MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Public Schools Refuse to Open. Give the Taxpayers Their Money Back | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on March 6, 2021

By last fall, it was already apparent that private schools were much more concerned with providing in-person services than were the public schools. As Time reported last August, parents were picking up on the fact that if students were to receive an in-person education, it was probably going to happen at a private school. Moreover, most Catholic schools remain open and offer in-person instruction. In Philadelphia, for example, the archdiocese’s more than a hundred elementary schools have returned to a five-day-per-week schedule. Also, “there’s been no in-school transmission” of covid-19. In Boston, Catholic schools opened while public schools dithered.

https://mises.org/wire/public-schools-refuse-open-give-taxpayers-their-money-back

Ryan McMaken

In many school districts across the nation, public school teachers still don’t want to go back to work. Private sector workers have long been hard at work in kitchens, at construction sites, and in hardware and grocery stores. Meanwhile, from Seattle, to Los Angeles, and to Berkeley, California, Teachers’ Union representatives insist they simply can’t be expected to perform the on-site work in the expensive facilities that the taxpayers have long been paying for.

This week, for example, some schoolteachers in Colorado’s Jefferson County turned out to protest the district’s plan to return to limited in-person learning later this month. These protestors still insist it’s unsafe, even though the very institutions these people have long parroted in favor of endless lockdowns—the CDC and the World Health Organization, for instance—say reopening schools should be a “top priority.” Moreover, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have concluded “The lower risk of transmission of the virus by younger children and reported milder or moderate illness in this age group suggest the appropriateness of in-person instruction for primary and elementary grades.”

But that’s not good enough for public school teachers. So, in many cases, parents who actually want or need to send their students to an in-person school must go to the private sector instead. The government schools in these places can’t be bothered, but the private schools are racing to serve the public. 

The most absurd aspect of all this is that even when public schools effectively tell parents and students to “get lost,” taxpayers still have to pony up the cash to pay for the public schools. If any private sector industry tried to function this way, it would be denounced in no uncertain terms. But it doesn’t happen this way because in the private sector—unlike the public schools—business owners and employees don’t get paid if they refuse to work. In other words, the customers can take their money and leave. 

This disconnect between the taxpaying public and the public schools has always existed, of course, but the covid-19 panic has made it far more obvious to the general public. The time has come to finally allow parents and taxpayers to pull their money out of these unresponsive and expensive boondoggles.

Private Schools Are Mostly Back in Business

Compare the public school reaction to that of private schools.

By last fall, it was already apparent that private schools were much more concerned with providing in-person services than were the public schools. As Time reported last August, parents were picking up on the fact that if students were to receive an in-person education, it was probably going to happen at a private school. Moreover, most Catholic schools remain open and offer in-person instruction. In Philadelphia, for example, the archdiocese’s more than a hundred elementary schools have returned to a five-day-per-week schedule. Also, “there’s been no in-school transmission” of covid-19. In Boston, Catholic schools opened while public schools dithered. The local public radio outlet reports:

It’s a stark contrast, one that’s made Catholic schools attractive to families fed up with remote learning and willing to pay for in-person instruction.

The schools’ administrators do not know of a single case of anyone being hospitalized as a result of transmission through these schools.

This is a fairly common experience for Catholic schools. In the archdiocese of Denver, schools were “100 percent open” beginning last fall, and

less than one percent of students and less than four percent of the staff members test positive over the entire fall semester – numbers that are less than overall positivity rate for children and the general population. 

Defenders of the public schools’ lackluster efforts have attempted to explain all this away by claiming private schools are just the domain of the wealthy. Many articles point to the tuition rates of boutique schools, like the Germantown Friends school in Pennsylvania, which charges more than $40,000 per year.

This, however, is an outlier. Many private schools charge far less than that. Yes, some Catholic schools—which are 37 percent of all private schools and comprise the largest nonpublic school system in America—are indeed expensive boutique schools run by “private orders.” But most Catholic schools are run-of-the-mill archdiocesan schools that charge under $9,000 per year for high schooling, and even less for elementary school. That may seem like a lot, but it’s well below what many public schools spend on educating each student. Moreover, anyone who is familiar with urban Catholic school knows that these schools hardly cater to the wealthy elites. This is largely because of extensive scholarship programs for lower-income families.

These hapless parents who have been driven to private schooling by the public schools’ Covid shutdowns have to pay twice—once for the public schooling that’s been reduced to Zoom meetings, and once for the actual schooling taking place at private schools. 

What If We Ran Grocery Stores like Public Schools?

The private sector could never get away with this. 

Just imagine, for example, if grocery stores functioned this way and that grocery stores were government-owned institutions. Funding would come from tax revenues and funding levels would be calculated on the assumption that at least 90 percent of consumers would obtain all their groceries through these stores.1 Taxpayers would be charged accordingly. Just as state governments now spend 20 to 40 percent of state budgets on public schools, state governments would budget a sizable portion of the budget to “grocery finance.” Naturally, taxes would be much higher than they are now. Moreover, since taxes would be much higher—and posttax income much lower—countless Americans would indeed shop at these government stores. They would likely do so even if the quality of the food were lower. “Hey, I already paid for it,” the thinking would go, “so I might as well shop there.” We’d be told these government grocery stores are indispensable. How could the poor buy groceries otherwise? Of course, your shopping list would have to meet the approval of grocery planners so as to fit within the budget. Don’t like the menu that the grocers have selected for you? Tough luck. 

Moreover, given the enthusiasm with which public school staff and officials have abandoned their usual work in the face of Covid, it’s easy to imagine a scenario in which government grocery services are even more limited in case of a public health scare.

Admittedly, like the schools, these grocery stores would probably not end all their services. They’d likely still allow some limited shopping. No nonemployees would be allowed to enter the stores, though. As with schoolteachers, these public sector grocery workers would insist that the grocery stores function under numerous restrictions, perhaps with fewer business hours, and even long weekend closures to allow for extensive cleaning. And why not? The staffers and managers will get paid no matter what. 

Yes, there would be some private sector grocery stores for those insist on shopping in person or “after hours.” If you want to shop for groceries elsewhere, you’ll just have to pay twice: once for the government stores, and a second time for your “private” groceries.

Grocery Vouchers, a.k.a. “Food Stamps”

If presented with the option of a world of fully government-owned grocery stores, many Americans would consider such a thing to be madness. And rightly so. 

Moreover, even when confronted with the question of whether or not low-income people can afford groceries, few advocate for a government takeover of grocery stores. Instead, the taxpayers tolerate funding a system of monthly grocery vouchers for households below a certain income level. These vouchers are commonly called “food stamps.”

Now, many people may take exception to food stamps as a boondoggle. But it’s also hard to deny that if voters and politicians are going to insist that low-income consumers be subsidized, this grocery voucher system is orders of magnitude better than an extensive system of government-owned grocery stores.

Yet why do so many Americans think a system of government-owned schools makes sense?

If the same commonsense thinking that prevents a government takeover of grocery stores were applied to schools, the situation would look very different. Schools would virtually all be private institutions. If a parent doesn’t want to “shop” at a particular school or school district by enrolling his child there, the parent need not spend any money there.

Of course, politicians and many voters would insist that something be done to subsidize education for low-income residents. With this, the less bad strategy is the grocery model: provide the educational version of food stamps for students. These funds aren’t tied to any institution or any government districts. They go where the consumers go. 

Meanwhile, so long as public schools continue to receive direct funding from government coffers—with no economic connection to consumer choice—the public schools won’t have to care what the public wants or needs. 

  • 1. Roughly 90 percent of all school-age children attend government schools. 

Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kamala Harris: The Government Must Do More To Regulate Your Meat Consumption

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

We need to regulate how much government consumes US

http://uschronicle.com/kamala-harris-the-government-must-do-more-to-regulate-your-meat-consumption-ht/?13

If you have been hearing a lot, lately, from the Mainstream Media about how much of a moderate and a centrist Kamala Harris is, take a look at this little gem in which she talks about how the State should and MUST regulate your meat consumption in order to fight man-made climate change.

“I mean, just to be perfectly honest with you, I love cheeseburgers from time to time. Right? I mean, I just do. But there has to be also what we do in terms of creating incentives of what we will eat in a healthy way, that we will encourage moderation, and that we will be educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment. And we have to do a much better job of that. And the government has to do a much better job of that.”

This sounds a lot like Barack Obama’s “Regulatory Czar,” Cass Sunstein. If you are unfamiliar with the man, Sunstein is an academic who wrote the book called Nudge. Nudge’s entire premise is that you will have much less resistance from people if you “nudged” them in a certain direction rather than by mandating them to behave in a certain way.

A prime example from his book is vegetables. Telling people to eat more vegetables through regulations would lead to immediate and rock-solid resistance from a country whose roots are in fighting authoritarianism. What you need to do instead is “nudge” them in the right direction.

By making sugary foods more expensive through arbitrary taxation, the government is able to “nudge” the people into choosing the healthy alternatives. While vegetables might seem like a harmless example of the nudge principle, it gets a little bit more alarming when we are talking about education, healthcare, and manipulating the American people into supporting something that they otherwise would not.

Leading up to the passage of Obamacare, you could find all kinds of propaganda (nudging) coming from popular television shows, late night talk shows, professional athletes, and even blockbuster movies. The message was clear, people were dying because they couldn’t get Obamacare.

Through blatant propaganda and a lack of transparency, Barack Obama was able to pass his signature bill that neither he nor any member of Congress had read. The American people were “nudged” into supporting the bill through propaganda slipped into pop culture.

As it turned out, the ACA was an absolute disaster that raised everyone’s health insurance premiums except for those politicians that voted for it.

Harris’ plan to “nudge” people into healthier eating habits may just be indicative that she is not the centrist the Mainstream Media has been leading us to believe and that we could be seeing Obama 2.0 in a Biden-Harris Administration.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Grass Is Not Greener

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

All the Ways the Government Can Lay Siege to Your Property – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

Government agents—with or without a warrant, with or without probable cause that criminal activity is afoot, and with or without the consent of the homeowner—are now justified in mounting home invasions in order to pursue traffic violators, seize lawfully-owned weapons, carry out knock-and-talk “chats” with homeowners in the dead of night, “prevent” individuals from harming themselves, provide emergency aid, intervene in the face of imminent danger, serve as community caretakers, chase down individuals suspected of committing misdemeanor crimes, and anything else they can get away with.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the many ways the government and its corporate partners-in-crime may be using surveillance technology—with or without the blessing of the courts—to invade one’s home: with wiretaps, thermal imaging, surveillance cameras, and other monitoring devices.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/all-the-ways-the-government-can-lay-siege-to-your-property/

by John W. Whitehead

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?”— Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone dissenter in Kentucky v. KingWe need courts that prioritize the rights of the citizenry over the government’s insatiable hunger for power at all costs.
[Click to Tweet]

Americans are not safe in their homes.

Not anymore, at least.

This present menace comes from the government and its army of bureaucratized, corporatized, militarized mercenaries who are waging war on the last stronghold left to us as a free people: the sanctity of our homes.

The weapons of this particular war on our personal security and our freedoms include an abundance of laws that criminalize almost everything we do, a government that views our private property as its own, militarized police who have been brainwashed into believing that they operate above the law, courts that insulate police from charges of wrongdoing, legislatures that legitimize the government’s usurpations of our rights, and a populace that is so ignorant of their rights and distracted by partisan politics as to be utterly incapable of standing up to the government’s overreaches, incursions and power grabs.

This is how far the mighty have fallen.

Government agents—with or without a warrant, with or without probable cause that criminal activity is afoot, and with or without the consent of the homeowner—are now justified in mounting home invasions in order to pursue traffic violators, seize lawfully-owned weapons, carry out knock-and-talk “chats” with homeowners in the dead of night, “prevent” individuals from harming themselves, provide emergency aid, intervene in the face of imminent danger, serve as community caretakers, chase down individuals suspected of committing misdemeanor crimes, and anything else they can get away with.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the many ways the government and its corporate partners-in-crime may be using surveillance technology—with or without the blessing of the courts—to invade one’s home: with wiretaps, thermal imaging, surveillance cameras, and other monitoring devices.

However, while the courts and legislatures have yet to fully address the implications of such virtual intrusions on our Fourth Amendment, there is no mistaking the physical intrusions by police into the privacy of one’s home: the toehold entry, the battering ram, the SWAT raid, the knock-and-talk conversation, etc.

Whether such intrusions, warranted or otherwise, are unconstitutional continues to be litigated, legislated and debated.

The spirit of the Constitution, drafted by men who chafed against the heavy-handed tyranny of an imperial ruler, would suggest that one’s home is a fortress, safe from almost every kind of intrusion. Unfortunately, a collective assault by the government’s cabal of legislators, litigators, judges and militarized police has all but succeeded in reducing that fortress—and the Fourth Amendment alongside it—to a crumbling pile of rubble.

Two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, Caniglia v. Strom and Lange v. California, are particularly noteworthy.

In Caniglia v. Strom, police want to be able to carry out warrantless home invasions in order to seize lawfully-owned guns under the pretext of their so-called “community caretaking” duties. Under the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, police can conduct warrantless searches of vehicles relating to accident investigations and provide aid to “citizens who are ill or in distress.”

At a time when red flag gun laws are gaining traction as a legislative means by which to allow police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, it wouldn’t take much to expand the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception to allow police to enter a home without a warrant and seize lawfully-possessed firearms based on concerns that the guns might pose a danger.

What we do not need is yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the Fourth Amendment at will under the pretext of public health and safety.

In Lange v. California, police want to be able to enter homes without warrants as long as they can claim to be in pursuit of someone they suspect may have committed a crime. Yet as Justice Neil Gorsuch points out, in an age in which everything has been criminalized, that leaves the door wide open for police to enter one’s home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes.

At issue in Lange is whether police can justify entering homes without a warrant under the “hot pursuit” exception to the Fourth Amendment.

See the rest here

This post was written by: John W. Whitehead

John W. Whitehead is a constitutional attorney, author, and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. This article is a revised version of a piece that originally appeared on the Rutherford Institute website, http://www.rutherford.org

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Majority Of Brits Say They Will “Miss” Some Or Many Aspects Of Lockdown | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

Previous polls have routinely showed majority or plurality support for lockdown, with little concern for what innumerable observers have called the biggest imposition on civil liberties in British history.

One aspect that many will “miss” about lockdown is undoubtedly getting paid for doing nothing.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/majority-brits-say-they-will-miss-some-or-many-aspects-lockdown

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler DurdenFriday, Mar 05, 2021 – 3:30

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A new opinion poll in the UK finds that over half of Brits say they will miss either “some” or “many” aspects of lockdown despite the country now having been under some form of restrictions for nearly a year.

Yes, really.

The YouGov survey asked participants, “Do you think you will or will not miss any aspects of lockdown when it is over?”

9 per cent of respondents said they would miss “many” aspects of lockdown while 46 per cent said they would miss “some” aspects of lockdown – a combined total of 55 per cent.

Over half of Britons (55%) say they will miss aspects of lockdown when it is over https://t.co/bRZRzvANHf pic.twitter.com/cD1xP39MQs — YouGov (@YouGov) March 2, 2021

Just 39 per cent of respondents said they won’t miss any aspects of lockdown.

Previous polls have routinely showed majority or plurality support for lockdown, with little concern for what innumerable observers have called the biggest imposition on civil liberties in British history.

One aspect that many will “miss” about lockdown is undoubtedly getting paid for doing nothing.

Under the government’s furlough scheme, those who can’t work from home have had 80 per cent of their wages covered by the state for almost a year, with that program to be extended until September despite the government saying all restrictions will be lifted by the end of June.

The prospect of having to work for their money will become a reality for some once again soon, although not for all given that the UK’s economy contracted the most in 300 years as a result of the lockdown, leading to 726,000 job losses.

*  *  *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Newsom Urges Double-Masking For All Californians, Will Not Make “Terrible Mistake” Like Texas | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/newsom-urges-double-masking-all-californians-will-not-make-terrible-mistake-texas

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler DurdenFriday, Mar 05, 2021 – 4:25

Having immediately decried the actions of Texas and Mississippi – in giving their citizens back some freedom and the ability to think for themselves – as “absolutely reckless,” California Governor Gavin Newsom has doubled-down (literally) on the virtue-signaling.

“We will be doubling down on mask wearing,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday, “not arguing to follow the example of Texas and other states that I think are making a terrible mistake.”

The Sacramento Bee is reporting tonight that new state health guidelines announced by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday recommend that Californians wear two cloth masks or one filtered mask when going out in public to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

“We are encouraging people basically to double down on mask wearing, particularly in light of all what I would argue is bad information coming from at least four states in this country. We will not be walking down their path, we’re mindful of your health and our future,” Newsom said.

To Newsom’s point about doubling down, California updated its recommendations for mask wearing on Thursday with the following:

“‘Double masking’ is an effective way to improve fit and filtration. A close-fitting cloth mask can be worn on top of a surgical/disposable mask to improve the seal of the mask to the face.”

Interestingly, Newsom also announced Thursday that counties across the state could be cleared to open more businesses and lift other restrictions sooner than anticipated under an update that loosens some requirements in his Blueprint for a Safer Economy.

So he is easing restrictions (cough recall pandering cough), like Texas; and at the same time urging ‘double masking’?

Of course, he will claim he is ‘just following the science’ but as AIER’s Paul Alexander detailed at length, why the CDC’s mask-mandate study is fault-ridden:

Based on our assessment of this CDC mask mandate report, we find ourselves troubled by the study methods themselves and by extension, the conclusions drawn. The real-world evidence exists and indicates that in various countries and US states, when mask mandates were followed consistently, there was an inexorable increase in case counts. We have seen that in states and countries that already have a high frequency of mask wearing that adding mandates had little effect. There was no (zero) benefit of adding a mask mandate in Austria, Germany, France, Spain, UK, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, and states like California, Hawaii, and Texas. Importantly, we do not ascribe a cause-effect relationship between the implementation of mask mandates and the rise in case rates, but we also demand the same approach when it comes to claiming some sort of causal relationship between the introduction of mask mandates and likely claims by the CDC that their findings could support their implementation countrywide. 

We think that inclusion of such evidence on the failures of masks mandates globally and states within the US would have made for more balanced, comprehensive, and fully-informed reporting.

…

Trusting the science means relying on the scientific process and method and not merely ‘following the leader.’ It is not the same as trusting, without verification, the conclusory statements of human beings simply because they have scientific training or credentials.

Read more here…

History does not bode well for times that politics meddles with science. Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a leader in disease surveillance methods and infectious disease outbreaks, describes the current COVID scientific environment this way: “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.”

We wonder how a citizenry that is already demanding his recall will react to this latest escalation in restrictions.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Who Really Imperils the Republic? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

My guess, Minneapolis, not Capitol Hill, is where the action will be this spring, and it will not be Proud Boys keeping the cops busy, but folks who, if they did vote in 2020, voted Democratic.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/patrick-j-buchanan/who-really-imperils-the-republic/

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“That attack, that siege” of the Capitol, FBI Director Chris Wray told Congress, “was criminal behavior, plain and simple, and it was behavior we at the FBI view as domestic terrorism.”

“Domestic terrorism,” said Wray, echoing his boss.

For what had been President-elect Joe Biden’s reaction to the Capitol riot?

“Don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple,” said Biden.

Yet, the phrase domestic terrorism conjures up events from our past far graver than a four-hours occupation of the Capitol. Nat Turner’s rebellion. John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry. Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City.

The near assassination of Harry Truman at Blair House by Puerto Rican nationalists, Nov.1, 1950. The shooting and wounding of five congressmen from the House gallery on March 1, 1954.

The 1974 bombing of New York’s Fraunces Tavern — where Gen. George Washington said farewell to his officers — also the work of Puerto Ricans demanding independence. Four died there and 50 were injured.

Yet, in the “domestic terrorism” at the Capitol, no protester set off a bomb, toppled a statue, or fired a weapon. Of the four who died that day, all were protesters. Ashli Babbitt, 35, a 14-year Air Force veteran, was shot to death by a Capitol cop as she tried to force her way into the Senate chamber.

A rioter and law-breaker, yes, but a terrorist who deserved to die?

Benjamin Phillips, 50, died of a stroke; Kevin Greeson, 55, of a heart attack. Rosanne Boyland, 34, was apparently crushed in the melee.

Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick died of a stroke the next day. Media reports that he had been hit with a fire extinguisher proved false. In the two months since Jan. 6, no one has been charged in his death.

Was Wray’s FBI alerted in advance of this impending act of domestic terrorism? Apparently, it was.

Writes The Washington Post: “A… report, prepared by the FBI’s Norfolk field office a day before the riot, … warned of specific appeals for violence, including a call for ‘war’ at the Capitol.”

The report quoted a source urging Donald Trump supporters to go to D.C. “ready to fight.”

“Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent, stop calling this a march or rally or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”

What did Wray do with this hair-raising warning? Did he call the D.C. police or Speaker Nancy Pelosi to alert her to what might be coming her way?

No. Wray never saw the Norfolk report. It was not passed up the chain of command to his office until after the riot. It was sent by email to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes the D.C. and Capitol Police, posted on a website and mentioned in a command center briefing in D.C.

Nonchalance seems to have been the FBI’s order of the day.

As acting D.C. police chief Robert J. Contee III told Congress, “I would certainly think that something as violent as an insurrection would warrant a phone call.”

One would think so. Explanations are needed.

How can Wray call a breach of the Capitol by a Trump crowd, an “act of domestic terrorism,” when his own subordinates did not regard it as sufficiently serious enough to give him a heads-up?

And is it not hyperbole to use terms like “domestic terrorism,” “armed insurrection,” “coup d’etat,” and “treason” to describe protesters pushing through police lines into the Capitol to disrupt a proceeding?

What is going on here?

The left will not let this go. It is exaggerating and exploiting what happened at the Capitol to paint the right as an ominous threat to American democracy — and itself as the savior of the republic. It seeks to demonize the populist right, cancel its voice, expel it from the public square and redefine it as a conspiracy against America, calling forth new government authority and power to monitor, expose and destroy it.

If assaulting cops and besieging public buildings amounts to domestic terrorism, the rioting, looting, arson and assaults on cops we saw all last summer in Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha and Louisville from antifa and Black Lives Matter protestors would more than qualify.

Today, Capitol Hill is encircled with high fencing topped by razor wire and patrolled by National Guard troops. It looks like the Green Zone in Baghdad. Apparently, the physical barriers and troops are there to protect against attacks by QAnon and white supremacists.

Minneapolis is taking similar precautions to protect the courthouse where ex-cop Derek Chauvin is to be tried for second-degree murder in the death of George Floyd.

My guess, Minneapolis, not Capitol Hill, is where the action will be this spring, and it will not be Proud Boys keeping the cops busy, but folks who, if they did vote in 2020, voted Democratic.

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Burying the Lede on Reopenings | Chronicles

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

Rather, the CNN article is an instance of journalistic malpractice. Journalism schools teach students that the most important information should go at the top of the article, because most readers do not read all the way to the end.

CNN decided the most important thing to do in this article was lambast Abbott and Reeves for reopening. As such, anything in these governors’ defense or critical of their Democratic counterparts should be buried further down the text or withheld entirely.

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/burying-the-lede-on-reopenings/

By Anders Koskinen

CNN’s recent criticism of the reopening of Texas and Mississippi has once again proven its journalists merely engage in partisan coverage. This time it is accompanied by the added demerit of not understanding the nuances of federalism in America’s governance.

With Govs. Greg Abbott and Tate Reeves both deciding it is high time to re-open their states and get back to business, a CNN headline reports that “Biden urges patience on Covid as Republican governors go rogue on reopenings.” The same article states that the governors have “defied federal government warnings to not relax restrictions.”

Newsflash to CNN and President Joe Biden: you don’t have the authority to shut down whole states for indefinite periods of time. But let’s give CNN some credit, for the article in question is an excellent example of organizing information in such a way as to produce an effective smear job. If only CNN was honest about it instead of pretending to engage in journalism.

In the fourth paragraph CNN claims that the two southern states and their Republican governors are “going it alone as new infections plateau at high levels.” It is not until the 15th paragraph that it admits that “Republicans are not the only governors easing restrictions as new cases of Covid-19 and deaths from the virus have fallen.”

The attack on Abbott and Reeves is doubly apparent in that last sentence alone.

To begin with, the fact that Democratic mayors or governors are also reopening is buried. It may be, as CNN says, that these reopenings are not nearly as dramatic as those of Texas and Mississippi, but how is a reader supposed to judge that? No Democratic controlled locality that is partially reopening is mentioned in the article, nor are any of the partial reopening measures defined. We are simply supposed to take CNN’s word that Abbott and Reeves are acting irresponsibly, while Democrats supposedly engage in more practical steps.

Meanwhile this piece condemning reopening as a mismanagement of the pandemic omits any mention of how New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo may face impeachment proceedings for shuttering elderly patients into nursing homes, and hiding the death toll of his policy. Nor does it mention that he is currently facing a federal inquiry into the same policy. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is in similar hot water, as a recall petition gains steam on the back of his repeated violations of his own COVID-19 emergency orders.

Second is the note regarding COVID-19 caseloads and deaths. The dramatic fall in new cases and deaths is likely the data informing Abbot and Reeves’ decisions to reopen, but that information is buried about halfway down the article.

Texas’ and Mississippi’s COVID rates haven’t just fallen, they’ve cratered. On Jan. 16 Texas had 18,332 new COVID cases for a 7-day rolling average of 23,006 new cases daily, data from theNew York Times shows. By March 2 those numbers were 7,240 and 7,259 respectively. Mississippi on Jan. 12 had 1,648 new cases and a rolling average of 2,359 new cases daily. On March 2 that had fallen to 301 new cases and a rolling average of 582.

Following these twin absurdities, CNN also asserted that states and cities reopening under Democrats “unlike Texas and Mississippi, … are not acting as though the virus has simply gone away.”

This is laughable as the video atop the same CNN article is of a Greg Abbott press conference, in which the governor states:

To be clear, COVID has not, like, suddenly disappeared. COVID still exists in Texas, in the United States, and across the globe. But it is clear from the recoveries, from the vaccinations, from the reduced hospitalizations, and from the safe practices that Texans are using, that state mandates are no longer needed. So today I am issuing a new executive order that rescinds most of the earlier executive orders…. Now despite these changes remember this, removing state mandates does not end personal responsibility or the importance of caring for your family members, and caring for your friends, and caring for others in your community.

This was not some spur of the moment reopening. This was a data-driven decision, fully acknowledging the continued existence of the COVID-19 pandemic and encouraging personal responsibility among individual citizens. COVID rates are plummeting, vaccines are rolling out, and the reopening of Texas does not officially take place for another week. After more than a year of fear and uncertainty, this reopening is hardly an instance of rushing headlong into the unknown.

Rather, the CNN article is an instance of journalistic malpractice. Journalism schools teach students that the most important information should go at the top of the article, because most readers do not read all the way to the end.

CNN decided the most important thing to do in this article was lambast Abbott and Reeves for reopening. As such, anything in these governors’ defense or critical of their Democratic counterparts should be buried further down the text or withheld entirely.

Anders Koskinen

Anders Koskinen is an Editorial Associate at Intellectual Takeout. He earned his BA from the University of Minnesota in December 2016 where he graduated with a double major in Journalism and Political Science.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The $1.9 Trillion Biden Spending Plan Is Even Worse Than You Think – Issues & Insights

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2021

Most of the tax dollars are actually funneled to California, New York, and Illinois through crude metrics based on unemployment and other coastal urban cost drivers.  The lockdown states whose economies are moribund due to leftist government edicts are the winners and those states who have been responsibly working and open are being told to foot the bill.

This so-called stimulus plan — simply put — directly rewards states that performed dismally and corruptibly over the past year, and punishes those states who were led responsibly and are working and open for business.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/03/04/the-1-9-trillion-biden-spending-plan-is-even-worse-than-you-think/

Lew Uhler, Peter Ferrara and Joseph Yocca

The latest $1.9 trillion omnibus spending bill pending in Congress is in addition to last year’s $3.4 trillion COVID-related health and economic stimulus spending bills.  Estimates of this new massive bailout put the actual appropriation of taxpayer funding related to health costs at a meaningless nine percent of the total new bloat. 

What will we get for the $1.9 trillion in new deficit spending?  This is all nothing more than a crafty direct federal taxpayer subvention to blue states and large urban corridors that otherwise could never justify any other state’s taxpayer bailout for their years of irresponsible, profligate government waste.

Take for example California, whose commanding government employee unions control every facet of that state’s budget allocations and whose public pension plans, the most generous in the nation, now demand extraordinary funding at all levels of government.  This political turkey has now come home to roost.        

But California, like New York and Illinois, have another big problem.  Their state’s productive classes — you know, the people who actually create the wealth and economic vitality that permit such largess — are now leaving those states in droves rendering enormous potential tax deficits in their wake.  What to do?

Call in the calvary — or in this case, “F-Troop”.  Dr. Fauci, the goofy corporal of functional health bureaucrats, has dutifully continued his Lockdown Fears Tour sufficient to permit his enablers in Washington D.C. to craft a wildly off-the-reservation so-called stimulus spending proposal designed to transfer the wealth of responsible working states to cover the big government malfeasance of the irresponsible ones.

If you still wonder why states like California, New York, and Illinois continue on a path of lockdowns despite a year’s worth of health data verifying the converse, one need only look only at Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus proposal to understand the want of blue states to keep their citizens restricted, frustrated and on the dole.

After a full year of governments at all levels first began shutting down our economies for “30 days to slow the virus spread”, only the bluest of states continue to restrict their population’s ability to earn a living.  And despite sound research showing the counterproductive health consequences of lockdowns, those blue state’s motivations for continuing their restrictive edicts are becoming ever more evident.

There is a growing, observable contrast developing in the country between the positive health outcomes in states which have been working and re-opening their economies and the coastal deep blue states who remain under strict lockdowns.  Those who continue to remain closed for business are being exposed as having unnecessarily done more harm to their citizenry than the virus.

In fact, once you understand the true nature of the $1.9 trillion proposal — to channel the nation’s tax dollars to Democrat-controlled blue states and left-wing institutions — you will begin to get a handle on the immoral overreach that defines this stimulus plan and the corrupt manner in which they continue to trade on public fear to maintain the health lie undergirding this preposterous debt-busting pork-barrel bill.

The last time Democrats controlled both the White House and both houses of Congress, in 2009, there was a strong political current to overspend on bailouts to address the recession and credit crisis.  Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — signed 12 years ago this month — was a $787 billion 2-year program to stimulate the economy, but did so in a mostly uniform manner across the states.  Besides the huge Wall Street and banking liquidity portion, it was not a strictly partisan formulation.

The same cannot be said of this Biden $1.9 trillion boondoggle.  While it is couched in terms of health care prevention and jobless recovery, only a very tiny percentage of the spending is actually health-related.  The overwhelming portion of the spending is for blue coastal urban states and left-wing welfare institutions and public-employee organized labor unions.

Most of the tax dollars are actually funneled to California, New York, and Illinois through crude metrics based on unemployment and other coastal urban cost drivers.  The lockdown states whose economies are moribund due to leftist government edicts are the winners and those states who have been responsibly working and open are being told to foot the bill.

This so-called stimulus plan — simply put — directly rewards states that performed dismally and corruptibly over the past year, and punishes those states who were led responsibly and are working and open for business.

That’s about as un-American a concept as can ever be devised.

Lew Uhler is founder and chairman of the National Tax Limitation Committee and the National Tax Limitation Foundation (NTLF). He was a contemporary and collaborator with Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman in California and across the country.

Peter Ferrara served as a member of the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush, and the Dunn Liberty Fellow in Economics at the King’s College in New York.

Joe Yocca is NTLF’s Policy Director. A long-time political and policy consultant, Joe served in the California State Senate as chief of staff to the Republican leadership for decades and directed numerous statewide legislative and congressional campaigns throughout his career. 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Epictetus, Discourses-Awareness Is Freedom

Posted by M. C. on March 4, 2021

The person is free who lives as they wish, neither compelled, nor hindered, nor limited-whose choices aren’t hampered, whose desires succeed, and who don’t fall into what repels them. Who wishes to live in deception-tripped up, mistaken, undisciplined, complaining, in a rut? No one. These are base people who don’t live as they wish; and so, no base person is free.


Epictetus, Discourses


The Daily Stoic, 366 Meditations On Wisdom, Perseverance,and The Art Of Living

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »