Attorney General William Barr highlighted on Friday during the Federalist Society&#8217;s 2019 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C., the reason why conservatives are at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to fighting the political Left.
&#8220;This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic,&#8221; Barr said. &#8220;In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.&#8221;
&#8220;Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing,&#8221; Barr continued. &#8220;This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a &#8216;rule of law&#8217; standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying in a given circumstance, was universalized &#8212; that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?&#8221;
In a section of his prepared remarks, which he skipped over, Barr added, &#8220;For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
AG Bill Barr are on fire here as he calls out Progressives for treating politics as a religion. &#8220;Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image.&#8221; They&#8217;ll use &#8220;any means necessary in achieving their end &#8230; &#8221; <a href="https://t.co/VYFt5qUrnu">pic.twitter.com/VYFt5qUrnu</a>
— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1195872428817186816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
Earlier in his speech, Barr hammered the political Left for their resistance to President Donald Trump ever since the first day of his presidency.
“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called ‘The Resistance,’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, ‘resistance’ is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power,” Barr said. “It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous &#8212; indeed incendiary &#8212; notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the ‘loyal opposition,’ as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ag-barr-democrats-are-engaged-in-a-war-to-cripple-sabotage-trump-administration">WATCH: AG Barr: Democrats Are ‘Engaged In A War’ To Cripple, Sabotage Trump Administration</a>

Bill Barr

AG Barr Explains Why Conservatives Are At A Fundamental Disadvantage To Leftists

Conservatism

Leftism

William Barr

On October 24, a student casually vandalized the material at a Turning Point USA table at the University of Michigan.
Fortunately, TPUSA Chapter President Austin McIntosh was able to film the incident.
During the nearly five-minute video, the vandal rips material out of the hands of a conservative student, and dumps a bowl of candy on the ground. He also takes bags of cookies and a poster-board sign about free speech, and tosses them in a nearby trash bin.
“Recording me don’t make me feel no type of way, so you can keep doing it,” the vandal says.
“The police will like it, though,” McIntosh replies.
When a conservative female student tells the vandal that it’s “against the law” to steal, he replies: “You know what’s also against the law? Hate speech.”
As the conservative students call him out on his “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” the vandal continues to steal items from the table, and tear posters, tossing it all in the trash.
At one point, a female student wearing an orange hoodie approaches and appears to defend the vandal’s behavior. Meanwhile, McIntosh simply trolls the vandal and his defender.
<iframe style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTPUSAUMICH%2Fvideos%2F560925841379855%2F&amp;show_text=0&amp;width=267" width="267" height="476" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The Daily Wire reached out to McIntosh for comment.
“I didn&#8217;t know who it was at first, and the police said they couldn’t really do anything until we figured out who it was,” McIntosh told The Daily Wire. “On Friday, I walked into one of my classes, and the guy who did it walked right in. My mind was blown.”
McIntosh then looked up his class list online, and figured out the vandal’s name.
As for what was running through his mind when the vandal was destroying TPUSA property, McIntosh said that he was “angry,” and that he wanted to “defend” his materials. However, “knowing campus climate and the university’s stance on self defense,” he knew he couldn’t really do anything.
“Through meetings with some university officials, I was told if I would&#8217;ve gotten physical with him, I would&#8217;ve been subject to punishment even though I was defending my stuff,” McIntosh said.
After a moment, he decided to focus on filming the incident for evidentiary purposes, as well as to document “how polarized we are, and how intolerant the Left is on campus.”
“I feel like the Left is so intolerant of other ideas, other beliefs, and intellectual diversity,” McIntosh stated. “They can&#8217;t stand to hear another opinion.”
Following the incident, McIntosh called the police, who reportedly chased the vandal until he got away from them.
McIntosh later met with Sarah Daniels, associate dean of students, as well as Robbie Abdelhoq, the formal conflict resolution pathways program manager for the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, who allegedly told the TPUSA leader that the vandal could be made to take “an anger management class, or write an apology letter.”
McIntosh wants more than that. He told The Daily Wire that there should be “restitution” for the damaged and discarded materials, and perhaps “suspension” for the vandal.
In addition to the vandal allegedly dropping out of his class with McIntosh, the university put in place a “no contact order,” prohibiting the vandal from making contact with McIntosh “or any of the other people who were at that table that day.”
When asked what he expects is going to happen going forward, McIntosh stated:
<blockquote>On the university side of things, I honestly don&#8217;t expect much. There have been other situations on our campus, like intolerance toward conservative students, and they don&#8217;t seem to do a whole lot. I think it starts at the top. Look at President [Mark] Schlissel – he sent out <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/10/05/mark-schlissel-trump-emails/734717001/">emails</a> when Donald Trump won about how he thought it was ironic that conservative students felt targeted or harassed on campus. I don&#8217;t think the university is very protective of their conservative minority students on campus. At most, my guess is that they&#8217;re going to put him in some sort of anger management class, but I&#8217;ll be pushing for suspension and restitution.</blockquote>
Even if the university doesn’t do as McIntosh hopes, the police appear to be moving forward.
An investigator on the case sent the following message to a TPUSA representative: “The case has been sent to the prosecutor&#8217;s office. I expect charges next week, however cannot divulge any charges or other details until the subject is arraigned, per Michigan law.”

UMich Vandal.

WATCH: Student Vandalizes Conservative Group’s Table At University Of Michigan

TPUSA

University of Michigan

On Thursday, conservative students affiliated with the College Republicans and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) at Binghamton University in New York were harassed and intimidated by a massive mob of activists.
The groups were “tabling” side-by-side in a public space on campus, according to John Restuccia, president of the College Republicans.
While the College Republicans were handing out flyers for an upcoming speech by famed economist Dr. Arthur Laffer sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), the individuals at the TPUSA table were handing out buttons and posters pertaining to conservative political ideology.
Restuccia left to attend a class, but was later called back to the site due to the burgeoning protest. He dialed the State University Police and headed over.
According to Restuccia, as well as Jon Lizak, vice president of Binghamton’s TPUSA chapter, the number of activists grew over the course of the protest until there were roughly 200 people haranguing the conservative students and disrupting their property.
Lacey Kestecher, chapter president of TPUSA at Binghamton, recorded approximately an hour and a half of footage from the frightening encounter, seven minutes of which can be seen below.
In the video, one activist attempts to dismantle the College Republicans/TPUSA set up, throwing buttons and posters to the ground, and flipping the table.
“Pack this s*** up. It’s time to go,” she says, grabbing and tossing property from the table.
As a conservative student wearing a gray and red sweater places new objects on the table, the activist grabs them and throws them to the ground. “Pack this s*** up. Let’s go. Let’s go,” she repeats, once again flipping the table.
Another activist wearing a black jacket with a brown fur collar asks a conservative student: “Do you want to suck my d*** now or later?” She then leans in toward him, repeating, “That’s my question. That’s my question. That’s my question.”
The same activist then screams at Kestecher: “Look at you shaking, you little b****! That s*** is f***ing crazy!”
Yet another activist tells the conservative students: “I just want to say that the fact that y’all are comfortable to even do this means that we’re not doing enough – and every single time [they try this s***], we’re packing it up. Period!”
“So you’re never gonna be able to table again,” adds a person wearing a blue beanie.
When a campus security officer comes over, and begins asking the activists if material was being torn up and thrown to the ground, the activists appear to deny that they were participating in such activity – even the woman who had previously flipped the table.
The officer then states that he just wants to make sure everyone is “safe.” At this, the activists blow up, and begin screaming at him.
The activist wearing the black jacket with fur then approaches Kestecher, and says: “Why are you shaking still?! Why are you shaking still?! Look at you laugh! Why are you shaking still?!”
She then tells Kestecher that she’s a “f***ing p****!”
When two other female activists walk over and begin to encroach upon Kestecher, a State University Police Officer intervenes, stepping between the women.
An activist wearing a bright blue jacket asks the officer: “Why are you protecting her?!”
At various points, members of the mob start chanting: “F*** Trump,” and “No justice, no peace. No racist police.”
At the very end of the recording, an Asian woman with salmon-colored hair engages in the following exchange with a man who’s off camera:
<blockquote>WOMAN: Who are they protecting?! People like you?
MAN: You don’t even know me. You know nothing about me.
WOMAN: You’re white!</blockquote>
The man then told the salmon-haired woman that she was an “idiot” and a “fool” because she would define him by his skin color alone.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_X2-96gt9MI" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
According to Restuccia and Lizak, the State University Police advised that the situation was becoming dangerous, and that they should leave.
Lizak told The Daily Wire: “We followed the police into a building, then we went down to the basement, which led to a garage. Then a couple cars pulled up, we got into them, and they drove us to the other side of campus.”
Lacey Kestecher said the experience was troubling. “I was extremely worried for my safety. I was extremely uncomfortable as well,” she said.
A male activist even grabbed Kestecher’s hat from off of her head, and tossed it away.
While Restuccia and Lizak were taken away in vehicles by the police officers, Kestecher went a separate way because she had to go back to her dorm. She and a male friend walked on the “outskirts, hood up” in order to make sure they weren’t being followed.
The College Democrats have issued a statement placing the blame for the near-riot on the conservative students, and calling for the suspension of the College Republicans, and the banning of TPUSA entirely.
Their statement reads:
<blockquote>Binghamton University College Democrats condemns Turning Point USA and College Republicans’ joint affair yesterday on campus advocating for gun rights only three hours after a school shooting in Santa Clarita. It was a tasteless demonstration, and we are in full support of the protesters that stood up against the blatant disrespect of the Student Association’s rules and student safety.
We call on Binghamton University’s Student Association to take the following steps to ensure students’ safety and that all chartered organizations follow the rules set in place by the Student Association:
1. Immediately suspend Binghamton University College Republicans for putting the lives of students in danger and violating the SA rules by tabling with a non-chartered group as per the following from the SA chartering document:
“As a non-chartered group, you cannot reserve a space on campus, but you can use public university spaces or, in many cases, rooms that have not been booked and are unlocked. If you choose to meet in the dining hall or other public university spaces, your meetings cannot be obstructing traffic, nor can they interfere with the employees who work in those areas.”
2. Enforce a ban on Turning Point USA to prevent them from tabling in the future.
We also condemn the actions of University Police. Rather than removing the organizations in violation of these rules, they chose to not only let them remain on the spine, but protected them over the protesters. Allowing College Republicans and Turning Point USA to remain on the spine during the protest created a more hostile environment and further endangered the protesters.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/B45axQkgJkQ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<a style="color: #000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B45axQkgJkQ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yesterday&#8217;s events on campus warranted a response from our club, so as an Executive Board, here is our official statement.</a>
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">A post shared by <a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px;" href="https://www.instagram.com/bingcollegedems/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Bing U College Democrats</a> (@bingcollegedems) on <time style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px;" datetime="2019-11-15T19:04:57+00:00">Nov 15, 2019 at 11:04am PST</time>
</div>
</blockquote>
According to Jon Lizak, the “gun rights” claim coming from the College Democrats is a false narrative. He told The Daily Wire that TPUSA, which represented only one of the two organizations tabling, had “a couple of pro-gun posters” on display, and that there were other posters at the table as well.
John Restuccia told The Daily Wire that TPUSA was simply “promoting their organization,” and the College Republicans were promoting economist Dr. Arthur Laffer.

Binghamton University Activists.

SHOCKING VIDEO: Conservative Students Harassed And Intimidated By Leftist Student Mob

College Republicans

Progressivism

Turning Point USA

As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Hank Berrien <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-teacher-training-program-used-across-the-u-s-is-hostile-to-whites">reported</a> yesterday, a far-left public educational initiative called Deep Equity is being increasingly adopted across the country.
As <a href="https://us.corwin.com/en-us/nam/the-program-deep-equity">described by Corwin</a>, an educational training initiative umbrella organization that describes itself as &#8220;aimed at producing real school improvement for equity and social justice,&#8221; Deep Equity &#8220;is a comprehensive and systemic professional development process aimed at producing the deep personal, professional, and organizational transformations that are necessary to create equitable places of learning for all of our nation’s children.&#8221; Using unmistakable leftist language, the program &#8220;addresses the dynamics of power and privilege in a safe, engaging, and inspiring environment in which all educators are honored and valued as professionals,&#8221; as further described by Corwin.
The Daily Wire also quoted Fox News host Tucker Carlson&#8217;s highlighting of the Deep Equity program on his platform. Carlson described Deep Equity as follows:
<blockquote>According to Deep Equity, America is based on a hierarchy of various oppressions: Men oppress women, Christianity oppresses Islam, English oppresses Spanish, white people oppress everyone. And, by the way, if you have a problem with this explanation, you are yourself entrenching oppression; you’re part of the problem. According to Corwin, differences in academic performance have nothing to do with culture or effort; they are purely the product of racism. &#8230;
In order to fight that racism, teachers are instructed on different types of ‘white identity orientations’ … many white people, teachers are told, according to Deep Equity, are defined by their ‘ignorance and supremacy.’ Other white people, ‘question the systemic issues that have caused whites to be so much in a superior position.</blockquote>
Following the publication of The Daily Wire&#8217;s report yesterday, a concerned parent in Chandler, Arizona, contacted The Daily Wire to provide further details about the nature of Deep Equity and the extent to which leftism seems to be seeping into Democratic State Superintendent of Public Instruction <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Hoffman">Kathy Hoffman&#8217;s</a> statewide education initiatives. Hoffman, who has previously implied that she was <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/10/12/does-kathy-hoffman-have-resume-lead-arizona-schools-frank-riggs-superintendent-public-instruction/1595498002/">only inspired to seek her current perch</a> after watching the confirmation of current U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has already embarked upon a hard leftist path since taking office in January. In April, for example, Hoffman <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-arizona-promo-homo-law-repealed-lgbtq-20190412-5f6gkfhw65h7zbprkbjhbxcu6q-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2CFaKUFlCNqjwgiZRHpoJ11Pr8gesdzrwlb4gKGdPP0IWcSJ5qBiWFjTQ">celebrated</a> the repeal of Arizona&#8217;s so-called &#8220;no promo homo&#8221; law, and stood at a jubilant post-repeal press conference podium alongside a representative of LGBT advocacy group <a href="https://www.glsen.org/chapter/phoenix">GLSEN Phoenix</a>.
As flagged by the concerned Chandler parent and confirmed by verifiable evidence, the application form to join Chandler Unified School District&#8217;s (CUSD) Deep Equity Advisory Board specifically asks applicants whether they have sufficient &#8220;personal[]&#8221; or &#8220;professional[]&#8221; experience to understand prioritized Deep Equity values with respect to &#8220;intersectionality of race, gender, class, religion, and sexual orientation.&#8221;
Furthermore, the concerned Chandler parent provided verifiable evidence, submitted to the parent from a CUSD teacher who harbors deep concerns about Deep Equity, that the Deep Equity program in CUSD attempts to encourage such themes as &#8220;religious/spiritual pluralism&#8221; in lieu of &#8220;Christianity over other religions,&#8221; &#8220;affectional/sexual pluralism and equal rights&#8221; in lieu of &#8220;heterosexual over other gender/sexual identities,&#8221; &#8220;distributive justice&#8221; in lieu of &#8220;haves over &#8216;have-nots,'&#8221; &#8220;language preservation and respect&#8221; in lieu of &#8220;English only,&#8221; and the elevation of many other far-left social justice themes over traditional norms.
The concerned Chandler parent also provided verifiable evidence that CUSD sponsors such seminars during its Deep Equity Summer Symposium — meaning they are taxpayer-funded — as &#8220;Inclusiveness With LGBTQ+ Students&#8221; and &#8220;Building LGBTQ-Inclusive Elementary Schools.&#8221; As The Daily Wire reported yesterday, there does not seem to be a normal mode of recourse for parents objecting to this leftist indoctrination.
The Daily Wire will continue to monitor Deep Equity-themed developments.

Schoolhouse

Public Educational Initiative In Arizona Instills Far-Left, ‘Social Justice’ Values

Arizona

Betsy DeVos

Education

Homosexuality

Intersectionality

LGBT

Sexuality

Social Justice

The Guardian has a lengthy <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change">article</a> about a movement that, it says, is &#8220;gaining mainstream popularity.&#8221; Anti-natalism is the belief that human life is objectively worthless and pointless. As The Guardian explains, anti-natalists contend that human reproduction causes unjustified harm to human society (which shouldn&#8217;t exist to begin with, by this way of thinking) and the planet. Furthermore, parents are guilty of a moral crime by imposing existence on children who have not consented to their existence.
One man has even tried to exact revenge on his parents for forcing life upon him:
<blockquote>In February, a 27-year-old Indian man named Raphael Samuel announced plans for an unusual lawsuit. He was going to sue his parents for begetting him. “It was not our decision to be born,” he told the <a class="u-underline" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287" data-link-name="in body link">BBC</a>. “Human existence is totally pointless.”
&#8230; Samuel subscribes to a philosophy called anti-natalism. The basic tenet of anti-natalism is simple but, for most of us, profoundly counterintuitive: that life, even under the best of circumstances, is not a gift or a miracle, but rather a harm and an imposition. According to this logic, the question of whether to have a child is not just a personal choice but an ethical one  and the correct answer is always no.</blockquote>
Paradoxically, anti-natalists often claim that their belief in the worthlessness of human life is motivated by compassion for human life:
<blockquote>While [South African philosopher David Benatar] also sought to discourage reproduction, his ideas grew out of different premises. The objective of anti-natalism, as Benatar sees it, is to reduce human suffering. Since life inevitably involves some amount of suffering, bringing another person into the world introduces the guarantee of some harm. He argued that “the quality of even the best lives is very bad — and considerably worse than most people recognize it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people.”</blockquote>
In another paradox, anti-natalists wish to protect humanity from harm by ensuring its obliteration:
<blockquote>Dana Wells, the Dallas-based YouTuber, felt validated by Benatar’s work. About five years ago, she reunited with her biological brother (she was adopted), and he grilled her about why she didn’t have children. Feeling annoyed after their meeting, she searched online for books — “I’m a reader. I’m a nerd,” she says — in hopes of finding out about others who didn’t want kids.
For the first time, she encountered the terms “childfree” and “anti-natalism.” She began “to see that this life game is an imposition.” For her, it was simple: “Living things can be harmed. Non-living things cannot be harmed.”</blockquote>
On one level, this all seems like depression and self-loathing dressed up as a philosophical system. But it can&#8217;t be a valid philosophical system because it contradicts itself at every turn. For one thing, anti-natalists undermine their own position simply by sticking around to articulate it. If you really think that life is not only pointless but also harmful, and that non-existence is preferable to existence, then the obvious question is why you yourself have chosen to continue existing. A skeptic might suspect that even you recognize, deep down, that life is worth living. If you didn&#8217;t, you wouldn&#8217;t be living it anymore.
Also, terms like &#8220;better&#8221; or &#8220;preferable&#8221; or &#8220;harmful&#8221; or &#8220;bad&#8221; are all meaningless in a vacuum. David Benatar wrote a book called &#8220;Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.&#8221; But better to whom? For whom? It couldn&#8217;t be better for me if I don&#8217;t exist because if I don&#8217;t exist, then there is no me to reap the benefit. The term &#8220;for me&#8221; does not apply if I do not exist. And it can&#8217;t be better for society if humans don&#8217;t exist because without humans there is no society to enjoy their absence. Even the fate of the planet itself is arguably meaningless without conscious beings around to care about it. Does it matter if a planet 15 trillion miles away from the nearest intelligent civilization explodes? Why? An entire galaxy could cease to exist and I&#8217;m not sure why it would really matter if no conscious beings are affected by it. You cannot argue that Situation B would be &#8220;better&#8221; than Situation A if there isn&#8217;t anyone around in Situation B to profit from the improvement. If there is no one, then it is literally better for no one. Which is just another way of saying that it&#8217;s not better.
<iframe title="The Anti-Natalist Movement | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 372" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2Q-WrBNfPwc?start=1206&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Third point: The idea of &#8220;existence without consent&#8221; is incoherent. In fact, you do have a say in whether you exist or not. The only way to fully remove consent from someone is to never bring him or her into existence to begin with.
The anti-natalists clearly have some bugs to work out. But the incoherence of their position does not mean that their position should be ignored. It should concern, though not surprise us, that modern culture has given rise to such a movement. Concern us because it indicates that our culture is losing its will to live; not surprise us because the rejection of inherent human worth has been the cornerstone of mainstream leftism for decades now.
Indeed, the pro-abortion position rests squarely on the premise that life has no inherent value. &#8220;Clump of cells,&#8221; they call it in the womb. But if I am inherently a valueless chunk of matter at conception and for nine months thereafter, I must logically continue to be a valueless chunk of matter for the rest of my life. I might be able to make myself useful for a time, but I am only useful to other chunks of useless matter. There is nothing about my innate nature, nothing at the core of my being, that gives me value. If there was, I would have had that value from the moment I was a being, from the moment of conception. By rejecting my value then, we reject it in principle. I am just a parasite and my birth is merely the spread of an infestation. The anti-natalists see this implication and embrace it. At least they&#8217;re honest.

Hiking

WALSH: Growing &#8216;Anti-Natalist&#8217; Movement Calls For The Extinction Of Humanity. This Is The Logical Conclusion Of Leftism.

Religion

The original &#8220;Wheel of Fortune&#8221; host, Chuck Woolery, claims that his open support for President Trump has destroyed his career.
Speaking on &#8220;<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/shows/fox-and-friends" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fox &amp; Friends</a>&#8221; Wednesday, Woolery said that he has been &#8220;shadow-banned&#8221; by Twitter and that his best moment on the social media platform came when he told his massive follower count last week about his professional woes due to his open conservatism.
&#8220;To answer your question. Yes I have pretty much destroyed my career by openly supporting Trump and letting all know, I am a conservative. Painful at times, but true. After all is said and done. It was my choice and I can live with it. I would do it all again,&#8221; he tweeted last week.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
To answer your question. Yes I have pretty much destroyed my career by openly supporting Trump and letting all know, I am a conservative. Painful at times, but true. After all is said and done. It was my choice and I can live with it. I would do it all again.
&mdash; Chuck Woolery (@chuckwoolery) <a href="https://twitter.com/chuckwoolery/status/1192551844113002503?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;It was kind of a self-deprecating tweet I sent out because I know I&#8217;m shadow-banned. I&#8217;ve got about 650,000 or 700,000 followers,&#8221; Woolery told host Brian Kilmeade on Wednesday. &#8220;I know the half of them don&#8217;t get what I say. So I sent this thing out just as kind of a test — because it made me look [like] I was losing in life. And it just went crazy — it was the biggest tweet I ever had in my life. So as long as you&#8217;re a loser, they love you.&#8221;
In the same interview on &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends,&#8221; Woolery slammed cancel culture, which he described as a small minority of people sitting in basements firing off tweets to make corporations think the masses care about what one person thinks.
&#8220;My career kind of phased into commercial life. So I have several companies I represent. And they are bombarded,&#8221; said Woolery. &#8220;These people sit in their basement, and they make it look like there are thousands of people complaining about Chuck Woolery or about the products and who he represents — and &#8216;how could you let this fascist, racist guy represent your company&#8217; — when none of it is true. And these are the same people by the way who get on Twitter, [saying] &#8216;I watched you when I was growing up. I loved you &#8230; what happened to you?'&#8221;
Woolery lamented how political discourse has devolved into a game of destroying lives over the disagreements of individuals.
&#8220;What you have wrong is &#8230; the companies who you represent are just inundated with all of this negative [stuff]. It&#8217;s not true,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They just make this stuff up and throw it out [there] because they want to destroy your life. They don&#8217;t just want to disagree with you. They are so vehement and so virulent. They just want to destroy you and that&#8217;s their purpose.&#8221;
Chuck Woolery&#8217;s reflection about the state of cancel culture comes on the same week that veteran sports commentator Don Cherry <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-don-cherry-fired-for-telling-immigrants-to-honor-fallen-vets-responds-to-backlash">was let go from his job</a> on Sportsnet for asking immigrants to celebrate Canadian veterans.
“You people love — you, that come here, whatever it is — you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey. At least you could pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that. These guys paid for your way of life, that you enjoy in Canada,&#8217;” Cherry said.

WE tv Presents &#8220;The Evolution Of The Relationship Reality Show&#8221; &#8211; Inside

Game Show Host Chuck Woolery: Supporting Trump Ruined My Career

Cancel culture

Donald Trump

Hollywood

Trump Supporters

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (AOC) has hit the 2020 campaign trail with Bernie Sanders. The freshman congresswoman from New York has frequently been seen with the octogenarian from Vermont since she endorsed him a few weeks ago. Comments on their myriad of social media posts are replete with calls from the Right for her to be voted out, and that people can’t wait for AOC to no longer be a part of public life. Everyone should buckle their seatbelts, though, because AOC will be with us for the rest of her life.
AOC represents a D+29 district located in the Bronx and Queens; the district has been a Democrat stronghold for nearly a century. AOC was the first truly successful story of the Justice Democrats&#8217; plan to shift the Democrats leftward: Primary an entrenched, moderate Democrat in a deep blue district and bank on low turnout. This worked once in her favor, but it&#8217;s highly doubtful that the same trick can be used against her.
Currently, AOC has two challengers in her congressional district&#8217;s Democratic Party primary in June, both on her political right. Considering that the latest Democratic primary election in the area, the Queens district attorney race, almost yielded a 27-year-old socialist with no prosecutorial experience (losing by only a few dozen votes), AOC&#8217;s district is not very interested in moving back towards the Democratic center. At least not without significant contributions of both time and money from the New York political machine.
That political machine, though, is fully invested in AOC, as they know she is the future of the Democratic Party (as stated by none other than Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez himself). She has already raised $3.3 million for her re-election campaign. To steal the seat from Democratic veteran Joe Crowley, she only needed $2 million. If internal polling shows that she has any trouble from the Democrats, she is poised with enough cash to handily win that primary.
As of the general election, historically that district has zero interest in voting Republican. <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-a-glass-of-water-with-d-next-to-it-would-win-ocasio-cortezs-district">Nancy Pelosi herself said</a> that a “glass of water would win with a ‘D’ next to its name” in that district. At the same time, Republicans are definitely more interested now than they were before.
In 2018, AOC’s Republican challenger raised a little over $8,000, which yielded him 13.6% of the vote. This time around, there is a much more contentious primary, with five confirmed candidates already from very diverse backgrounds. Compared to 2018, those candidates have raised some impressive numbers so far, around $950,000 collectively. But raising a third of what AOC has raised and overcoming such a huge point gap may be one miracle too many.
There’s no shot that AOC decides to resign at some point to pursue another career. Historically, Democrats leave office when they retire or are kicked out. Of the longest-serving members of Congress of all-time, the top 10 are all Democrats. For all the talk of the new freshman Democrats, if you break down the House of Representatives by longevity, the average Democrat has been in office at least one term longer than has the average Republican. If you remove those sworn in in 2019, Democrats have been around two terms longer, by average. Of the 28 members of the House who announced they are not seeking re-election, 20 are Republicans and only eight are Democrats.
AOC clearly looks at Bernie Sanders as a role model for her own political aspirations. From her perspective, why shouldn’t she? He has made a very successful living being the village kook, and is now a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. The path to getting rich and popular while accomplishing nothing is easier in politics than in any other profession. He’s been living on the public dime for 38 years, and only won his first election when he was 40. AOC has an 11-year head start on her mentor, so she can easily be in office for five or six decades, possibly with a future in the Senate or in a Cabinet position.
There are two avenues that the Right can take with a character like AOC. The first, and probably the easiest, is to accept the fact that AOC will be in politics. This route means that the Right will have a foil to argue against — someone so radical and so powerful that her mere presence in the opposition will drive voters to the polls, just to vote against her. The second, more difficult path, is probably the one that Republicans need to take to ensure political future throughout the country. That is to appeal to the innate conservatism of those who reside in urban areas.
Demographically, AOC’s district is 49.80% Hispanic, 18.41% white, 16.24% Asian, and 11.39% black. This is a prime testing ground for spreading conservative messaging throughout urban areas across the country. Family, law and order, education, religion, and prosperity are strong messages. This route will take a generation, at least, to take hold, but this is where Republicans can take a page out of the Justice Democrats&#8217; playbook. There are almost 350,000 registered voters in that district. Roughly a third actually come out to vote. Chipping away at socialist support and driving out the vote are the way forward for this, and many more, urban areas. While this may not drive her out of office, it will send a strong message in the surrounding areas and throughout the country that there are no districts that Republicans are conceding.
There is a lot of noise coming from the 2020 Republican primary candidates in AOC&#8217;s district. While this will be a tough road for the eventual nominee, the fight is worth having. Most likely, however, AOC will be in the public sphere for a long time to come. The only difference will be that, in the future, she may be the “moderate” of the Democratic Party.
&nbsp;
Like Moshe Hill on Facebook at <a href="https://facebook.com/ahillwithaview">facebook.com/ahillwithaview</a> and follow on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/themohill">@TheMoHill</a>.

AOC in Iowa

HILL: The Only Way To Keep AOC Off The Public Dole Forever

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about how the sports media complex only allows politics in sports when it comes from the Left. Video and partial transcript below: 
So there is a rule in sports media. The rule is that if you are on the Left and you want to talk politics, then you are a hero; If you&#8217;re not on the Left and you to talk politics, you get fired. 
That is the rule in sports media. We&#8217;ve talked about this — my friend Clay Travis, who is a lifelong registered Democrat as far as I&#8217;m aware, and he fully agrees that the sports media are extraordinarily biased to the Left. Like more so, statistically speaking, than the news media, actually. This is how you end up with these two juxtaposed stories: 
In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/deadspin-sports.html">The New York Times</a>, an editorial by a guy named Barry Petchesky, who is the former deputy editor of Deadspin — [which] had turned into this wild Left outlet that had almost nothing to do with sports, they spent their days ripping on Ted Cruz until Ted Cruz owned them — [Petchesky] has a piece called “I Was Fired from Deadspin for Refusing to ‘Stick to Sports.’”
<blockquote>Two weeks ago, I was fired as acting editor in chief of Deadspin, where I’d worked since 2009. The entire staff resigned, following me out the door after we refused a new company mandate to &#8220;stick to sports.&#8221; Jim Spanfeller, installed as chief executive of G/O Media by the private equity firm that bought the company seven months ago, called me into his office, pointed to some offending stories on our home page and had me escorted from the building.
This is the first time I&#8217;m speaking up about my firing, and my stance remains the same as in the countless meetings with management where I explained and insisted that sports don&#8217;t end when the players head back to the locker room.
We refused to &#8220;stick to sports,&#8221; because we know that sports is everything and everything is sports: It&#8217;s the N.B.A. kowtowing to its Chinese business interests; it&#8217;s pro sports leagues attempting to become shadow justice systems for publicity reasons; it&#8217;s the opioid epidemic roiling N.F.L. locker rooms at least as hard as anywhere in Appalachia, even as the league refuses to relax its marijuana policies; it&#8217;s racist fan chants chasing black players off the pitch in Italian soccer matches; it&#8217;s Washington Nationals catcher Kurt Suzuki wearing a &#8220;Make America Great Again&#8221; cap at the White House. (These last few stories occurred in the past week and so were not covered on Deadspin; the &#8220;stick to sports&#8221; diktat forced the outlet to ignore the biggest sports stories in the world.)
Reporting sports with integrity requires knowing that there&#8217;s no way to wall off games from the world outside.</blockquote>
This guy&#8217;s a hero! I mean, it doesn&#8217;t matter that Deadspin was basically bankrupt, which is why a private equity firm had to buy them, and reinvigorate them and change everything out. But the idea here is that if you speak about politics from the Left in the sports world, then you are a hero of the republic.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pp0DgVLogMs?start=2919" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This guy Petchesky, he said:
<blockquote>Deadspin was the voice of the long-suffering fan, finding the humor and the heartbreak in everything in the world of sports. It was the fan wondering why he was paying $200 to go to a football game to watch a team whose owner would rather pocket profit than pay to improve the roster. It was also the fan troubled by the culture and politics of sports, the fan who couldn&#8217;t help noticing that the larger issues of the real world spilled onto the field.</blockquote>
Okay, so New York Times gives that guy an op-ed, and we&#8217;re all supposed to lament the return of Deadspin to pure sports. Then, there&#8217;s Don Cherry. 
So Don Cherry is a longtime hockey analyst for the NHL, and he was on SportsNet and he commented on SportsNet on the fact that it was Remembrance Day in Canada. Now, on Remembrance Day — I’ve been there, and everyone wears a red poppy in remembrance of the Canadian soldiers who fell during World War I — and he was upset because he said who&#8217;s walking around the streets of Toronto, and he saw people who he assumed were immigrants who were not wearing the red poppy. Here&#8217;s what Don Cherry said:
<blockquote>CHERRY: I live in Mississauga, nobody wears — very few people wear a poppy. Downtown Toronto, forget it downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy. &#8230; Now you go to the small cities and you know those, the rows and rows, you people love — they come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you could pay a couple of bucks for a poppies or something like that. These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada; these guys paid the biggest price. </blockquote>
Okay, so he said this and, you know, might not be wel-articulated, but he is entitled to his opinion unless he happens to be on the anti-immigration Right, at which point he gets fired. Don Cherry was indeed fired from SportsNet. SportsNet President Bart Yabsley said, quote, “Sports brings people together — it unites us, not divides us. Following further discussions with Don Cherry after Saturday night&#8217;s broadcast, it has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down. During the broadcast, he made divisive remarks that do not represent our values or what we stand for.”
I mean, you could just say that, right? You could just have that debate, theoretically. But the point here is that the media will lament if Deadspin is told not to do politics; but if Don Cherry is told not to do politics, then that is SportsNet acting just as a wonderful diverse company should. 
You see the same thing at ESPN. At ESPN, they will cover Colin Kaepernick kneeling for years on end, but if Mike Ditka says something they don&#8217;t like because it happens to be conservative, he says something about how he doesn’t like Barack Obama or something, they&#8217;ll fire him. He&#8217;s gone, end of Mike Ditka. You see that with Curt Schilling, too. Curt Schilling can&#8217;t appear on the network because [he] once tweeted that al-Qaeda was bad and compared al-Qaeda to the Nazis, which, of course, you&#8217;re not allowed to do even though al-Qaeda is kind of like the Nazis.
So just gonna point out the double standard in sports media — one of the reasons why sports circulation is declining. The answer to this probably is to separate off politics from sports again, or if you are going to not separate off politics from sports, then you should, in fact, allow the same sort of freedom of opinion to reign as you would in the political sphere. Don Cherry wouldn’t have been fired for saying what he said on CNN, so if politics and sports are not separate, then let a thousand voices be heard. If politics in sports are separate, well, then supplementing it when left-wing political hacks start hijacking sports websites for their own political agenda. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

New York, NY &#8211; Nov 1: An employee of the website Deadspin show

SHAPIRO: Left-Wing Sports Coverage Pushed Deadspin Into A Death Spiral

Media

Media Bias

Sports

The cultural Left&#8217;s ongoing battle to sexualize children and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-using-children-advance-your-political-josh-hammer">deprive them of their innocence</a> is now raging in the Old Dominion.
On <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PriscillaForFairfax/photos/a.111043596987758/120923609333090/?type=3&amp;theater">Facebook</a>, Fairfax County, Virginia School Board candidate Priscilla DeStefano sounded the alarm on the news that, unless parents opt out, children in the County would be mandated to take the <a href="https://www.fcps.edu/resources/student-safety-and-wellness/youth-survey?fbclid=IwAR0jUGUdnGQ-n8iApPZVbVQbzSeqScimslGRCt8Ozig25zIPPpdwLiPAa2I">Fairfax County Youth Survey</a>. Lest that survey sound innocent enough, DeStefano highlighted how the questionnaire would reportedly grill children as young as eighth grade on whether they are sexually active, have engaged in oral sex, and how many sexual partners they have had. It would also reportedly probe children as young as sixth grade about whether they smoke marijuana or drink alcohol.
&#8220;Starting this week, 6th, 8th, 10th &amp; 12th graders will be given the Youth Survey unless you OPT THEM OUT!,&#8221; DeStefano <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PriscillaForFairfax/photos/a.111043596987758/120923609333090/?type=3&amp;theater">warned</a>. &#8220;The 6th grade survey asks about drug use, like if they’ve ever huffed aerosols to get high; please look through it to see if you are comfortable with your 11/12 year being asked the 84 questions in the survey,&#8221; she continued.
DeStefano then noted how the Fairfax County Youth Survey is even more intrusive for older students in the county&#8217;s public school system: &#8220;The 8th, 10th &amp; 12th graders are asked much worse questions like if they’ve ever used heroin or LSD, their prescription drug use, and their sexual activity — like if they use condoms, if they’ve had oral sex, and how many sexual partners they’ve had.&#8221;
In total, the survey for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has 174 questions — quite the rigorous inspection of children as young as sixth grade. At least opt-out forms are available on the Fairfax County Public Schools <a href="https://www.fcps.edu/resources/student-safety-and-wellness/youth-survey?fbclid=IwAR0jUGUdnGQ-n8iApPZVbVQbzSeqScimslGRCt8Ozig25zIPPpdwLiPAa2I">website</a> in each of English, Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Korean, Spanish, Urdu, and Vietnamese.
Many of those commenting on DeStefano&#8217;s Facebook post expressed shock, disgust, or outrage.
&#8220;My request is to continue this fight and to hold the recently elected accountable!!,&#8221; commented one. &#8220;This is the beginning in my opinion. We must stay vocal and active and not allow the degradation of our society to happen without a fight. If all the candidates who did not get elected can form an alliance and network or action league we can remain in their faces. I know that our priorities are family. We now know that their priorities are breaking up of family and all holy beliefs and traditions.&#8221;
Another user observed how this activity seems to her to be nothing new: &#8220;This is, unfortunately, nothing new. I graduated high school in Oregon in 2000 and I recall a survey very similar to this given my freshman or sophomore year.&#8221;
A <a href="https://abc11.com/4506227/?fbclid=IwAR1gtHMK9zedbmm5v_0ltILr-mpToBotXhEvdjt0AQ6SrBYUtyucpqZBfAY">similar story</a> unfolded last month in North Carolina, when a survey given out to local sixth graders inquired about the students&#8217; sexual orientation. Local ABC affiliate ABC 11 <a href="https://abc11.com/4506227/?fbclid=IwAR1gtHMK9zedbmm5v_0ltILr-mpToBotXhEvdjt0AQ6SrBYUtyucpqZBfAY">reported</a>:
<blockquote>The mother of a Terrell Lane sixth-grader is upset after a survey given to her son included a question asking about his sexual orientation.
&#8220;Why are you asking 11-year olds these questions?&#8221; asked Connie Jo Hutchinson.
The program is called Shifting Boundaries, which is funded through a federal grant. In the survey handed out to students, the sixth question asks &#8220;What is your sexual orientation?&#8221;
It lists 10 possible options: Bisexual, Gay, Fluid, Heterosexual, Lesbian, Pansexual, Queer, Questioning, Prefer not to disclose, and Self-identify.</blockquote>

survey pencil

Virginia School Board Candidate Blasts Survey For 8th Graders Asking About Sexual Activity

Children

Virginia

On Monday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about a New York Times column claiming that “multibillion-dollar fortunes” are “anti-democratic.” Video and partial transcript below: 
The Bernie Sanders attack on billionaires, and the Elizabeth Warren attack on billionaires, is cynical and just disgusting. &#8230;
Elizabeth Warren is worth $12 million, and there she is [paraphrasing]: “These rich people, these rich people, they must be stopped.” And you got Bernie Sanders, who&#8217;s basically a giant welfare queen living off the government for the last 30 years — what is he now, he&#8217;s 78-years-old — living off the government for 50 years of his life. He&#8217;s like [paraphrasing]: “Oh, well, you know, we can&#8217;t let any of these people who actually earned their wealth run anything. They shouldn&#8217;t run for office. Only I should! I&#8217;ve been useless my entire life, so useless I was kicked off a commune.” 
So you got Bernie ripping into billionaires, and then [you’ve] got Michael Tomasky over at <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/billionaires-warren-wealth-tax.html">The New York Times</a> saying, “Bill Gates, I implore you to connect some dots.”
“The billionaire class has begun unloading on Elizabeth Warren.” 
You see, it&#8217;s a class now. Now, just to recognize a fact: Bill Gates is basically a lifelong Democrat. Warren Buffett is a lifelong Democrat. A lot of these, quote unquote “billionaire class members” are lifelong Democrats, people who&#8217;ve given tons of money to left-leaning causes. But they’re a class now, you see. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z6oi-dHemkc?start=1584" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This is pure Marxist speak where you are judged by the basis of your income — on the basis of your wealth — not by what you think, or what you do, or how you vote, or any of that sort of stuff. George Soros is a billionaire, [and he] gives a lot of money to exactly the kinds of people that Jamie Dimon doesn&#8217;t like, so treating everybody as a class based on their income is really stupid, in any case. This dumb columnist for The New York Times says: “A few days ago, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase — at just $1.6 billion in net worth, a comparative piker — said Senator Warren &#8216;vilifies successful people.&#8217;” 
[This] is true. 
“Then Bill Gates ($107 billion), in an onstage interview with The Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin, mused about what his tax bill might be in a Warren presidency and left the door open to voting for Trump should Democrats nominate Ms. Warren.”
Which makes sense, because her wealth tax proposal is baloney. 
“And then Michael Bloomberg ($52 billion), who had previously criticized Ms. Warren as anti-corporate, signaled his intention to jump into the race, obviously out of concern at her rise.”
“I&#8217;m not expert enough to judge the wisdom of Senator Warren&#8217;s proposed wealth tax.” 
Well then, what are you writing about? Like this entire thing is about her wealth tax. 
“I know, there are questions about its constitutionality and that several European nations tried a similar approach and found it unworkable (though four countries still have it). I don&#8217;t get why the candidates aren&#8217;t simply proposing to increase marginal income tax rates on dollars earned above some very high figure. That seems a lot more straightforward to me.”
The reason — the stunning ignorance of The New York Times columnist. The reason, not to justify Elizabeth Warren, [but] the reason she&#8217;s proposing a wealth tax is there isn&#8217;t enough money at the upper end of the income bracket, in terms of income earned every year, to pay for her proposals. The wealth tax is a confiscatory, nasty tax designed to pay for her garbage proposals that amount to $52 trillion dollars in spending over the next 10 years. That&#8217;s why she&#8217;s going for the wealth tax. You can increase the marginal tax rate, [but] it ain’t going to pay for this stuff. It isn&#8217;t. But this guy says:
“So this column is not a brief for Ms. Warren&#8217;s wealth tax and for her candidacy — I don&#8217;t have a preferred candidate. Instead, I want to make a simple plea to the country&#8217;s billionaires: Multibillion-dollar fortunes are often called excessive and decadent. But here&#8217;s something they’re rarely called but ought to be: Anti-democratic. These fortunes will destroy our democracy.”
Let me get this straight. You earn a billion dollars because you have a bunch of consensual economic transactions of people, and that&#8217;s anti-democratic? What is democratic is for the government to come and seize the results of those voluntary transactions? Jeff Bezos has not seized wealth from anyone, but you want the government to do that — who&#8217;s more anti-democratic? Bill Gates has not seized wealth from anyone. In fact, he&#8217;s provided jobs to hundreds of thousands of people and indirectly, probably millions of people. You want to seize the wealth he has earned on the basis of those voluntary economic transactions — who&#8217;s more anti-democratic?
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Elizabeth Warren

SHAPIRO: The Left Plans To Eat The Rich

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Socialism

Socialism

The annual leftist Thanksgiving-bashing began this year with MSNBC&#8217;s Joy Reid trashing the &#8220;food holiday&#8221; for its &#8220;problematic&#8221; history while advising her viewers on ways to debate their Trump-supporting family members at the dinner table.
&#8220;We are just over two weeks away from one of the most beloved American food holidays,&#8221; Reid began, as reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-joy-reid-thanksgiving-food-holiday-trump">Fox News</a>. &#8220;Thanksgiving, where problematic actual history meets delicious cuisine, and many will be heading home to spend time with family and friends, eat a little too much and perhaps engage in a dreaded, contentious political debate with your cranky Uncle Roscoe when he starts yelling, &#8216;Read the transcript!&#8217; at the dinner table between bites of turkey and pumpkin pie.&#8221;
Reid then went on to instruct viewers that they should not be concerned with minute details or terms like &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; advising them to instead focus on terms like &#8220;bribery&#8221; and &#8220;extortion.&#8221;
&#8220;Here’s a hint: Do not worry about trying to explain the cast of characters &#8230; or the very overused term, &#8216;quid pro quo,'&#8221; Reid continued. &#8220;Most people can’t say it, spell it or understand it. What we’re actually talking about here is not a pithy Latin phrase. It’s something a lot simpler: Bribery and extortion. Beyond the whistleblower and over 100 hours of testimony backing up that fact, Donald Trump admitted to it, and even released edited notes from his call with the Ukrainian president — which, by the way, is not a transcript — that actually proved he did it! Even Uncle Roscoe and Auntie Carol ought to understand that.&#8221;
Reid&#8217;s instruction for leftists to use the Thanksgiving holiday as a venue to school their conservative family members has been a sensation among Trump haters ever since he won the White House in 2016. Last year, The New York Times <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38568/nyt-gives-you-advice-how-argue-your-ben-shapiro">profiled</a> ways for liberals to argue with their conservative family members at the dinner table, which was quickly outdone by Eater <a href="https://www.eater.com/2018/11/20/18099157/thanksgiving-family-politics-argument?fbclid=IwAR0YsQ1lgTdCAFJySsW-PMnTgGYL9sTGJPB0RLRWScdM-1OS1QQthuO_570">asserting that people are morally obligated</a> to debate racist Trump supporters before asking them to pass the gravy.
&#8220;Moderates everywhere still insist that being nice to your racist, Trump-supporting relatives at the Thanksgiving table is somehow going to be the balm that prevents us from ending up in Margaret Atwood’s Gilead,&#8221; Eater&#8217;s Amy McCarthy argued. &#8220;That assessment is, frankly, a steaming pile of bulls***.&#8221;
&#8220;There is no amount of civility that can balance the harm of xenophobic nationalism, and no amount of sitting silently while listening to someone spew racial epithets that will repair what Trump and his ilk have broken,&#8221; continued McCarthy. &#8220;Being progressive doesn’t just mean clicking &#8216;like&#8217; on left-leaning Facebook statuses. It requires a commitment to pursuing justice, even when it’s your weird uncle, even when it’s uncomfortable, and especially when there are other people in the room who you care about.&#8221;
Dr. Karin Tamerius, a former psychiatrist and founder of Smart Politics, outlined in the Times a &#8220;five-step method to help people have difficult conversations&#8221; over the Thanksgiving table.
&#8220;The civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the anti-war movement, the gay rights movement, the struggle for marriage equality — all gained acceptance through difficult conversations among family members who initially disagreed vehemently with one another&#8221; argued Tamerius.

&#8220;Rest In Power: The Trayvon Martin Story&#8221; &#8211; 2018 Tribeca Film Festival

MSNBC’s Joy Reid Advises How To Debate Trump-Supporting Family Members During Thanksgiving

MSNBC

<a href="https://jstreet.org">J Street</a> has long been one of the most pernicious anti-Israel groups operating in the open. Untold amounts of ink have been <a href="https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2013/12/3/letter-j-street-liberals-fundamentally-misunderstand-pro-israel/">spilled</a> revealing the self-described &#8220;political home of pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans&#8221; for the <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/222366-j-street-pro-progressive-not-pro-israel">highly biased</a>, anti-Israel, <a href="http://www.thetower.org/article/anti-zionism-of-j-street/">Palestinian-Arab apologist</a> organization that it is.
For years following its 2007 founding by leftist activist Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street operated on the outermost fringes of the institutional pro-Israel and Jewish communities. But the years-long success of the <a href="http://www.thetower.org/article/open-hillel-is-a-much-bigger-problem-than-you-think/">insidious</a> &#8220;Open Hillel&#8221; movement helped to ingratiate J Street, which routinely assails Israeli governmental policy and never seems to find any fault with Islamist terror acts committed against the Jewish state, within some more mainstream elements of the American Jewish community. And as Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro recently wrote, the modern Democratic Party feels more at home within the J Street fold than it does within the ambit of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-what-exactly-current-role-aipac-josh-hammer">moderate</a> pro-Israel group AIPAC:
<blockquote>[T]he heart of the Democratic Party has moved against Israel. &#8230; So the Democrats built up and gave credence to J Street, a Trojan horse group dedicated to undermining American support for Israel and justifying left-wing hatred of the Jewish state. J Street was founded by Clinton operative Jeremy Ben-Ami and Israeli far-left political figure Daniel Levy in late 2007. One of its chief sources of funding — a source obscured in the early years by its founders — was anti-Israel radical George Soros.</blockquote>
Accordingly, four candidates for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination — South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Julian Castro (D-TX), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — spoke last month at the <a href="https://jstreet.org/conference/">J Street National Conference</a>. By contrast, not a single 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate spoke at the <a href="http://www.policyconference.org">AIPAC Policy Conference</a> last spring.
Now, the indispensable Legal Insurrection website has <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/j-street-radicalization-conference-speaker-compares-netanyahu-to-louis-farrakhan-and-stands-by-tamika-mallory/">highlighted</a> a particularly vile and irksome exchange that emanated from the bowels of the conference. It appears that April Baskin, who has the titles of &#8220;Racial Justice Director, Jewish Social Justice Roundtable&#8221; and &#8220;Founder/Principal, Joyous Justice Consulting,&#8221; defended noted <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-womens-march-president-suggests-jews-are-ryan-saavedra">anti-Semite Tamika Mallory</a> and expressly compared infamous <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/17/us/farrakhan-again-describes-hitler-as-a-very-great-man.html">anti-Semite</a> Louis Farrakhan to longtime Israeli Prime Minister <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-after-much-electoral-fanfare-israelis-once-josh-hammer">Benjamin Netanyahu</a>. Per <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/j-street-radicalization-conference-speaker-compares-netanyahu-to-louis-farrakhan-and-stands-by-tamika-mallory/">Legal Insurrection</a>:
<blockquote>[P]anelist April Baskin said that white supremacy is &#8220;woven into Jewish life in America.&#8221; She also said there are things she &#8220;hates&#8221; about the Jewish community — including her belief that Jews have a &#8220;propensity&#8221; to &#8220;complain.&#8221; &#8230;
Later in the session, Baskin declared her support for the disgraced Tamika Mallory. Mallory’s downfall culminated in early 2019 when when it emerged that she maintained a close relationship with the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan. Mallory, the ex-Women’s March leader, refused to condemn Farrakhan and even posted a picture calling the anti-Semite &#8220;the GOAT (greatest of all time).&#8221;</blockquote>
Perhaps most egregiously of all, Baskin compared infamous Jew-hater Farrakhan to Netanyahu: &#8220;Tamika Mallory being pictured with with Louis Farrakhan, honestly, isn’t that different to me than my former boss, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, being seated with prime minister Netanyahu. In both cases, they both largely don’t agree with their politics, but in both cases, those are leaders who are connected to a large body of people.&#8221;
As of publication time, it seems that none of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who spoke at last month&#8217;s J Street National Conference have condemned Baskin&#8217;s vicious smear. Surprise, surprise.

Netanyahu election night

J Street Conference Speaker Compares Benjamin Netanyahu To Louis Farrakhan

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel

J Street

Louis Farrakhan

Palestinians

On Thursday, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro gave a speech at Stanford University, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-shapiro-dismantles-the-alt-right-and-radical-lefts-dangerous-game">covering </a>both the radical Left and the &#8220;alt-Right.&#8221; Shapiro explained that both of these movements feed off of each other, because each movement relies on a hierarchy for its existence. But while the radical Left’s intersectional philosophy puts white, Christian males at the bottom as the &#8220;least oppressed group,&#8221; the &#8220;alt-Right&#8221; flips that hierarchy on its head and white people become the desired, most important group of all.
Needless to say, what both of these groups stand for is anathema to Americanism — much less mainstream conservatism. The conservative believes that we are all, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, &#8220;[C]reated equal&#8221; and that all people &#8220;are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.&#8221; To be on the Right means to see no significance whatsoever in race, class, or sexual orientation. We conservatives believe in meritocracy and equality of opportunity for everyone.
However, the question remains, why does anyone in our society consider the &#8220;alt-Right&#8221; to actually be on the political Right?
These racists share nothing in common with conservatives. Indeed, as Shapiro noted in his speech, the Left and &#8220;alt-Right&#8221; are inherently intertwined, as both groups focus almost exclusively on the collective and on superficial external features. They focus on groups competing for hierarchical supremacy and winning awards for being the the most privileged and the most victimized.
This should come as no surprise. The Democratic Party, throughout much of its history, has focused on race, class and the collective, at-large. The Democratic Party was the political party of slavery and Jim Crow in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Until the 1960s, the Democratic Party largely defended school segregation in the South. The party of segregationists, such as Alabama Governor George Wallace and father of American leftism President Woodrow Wilson, is the same party that now endlessly promotes intersectionality and its champions, such as Linda Sarsour and Ilhan Omar.
As a perfect modern encapsulation of this, Massachusetts Senator and 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren tweeted the following last week:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thank you, <a href="https://twitter.com/BlackWomxnFor?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BlackWomxnFor</a>! Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don’t take this endorsement lightly. I&#39;m committed to fighting alongside you for the big, structural change our country needs. <a href="https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb">https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb</a>
&mdash; Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192526820559785986?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
There are countless examples of the Left pushing this ideology. Warren&#8217;s obvious pander is just the latest example of the Left promoting a group over an individual.
And the &#8220;alt-Right&#8221; agrees with this approach, even if it utilizes it in a different way.
Should we then really call these people &#8220;alt-Right?&#8221;
The answer is no. By even accepting the tacit premise that these people have something in common with conservatives, we are using the Left’s branding and helping them spread this egregious lie — with the tragic result of allowing unvarnished racists to be lumped together with us. The Left’s goal is to confuse the public, brand us as bigots, and expand their own power.
The &#8220;alt-Right&#8221; and the radical Left are two sides of the same coin. We should stop calling them &#8220;Right,&#8221; no matter what the qualifier is. They are, in reality, an intellectual alternative to the Left.

Charlottesville rally memorial

FRANKEL: The &#8216;Alt-Right&#8217; Is A Leftist Movement. We Should Refer To It As Such.

Alt-Right

Racism

After previously booting an attendee from his concert for refusing to sing his vulgar song, rapper YG pulled none other than Stormy Daniels on stage over the weekend. Daniels then sang along to YG&#8217;s smash hit, &#8220;F*** Trump.&#8221;
According to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/stormy-danels-yg-gig-trump-affair-rap-fdt-song-los-angeles-a9197791.html">The Independent</a>, the rapper was &#8220;performing at Camp Gnaw Flog Carnival at Los Angeles&#8217; Dodger Stadium and invited the adult film star to join him on stage.&#8221;
As Daniels took the microphone, she shouted to the crowd, &#8220;My name is Stormy f***ing Daniels, and I am the reason Donald Trump is f***ed.&#8221;
That statement might had some truth to it a year ago, but since then, the Democrats&#8217; plan to oust Trump via Operation Stormy Daniels <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-hush-money-lawsuit-dismissed-james-barrett">has all but imploded</a>. As The Daily Wire&#8217;s James Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-hush-money-lawsuit-dismissed-james-barrett">reported</a> in March of this year:
<blockquote>The porn star who has vowed to take down Donald Trump has seen another one of her lawsuits against him dismissed. In December, a judge ordered porn star Stormy Daniels to pay nearly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/39294/judge-orders-stormy-daniels-pay-nearly-300000-emily-zanotti">$300,000</a> in legal fees after her frivolous defamation suit against the president was thrown out. On Thursday, another judge dismissed another lawsuit Daniels filed against Trump, this one asking to be released from the infamous nondisclosure agreeement she signed in 2016 promising not to discuss her alleged one-night affair with Trump years ago.</blockquote>
At the concert, rapper YG asked Stormy Daniels if she really had sex with Donald Trump, to which she replied, &#8220;No, I just laid there.&#8221; Here&#8217;s the full clip of the encounter:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://twitter.com/bigbizthegod?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@bigbizthegod</a> wanna talk about how YG had Stormy Daniels on stage before he performed FDT? <a href="https://t.co/DHoCCzcF2D">pic.twitter.com/DHoCCzcF2D</a>
&mdash; Big Ups Vocatelli. 🇦🇷🇸🇻 (@Brian_A96) <a href="https://twitter.com/Brian_A96/status/1193809171155521538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Two weeks ago, rapper YG treated a fan at one of his concert <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-rapper-yg-kicks-fan-off-stage-after-he-refuses-to-yell-f-donald-trump">with contempt and disdain</a> for not singing along to his anti-Trump anthem &#8220;FDT&#8221; (&#8220;F*** Donald Trump&#8221;) after YG had invited the young man on stage.
&#8220;I spotted you in the crowd, I asked if you f*** with Donald Trump. You said, &#8216;You don’t know.&#8217; So since you don&#8217;t know, I need you to make up your mind tonight,&#8221; said YG as he demanded that the fan state his name and yell out, &#8220;F*** Donald Trump.&#8221;
The fan refused and YG proceeded to kick him off stage as the crowd cheered. YG then launched into a rant about his hatred of President Trump.
&#8220;No, you won’t?&#8221; asked YG in response to the fan. &#8220;Get his ass outta here! He a Donald Trump supporter. Get his ass outta here! Don’t come to a motherfu**in&#8217; show with YG on a motherfu**in&#8217; billboard, Donald Trump supporter. Don’t let his a** back in the crowd. Tell &#8217;em YG said so.&#8221;
&#8220;Donald Trump racist, he don’t f*** with black people, so if you f*** with Donald Trump, you racist as f*** and I can’t f*** with you. Period,&#8221; he said.
“Another example of the tolerant Left,” White House press secretary <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-press-secretary-stephanie-grisham-addressing-why-mulvaney-filled-her-position-at-a-press-conference-it-was-more-theater" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stephanie Grisham</a> said of the incident.
The mean-spirited and cruel move prompted a fierce response from conservatives — and no shortage of liberals — on social media.
&#8220;You’re a bigot. Full stop. You should be ashamed of yourself. You hate a president who has done more for black people than any other president in modern history,&#8221; said activist CJ Pearson.
&#8220;If YG was a Republican during the Obama era and made someone say f*** Obama and they refused and kicked them out, this would be all over the news and there would be protests and riots. I don’t understand how it doesn’t work both ways,&#8221; said one Twitter user.

2019 Adult Video News Awards &#8211; Arrivals

WATCH: Rapper YG Pulls Stormy Daniels On Stage To Sing ‘F*** Trump’

Stormy Daniels

As the 2020 election looms closer, health care has choked out virtually every other issue to stand alone as the primary focus of several top-tier candidates in the Democratic primary race.
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have each put forward a “Medicare for All” plan, candidates like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden have taken a softer position, proffering smaller ideas that would reportedly cost much less.
On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with health care policy expert and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Scholar Joe Antos about “Medicare for All.”
In part one of this interview, which you can read <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interview-part-i-health-care-policy-expert-joe-antos-breaks-down-the-dangers-of-medicare-for-all">here</a>, Antos breaks down the complexity of the current Medicare system, and discusses the damage that a “Medicare for All” system could cause, such as rationing of care, the raising of taxes on the middle class, provider flight, and innovation drain.
In part two below, Antos talks about a more “free market” approach to health care, understanding “universal” coverage, the way in which conservatives and Republican lawmakers should approach health care legislation, and the ultimate damage that a “Medicare for All” system could do.
<blockquote>DW: Is it realistic to think that someone could keep their doctor if we were to move to a “Medicare for All” system? A friend of mine from another country claims that she can see whatever doctor she wants under their plan, which is essentially a state-run plan.
ANTOS: That may be the case, as long as your doctor remains in practice. There’s a generational issue that may explain your friend’s comment. Young, healthy people typically do not have a doctor that they see regularly. In that sense, you could see any doctor you like, but you would not much care who it is. Older people or those with chronic conditions become attached to their doctors, so being able to keep their doctor is a more serious concern. One other point: older, more established doctors may be more likely to leave the active practice of medicine under a plan that sharply cuts their payments. In such a case, their patients would have no choice but to establish a relationship with a new doctor.
DW: Some people claim that the United States is a free market healthcare system, but that&#8217;s obviously not quite true. What are the differences between what we have and what a truly free market system would look like?
ANTOS: It is not very clear what people mean when they say “free market healthcare.” Our system is a mix of public and private coverage, with nearly everyone receiving a government subsidy. Private health insurance is subject to state and federal regulations, and providers are subject to licensure and other government regulations that are supposed to protect patients from unqualified providers – but also protect providers from competition. As a practical matter, government would have a role in a “free market” system, but it would be sharply reduced from what we see today.
One vision of a free market system would emphasize the role of consumers making their own decisions about their health care and bearing the full financial consequences of those decisions. Insurance would still play a financing role, with high-deductible plans accompanied by health savings accounts becoming even more common than we see today. To be workable, consumers and their physicians need information about treatment alternatives, provider performance, and cost. Both consumers and their doctors need strong financial incentives to select cost-effective care from efficient providers.
We’ve been edging our way toward a consumer-driven system for some time.
The latest Kaiser Family Foundation-HRET survey found that employer-sponsored coverage has shifted away from unmanaged fee-for-service plans. Between 2014 and 2019, enrollment in high-deductible plans with health savings accounts grew from 20% to 30% of the market. HMOs grew from 13% to 19% of total enrollment. Preferred provider organizations, which are fee-for-service plans with provider networks, shrank from 58% to 44% of total enrollment. That is a direct response by employers and employees to the high cost of unmanaged care.
However, we are sending consumers into the battle completely unarmed. It&#8217;s very hard to know what anything costs. It&#8217;s very hard to know what your insurance will pay for until after you have received the medical service. It&#8217;s very hard to judge how effective a treatment may be and whether there are alternatives that might be better. Patients depend on their physicians for good advice, and physicians often do not know whether a specialist is in your insurer’s network or what your plan will cover.
Lower back pain is a good example of the challenges we face as consumers, and how large employers are beginning to address them. In most cases, back surgery is the treatment of last resort. Patients with lower back pain need physical therapy, which in many cases will resolve the problem as long as the patient consistently follows the exercise regimen at home. Unnecessary spine surgeries are expensive, debilitate the patient for extended periods of time, and may not be effective.
Several large corporations, including Wal-Mart and Boeing, have contracted with well-known medical centers to evaluate their employees with lower back pain. Instead of an incentive to do more surgeries that is seen in unmanaged fee-for-service plans, these contracts reward appropriate care. The patients are assured that their care is being managed by high-quality providers, and the savings comes from reducing unnecessary use of high-cost treatment.
This example also highlights the critical role of the physician in guiding the patient’s decisions about the course of treatment. Health care is complex. To be successful, consumers need the guidance of their physicians, whose financial incentives should promote cost-effective care.
DW: Proponents of universal healthcare systems say that their primary goal is to get everyone covered because everyone should have good health care. What is the more optimal, free market-based plan, and how do we get there?
ANTOS: One of the things that advocates often get wrong is that health insurance does not guarantee appropriate care. The political focus for the last decade has been on expanding insurance coverage, with far less attention paid to what that coverage actually buys.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) relied on a mandate and penalties to force people to buy health insurance. Although the mandate was not effective, the idea was that the threat of a penalty would make younger, healthier people buy coverage that they would not otherwise purchase. Because premiums in the health insurance exchanges were high, coverage options were not attractive, and the financial penalty was small, exchange coverage attracted an older, sicker population.
A better approach would change the culture of health insurance. Instead of the ACA’s approach, which mandates consumers to buy expensive coverage, we could adopt automatic enrollment. Under that method, everyone would be automatically enrolled in a high-deductible health plan financed by restructuring existing federal health insurance subsidies. Consumers would not be charged a premium for this basic plan, but they could buy better coverage if they wished to. Anyone not wishing coverage could drop out, but few would take the time to do so. This approach makes insurance coverage the default without imposing unaffordable costs on consumers.
Under automatic enrollment, everyone would be eligible for a basic subsidy tied to their income level. Catastrophic expenses would be covered, but the benefit could be expanded to allow free or low-cost primary care. Covered California, which operates the ACA exchange in that state, requires all plans to offer such basic services, which has helped promote enrollment.
Implementing automatic enrollment would not be as difficult as skeptics think, but enrollment would take time to expand. Uninsured people who should be automatically enrolled can be identified through normal interactions with state and local government agencies. Enrolling a child in school, getting a driver’s license, voting, and other activities can be used to enroll the uninsured in this default system. Similarly, public health clinics and hospital emergency rooms can help enroll people who otherwise do not have coverage.
Automatic enrollment is not an instant solution, but it is also not disruptive. The measure of success is not how many people are newly covered by the default plan in any one year. Instead, the goal is to set up a process that will eventually cover everyone without locking them into unaffordable plans.
DW: Do you think Conservatives need to be more aggressive in offering their own solutions, instead of just pointing out the flaws in “Medicare for All” style systems?
ANTOS: Conservatives should offer their own proposals, but to be useful, the proposals need to be developed carefully. All too often, proposals focus on broad themes without the detailed specifications to implement those themes through legislation. It is important to work through the implications of one’s proposal to avoid overlooking problems that could make it technically and politically unworkable. The flight of Democrats from Elizabeth Warren’s plan demonstrates the importance of thinking through the details, and not ignoring the potential for a negative response from the public.
Republicans have too often reacted to Democratic initiatives rather than taking positive actions of their own. I think that partly explains the 2017 collapse of repeal and replace efforts in Congress. Well-developed conservative proposals can fill the policy void, but they must be realistic about how much any single piece of legislation can change the system. Realistic proposals should build on the best of what already exists, rather than pretending that we can start with a clean slate.
It&#8217;s very important to move away from simply reacting, and embrace a positive political approach. In my opinion, that means supporting the goal of making affordable coverage available to everyone. Affordability is not measured solely by the subsidies that help people pay for insurance, although subsidies targeted on those most in need are an essential part of any reform. We also have to improve the efficiency of the system to slow the growth of health spending, without rationing care and driving out innovation.
This takes hard work. The emphasis by liberals on expanding coverage is the easier message. Improving system performance is much more complicated, and that is what conservative proposals should focus on.
DW: What damage, aside from fiscally, could a “Medicare for All” system cause to patients, to doctors, etc?
ANTOS: I see a large waiting room filled with millions of people as doctors decide that another line of work makes more sense. Seriously, we will have growing access problems. The promise of free health care means that patients will have no financial reason to question whether a service is necessary. The reality of reduced provider payment rates means that physicians will have a strong incentive to try to make up their income losses by providing more services, especially those services that Medicare overpays. We could see increases in the volume of services that are not very effective, not very harmful to the patient, and more highly remunerative than more necessary care.
The broader effects on the economy could be very damaging. Warren has admitted that thousands of people now employed in the health industry would lose their jobs, but she claims that they will just shift to good jobs in other industries. That’s not so simple if you don’t have the skills needed for that next good job. If it exists. That’s the rub. Warren’s proposals to tax companies, individuals with high incomes, and wealth would create a serious drag on the economy. What she overlooks is that those taxes will take vast sums out of more productive sectors and pump it into the notoriously inefficient health sector. By and large, the wealth of this country goes into productive investments that create jobs, largely outside the health sector.
Access to care will become more difficult once it becomes “free.” The fiscal drag from “Medicare for All” will result in lost jobs and lower productivity, economy-wide. Business investments that would have been made in the U.S. will move to other countries with more favorable tax codes. It is not unreasonable to expect a recession that we might not recover from unless we come to our senses about our health system. Nearly one-fifth of our economy is in the health sector. That provides plenty of leverage for bad health policy to do serious damage.</blockquote>
I’d like to thank Joe Antos for speaking with me about such a critical issue. For more information, check out Antos’ profile on the American Enterprise Institute’s website <a href="https://www.aei.org/profile/joseph-antos/">here</a>, and follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/joeantos?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Twitter.</a>

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

INTERVIEW (Part II): Health Care Policy Expert Joe Antos On The Harsh Realities And Dangers Of ‘Medicare For All’

2020 Election

Health Care

Medicare for All

The left-right divide in America is, unfortunately, unbridgeable.
There are three reasons.
First, we are divided by our vision of what we want America to be.
The right believes the founders&#8217; vision was brilliant and moral, that bourgeois middle-class values are superior to alternative value systems; that rights come from God, not man; and that the state must be as small as possible. The left (not liberals) shares none of those values.
Second, we are divided by the means we use to achieve our vision. Given their different ends, left and right obviously differ on what means to use to achieve their ends.
Third, and perhaps most troubling, there is a reality-perception divide.
Left and right have different perceptions of reality.
I have been aware of this for many years, but it was dramatically brought home last week when I was a guest on &#8220;Real Time With Bill Maher.&#8221; Given that the other two guests on the panel and more or less the entire studio audience were on the left, their reactions to what I said proved my point.
For example, I said that though there are, of course, racists in the United States, America is the least racist multiethnic and multiracial country in the world.
I was booed.
I said the United States military has brought so much liberty to the world it deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
I was booed.
Clearly, there is an unbridgeable divide in the way we perceive the reality of the American military&#8217;s role in the world.
I said that it turned out the Russia-Trump campaign collusion never happened.
I was booed.
There is an unbridgeable divide in the way left and right perceive this reality.
I said the Trump-Ukrainian president phone transcript did not show a quid pro quo.
I was booed, and one of the other panelists said it actually showed &#8220;extortion.&#8221;
This, too, constitutes an unbridgeable divide between the way left and right view reality.
I said John Brennan, the former CIA director, has voted communist. (He has admitted that he voted for the Communist Party USA presidential candidate Gus Hall in 1976.) I was dismissed as having made something up. Bill Maher sarcastically responded that he didn&#8217;t recall Mao having been on any ballot.
And I said that people on the left say men can menstruate.
For that, I was not merely booed; I was laughed at by the panel, Maher and the audience.
Anyone can Google this and learn that I was entirely right. Just type &#8220;can men menstruate.&#8221; One of the first results will be from the popular left-wing website The Daily Beast: &#8220;Yes, Men Can Have Periods and We Need to Talk About Them,&#8221; reads one of its headlines. &#8220;How is this possible?&#8221; you might ask. Well, if a woman declares herself to be a man, then &#8220;a man&#8221; can have a period. In fact, last month, Procter &amp; Gamble announced that it will remove the female Venus symbol from its Always line of menstrual products. After all, not only women menstruate.
The irony is that as soon as most progressives become aware that LGBTQ groups say that men menstruate, they will say that men menstruate. And that will be another differing perception of reality.
On each of these issues — all the issues for which I was booed — right and left have different perceptions of reality. That — even more so than differing values — makes the left-right divide unbridgeable. When you cannot agree on what is real, there is no possible bridging of the gulf.
The left believes the president colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. The reality is that there was no collusion. This is the conclusion of the Mueller report, but still, the left doesn&#8217;t accept it.
The left is certain President Trump said the neo-Nazis are &#8220;very fine people&#8221; when referring to the protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. The right is certain the president didn&#8217;t say there are good neo-Nazis any more than he said there are good &#8220;antifa&#8221; members. When he said there were &#8220;very fine people on both sides,&#8221; he was referring to those demonstrating on behalf of keeping Confederate statues and those opposed. See &#8220;The Charlottesville Lie&#8221; by CNN analyst Steve Cortes.
The left believes socialism is economically superior to capitalism. But the reality is that only capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty. This is, therefore, not an opinion divide — &#8220;You prefer capitalism. I prefer socialism&#8221; — but a reality divide.
The reason this is so frightening is that it means one side has lost its grip on reality. If half of this country cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, that is not a good sign for the nation&#8217;s future. On that point, ironically, left and right can agree.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is &#8220;The Rational Bible,&#8221; a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, &#8220;No Safe Spaces,&#8221; comes to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

Fork in road.

PRAGER: The Left-Right Divide Is About Reality Itself

Transgender

At a Young America’s Foundation’s Fred Allen Lecture Series event on the campus of Stanford University Thursday evening, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro unpacked the &#8220;dangerous game&#8221; being played by both the radical Left and Alt-Right — two groups, he argued, that &#8220;feed off one another.&#8221;
Leading up to the event, Shapiro’s speech was protested by social justice activists, who organized a “silent rally,” erased messages by Stanford College Republicans promoting the event, and decried Shapiro’s supposedly “dehumanizing” ideas while simultaneously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/see-it-stanford-activists-compare-ben-shapiro-to-insect-while-condemning-dehumanizing-speech">comparing him to an insect</a> in need of extermination — in other words, all the usual antics that have become common on college campuses with Shapiro’s speeches, in particular, and those of any right-leaning personalities, in general.
Shapiro’s speech was initially titled “No, Leftist Idiots Don’t Get To Raise My Kids,” but, as Shapiro explained Thursday night, a heckling campaign by the Alt-Right inspired him to shift the focus to not just leftists, which he shredded succinctly in his opening comments, but those on the fringe-right who, he argued, are similarly destructive to political discourse.
“I want to talk about the dangerous game being played by two particular nasty groups who feed off one another: I am speaking about the radical Left and the Alt-Right,” the bestselling author and podcast host told the packed auditorium (video of full speech below).  While he noted that he rips the radical Left all the time on campuses because they are &#8220;dominated by the censorious and nasty radical Left,&#8221; Shapiro explained that he chose to focus more on the Alt-Right for this speech, in part because they&#8217;ve been &#8220;encouraging their minions to show up to ask pre-written questions designed to elicit LOLs from likeminded idiots who populate 8chan and Gab.&#8221;
As The Daily Wire reported, two days before Shapiro’s speech at Stanford, Alt-Right hecklers descended on a speech at Cal State LA by Daily Wire podcast host Matt Walsh to ask him trolling questions — the stunt <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-daily-wires-matt-walsh-slaps-down-alt-right-hecklers">didn’t go well for the hecklers</a>. Their appearance at the event is part of a larger coordinated attempt by Alt-Right influencers to disrupt mainstream conservative events. Hecklers similarly crashed an event a few days earlier involving Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
“The radical Left and the Alt-Right need each other,&#8221; said Shapiro. &#8220;And they’re playing a game, in which the radical Left seeks to delegitimize anyone who isn’t radically Left by lumping them in with the despicable Alt-Right — and in which the Alt-Right seeks to make common cause with anyone ‘cancelled’ by the radical Left, specifically with the supporters of President Trump who have been maligned falsely as evil by the radical Left, in order to artificially boost their numbers.”
“These two goals are mutually reinforcing,” Shapiro explained. “Here’s how this garbage works… Let’s say, for example, that you believe that ‘white civilization’ — a nonsensical term, since civilization is not defined by color but by history, culture, and philosophy — is under attack from multiracial hordes. Let’s say that you’re antipathetic toward Jews and enraged by the liberties guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the United States. Let’s say you spend your days ranting about how American conservatives and traditional classical liberals — the sole protective force against the radical Left — haven’t ‘conserved’ anything. You say America is not a propositional or creedal nation, even though the nation’s founding literally begins with the words, ‘We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights&#8230; Let’s say you cite Christianity as the basis of your values, but you’re more likely to quote Nietzsche than Christ.&#8221;
After exposing the self-contradictory and transparently racist ideology espoused by Alt-Right influencers, Shapiro addressed their four-part strategy for mainstreaming their fringe movement.
“First, you declare your allegiance to President Trump, and declare that you aren’t really Alt-Right, even though you obviously are,” he explained. “You show up to lectures wearing a MAGA hat in order to get the media to cover it – and in order to demonstrate that you’re truly a representative of the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump. You call yourself ‘America First,’ hijacking Trump’s slogan, but twisting it to mean ‘white Americans first.’ The media will eat it up, because the media love nothing better than suggesting that Trump is a white supremacist, despite the fact that he has repeatedly condemned white supremacism.”
<iframe title="Ben Exposes Leftists &amp; The Alt-Right In Six Minutes" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-f8UK-bSCnQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Strategy two, Shapiro explained, the Alt-Right attempts to define themselves as &#8220;the heirs to conservatism.&#8221;
&#8220;You do so by simply lying about mainstream conservatives. You suggest that mainstream conservatives are insufficiently committed to social conservatism. You do this by asking questions like, ‘How does anal sex help us win the culture war?’” he said in reference to an Alt-Right heckler’s question at a TPUSA event. “The purpose is to simultaneously pose as edgy and also preserve your ability to say you were just joking.&#8221; Such actions, said Shapiro, &#8220;is by definition losing the culture war.”
“What helps America win the culture war is freedom: freedom against a government encroaching on your activities that don’t harm anyone else,&#8221; he said, offering a true conservative response. &#8220;As Edmund Burke put it, ‘Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself.’ You know what else helps win the culture war? Engaging with your community, involving yourself in the social fabric. Not creating Pepe memes online and then jabbering about anal sex.”
“In fact, there’s great irony in watching alt-righters claim that they should use the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoints on others – while complaining that the Left uses the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoint on others,” he added. “You can’t really whine about other people shutting down your viewpoint and activity that harms no one else while planning to shut down everybody else’s viewpoints.”
Shapiro also dismantled the Alt-Right’s racially charged rhetoric about “white European” ideals. “Race doesn’t have ideals,” said Shapiro. “And if you think it does, you’re indistinguishable from the identity politics Left. Spoiler alert: you are.”
As for the Alt-Right belief that “white people are superior to others,” Shapiro said the alt-righters’ “own idiocy and bigotry are a perfect rebuttal of [their supposed] supremacy.”
The third Alt-Right strategy, Shapiro argued, is to “troll” their enemies, as they have at recent conservative events.
Their fourth strategy, Shapiro said, is to “count on the Left to help” them. And the Left absolutely will, said Shapiro. &#8220;They’ll label anyone on the right Alt-Right, even if we say vocally and in no uncertain terms that the Alt-Right is pure, unbridled, vile garbage — even if members of the Alt-Right target those on the mainstream right. Even if Donald Trump condemns the worldview. You can argue with anything we say&#8230; we all disagree with each other pretty frequently. But there’s no doubt none of us are Alt-Right.”
Despite these glaring differences, Shapiro said, “the media and the Left will push the lie anyway.”
“So the Boston Globe will call my website, The Daily Wire, an &#8216;Alt-Right outpost&#8217; (we forced them to recant); the Economist will call me &#8216;the Alt-Right sage without the rage&#8217; (we’ll force them to recant),” he said. “Students at Boston University are festooning my posters with a Hitler mustache. Students at this university will mob those trying to put up posters for this lecture; they’ll tear down a large banner advertising my speech and replace it with a banner reading ‘Be tolerant, accept racism’… They’ll issue a flyer that literally depicts me as a cockroach on a bottle of bug spray with the label, ‘<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/see-it-stanford-activists-compare-ben-shapiro-to-insect-while-condemning-dehumanizing-speech">Ben B Gone</a>.’”
Shapiro then forcefully defended Trump against the smear. “The media will suggest that Trump is in league with the Alt-Right, even at this late date – they’ll neglect all Trump has done to purge his administration to those who were remotely friendly with the Alt-Right (see Bannon, Steve) and his forcible disavowal of the alt-right and white supremacism,” he said. “They’ll simply overlook that Trump isn’t a white supremacist, and declare that the MAGA hat is equivalent to a Nazi swastika – and they’ll say that by extension, anyone who wears a MAGA hat or votes for Trump is a secret Brownshirt.”
Shapiro then offered a “clarification” for the disingenuous Left: “If someone believes that all men are created equal, &#8230; that every American should have equality before the law, in free market capitalism, in small government, in equal opportunity for all people of all races, that person is not on the Alt-Right,” he said. “In fact, they despise the Alt-Right, and the Alt-Right despises them. But people on the Left know this, they just prefer the lie. Why? Because their goal is to delegitimize the entire right.”
The Left’s shutting down of free speech in the name of political correctness and identity politics promotes the growth of the Alt-Right, with whom they share tactics and aspects of their worldview. The only difference between the radical Left and the Alt-Right, is they reverse the victim hierarchy. &#8220;All of this is terrible for the country, it&#8217;s terrible for the discourse,&#8221; Shapiro concluded.
<div class="page" title="Page 18">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;So, here I am, stuck in the middle with you,&#8221; Shapiro concluded. &#8220;Anyone, on the Right or Left, who wants to have an actual conversation about tough issues, that isn&#8217;t the bumper sticker, but that also is not willing to pretend that ugly bigotry is decency, that identity politics reflects truth, or that trollish meming is a substitute for an actual worldview,&#8221; Shapiro concluded. &#8220;Let’s have the conversation.&#8221;
Video of the full speech below:
</div>
</div>
</div>
<iframe title="Ben Shapiro Speaking at Stanford University" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ge_RUxBTHN4?start=919&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/see-it-stanford-activists-compare-ben-shapiro-to-insect-while-condemning-dehumanizing-speech">SEE IT: Stanford Activists Compare Ben Shapiro To Insect While Condemning ‘Dehumanizing’ Speech</a>
Partial transcript based on Shapiro’s prepared remarks.

Ben Shapiro

WATCH: Shapiro Dismantles The Alt-Right And Radical Left’s ‘Dangerous Game’

Anti-Semitism

White Supremacy

Protesters attempting to disrupt Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro&#8217;s speech at Stanford University Thursday night quickly found themselves drowned out by patriotic chants by the largely conservative audience.  Shapiro also pointed out that the hecklers, for some reason, chose a moment when he was &#8220;bashing the living sh** out of Nazis&#8221; to voice their dissent.
The moment took place during the Young America’s Foundation’s Fred Allen Lecture Series event on the Stanford campus Thursday evening, where Shapiro discussed the “dangerous game” being played by both the radical Left and the Alt-Right. Shapiro&#8217;s speech had been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/see-it-stanford-activists-compare-ben-shapiro-to-insect-while-condemning-dehumanizing-speech">protested</a> by social justice activists on the Stanford campus, while Alt-Righters have been attending conservative events to troll them, including a recent event with Daily Wire podcast host <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-daily-wires-matt-walsh-slaps-down-alt-right-hecklers">Matt Walsh</a>.
Shapiro spent the majority of the speech exposing and ridiculing the racist ideology of the Alt-Right and discussing their four strategies for attempting to mainstream their far-right, fringe ideology.
&#8220;The radical Left and the Alt-Right need each other,&#8221; Shapiro argued. &#8220;And they’re playing a game, in which the radical Left seeks to delegitimize anyone who isn’t radically Left by lumping them in with the despicable Alt-Right — and in which the Alt-Right seeks to make common cause with anyone ‘cancelled’ by the radical Left, specifically with the supporters of President Trump who have been maligned falsely as evil by the radical Left, in order to artificially boost their numbers.” The goals of the radical Left and the Alt-Right, he argued, &#8220;are mutually reinforcing.&#8221;
Shapiro then laid out how the Alt-Right&#8217;s &#8220;garbage&#8221; works. They say they believe that &#8220;white civilization — a nonsensical term, since civilization is not defined by color but by history, culture, and philosophy — is under attack from multiracial hordes.&#8221; Their leaders are &#8220;antipathetic toward Jews and enraged by the liberties guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the United States&#8221; and spend their days &#8220;ranting about how American conservatives and traditional classical liberals — the sole protective force against the radical Left — haven’t ‘conserved’ anything.&#8221;
The Alt-Right says, &#8220;America is not a propositional or creedal nation, even though the nation’s founding literally begins with the words, ‘We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.'&#8221; The Alt-Right acts as if Christianity is &#8220;the basis of their values,&#8221; but are &#8220;more likely to quote Nietzsche than Christ and more likely to talk about Bronze Age Mindset than the Gospel of John.&#8221;
Shapiro also pointed to a recent podcast by an Alt-Right influencer who suggested that 6 million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.
While he was in the middle of dismantling the Alt-Right&#8217;s racist &#8220;white culture&#8221; arguments, left-wing hecklers in the back of the auditorium began to chant: &#8220;Hey hey, ho ho! Ben Shapiro has got to go!&#8221;
&#8220;I have one question,&#8221; said Shapiro as the audience began to boo the hecklers. &#8220;Are you protesting the part where I’m condemning the Nazis? You hear what I&#8217;m doing right now. Do you have ears? I&#8217;m literally condemning Nazis and you&#8217;re telling me to leave. Do you hear yourselves?&#8221;
Before the hecklers were escorted out of the room, the majority conservative crowd began to chant &#8220;USA! USA!&#8221;
&#8220;It turns out that in my daily life I deal with two screaming children under the age of six every single day,&#8221; Shapiro joked.
&#8220;I’ve got to be honest with you, I&#8217;m extraordinarily puzzled here,&#8221; Shapiro added. &#8220;I’m standing up here bashing the living sh** out of Nazis and they&#8217;re telling me I have to leave over it. What&#8217;s a guy gotta do?&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="DELUSIONAL: Leftist protestors shout at Ben Shapiro while he denounces Nazis" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BY5GuuoRxuU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/see-it-stanford-activists-compare-ben-shapiro-to-insect-while-condemning-dehumanizing-speech">SEE IT: Stanford Activists Compare Ben Shapiro To Insect While Condemning ‘Dehumanizing’ Speech</a>

WATCH: Protesters Disrupt Shapiro Speech; He Points Out Their Terrible Timing

Nazis

Today, news broke that former New York City mayor and prominent billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg is considering tossing his hat into the dystopian ring that is the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary. The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-bloomberg-preparing-to-enter-2020-democratic-race-11573167459?mod=hp_lead_pos3">quotes</a> a Bloomberg adviser named Howard Wolfson, who suggests that the main reason Bloomberg might jump in is his fear that none of the current 2020 Democrats can defeat President Donald Trump at the ballot box.
<blockquote>
&#8220;Mike believes that Donald Trump represents an unprecedented threat to our nation,&#8221; Mr. Wolfson said.
&#8220;Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to [defeat Trump],&#8221; Mr. Wolfson said. &#8220;If Mike runs he would offer a new choice to Democrats built on a unique record running America’s biggest city, building a business from scratch and taking on some of America’s toughest challenges as a high-impact philanthropist.&#8221;
</blockquote>
By all means, Bloomberg should enter the fray if he feels called to do so. But we should not mince words here: There is no chance whatsoever that Bloomberg would successfully win the Democratic presidential nomination if he were to enter the field. And the chief reason for that is very simple. Bloomberg would have no shot because he is a somewhat sane person who would be seeking the presidential nomination of a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-democratic-party-has-become-parody-itself-josh-hammer">fully insane</a> political party.
Bloomberg, who has made a veritable fortune over the course of a lifetime working in the financial services industry, is an ex-Republican who openly identifies as a <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/30/bloomberg_we_shouldnt_be_embarrassed_about_capitalism_non-capitalistic_venezuela_is_collapsing.html">capitalist</a>. But he would be seeking the presidential nomination of a political party whose grassroots <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx">increasingly identify</a> as more socialistic than capitalistic. He would be seeking the presidential nomination of a political party in which the leading sources of disagreement over the course of the past few televised primary debates have been whether the harebrained &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; nostrums has a bankrupting price tag best estimated at $40 trillion or $50 trillion, and whether it is appropriate to literally eliminate private health insurance for over a hundred million American citizens while implementing that quixotic socialized medicine scheme.
Bloomberg, furthermore, is nothing if not a lifelong friend of the Jewish state of Israel. In 2014, when anti-Israel President Barack Obama oversaw a temporary <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/213288-obama-defends-israel-flight-ban">U.S. flight ban</a> to Israel amidst the jihadist rocket fire that rained down on the Jewish state that summer from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-israel-must-destroy-hamas-once-and-all-josh-hammer">Hamas</a>-controlled Gaza Strip, Bloomberg personally <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-07-23/why-i-flew-to-israel">flew to Israel</a> solely to demonstrate to his fellow Americans that it was safe to do so. Bloomberg may not be a hardcore <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-the-pro-israel-case-against-u-s-military-aid-to-israel">Caroline Glick-style Zionist</a>, but he is, at minimum, an AIPAC-style pro-Israel advocate. But the modern Democratic Party is no longer an AIPAC-style pro-Israel political party. On the contrary, the 2020 Democrats now shirk AIPAC en masse in favor of obeisance at the sycophantically pro-Palestinian altar of the vehemently anti-Israel group <a href="https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/10/19/the-j-street-democrats">J Street</a>.
Additionally, it must be noted that Bloomberg, while hardly Orthodox in identification, is nonetheless proudly and publicly Jewish. This too is a problem for the modern Democratic Party, which extols the virtues of Holocaust deniers like Palestinian Authority chieftain Mahmoud Abbas, glorifies Jew-haters like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and is being rapidly Corbynized into an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stark-choice-facing-jewish-democrats-josh-hammer">overtly anti-Semitic</a> political vehicle. It is difficult to see how Bloomberg&#8217;s proud Jewishness counts, in the eyes of today&#8217;s Democratic Party, as anything other than a net negative.
Bloomberg would have no chance for the Democratic presidential nomination were he to formally enter the fray. He is a sane Jew who would be seeking the presidential nomination in a fully insane, socialist, increasingly Jew-hating political party.

Michael Bloomberg.

HAMMER: Michael Bloomberg Would Have No Chance At The Democratic Presidential Nomination

Capitalism

Democratic Party

Judaism

Michael Bloomberg

Four and a half months after President Trump’s inauguration, Democratic congressman Al Green announced plans to impeach him. He cited as justification the president’s perfectly legal firing of FBI director James Comey — ironically one of Trump’s most popular decisions on both sides of the aisle — but  Green later admitted the real motivation behind impeachment. &#8220;I&#8217;m concerned that if we don&#8217;t impeach this president, he will get re-elected,” Green confessed.
When that resolution failed, Democrats tried to impeach Trump for conspiring with the Russian government during the 2016 election, which sent special counsel Robert Mueller on a two-year, $32 million-dollar wild goose chase that ended in the exoneration of the president. Next, the Democrats sought to oust Trump for paying hush money to a porn star — a morally dubious exchange but hardly worthy of &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors.&#8221;
When that failed, Democrats claimed Trump colluded with Ukraine, presently at war with Russia, the previous object of their collusion narrative. Specifically, Democrats allege that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo by asking the Ukrainian government to investigate the quid pro quo that Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden admitted on camera to having negotiated while vice president. As evidence, they cite the official complaint of the [alleged whistleblower], a career CIA analyst who just so happens to have served as Bide&#8217;s lackey on Ukraine policy when the former vice president&#8217;s quid pro quo took place.
The whistleblower complaint itself fails to offer any firsthand account of wrongdoing, citing instead secondhand &#8220;information from multiple U.S. Government officials&#8221; alleging that the president acted inappropriately during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a charge the White House considers so outlandish that it took the rare step of releasing the transcript of the call to the public. The next-best evidence of wrongdoing the &#8220;whistleblower&#8221; mentioned in his complaint is a television interview the president gave to George Stephanopoulos and a tweet from Rudy Giuliani, both of which are matters of public record and neither of which require whistleblowing.
But then the &#8220;whistleblower&#8221; isn’t a whistleblower. He’s a political operative with &#8220;an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate,&#8221; according to the intelligence community inspector general. He coordinated with the office of Democratic congressman and impeachment inquiry leader Adam Schiff before filing his complaint. And this latest impeachment attempt, like all the others before it, isn’t a legitimate exercise of congressional oversight; it’s an attempted coup. The impeachment instigator’s own lawyer admitted as much just days after President Trump’s inauguration.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/coup?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#coup</a> has started. First of many steps. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/rebellion?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#rebellion</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/impeachment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#impeachment</a> will follow ultimately. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/lawyers?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#lawyers</a> <a href="https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S">https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S</a>
&mdash; Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/826262311560216578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;#coup has started,” tweeted Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the &#8220;whistleblower.&#8221; &#8220;First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #laywers.&#8221; Regarding Trump&#8217;s firing of Obama holdover Sally Yates as acting attorney general, the hashtag-happy lawyer reiterated his point. &#8220;#coup has started. As one falls, two more will take their place. #rebellion #impeachment.&#8221; Six months later, he predicted, &#8220;[CNN] will play a key role in [Trump] not finishing out his full term as president.&#8221; If CNN fails, it won’t be for lack of trying.
We now know that elected Democrats colluded with federal bureaucrats, known also as the &#8220;deep state,&#8221; to oust the duly elected president in a &#8220;coup&#8221; — so described by the bureaucrat impeachment instigator’s own lawyer, who himself admits the whole affair relies upon the complicity of a corrupt press. Lies pervade the entire plot, and we ought to distrust every person pushing it, except in one regard: When conspirators confess their treachery, believe them.

Rep. Al Green

KNOWLES: When Leftists Admit Impeachment Is A Coup, Believe Them

Impeachment

Menu