Monday, February 17, 2020

Reaching Peak Progressivism - VDH


Reaching Peak Progressivism

by VDH

In 2020 we have finally hit peak progressivism. The adjective “peak”—apex or summit— is often used to describe something that has reached its maximum extent but thereafter will insidiously decline—like supposed U.S. domestic oil production in 2000 when more oil was purportedly taken out of, rather than still in the ground. While the idea of peak oil in the days before fracking and horizontal drilling proved vastly premature, we likely are witnessing something like “peak progressivism” today.
By that I mean the hard-left takeover of the Democratic Party and the accompanying progressive agenda now have reached an extreme—beyond which will only result in the steady erosion of radical ideology altogether.
The French Revolution hit “peak” coerced egalitarianism with the Jacobin takeover and so-called Reign of Terror. After all, when you begin guillotining fellow travelers on charges they are counterrevolutionaries and begin worshiping a new atheist secular power “Reason,” institutionalized as Robespierre’s “Cult of the Supreme Being,” you have mostly reached the limits of political radicalism and are into the territory of the nihilistic, if not the maniacal and absurd—with a rendezvous with Napoleon on the horizon.
From 2009 through 2016, Barack Obama recalibrated the Democratic Party’s liberalism into progressive radicalism. He opened the border and all but dismantled existing immigration law. Sanctuary cities sprang up with impunity. Executive orders bypassed the Congress. The Iran Deal ignored the Senate’s treaty-making responsibilities. Obama sought to nationalize healthcare. The concept of “diversity” replaced affirmative action, by redefining racial oppression as distinct from historical grievance and economic disparity and instead lumping together 30 percent of the population as nonwhite, and thus antithetical to the new buzz construct of “white privilege.” Fast and Furious, the surveillance of the Associated Press reporters, Benghazi, the weaponization of the IRS, and the use of CIA, FBI, and DOJ to seed the spurious Steele dossier were all written off as proof of the “most scandal free” administration in memory.
But today Obamaism has been figuratively guillotined by the New Jacobins. It is found guilty of crimes of insufficient revolutionary zeal, as well as compromises with the U.S. Constitution and capitalism.
Once considered a crank socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is now leads in many Democratic primary polls. Arriving with him at this moment in our politics is peak progressivism.
First-term socialists—House representatives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her fellow “squad” members, inspired by Sanders—now set the new Democratic agenda. And it is one that is more radical than anything seen in modern American history and largely unsustainable: calls to level a wealth tax and new top income-tax rates of 70-90 percent, to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, all student debt, an enforceable southern border, the internal combustion engine, and most Second Amendment rights, and to enact multi-trillion dollar new entitlements as outlined in the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college, free healthcare for illegal aliens, and reparations.
Identity politics so rules the rhetoric of the new progressive party that all of its—exclusively white—primary finalists vie to be most vocal in the ritual damning of their own country (that has ironically ensured their own influence, power, success and wealth) as inherently “racist.”

Universities Lead the Way In the Revolution Eating Itself

Outside of the political sphere, peak progressivism had reinvented the university, rejecting Martin Luther King, Jr’s vision of racial integration and assimilation, by demanding racially obsessed dorms, safe spaces, and applications.
There is hardly a First Amendment on campuses anymore. Speakers with unpopular views are shouted down with impunity by student activists. “Trigger warnings” seek to censor required texts. The mere accusation of sexual harassment on campus is synonymous with the suspension of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments. Skepticism over abortion, “climate change,” or identity politics can cancel out a faculty career.
It is hard to imagine where universities go after peak progressivism, since it would be the pure nihilism of abolishing grades, admissions standards, and student fees.
Peak progressivism calls for the abolition of the constitutionally mandated Electoral College. Radicals now fault past failed schemes to pack the federal and Supreme Court with left-wing justices only because they failed, and thus advance ways to make court-packing work in the present. The bolder among them wants to reconfigure the U.S. Senate into a proportionally representational house or abolish it altogether. All that would be left after that would be the formal abolition of the U.S. Constitution itself.
Primary candidates compete with one another to water down voting laws, variously demanding that 16-year-olds, felons, and illegal aliens should be given the franchise. Gay marriage, which Obama opposed in 2008 and later promoted after reelection, is now passé. The new civil rights cause celebre is transgenderism, an ancient syndrome known in the past under a variety of clinical definitions that affects less than half of one percent of the population. Who, after these peak progressive ideas, would be left as ineligible to vote—12-year-olds, those on death row, the rest of the earth’s population?
All moderate Democratic presidential candidates long ago dropped out. Those who have not, such as Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg, are in virtual reeducation camps, as they promise to progressive rivals and the media to renounce most of their past positions, effusively apologizing for prior incorrect thinking and failure to become sufficiently “woke.”

The Cycles of Cultish Extremism

There are certain historical characteristics of the current peak progressivism that are typical of past cycles of cultish extremism.
Iconoclasm—the destruction of statues and icons deemed reactionary—is typical.
So is Trotskyization, the renaming of buildings, streets, and institutions on the theory that current correct ideology makes past iconic figures no longer deserving of recognition and thus erased from history.
Puritanism is also typical, as correct speech extends to thoughts and behavior. Peak progressivism now includes Victorian prudery. Flattery, traditional flirting, and praise of physical beauty are proof of counter-revolutionary barbarism and toxic masculinity. The Internet allows instant cancel culture searches of one’s entire past thoughts, conduct, and expression in efforts to erase impure personas.
Tribal factionalism is a final symptom that peak ideology is already degenerating into chaos. In the Democratic primary, candidates could agree that white privilege and whiteness were toxic but no one quite could define whether black, Latino, Asian, gay, female upper-middle class, or wealthy candidates were the most victimized by America and thus the most deserving of reparatory considerations.
The much-discussed “intersectionality” is a construct, a myth. The history of ideological extremism is instead a war of all factions against one another.
We see just that in the peak progressive primaries. Michael Bloomberg is deemed a racist and sexist. But then so is Joe Biden. Bernie Sanders supposedly hires racists and sexists and won’t honor minimum wage laws. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) thinks Bernie is condescending to women and minorities. Pete Buttigieg thinks he is the victim of Joe Biden’s subtle anti-gay political adds, and feels, but does not articulate, that the black community is inherent anti-homosexual. The race to tag others as victimizers and selves as victimized is endless.
Radicals also vie to make rivals look counter-revolutionary, as they advance ever more incoherent and unhinged schemes without a clue that they are losing not just moderate support but even liberal followers. The more Warren feels she must become the purest peak progressive on the debate stage and the most radical in the U.S. Senate, the more her former supporters feel she is either a conniving opportunist or nuts or both.

Impossible Demands, Even of Their Own

Peak progressive cannot possibly live up to their rhetoric fantasies and so suffer from rank hypocrisies. Redistributionists like Warren and Sanders either fly on private jets or choose non-egalitarian first-class commercial. Hollywood stars who mouth crazy Oscar and Grammy ceremony platitudes vie with each other to wear multi-thousand-dollar clothes, live in mansions, and own yachts—as they drive down ratings to historic lows.
Not long ago, progressive pundits on CNN and MSNBC declared the current indicted lawyer Michael Avenatti presidential material for his fabrications and lies that were used to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Where does a network go after that?
Racial quota advocates demand proportional representations and cry out about disparate impact but soon discover that they have no plans or desire to appoint candidates of color to be included on the Democrat debate stage (or to reserve slots for Asian-American basketball forwards, or to ensure blacks make up only 12 percent of the coveted billets of the U.S. Postal Service.) Peak progressives never imagine that they, too, can become prisoners of their ridiculous ideologies.
Peak progressives also live in cocoons. They have no inkling how their ever more radical talk alienates the public. How odd to see Mike Bloomberg repudiate many of his mayoral policies that once were popular with even liberal New Yorkers. (Or is Bloomberg’s Machiavellian team leaking past politically incorrect statements about crime and the housing collapse to show that in comparison with his current rivals’ professed lunacies that he once sounded pragmatic and sane?)
To prove he is not a racist, Joe Biden sounds like an incendiary radical, only further turning off his once-sizable moderate block of supporters. As Democratic candidates careen ever farther to the left, their crowds shrink, and Donald Trump’s rallies expand.
Peak progressivism even scares the diehard NeverTrump right, which fears imploding by voting for a whacked-out Bernie Sanders as the only alternative to the hated Trump.
Peak progressivism eventually either recedes, or, to remain viable, entails violence, as in the Russian, Chinese, or Cuban revolutions. The odd thing is not that Sanders supporter James Hodkinson tried to mow down some of the Republican House leadership, or a recent left-wing activist sought to run over Trump supporters with his van, or that Hollywood stars still compete with each other in imagining the most fitting rhetorical torture or killing of the president of the United States—bombing, incineration, beheading, stabbing, shooting, beating—but that progressive voices rarely complain about such extremist rhetoric or actions. Impeachment 1.0 in January 2017 looks tame in comparison to 2.0 in February 2020, which in turn will seem a sell-out compared to 3.0 in 2021.
George McGovern ensured a Nixon landslide, Jimmy Carter hastened the Reagan Revolution—and the eventual return of the old Democrats under Bill Clinton.
The frightening visions of the new peak progressives will ensure the reelection of Donald Trump, as well as either the likely end of themselves—or else a collective dystopian nightmare.

Friday, February 14, 2020

GLOBAL WARMING IN A FEW CHARTS

GLOBAL WARMING IN A FEW CHARTS

Climate change hysteria has been dialed up to 11 over the last year or two. Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who knows little or nothing about the subject, apparently will continue being nominated for a Nobel Prize until she wins one. But, hype aside, what is actually going on with the Earth’s climate?
Anthony Watts offers seven charts that show the effects of the last decade of alleged global warming. The first one has to do with the beneficial effects of increasing CO2–plant food–in the atmosphere.
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 2016.
***
The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two times the size of mainland USA (18 million km2)…
This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.
We constantly hear that temperatures are setting new records, but in reality, according to NOAA’s United States Climate Reference Network, average temperatures in the U.S. in 2019 were cooler than they had been at the start of the decade. The two peaks were, as usual, naturally-occurring El Nino years:
The alarmists’ models were created by activists to predict problematic levels of warming. That was the whole point. Unfortunately for the alarmists, enough time has now gone by that we can say, definitively, that the models are wrong. They grossly exaggerated any mild warming that has actually occurred. And a model that produces wrong predictions is worthless.
This, I think, is why the Left shifted its focus to “extreme weather events.” Apparently there are people alive today so ill-informed that they are surprised by storms, floods, droughts, fires, etc., apparently believing that these are new phenomena. This chart shows the economic cost of weather losses as a share of global GDP. Such losses have been declining, not increasing, even though coastal development has increased during the time period covered by the chart:
I don’t think economic losses are the best measure for the reason stated above, so here is a chart, from NOAA, that shows that major hurricane activity in the U.S. has been declining over a 100 year-plus period:
Finally, what about the “green revolution” that supposedly is bringing about a brave new world of “clean” wind and solar energy? First of all, wind and solar are anything but clean. Environmentally, it is debatable whether they are superior to coal, and they are plainly inferior to natural gas and nuclear power from an environmental perspective. But, putting that aside, is it true that alleged “renewables” are beginning to dominate energy markets?
Not really:
If it weren’t for federal subsidies and state mandates, so-called “renewables” wouldn’t be on the list at all. If you want to know more about the inherent futility of these energy sources, this is a good place to start.
Anthony Watts includes a United Nations poll showing that internationally, global warming ranks last among respondents’ concerns. Polls on this topic vary widely, but I think centuries of experience lead most people to believe that those who shriek hysterically, do so because they don’t have a good case. That, I think, is where the global warming movement is today.

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Old News AOC's Mgr. is Under Investigation

Feds Investigating Former AOC Chief of Staff for Campaign Finance Violations

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY., right, and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, left, walk back together after joining other members of the freshman class of Congress for a group photo on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The former chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is under investigation by the Federal Election Commission for violations of campaign finance law, according to the New York Post.
Saikat Chakrabarti suddenly resigned from Ocasio-Cortez's staff on Friday. It was believed that his resignation was connected to his boss' spat with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). But the federal probe into AOC's campaign finances and the targeting of  Chakrabarti may throw new light on his sudden departure.
The two PACs being probed, Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, were both set up by Chakrabarti to support progressive candidates across the country.
But they funneled more than $1 million in political donations into two private companies that Chakrabarti also incorporated and controlled, according to Federal Election Commission filings and a complaint filed in March with the regulatory agency.
In 2016 and 2017, the PACs raised about $3.3 million, mostly from small donors. A third of the cash was transferred to two private companies whose names are similar to one of the PACs — Brand New Congress LLC and Brand New Campaign LLC — federal campaign filings show.
Chakrabarti apparently tried to subvert FEC regulations by funneling that money to entities not subject to federal reporting requirements:
In March, when the FEC complaints were filed, a lawyer for the PACs, the LLCs and the Ocasio-Cortez campaign told the Washington Post that the arrangement “fully complied with the law and the highest ethical standards” and that Chakrabarti never profited from any of the political entities he formed.
They may also have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint. It is not known if any of that money flowed to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign.
Federal authorities are looking at new salary rules imposed by Ocasio-Cortez when she took office earlier this year, and whether they were put in place to let Chakrabarti dodge public financial-disclosure rules, according to sources.
And Chakrabarti also was able to dodge Congressional rules on salaries by taking a huge pay cut.
Although Ocasio-Cortez raised the salaries of junior staffers in her office to just over $52,000 a year, Chakrabarti took a massive pay cut. The Harvard graduate and tech millionaire agreed to an annual salary of $80,000 — far less than the $146,830 average pay for his position.
Because his salary was less than $126,000, congressional rules exempted the chief of staff from having to disclose his outside income.
Well what do you know — a socialist with the heart of a capitalist! Chakbarti is a co-founder of the Justice Democrats and a driving force behind the Green New Deal. But in the end, he turns out to be just another grasping politician with the morals of a marmoset.

Monday, February 3, 2020

Up Schiff’s Creek

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON:

Up Schiff’s Creek: Just as the off-putting California Democrat sought to take credit for taking out President Trump, so too will he be blamed for only further empowering him.

It doesn’t help the Democrats that all their leaders come across as Disney villains.

Is Elizabeth Warren to Blame for the Senate Rejecting New Witnesses?

Is Elizabeth Warren to Blame for the Senate Rejecting New Witnesses?


If you don't think the Democrats' politicizing of impeachment backfired on them, all you need to do is look at Senator Lisa Murkowski, the moderate Alaska Republican, who infamously voted 'present' during the Kavanaugh confirmation vote and was seen as a potential vote in favor of new witnesses in the Trump impeachment trial.

Most of us were probably surprised when Murkowski voted against new witnesses, but Ted Cruz theorized that Murkowski and others were moved to change their votes because of one particular moment during the trial—and Murkowski has confirmed that at least for her, he was spot on,  and it doesn't reflect well on Senator Elizabeth Warren and her presidential aspirations.

“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed," Murkowski said in a statement released Friday. “It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort," she continued, clearly referencing Warren's bizarre attack on Chief Justice John Roberts.

During the Senate trial last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren submitted a question to the Chief Justice to be read to the House Managers. "At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?" the question read.

It was an absurd question, and the look on Roberts' face after reading it was priceless. I wonder what Murkowski's face looked like at that moment, too. It's clear now that she was moved by Warren's stunt, though not in the way that Warren would have liked. "We have already degraded our institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another," Murkowski said.

Was Murkowski the only Republican on the fence who was moved to oppose new witnesses because of Warren's ridiculous attack on the Chief Justice. There were several on the fence, at one point enough that Mitch McConnell believed he didn't have the votes to block it. Elizabeth Warren could have been the straw that broke the camel's back, making on-the-fence Republicans realize that 

this impeachment has nothing to do with "the rule of law", or "our democracy" or "the Constitution"  or whatever else Democrats have claimed to be their motivation. It's pure politics. 

They don't care about anything else but ousting Trump to regain power. Elizabeth Warren made Murkowski realize this, I'm sure others figured it out because of her as well.

Sunday, February 2, 2020

Andy Rooney was one in a million


    Andy Rooney

 In his own words, he was more a Democrat than Republican. How well would he fit in with the current gang?

Andy Rooney was one in a million.  At the end of '60 Minutes,' he usually  had his own 10-minute segment that, unbelievably, was never censored by CBS.  He's probably the only one who could have gotten away with this.  May he rest in peace.

 
Andy Rooney once said . . .
“I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America.
Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens......Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.
Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.
I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, which is why there are no girls allowed.  Girls belong in the Girl Scouts!  ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?
I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion.
I have the right 'NOT' to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling; it is the Law of Probability.
I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!
My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours.
I think the police should have every right to shoot you if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word 'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the above lines.
I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government-sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.
We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document, and open to their interpretations.
I don't hate the rich; I don't pity the poor.  I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television.  That doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more.  If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better, and put your name on the building.
It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid, and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say 'NO!'
I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. And, please, stay home until that new lip ring heals. I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me French fries!
I am sick of 'Political Correctness.'  I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa; so how can they be 'African-Americans'?  Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe.  I am proud to be from America and nowhere else, and if you don't like my point of view, tough...”.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND
TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.  Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why don't we just tell the 14% to BE QUIET!!!


I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't.don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe.  I am proud to be from America and nowhere else, and if you don't like my point of view, tough...”.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND
TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.  Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why don't we just tell the 14% to BE QUIET!!!

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't.