;undisclosed&#8221; amounts of oscillation and turbulence when carrying the off-boresight Sidewinder. The outer wings fold up on the Navy variant of the Lightning II, and as it turns out, the F-35C will not be able to carry the off-aspect, fire-from-any-angle Sidewinder niner-xray.
And so they will have to replace the wing.
$400,000,000,000 later, we only now discover that the world&#8217;s most advanced jet is unable to carry externally the world&#8217;s most advanced short-range, air-to-air missile &#8212; the technology that justified the F-35 in the first place &#8211; without building a new wing.
One begins to suspect that Lockheed Martin has some explaining to do.
This jet is so bad, and so expensive, and so late, that significant, stealthier upgrades to the existing workhorses: The F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, F-18 Hornet and A-10 Warthog &#8211; are being hurriedly rolled out. The F-15 Silent Eagle and the F-18 Advanced Super Hornet are starting to look like sensible replacements for the F-35. They may also become indispensible replacements, since the new wing on the F-35, we just now discover, will delay the seven years overdue jet by another five years.
Here&#8217;s the final insult: because the F-35 is so far behind schedule, it will not be able to carry the latest generation of missiles: the AIM-120D and the improved Sidewinder 9X block II. Got it? The F-35 will have weapons inferior to those aircraft it was designed to replace; and not just in the air. The F-35 will not be able to carry more advanced air-to-ground bombs that can hit a truck while the truck is&#8230; you know&#8230; moving.
We have this debacle for one reason and one only: cost-plus procurement. This is an idea so insane that it has to come from the fatal combination of big government and big business. Cost-plus means the buyer &#8211; that would be you and me &#8211; pays for the cost of the jet, plus some set profit for the builder.
Those of you who do not work in government may perceive that this not only allows time and money overruns, it incentivizes them!
I want the best military and the most advanced weapons in the world. Cost-plus means that we have to scramble to find work-arounds for aircraft that do work &#8211; F-15, F-16, F-18 and A-10 &#8211; to cover the seventeen-year-old F-35 project that has sucked up enough money for 30 aircraft carriers that it is incapable of operating from.

Why Is The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Built So Ineffective?

Military

The F-35 Lightning II is not just the most expensive aircraft ever built. Costing in the general vicinity of $400 billion dollars or so, it is the most

https://www.dailywire.com/news/slow-lightning-bill-whittle/

Well, everyone is talking about Donald Trump&#8217;s remarkable press conference on Thursday: brilliant, unhinged, historic, chaotic &#8211; sure, okay. But whether or not he, or the press, or neither of them, or both were fully aware of what was happening, to me it was clear as daylight: Donald Trump was training the mainstream media. And he was damn good at it, too, because it was working right in front of our eyes.
We all know the media is biased against conservatives. They are, in fact not in the news business, but the news suppression business. They are not reporters; they&#8217;re stenographers for the Democratic Party. You know it. I know it. Progressives know it. Trump knows it, and they know it too.
Everyone knows it, but not one Republican politician ever impaled on this bias has simply come out and said it.
<blockquote>
TRUMP: The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday. And it was very much discredited, as you know. It was &#8212; it&#8217;s a joke.
</blockquote>
Did you hear that? In front of the New York Times and everyone on the planet, the President of the United States said that the supposed gold standard for truth and fairness wrote a story that was discredited. It wasn&#8217;t just discredited; it was a joke. And it wasn&#8217;t just a joke; it was a joke on the part of the failing New York Times.
Why is this important? Because the New York Times is failing, financially, and the reason they are failing is because that newspaper no longer reports the news; they write op/ed pieces and call it news. By saying the failing New York Times, Trump is essentially saying that the market knows they are liars and people no longer want to buy what they are selling.
<blockquote>
TRUMP: I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress.
</blockquote>
Talk about twisting the knife. Reporters are thought of as less trustworthy than politicians. 
<blockquote>
QUESTION: Just because of the attack of fake news and attacking our network, I just want to ask you, sir&#8230;
TRUMP: I&#8217;m changing it from fake news, though.
QUESTION: Doesn&#8217;t that under&#8230;
TRUMP: Very fake news.
QUESTION: &#8230; I know, but aren&#8217;t you&#8230;
(LAUGHTER)
</blockquote>
Laughter. You&#8217;re not liars, he says to their relief. And then with perfect comedic timing, he says they are not liars but rather damned liars.
&#8220;Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand,&#8221; wrote Mark Twain. Just so, and the more pompous and self-important the subject, the greater the assault.
That was followed immediately followed by this:
<blockquote>
TRUMP: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Real news, Mr. President, real news.
</blockquote>
Donald Trump has just caused Jim Acosta, from CNN for God&#8217;s sake, to assert that the question he is trying to ask is in fact real news. This coming question is legitimate. For a change. You see?
In military history, surprise is an advantage, superior firepower is an advantage, better morale is an advantage, but the one thing that is essential is having the initiative. Who has the initiative here? Who is controlling this conversation? Who is getting laughs at the expense of their supposed integrity &#8211; from them!
<blockquote>
TRUMP: Where are you from?
QUESTION: BBC.
TRUMP: Here&#8217;s another beauty.
</blockquote>
Dismissed. The British Broadcasting Corporation sneered at as if he was being asked yet another question by the Boca Raton Herald&#8212;Advertiser.
<blockquote>
TRUMP: Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o&#8217;clock in the evening. You just take a look at that show. That is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn&#8217;t have good ratings. But the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump. And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth; the hatred coming from other people on your network. Now, I will say this. I watch it. I see it. I&#8217;m amazed by it. And I just think you&#8217;d be a lot better off, I honestly do. The public gets it, you know. Look, when I go to rallies, they turn around, they start screaming at CNN. They want to throw their placards at CNN. You know.
</blockquote>
Embedded in this critique of his unfair coverage, Donald Trump utters the one line that is the entire reason he got elected in the first place. Can you spot it?
The public gets it, you know. 
We get it. You know? The game is over; you&#8217;ve been called on it and we know and you know that your credibility &#8211; which is in fact your entire product &#8211; is shredded. The public gets it. You know that, don&#8217;t you? Or do you?
<blockquote>
QUESTION: But aren&#8217;t you &#8212; aren&#8217;t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people&#8217;s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in this country, when you call stories you don&#8217;t like &#8220;fake news&#8221;? Why not just say it&#8217;s a story I don&#8217;t like.
TRUMP: I do that.
QUESTION: When you call it &#8220;fake news,&#8221; you&#8217;re undermining confidence in our news media [and that&#8217;s] important.
</blockquote>
Donald Trump did not undermine confidence in our news media. The news media undermined our confidence in the news media. For decades they have exaggerated stories that are good for liberals and refused to cover stories that are bad for liberals. Someone is finally calling them on it and we are laughing at them. 
I think that what Donald Trump did was to start housebreaking the mainstream media. When they make a mess on the carpet, they get their noses rubbed in it and get swatted with a rolled-up newspaper.
Speaking of rolled-up newspapers, the housebreaking is working:
<blockquote>
QUESTION: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Yes, oh, this is going to be a bad question, but that&#8217;s OK.
QUESTION: It doesn&#8217;t have to be a bad question.
TRUMP: Good, because I enjoy watching you on television. Go ahead.
</blockquote>
Good boy. Here&#8217;s your treat.
<blockquote>
TRUMP: That was very professional and very good.
QUESTION: I&#8217;m very professional.
</blockquote>
Yes you are! Who&#8217;s a good reporter? Who&#8217;s the best reporter in the whole world? You are.
Good boy.

You can find all of Bill Whittle&#8217;s work at www.billwhittle.com

Housebreaking the News Media

Democratic Party

Liberalism

Media

Media Bias

New York Times

Well, everyone is talking about Donald Trump’s remarkable press conference on Thursday: brilliant, unhinged, historic, chaotic – sure, okay.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/housebreaking-news-media-bill-whittle/

In the grey area of politics and culture, where one man&#8217;s policy is another man&#8217;s poison; or in a pop culture that ranges from the uplifting to the despicable, it is rare to see a story where it is pretty much good versus evil, and there are photographs to match.
On February 15, 2017, a woman noticed something horrible as she was walking her toddler around a park in Daytona Beach, Florida. So horrible, in fact, that she headed straight home and told her husband, US Navy veteran Gary Blough, what she had seen.
The photo of Good in this story is a photo of a middle-aged man with a black eye, swollen face, broken skull and facial bones, a concussion and internal bleeding. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" alt height="432" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/blough.jpg" width="780" /></div>
Good in this story got up, left the safety of his house and went out to confront two young men: Ryan Ponder and Johnnie Beveritt. Their combined picture is a snapshot of evil.
<img loading="lazy" alt height="389" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/turtle_torturers.jpg" width="780" />It&#8217;s a simple tale of good versus evil, because Ponder, Beveritt and an unnamed 16-year-old minor, had proceeded to punch and kick Blough, and did not stop punching and kicking him until help arrived, at which point they ran away.
They were punching and kicking Blough, fracturing his skull, bashing his eye to the point of needing surgery, because Blough had approached these three individuals and asked them to stop what they were doing. What they were doing was reaching down, picking up a turtle, and then smashing it against the concrete, again and again, so hard and for so long that one of the animal&#8217;s legs was found in a nearby tree.
You really should take a close look at the faces of Blough, Ponder and Beveritt; compare the battered, middle-aged and gentle-looking face of disabled Navy vet Blough, versus the two strong young men in their physical prime. Pay special attention to Ponder and Beveritt, because we will certainly see their faces again; we as a society, I mean. The next time they get their mug shots taken may be for killing a person and not a turtle, and that story, of course, will not make the news the way a defenseless animal, later discovered dead and floating in a pool of blood in the lake, makes the news. Bashing turtles to death is newsworthy while bashing people to death is so commonplace. But society will see these faces again.
Some people look at creatures like these three monsters and ask themselves what happened to them to make them so inhuman, so incapable of compassion or remorse, so willing to strike again and again until the shell, or the skull, make a cracking sound and then, in both cases, to continue bashing and stomping until help arrived.
It is not about what happened to them. It is about what did not happen to them.
Human males &#8211; these three are not boys and they most certainly are not men &#8212; are capable of this kind of behavior because virtually all predatory animals are capable of it: from cats playing with mice, or male lions eating the cubs of the aging alpha male they have just displaced, or chimpanzees on a war party looking to rip monkeys or other chimps to shreds and eat them raw. This is how animals behave, and this is the kind of animal behavior that happens when a gentle and strong father does not instill in young boys the sense of compassion, of decency, of restraint, and both moral and physical courage that was most obviously instilled in Gary Blough.
<blockquote>
It is not about what happened to them. It is about what did not happen to them.

</blockquote>
Oh, and by the way: if we don&#8217;t like these kind of behaviors; if you are repelled by the sight of three men repeatedly bashing a defenseless turtle to death against concrete sidewalks; or if you are somewhat concerned that humans like Ponder and Beveritt seem to be increasing in numbers while those like Blough become rarer and rarer&#8230;
&#8230;well, then perhaps we should stop ordering and paying for such people. Maybe we should rethink the incentive structure that pays a person additional money for every fatherless boy brought into the world. Maybe if we did not subsidize such base cruelty so intensely and for so long, then perhaps we would get less of it.
Somehow.

blough

Photos Of Good And Evil

Florida

In the grey area of politics and culture, where one man’s policy is another man’s poison; or in a pop culture that ranges from the uplifting

https://www.dailywire.com/news/photos-good-and-evil-bill-whittle/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/09/blough.jpg

Yahoo News brings us a <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/ny-fashion-week-hijabs-top-looks-fit-royalty-064725444.html">story</a> of fashion designer Anniesa Hasibuan, who for two years now has been featuring the Muslim hijab, the garment that wraps around the face of Muslim women so that no one can see their hair.
The designs are elegant if a bit gaudy: there is a photo of Hasibuan in a black robe with ornate silver embroidery, and another of twenty or so fashion models looking exactly like fashion models, wearing gold and silver and laden with jewelry&#8230; except that every one of them is wearing a silver scarf covering their hair. It&#8217;s Muslim Chic, to the roars of applause from the New York fashion crowd, one or two of which, I will dare to guess, are unmarried women and gay men.
Hey, sincerely: so far, so good. Westernized Muslims can maintain their religious practices &#8212; many of them, anyway &#8212; and look stylish as well. That&#8217;s terrific.
But there are deeper issues at play here. Frankly, my first glance at a runway of stick-thin New York models looking like some fabulous Libyan bodyguard contingent filled me with apprehension, because to look at that picture of not only westernized Muslims, but New York Fashion Chic westernized Muslims filled me with a kind of dread: this is what an Islamic New York would or will look like; and here is where we get into trouble.
It is absolutely true that here in America, there are millions of peaceful Muslims who came here to work hard and who are willing to abide by western laws. If their religion calls for them to wear a hijab, it&#8217;s none of my damn business whether they do or not.
What is my damn business, however, is whether or not the United States becomes a predominantly Muslim country, in the manner of France and Germany and Sweden: western democracies that have thrown open their doors to Muslim immigration and gotten more than fashion shows in the bargain. This picture of gold and silver clad models in hijabs produces an immediate cognitive dissonance for me, so hopefully some of the Daily Wire&#8217;s multitude of progressive readers can help me out here.
First, the entire idea of the hijab is to divert attention from a Muslim woman, not to call attention to her. The justification of the hijab in the first place is the Islamic belief that should males catch sight of a woman&#8217;s hair, they will become so overpowered by lust that their honor is in danger. And, obviously, in much of the Muslim world, a woman whose honor has been compromised is more likely to wear acid washed headscarves rather than fashionably silver ones.
The reason this causes so much cognitive dissonance is that if any of these women wore these gaudy costumes in many Muslim countries, they would be lucky to get away with only being pushed, mocked or beaten. And that&#8217;s at the core of it, really: these Muslim chic designs can be worn in New York only because New York is not a Muslim city run by Muslim laws and customs.
It is painful to point this out, because I have met many patriotic, hard-working, family-oriented Muslims here in America; however, the fact is that alone among the religions of the world, Islam, as it is written, is not only incompatible with American ideals, it is alone in being antithetical to them. 
If you stand on a street corner across from the fashion show, and hurl insults at Mohammed, his followers and his religion, than in a Judeo-Christian New York you&#8217;re just another nutcase speaking his mind. In an Islamic New York &#8212; Islamic as in as written in flowing gold Arabic in the Koran &#8211; insulting Islam and the Prophet is a capital offense. Our First Amendment also restricts the government from interfering with our right to practice whatever religion we want, or to have no religion at all. In Islam, as it is written, leaving Islam is also a capital offense.
Hindus, Confucians, Buddhists, Animists, Zoroastrians, Druids, Wiccans and Jedi &#8212; not to mention Christians, Jews and atheists &#8212; can have their religion and preach it too, here in America, without having to make a profound decision: are you governed &#8212; externally but much more importantly internally &#8212; by a love for and belief in these constitutional rights, or is your heart and your desire to live as Muhammad commands you?
Because you cannot have both. The vast majority choose to live by our laws, and all of this would be just completely swell if we did not see, time and time again, the demands for Islamic law and Islamic justice in liberal democracies once the Muslim population reaches some (relatively small) percentage.
At the end of the Yahoo article, Chiara Sari, Indonesia&#8217;s vice consul in New York and a representative of Designer Hasibuan&#8217;s home country, says that she supports the hijab clothing line by saying, &#8220;Hopefully that will increase familiarity with Islam in general, especially now when it is getting a lot of bad press.&#8221;
With all due respect, Ms. Sari, Islam is getting &#8220;a lot of bad press&#8221; because members of your religion are committing a lot of bad deeds, all around the world, pretty much all of the time. And the Muslim fashion I would like to see in America, and Europe as well, would be a declaration that Muslims in the west denounce terrorism, work with law enforcement to turn in radicals, and state clearly and publicly that your clothes and your heart have made a decision on the mutually exclusive ideas that you can say and believe whatever you want versus believing that those who insult or try to leave the religion of the hijab should be killed, as your religious law decrees.
It is not the fact that millions of Muslims &#8212; the vast majority &#8212; here in the west despise and reject terrorism, and have chosen Constitutional values over Koranic ones. It&#8217;s the fact that none of the rest of us see any of you openly saying so that alarms us.
Gaudy hijab fashion that glamorizes and sexualizes women is a rejection of core Islamic beliefs, not the inclusion of them. It&#8217;s great to see you on the walkway, but it would be even better to know where you stand.

Muslim Chic

Islam

Radical Islam

Religion

Yahoo News brings us a story of fashion designer Anniesa Hasibuan, who for two years now has been featuring the Muslim hijab, the garment that wraps

https://www.dailywire.com/news/muslim-chic-bill-whittle/

Constructed in 1968, the Oroville Dam in California was built with an emergency spillway; should water levels on the reservoir side rise faster than could be released in controlled fashion, the lower walls of the spillway were designed to allow overflow to be shunted harmlessly to the side of the main waterway.
Until this winter, we have never had to wonder whether or not this spillway was going to work as advertised, because until this winter, the Oroville Dam has not once encountered enough rainfall to test the design.
However. In 2005, three environmental groups petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to look into what they considered to be design flaws in the dam&#8217;s structure. No action was taken. And none was needed, what with the Neverending Drought and all.
On Saturday night, panicked, angry and confused residents of Marysville, CA fought gridlock to get themselves clear of the flooding that might &#8211; or might not &#8211; occur as the spillway structure began to disintegrate. The Oroville dam is in Yolo County, just northwest of Sacramento. A few years ago, a fad ran through the internet communities that follow these things: YOLO, You Only Live Once. Let&#8217;s hope that kind of daredevil lifestyle is not the case for the federal and state taxpayers that live downstream from the Oroville Dam.
So, as a resident of both California and the United States, there are a few things I would like to know.
From the feds, I would like an explanation of why these complaints were not addressed eleven and a half years ago. I would like an explanation because I suspect that I know the explanation: it&#8217;s the same bureaucratic wishful thinking that allowed another government agency to rationalize the fact that frequent burn-throughs on the O-rings in the Space Shuttle&#8217;s Solid Rocket Boosters had not caused a catastrophe before, and so chances are pretty good that we won&#8217;t have a catastrophe on the next flight. This same agency made the same calculation for the same reasons sixteen years later: foam departing the external tank (due to using a &#8220;greener&#8221; form of cement) had struck the orbiter on liftoff before and nothing had happened, so chances are pretty good that nothing would happen on the next flight.
The dam did not fail for any of the last sixteen winters, so chances are pretty good that it wouldn&#8217;t fail on the seventeenth. If this dam had been private property, owned and managed by a private utility, they would have been sued to the heavens &#8211; deservedly so. Being sued to the heavens is motivation to check the dam. 
Secondly, California has a base sales tax rate of 7.5%, and a top income tax rate of 13.3%. I believe they are both records for the US.
So I would like to know the answer to a simple question: where the hell has all of this money gone?
Well, it hasn&#8217;t gone into infrastructure. The roads in Los Angeles are approaching Third World conditions. It hasn&#8217;t gone into new airports. It hasn&#8217;t gone into bridges, and it seems pretty obvious that it has not gone into dam maintenance either. So where is it?
<blockquote>
So, as a resident of both California and the United States, there are a few things I would like to know.

</blockquote>
Well, it&#8217;s been stolen by people voting themselves pensions of $200,000 per years or so. That&#8217;s where it is. A public sector union is a union that sits across the negotiating table from itself and one where both parties know that revenues are unlimited. And I think the reason we do not look at the amount of larceny committed at both the state and federal level is because if we did we would go right out of our damn minds.

Damn California

California

Oroville Dam

Constructed in 1968, the Oroville Dam in California was built with an emergency spillway; should water levels on the reservoir side rise faster than could

https://www.dailywire.com/news/damn-california-bill-whittle/

Menu