At UC-Berkeley, where riots have broken out over conservatives trying to speak or hold rallies, and where a student was recently punched in the face by a leftist thug just for manning the table of a Republican student group, the head of the law school says that President Trump’s executive order requiring protection for free speech on campuses is not only unnecessary but “almost certainly unconstitutional.”
I’ve suspected for a while now that Berkeley professors believe free speech is unnecessary and unconstitutional, but it is nice of them to finally make it official.
Must-See Video of the Day! Astounding proof of the old axiom that fanatics eventually become what they claim to hate. In this case, “progressive” college students raised on a diet of identity politics and white guilt tell documentarian Ami Horowitz that they are, like, totally okay with all-black dorms, gyms and graduation ceremonies – in the name of giving African-Americans a safe space, of course. Meanwhile, black people have an entirely different reaction to the leftist white kids’ endorsement of bringing back segregation. Add that to socialism, anti-Semitism, measles, 90% tax rates and all the other terrible things of the past that “progressives” want to bring back.
If these students really want to be “woke,” then they need to wake up and realize that they are parroting the same attitudes voiced later in the video by a KKK wizard who seems happy to learn that leftist college students are coming around to the Klan’s way of thinking on segregation.
Bad news: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is still telling her few remaining viewers unfounded conspiracy tales about Trump/Russian collusion. Good news: it no longer takes MSNBC two years to correct her. They now correct her lies on the news crawl below her face while she’s telling them.
This week, in the name of “democracy,” Senate Democrats plan to introduce a Constitutional amendment that would disenfranchise about two-thirds of the states by eliminating the Electoral College. Take a good look at who’s running California (Gavin “Open Borders” Newsom) and New York (Andrew “Let’s Celebrate Infanticide” Cuomo) and imagine the same voters who picked them picking the President…forever.
This article has more information on the Democrats’ latest dangerous and immature reaction to losing an election they thought they had in the bag, plus something that every article could benefit from: some quotes from me.
Despite its ridiculously high taxes (or perhaps because of them – and because of having far-left leaders like Mayor Bill DeBlasio who couldn’t run a water faucet with instructions engraved on the sink), New York City is facing a budget shortfall. So their brilliant solution to that (and to traffic congestion) is to start charging drivers $11.50 per car or $25 per truck to enter the city. I assume that toll includes all the trucks that deliver food and other consumer products, which will be getting even more expensive to cover the fees to enter the city.
As someone who used to have to go to New York City every weekend to do my TV show before I moved to TBN and our studio in beautiful Hendersonville, Tennessee, I’d like to offer them a better solution. If they really want to raise money, don’t charge people to enter New York City, charge them to leave it. They can even charge a much higher rate. I’m sure plenty of people would gladly pay it.
Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi surprised a lot of people last week when he released a chapter from an upcoming book taking the media to task for its two-year-long self-delusion and departure from traditional journalistic standards in promoting the nonexistent Trump-Russia collusion story. No surprise, many of his liberal readers were not happy at getting this bucket of cold reality dumped on them when they’re used to outlets like Rolling Stone reinforcing their smug, comfy preconceptions. So Taibbi has been getting some pretty hateful tweets since it came out.
This week, he tries to get back into the left’s good graces a bit while still gently urging them to come out of their safe spaces and venture out into the light of truth.
In this article, he repeats just enough popular false beliefs of the left (that Trump started the Obama birth certificate story when it was actually Hillary Clinton’s campaign, or that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, when that was actually Tina Fey on “SNL”) to make his usual readers feel comfortable while prodding them to think about reasons why Trump might have won that don’t involve elaborate Russian conspiracies or even 63 million Americans being racists.
He tries to make them see that maybe Trump was tapping into a genuine anger and resentment among working (and unwillingly unemployed) Americans against condescending coastal and DC elitists who didn’t seem to care about their problems. At one point, he concedes that Trump’s argument that “most Americans were struggling because both parties were feeding from the same campaign-finance teat, pimping themselves out to huge job-exporting corporate donors” was “let’s face it…more than a little true.”
I commend him for going that far in admitting the truth. It's downright revolutionary for a political piece in Rolling Stone, which has been peddling the same far-left socialist swill in between glossy ads for expensive sneakers and electronics for decades. He could also have mentioned that people were fed up with Obama’s policies that didn’t work and that the Democrats had nominated possibly the most off-putting candidate in history, but baby steps.
I’d also like to point out that while he takes to task all the pollsters and pundits who got it wrong and says that Michael Moore was one of the few media figures who thought Trump could win, I confidently predicted a Trump win well in advance of the election and never wavered. You see, I’d actually visited those states Hillary needed to win and didn’t visit. Also, I’d written a book, “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” warning those same coastal and DC elites about how out of touch they were with the rest of America, that came out well before Trump even announced his candidacy.
If liberals had read my book, it would have saved America the $30 million the Mueller probe wasted, plus the cost of all their therapy. They wouldn’t even have needed to read the latest issue of Rolling Stone, unless they wanted to find out about Mick Jagger’s heart surgery (get well, soon, Mick!)
I am going to comment on a story about something tweeted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but before you read it, please note that I have no intention of piling on and mocking her, as she often accuses Republicans of doing.
She tweeted, “Croissants at LaGuardia (Airport) are going for SEVEN DOLLARS A PIECE.” (sic) Yet some people think getting a whole hour of personal, dedicated human labor for $15 is too expensive?”
A lot of conservatives thumped her for making a non sequitur argument: the relative cost of a croissant at the airport has no connection with what the minimum wage should be. She fired back, “GOP taking every tweet so earnestly, making my point for me. It’s not an argument against the price of a croissant - it’s about the value of human worth. But I guess that idea is foreign to them since their policies treat people as disposable anyway.
Yes, all that misses the point, but personally, I’m inclined to cut her some slack. I don’t think she was making a serious economic argument. She was just blowing off steam, like someone who says, “If they can put a man on the moon, why can’t they make these catsup packs easier to open?!”
However, this does make for a great “teachable moment.” Why is a $15-an-hour wage too expensive? It isn’t, in many occupations. But if it’s more than the local market will bear for unskilled labor, and the government forces businesses to pay it anyway, then it becomes an unaffordable cost of doing business and leads to higher prices (like $7 croissants), layoffs and closures – which is exactly what’s happening to restaurants and other small businesses under new $15 minimum wage laws in liberal cities such as New York, San Francisco and Seattle.
And why is an airport croissant $7? Because you’re buying it in the airport. Just like labor, location is a cost of doing business. Getting a vendor contract in the airport is expensive. Once you get in, the rent is incredibly expensive, and there are other costs and fees on top of that. Since airports are run by local governments, the croissant costs $7 because of the cost of government involvement. That would come as ironic news to a socialist like AOC.
Lucky for airport vendors, they have a captive audience, so they can actually get $7 for a croissant. Customers of other businesses that have to raise prices to cope with the high costs of government (including a $15 minimum wage) can go elsewhere or eat at home, so they’re out of luck, and out of business. (AOC should ask the owner of the place where she used to bar-tend before being elected to Congress; he shut down due to the high cost of the $15 minimum wage.)
So I won’t mock AOC for tweeting that complaint. Instead, I’ll thank her for giving me a great opportunity to point out how increased government involvement and expensive mandates destroy businesses and make consumer products unaffordable for all but the “rich.”
Lesson: If you want poor people to be able to afford croissants, then you should embrace capitalism.
For some reason – probably because the Russia collusion story imploded, so the media and the Democrats need something that sounds nefarious to accuse the President of – this story about his staff’s security clearances is being treated as actual news.
My response to any Democrats questioning whether someone in Trump’s staff deserves a security clearance would be this: Did Hillary Clinton lose her security clearance after exposing over a hundred classified documents to Russia, China, North Korea and Anthony Wiener’s laptop? No? Then shut your pie holes.
One reason why I love visiting Israel is that the most important history of the world, the events related in the Bible, took place all around you and on the soil beneath your very feet. More proof of that was just unearthed by archeologists excavating beneath a former parking lot in Jerusalem who found a 2600-year-old clay stamp reading, “(belonging) to Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King.”
The only other place that name is recorded is in the Bible, in 2 Kings 23:11, where he is named as an official of King Josiah who implemented religious reforms:
“And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts. And he burned the chariots of the sun with fire.”
While we can’t say with 100% certainty that the two are the same Nathan-melech, there’s a very high probability, considering the age of the seal and where it was found: in the ruins of an administrative building that was destroyed during the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple in ancient Jerusalem.
The vice president of the City of David Foundation told the Times of Israel that this is “an extremely exciting find for billions of people worldwide.” He said, “It is truly fascinating to watch how archeologists have uncovered more than 12 layers of Jerusalem history in what used to be a parking lot until just a few years ago,” and “The ongoing archaeological excavations at the City of David continue to prove that ancient Jerusalem is no longer just a matter of faith, but also a matter of fact.”
The seal adds to a growing body of archeological evidence that the Bible is not merely a collection of stories, but a historical record of real events – and further refutation of the ridiculous claim by enemies of Israel that it is not the historic homeland of the Jewish people.