I have seen alll-over-Facebook issues with Trump turning away from cameras and saying he “is the chosen one” — BTW! This will be the first encounter you will have in quite some time of Democrats taking seriously and literally the Bible’s edicts. Not in the case of the homosexual lifestyle mind you, just as long as it maligns Trump. Here is the video:
So I decided to pool a couple of my responses across FB here to make the point… but I sometimes feel that when friend’s ask me my thoughts on this they expect me to be like this (animated GIF to the right):
Okay, after the post to the article I linked to above, here are my thoughts, and a response and my response to IT.
I bet you think he really asked Russia to hack Hillary. Or that Trump really believed he could could shoot someone on 5th street… etc. But humor and sarcasm are not the forte of the Left
“Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he’s not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is.” — Francis Bacon
A response from V.M.
Sean Giordano, either way he embraced blatant idolatry. He has been blasphemous before thousands!
You use the word blasphemous often, but I do not think you know what the word means…
In another strain on GARY DEMAR’S Facebook, his posting Obama’s similarities to Messianism garnered a response to which I responded. But first, I wish to upload his pictures he posted with some others… all combined. (One of the commentators on Gary’s post linked to THE CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE’S post — which I threw in the mix):
Here is the comment I respond to:
The difference is that Obama didn’t say it of himself or quote it of himself…these were ridiculous labels used by an over-reaching, left leaning media. President Trump grabbed a right leaning media personality statement, quoted it, and embraced the nonsense.
A quick look at Google (“obama messianism”) shows articles like these:
POLITICO: Messianic rhetoric infuses Obama rallies (In a giant Sunday afternoon rally suffused with Christian – and at times messianic – rhetoric,)
SLATE: Obama’s Cocky Messianism (But now, with Iowa as his witness, Obama is he starting to sound like he believes the prophecies, too.)
Don’t forget about this:
Comment two from ME: (I partly owe the humbly looking to heaven to plead not to be struck by lightning — as we have all done at some point in our lives, to my wife):
From one of my post many years ago, and would be a big (important) difference… Is that what does the base think? I am a conservatarian Evangelical… Would I or the media I follow think he (Trump) is a Messiah figure?
“He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime, but – the next messiah” — Barbara Walters. “We”? The media? The left? Both? (RPT)
No. Since most religious people who view theology well are conservative, a belief in Trump being anything but reverent when he wrily looked to the sky to say “don’t smite me for saying this irreverent thing” — and then saying he is the chosen one to politically deal with the can kicked down the road for so long.
THAT is what he was saying. The crappy work of previous Presidents in this area forced him to be the “chosen one.”
Another person noted this BLOGSPOT BLOG about Obama’s messianism. See also my post that has a similar vein:
He also discusses *Michael Brown and some of the candidates for the 2020 race saying he was murdered. Then I add-in Larry’s montage of media and Democrats saying Trump said “there were good Nazis.” (See more here: “Trump Is Right – Good People On Both Sides“) That begins at the 5:03 mark of the audio. More here. Enjoy:
* Here are other audios I have uploaded to my site on the topic:
Three years ago, Smithsonian magazine ran an article headlined “The Story of the First Mass Murder in U.S. History.” It was an account of World War II combat veteran Howard Unruh, who in 1949 went on a 20-minute “walk of death,” as one newspaper called it, indiscriminately shooting neighbors in his Camden, N.J., neighborhood with a German Luger. Before his capture, Unruh killed 13 people and wounded three.
It was a shocking tragedy, and the Smithsonian article is riveting. But it wasn’t the first mass murder in U.S. history. Or the second, or the third, or the fourth, or the fifth. It wasn’t even the only mass shooting in that decade. There were at least two others.
In the 1930s, there were two more mass shootings, which followed a psychotic farmer’s 1927 attack on a Bath, Mich., schoolhouse. Using a rifle and explosives, he took 44 lives, 38 of them students. Andrew Kehoe had wiped out most of the children in an entire town – and exacted a death toll greater than Columbine High School and Sandy Hook Elementary combined.
The first mass killing at an American school predates the existence of the United States. In 1764, a teacher named Enoch Brown was gunned down in his Greencastle, Pa., schoolhouse by Lenape Indians, who then tomahawked 10 children and scalped them.
From 1900 to 1928, African-American gunmen killed 40 people in seven separate incidents – six of them in the South, and the last incident in Chicago. Rampant racism of the day mitigated against widespread news coverage: Either the gunmen were targeting cops in response to police brutality — or the victims themselves were African-American, which apparently limited media interest.
Not all of these early 20th century cases would necessarily be classified as “mass shootings” by the FBI. The standard definition excludes killings done in the commission of another crime, which rules out, for example, the Kansas City Massacre and Chicago’s Valentine’s Day Massacre, famous gangland mass killings in the late 1920s and early 1930s. It probably would not include the weeklong crime wave of Charlie Starkweather, who shot, stabbed, or strangled 11 victims as he robbed his way through the Midwest in 1957-58. And most of Andrew Kehoe’s carnage was done with explosives, not his rifle.
And yet, the Las Vegas shooting of Oct. 1, 2017, the deadliest in U.S. history, was foreshadowed more than a century earlier in small-town Kansas. Holed up in the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino, the Vegas gunman opened fire on patrons at a music concert. On Aug. 13, 1903, 30-year-old Spanish-American War veteran Gilbert Twigg used a .12-gauge shotgun on a crowd at an outdoor concert Winfield, Kan. Twigg killed nine people and wounded many more before turning a revolver on himself.
For more than a century, law enforcement authorities, victims’ families, and the media invariably ask the same question: Why? Why do they do it? The killers, in the cases in which they survive, often wonder that themselves. “I don’t know,” Howard Unruh told a newspaper reporter who telephoned him on a hunch when the killer returned to his apartment for more ammunition. “I can’t answer that yet.”
A common myth you can expect to hear a lot in the coming days and weeks is that the United States “leads the world in mass shootings” and therefore we must pass some law that will do nothing to stop future mass shootings, but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
What you might not hear is that this claim is completely bogus.
Yet, the myth remains alive and is sure to be regurgitated endlessly again.
The following video from John Stossel explains how the myth got started and why it’s bogus:
Many on the left have tried to delegitimize CPRC’s research. Snopes rated their claim as “mixed” but CPRC debunked their assessment here. Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker at TheWashington Post, also suggests that CPRC’s research is misleading for including acts terrorism, which, he suggests, inflates the number of mass shooters abroad, however, if we excluded acts of terrorism from mass shootings, the El Paso shooting would not count as a mass shooting, as it is now being investigated as domestic terrorism. The Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, and the Las Vegas shooting were also considered domestic terrorism incidents. If those, and other similar incidents, don’t count as mass shootings but as terrorism, then we should be having a completely different discussion……..
In the midst of The Democratic Party and the media labeling President Trump’s remarks about Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley as racist, Larry decides to do some digging. What did the president actually say? How long has the Democratic Party been labeling Republicans as racist? Have race relations actually worsened under Trump? Larry answers all these questions and more in this week’s episode.
I just wanted to go through this and note all the untruths in this paragraph-screed by a friend. Now, granted, she is merely reacting emotionally — as we all are disgusted by the actions from this past weekend. I will tease out the logical consequences with new information gleaned from the killer[s] manifesto/life. Here is the “offending” (raw emotion) post:
Why dont any of my fellow Republicans ever post a post condemning these mass murders committed by our own home grown, radicalized, racially motivated white males who use AKs to kill as many people regardless if they are elderly, adults, or children? Rather attacking posts like mine that point out the ever repetitive act of mass murder with the same MO. And refuse to acknowledge that our president’s words and actions have fueled these murders. The FBI and police chiefs around the country have stated that hate crimes have been on the rise since he took office. Its not a secret. (OP)
Keep in mind in other areas of her posts she called these semi-automatic long-rifles machine guns (assault weapons, which the military uses — select fire). “Machine guns” have been outlawed since the 1930’s with thanks to Al Capone and others like him.
Okay, I noted that in fact, many of the “mass killers” and politically motivated persons wishing to cause harm are not in fact “right-leaning.” One lady mentioned after a response to the OP regarding reading that “Reading does most assuredly NOT make one a Republican.” I agreed but said:
Reading would stop people from saying assault weapons are used (machine-guns), and, allow one to know that a “Fascist” is really a socialist. A radically left leaning takeover of energy production, universal healthcare. and the Like. Not “right wing” in the least.
Now, since the shooting, we have come to find out that the killers manifesto was named after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,” with passages in the manifesto that really could have been lifted from almost any 2020 Democrat candidate’s campaign site regarding Corporations and Climate. He said his racist views pre-dated Trump (so if he acquired them — say — during Obama’s Presidency, should we blame him?). The killer also mentions Dr. Seuss’s book the Lorax.
Okay, some fixing and commentary of the above paragraph.
Why don’t any of my fellow Democrats ever post a post condemning these mass murders and political violence since they are overwhelmingly committed by Left-leaning radicals? Since the KKK and other white supremacist organizations overwhelmingly voted for Obama and other Democrat before and after him since they are essentially socialist in their political and economic views. Racially and environmentally motivated and violent males of all colors and backgrounds who primarily use handguns to kill as many people regardless if they are elderly, adults, or children? Rather attacking posts like mine that point out the ever repetitive act of mass murder with differing MO’s… And refuse to acknowledge that our president’s words and actions have fueled these murders as wrongly encapsulated by the likes of CNN, Democrats, and MSNBC (and NPR, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets) as well as recognizing that there has not been an increase of hate-crimes at all but an increase in reporting them as more-and-more police precincts are added and definitions of what a hate-crime is considered is changed. Its not a secret. (EDITED-OP)
Just a day after this shooting another shooter who considered himself a socialist, voted in Democrat primaries, wanted Elizebeth Warren as president, killed people as well.
Almost all violent acts, racism, hated, and political assignations all the way to fist-to-cuffs — have been perpetrated by Democrats or radical Lefties:
The Killer railed against corporations, was rabidly pro-environment in a UNIBOMBER WAY, wanted large government programs like a universal income/livable-wage, and universal healthcare. Mentioned a book that influenced (obviously) his radical thing, The Lorax by Dr. Seuss:
People are amazed (really, due to the fact that they think history and facts are what CNN and other media sources tell them it is) that 3-of-the-4 leaders of the largest white supremacist groups told their followers to vote for Obama. That most leaders of the Klan (KKK) voted for Hillary. The idea that these groups are “right-wing” is due to a lack of knowledge regarding what fascism is:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
Why do they vote Left… I give a breakdown of why in the “Trump Sized Myths” linked above:
Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:
They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).
Also, hate-crimes are not on the rise under Trump:
A recent study from the University of Pennsylvania finds that racism in America has significantly decreased since President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, directly contradicting the narrative pushed among many academics and mainstream media personalities.
The Rise of Trump, the Fall of Prejudice? Tracking White Americans’ Racial Attitudes 2008-2018 via a Panel Survey was authored by UPenn political science professor Daniel J. Hopkins and research assistant Samantha Washington.
Hopkins, in an article for FiveThirtyEight, detailed on Tuesday the study, which used 13 waves of panel surveys to gather data and determined that white racial prejudice against African Americans and Hispanic Americans has declined since 2016, when Trump was elected president.
“Latino approval of President Trump has skyrocketed to 50 percent. We’ve had the lowest Latino unemployment in history under President Trump,” Joel Valdez, a Mexican-American and recent student at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. “Latinos and African-American[s] are prospering under the Trump Administration.”
In fact, most hate-crimes one sees plastered in newspapers or in a chyron on CNN/MSNBC are later to be found out to be hoaxes… but the front-page coverage on TV or papers leaves a lasting impression (which is what the news orgs want, a narrative to be swallowed):
As you can see. Almost everything in the ORIGINAL OP was false. But people, because of their biases, want them to be true. This is nothing new however… ever since Goldwater we have heard the same tired “race-card” used on the GOPs peeps. Take Reagan for instance:
Steven F. Hayward, author of “The Age Of Reagan” wrote: “Liberals hated Reagan in the 1980s. Pure and simple. They used language that would make the most fervid anti-Obama rhetoric of the Tea Party seem like, well, a tea party. Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was ‘trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.'” (LARRY ELDER)
People are SICK OF IT!
In another post the same person wrote:
Another radicalized young white man with a gun that kills many quickly…. AK? Probably. So sick of these killings. Sick of hearing how our president and government officials are offering their prayers. Its not enough!!! We need stronger laws with these type of automatic and simi automatic weapons. Hey i love shooting them like many others but im more sick of hearing of our own home grown terrorists killing so many innocent men weomen children and elderly and NOTHING BEING DONE ABOUT IT!!!! Totall bullshit.
To which I respond:
The void of faith and prayer in this nation turning to paganism and secular fixes for the void in them and the “expectation” of government to make their ills disappear IS the problems with this country right now. NOT ENOUGH prayers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are being made.
What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.
Blaise Pascal (Pensees 10.148)
Since 51% of the mass shootings (if all are considered — i.e., gang violence) are by black people, and only 29% by white… I wonder if people will write:
✦ Another radicalized young black man with a gun that kills many quickly…. AK?
Somehow I doubt it. Bemoaning white men and people of faith (read here: Christians) is the only acceptable whipping boy today [and ignoring the pain and suffering in the black community seems habitual]. Maybe these young men being told they have the burden of slavery, are privileged, and attacked daily in the news and taught crazy stuff throughout high school and college — IS THE ISSUE.
For instance, that kid that shot up Walmart — this was in his screed:
✦ a basic universal income ✦ wanted universal healthcare ✦ complained about cost of college ✦ talked about how oil companies polluted water ✦ how we wasted resources — trees for overuse of paper-towels ✦ railed against BOTH Democrats and Republicans ✦ said corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over-harvesting resources ✦ corporations wanted illegal immigration for cheap labor
That sounds like my kids being shown “An Inconvenient Truth” in the classroom in middle-school. (The movie the manifesto was named after by the Walmart shooter.) THANKFULLY I countered all the crazy ideologies spoon fed to my boys… here is my cut-n-paste (saved) challenge to others — I own and have watched (some of the below are shown in high-school classes):
I often bump into people that have watched some or most of the following “documentaries”
Bowling for Columbine
Roger and Me
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
An Inconvenient Truth
The God Who Wasn’t There
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
But rarely do I meet someone of the opposite persuasion from me that have watched any of the following (I own and have watched):
Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain Dies
Michael & Me
Michael Moore Hates America
Bullshit! Fifth Season… (where they tear apart the Wal-Mart documentary mentioned above)
Mine Your Own Business
Screw Loose Change
3-part response to Zeitgeist
Fat-Head (a response to “Super Size Me”)
Maybe balance, reading countering viewpoints, faith, something greater than just you, the Imago Dei (the Image of God we all should honor), etc. Instead it’s blame corporations, white people, pushing environmental scare tactics, wanting socialized programs, livable wages, etc. etc. — as if THAT fixes the human condition
Since this Patrick Crusius is in custody and cooperating with authorities. I will update his info below. People hate posting his name… but usually the people not wanting to post his name are also the one’s trying to place people like this at Republicans feet — as if we created and encouraged him and others. (His whole manifesto is here).
EL PASO WALMART
Patrick Crusius, the shooter that killed 20 people at a Walmart in Texas (may be more depending on the medical condition of these persons — all this is really sad to type. The devastated families and grief of loved ones. Man.) This is with thanks to GATEWAY PUNDIT and the DAILY SIGNAL, who notes the following: “This is not to say he’s a Democrat or a Republican, but he is without question a progressive.” Continuing… this scumbag wanted to lessen the weight of the welfare state to “achieve ambitious social projects” in:
a basic universal income
like universal healthcare
complained about cost of college
talked about how oil companies polluted water
how we wasted resources — trees for overuse of paper-towels
railed against BOTH Democrats and Republicans
Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources
Corporations wanted illegal imigration for cheap labor
Here are some of the portions of the above:
“In the near future, AMERICA WILL HAVE TO INITIATE A BASIC UNIVERSAL INCOME to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs (to automation). Joblessness is in itself a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the lower the unemployment rate, the better. ACHIEVING AMBITIOUS SOCIAL PROJECTS LIKE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE AND UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of defendants are removed.”
“The decimation of our environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. CORPORATIONS ARE HEADING THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT BY SHAMELESSLY OVERHARVESTING RESOURCES.”
This is why corporations lobby for even more illegal immigration even after decades of it of happening. They need to keep replenishing the low-skilled labor pool. Even as migrant children flood skilled jobs, Corporations make this worse by lobbying for even more work visas to be issued for skilled foreign workers to come here. Recently, the senate under a REPUBLICAN administration has greatly increased the number of foreign workers that will take American jobs. Remember that both Democrats and Republicans support immigration and work visas. Corporations need to keep replenishing the labor pool for both skilled and unskilled jobs to keep wages down. So Automation is a good thing as it will eliminate the need for new migrants to fill unskilled jobs. Jobs that Americans can’t survive on anyway. Automation can and would replace millions of low-skilled jobs if immigrants were deported. This source of competition for skilled labor from immigrants and visa holders around the world has made a very difficult situation even worse for natives as they compete in the skilled job market. To compete, people have to get better credentials by spending more time in college. It used to be that a high school degree was worth something. Now a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market. The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted. This has led to a generation of indebted, overqualified students filling menial, low paying and unfulfilling jobs. Of course these migrants and their children have contributed to the problem, but are not the sole cause of it.
For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
He also wrote in the very first sentence of his manifesto this: “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto.” I posted on the influences on this shooter. A Pagan nationalist named, Alain Benoist. A secular (pagan/New Age) philosopher. (More on my site.)
Lastly, he mentioned in his manifesto that he had started to hate Hispanics after reading a book back in 2011-2012 (LONG BEFORE TRUMP) The DAILY SIGNAL notes this:
…The author expresses explicit support to the shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand, who killed 51 people at a mosque in March. The author also gained inspiration by reading “The Great Replacement,” a book by a white nationalist French author who claims European elites are conspiring to replace their native populations with non-European immigrants.
The manifesto ticks off a number of far-right grievances. However, the author also devotes a significant portion to overpopulation and its contribution to environmental degradation.
“The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heaing [sic] the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over harvesting resources,” it reads, saying Americans are unwilling to change their lifestyle to save the environment.
“Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent.”
The author concludes that the “next logical step” is to decrease the population. “If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable,” the manifesto says….
That book discusses the Muslim immigration issue of France… and here Patrick swapped out Hispanic. Since he is in custody, and cooperating… he also noted the following (GATEWAY PUNDIT). He said he expected the media to blame the attack on President Donald Trump, noting: “This is not the case” — “My ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions… predate Trump and his campaign,” he wrote (DAILY MAIL).
…Steve Hooper is a 30 year veteran of the FBI. Hooper said the El Paso shooter, during interviews, says he was triggered after watching the DNC debate where all the candidates raised their hands to provide “health insurance” to illegal immigrants.
It was the insanity at the Democrat Presidential debates that triggered the shooter, not Trump’s language.
So Democrats, and NOT TRUMP according to Patrick… and not CNN / MSNBC.
THE MAIN POINT?
You cannot pigeon hole these guys as “Republicans,” and the use of RIGHT-WING is more akin to the progressive socialism of pre-war Germany. Just add these guys to the LONG LIST OF LEFTIST POLITICAL KILLERS and terrorists I note HERE.
Larry Elder destroys the wide-spread myth regarding the idea that the women’s soccer team is paid less than their male counterparts. The callers point was simple and powerful, in essense he was saying how could someone demand equal pay when they were chasing away viewers — which — lowers revenue. Rapinoe is solely responsible for the women’s soccer ratings to sink by 43% this year. The “Sage” also reads from a couple articles zeroing in on the lie (or myth if you like) of this position (they follow the video):
Please do a video review on the video what about the gender work place hours gap. The Average crowd for the National Women’s Soccer Leauge was 5,464 The Average Crowd for the Men’s MSL was 21,875. The Women’s season was 49 matches and the Men’s Season was 391 matches. Tickets were cheaper for the Women’s matches. The USA women’s team lost by 5 goals to 2 to an Under 15 boys team. The Australian National Women’s soccer team also lost by 7 goals to 0 to the Newcastle Jets Under 15 boys team.
Christian Hoff Sommers
Sargon of Akkad – so – Rough Language, FYI:
(MISES) …At Forbes, Mike Ozanian note that generally speaking, men’s soccer generates revenues at much higher levels:
The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million , less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.
From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccer’s audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men. Game revenues are made up mostly of ticket sales. In the last two years, at least, the men’s tally includes appearance fees that opposing teams pay the U.S. for games.
So, very recently, women have begun to outpace the men in ticket sales. But, as the WSJ admits: “ticket sales are only one revenue stream that the national teams help generate.”
And what about revenues from broadcasts? It seems that “TV ratings for U.S. men’s games tend to be higher than those for U.S. women’s games, according to data collected by U.S. Soccer.”
During the three years following the 2015 Women’s World Cup, the women’s team brought in slightly more revenue from games than the men’s team did. While marketing and sponsorships are sold as a bundle, there are anecdotal signs that the women’s brand is surging in popularity.
However, it’s harder to say whether the women are ultimately paid less than the men, due to the lack of transparency and the complicated variables that feed into the compensation. Several experts said the reality may be murkier than a shouted catchphrase [i.e., “equal pay!”] can capture.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the women do bring in more revenue. The fact this is such a recent development would help explain why the pay structure has yet to catch up with revenues. Moreover, if US Soccer is going to risk paying out-sized salaries and benefits, it’s going to have to first be comfortable that the women’s teams are a reliable and sustainable revenue source….
First, I want to start with a video from a Prager University flashback to the giant named Charles Krauthammer:
A compatriot on Facebook who is a #NeverTrumper posted a link to this article at the biased*WASHINGTON POST, entitled, “Trump’s wall is a monument to vanity and bigotry,” and then asked for the following:
Read this and THEN tell me why a wall (as described by Trump) makes sense. Feel free to comment if you have read the piece here by Michael J. Gerson.
I read the article and commented on it… here are some of my thoughts (I will add to the original comments for my site).
There are many issues with the article. A few being as follows, that Trump long ago said the Border Patrol wanted something different in parts and he would listen to them. He has also said a while back (during the campaign) that the BARRIER would be about a 1,000 miles long, again – some wall, and reinforcing fencing etc. Here, NPR (January 26, 2017) interviews the Border Patrol’s union leader Brandon Judd >>>
JUDD:I don’t think it’s going to be – well, OK, it’s going to be a lot more secure. But what we’re talking about is we’re talking about a wall in strategic locations. We’re not talking about a great wall of the United States. We’re not talking about a continuous wall from California down to Texas. We’re talking about a wall in strategic locations which then helps the Border Patrol agents do their job better.
INSKEEP:Because there are some places that are so sparsely populated and the ground is so fierce or so harsh you really don’t need…
JUDD: Correct, correct.
INSKEEP: So you’ve told us when you were on the program last time that about 10 to 15 percent of the border has serious fences in your view and maybe you’d double that under this proposal.
JUDD:That’s what I’m thinking. Again, I don’t have the exact specifics of what they’re going to do, but I do know that they’re looking in specific places like Laredo, Texas, where we have very, very little walls. Yet, the state that Laredo, Texas, borders is extremely violent. And so we’re looking in locations like that. They’re looking in locations like that, but I think it’s going to be very effective.
I post this clarification of the political hyperbole (on both sides) because the WaPo article refers to AN MIT ARTICLE discussing the cost of a 1,000 mile 50-foot wall. For all of Trump’s bluster, which the Left and #NeverTrumper’s take literally, like skeptics insist literalness in all places of the Bible instead of understanding hyperbole, and texts that do and do not incorporate it, such as: law text, history texts, wisdom literature, Hebrew poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic writing, and war texts. It would be like me reading EXODUS 15:8 and positing that God has a BIG nose, or reading PSALM 91:4 and saying God is a giant chicken. Many Christians would reject a skeptics misunderstanding in these areas (at least Christians true to a healthy hermeneutical approach to the Word).
Here is Brandon Judd in a more recent interview. Notice his position is the same, and in alignment with Trump:
First, understand the problem. In California, the migrants are targeting a part of the border where there is a barrier. But much of the border’s 1,954 miles remains uncovered. According to the Border Patrol, 354 of those 1,954 miles are protected by what is called a pedestrian primary fence, which is a single-layer fence. Another 37 miles are a pedestrian secondary fence, that is, double-layer fencing. And 14 miles are pedestrian tertiary, or a triple-layer fence. In addition, 300 miles are covered by vehicle fencing, which will stop a truck but allow anyone to walk through with no problem.
That is a total of 705 miles — 405 miles of some kind of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle fencing.
No one, or almost no one, says a fence should cover all 1,954 miles of the border. A significant part of the border is terrain so dangerous and imposing that it would be very difficult for migrants to cross. During the campaign, and during his presidency, Trump called for a wall along about 1,000 miles.
“We have 2,000 miles [of border], of which we really need 1,000 miles, because you have a lot of natural barriers,” Trump said in August 2016.
But Democrats oppose even that. And since Republicans could not pass wall funding when they controlled all of Congress and the White House, how could they possibly do it now, with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in charge of the House?
Still, there is one possible course for Republicans. It is Public Law 109-367, better known as the Secure Fence Act.
The Act was passed by big, bipartisan majorities in 2006, receiving 283 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate. It required the federal government to build reinforced fencing, at least two layers deep, along about 700 miles of the border. It specified the areas in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where fencing would be installed.
If the law had been followed, many vulnerable parts of the border would now be secured. But the very next year, 2007, after Democrats won control of the House and Senate, Congress amended the Secure Fence Act. The amendment said that “nothing in [the original legislation] shall require” the installation of fencing if the government determines that a fence is not the “most appropriate” way to secure the border……
Do I wish Donald Trump would communicate his ideas more thoughtfully and cogently? Of course. I am also an adult who realizes he must excoriate language to get to the real meaning of the points made by this administration — not use hyperbole to make an embroidered political statement back at Trump (a hyperbolic position). Something our border residents do not need.
In another section of the WaPo article,
The era of limited government is emphatically over in the only political party where it once had some appeal. …. This is the strange case of a political metaphor slipping off the page and trying to break into reality. The images and symbols of political rhetoric can assume an importance beyond language. Ronald Reagan’s evocation of a “shining city on a hill” rooted his appeal in the American exceptionalism of our Pilgrim parents. …. But no one actually proposed getting the building permits for Reagan’s city…
The facile mantra I often hear is that “Reagan wanted to tear down walls; Trump wants to build.” WHAT NONSENSE!
For the record, liberals often falsely and inaccurately quote Reagan’s farewell address, in which he explained what he meant about the “shining city.” Yes, America was a nation of immigrants, but liberals fail to note his city had “walls” and “a door.” …. Reagan believed in borders, in earned American citizenship. He did not believe in breaking the law to get ahead.
It is a rejection of our broader concepts involved in our political history and battles thereof. In this regard, I have no idea why Michael Gerson would invoke Reagan? He wanted to spend money to reinforce the border along his Shining City. This is the most unlearned portion of the article. History is not the forte of the Left. Here is a reminder of Reagan regretting trying to make a deal with the Democrats from another post of mine. Reagan didn’t regret “amnesty,” he regretted TRUSTING THE DEMOCRATS who did not live up to securing the border ….. sound familiar? Larry speaks with John Heubusch of the Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute:
What Trump Could Learn From The Reagan Immigration Amnesty: The Reagan Amnesty Of 2.7 Million Illegal Immigrants Was Paired With The Promise Of Controlling The Border
Of which I excerpt a portion of:
…In his book, Reagan: The Life, H.W. Brands writes about the president’s interpretation of a 1986 immigration bill at the time.
“Al Simpson came by to see if he had my support,” Reagan recorded in October 1986, shortly after the measure cleared the House. “They have one or two amendments we could do without, but even if the Senate conference can’t get them out, I’ll sign it. It’s high time we regained control of our borders, and this bill will do it.”
The legislation at the time was widely viewed as an enforcement-first measure, said then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who advised Reagan on the matter along with other Cabinet officials.
“It is very definitely a teachable moment,” Meese, the Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow emeritus at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal, when asked how the 1986 legislation might inform President Donald Trump in his negotiations with congressional Democrats on codifying the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), implemented by his predecessor.
The Reagan amnesty of 2.7 million illegal immigrants was paired with the promise of controlling the border and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants. The legislation was better known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, named for its sponsors, Simpson and then-Rep. Romano Mazzoli, D-Ky.
The problem with the 1986 law was that the promised enforcement didn’t occur, but the amnesty did, Meese said….
President Reagan’s Remarks at Signing Ceremony for Immigration Reform and Control Act in Roosevelt Room. November 6, 1986
Steven Hayward, a historian and Reagan biographer, continues the idea in a DAILY SIGNAL, .
“I think President Trump has to insist that employment E-Verify, funding for serious border security, not necessarily a wall, and an end to chain migration have to be non-negotiable conditions of any deal,” Hayward said. “Reagan should have applied to immigration what he said about arms control with the Soviet Union, ‘Trust, but verify,’ or in this case, ‘Trust, but E-Verify.’ That’s the lesson Trump should take.”
The article mentioned that a better law for seasonal workers would work. Trump is not saying he doesn’t want this? Dumb. However, that would work better with the barrier.
Another glaring misstatement by the WaPo article is based off of this claim:
“Never mind that violent crime rates among migrants are significantly lower than among the native-born.”
This just is not true. The WASHINGTON TIMESnotes a more thorough study when they say conclusively that the “crime rate among illegal immigrants in Arizona is twice that of other residents, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday, citing a new report based on conviction data.” NATIONAL REVIEWrightly notes that John Lott used “more recent and comprehensive state data, found that illegal immigrants are far more likely to commit crimes than lawful residents.”
A SSRN STUDY by John R. Lott published in February 2018 found that from 1985-2017 illegal aliens had a 163% greater chance of being convicted of 1st degree murder than Arizona citizens. Illegals had a 168% greater chance of being convicted of 2nd degree murder than an Arizona citizen.
John Lott recently published a study that examines the incarceration of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Lott found that over the past 33 years, illegal immigrants have constituted an average of 4.8 percent of Arizona’s population. Yet during that same 33-year period, illegal immigrants constituted 11.2 percent of those convicted of crimes in Arizona — more than twice their share of the population. Lott found that illegal immigrants were dramatically more likely to be convicted of a homicide-related offense than either native-born Americans or legal immigrants during that 33-year period — 163 percent more likely to be convicted of first-degree murder and 168 percent more likely to be convicted of second-degree murder. “Undocumented immigrants were also consistently more likely to be convicted of manslaughter, armed robbery, sexual assault of a minor, sexual assault, DUI or DWI, and kidnapping.” Lott also found that illegal immigrants who met the age requirements for DACA were overrepresented in the prison population.
The Washington Post and the Left and #NeverTrumpers like to quote CATO Institutes study and Snope’s study refuting John Lott’s work. However, he has thoroughly responded to these works. Here are two examples — followed by others:
Between 4,000 and 6,000 people are murdered a year by illegal aliens (THE HILL & TIGER DROPPINGS). Remember, Obama declared a State of Emergency and stopped immigration over 4,000 deaths from H1N1.
When Gerson says the following,
Proposing a wall is really an argument that America can protect itself from the dangers of the world at its national boundaries. But this theory failed to contain the disorders of Europe and East Asia in the 1930s and 1940s.
He goes on to note the Cold War and terrorism. Even going so far as saying to end his article, “putting our faith in a wall requires us to unlearn the bloodiest lessons of the last century. And to repeat them.” WTH?
This is just silly.
First, walls throughout history have worked. Even during the Cold War. For instance, the wall built by Communists in Germany… worked. The wall and the “rampart” slashed defections to just 185 people per year. (All of the following comes from AMERICAN RENAISSANCE):
The reinforcing of the border barrier (16-foot-tall barrier [barbed wire fence] ran 152-miles) between Egypt and Israel worked as well. The 2013 upgrade reduced illegal incursions at the border by an average of 99.4 percent. The improvements completed in January 2017 cut illegal immigration to zero. As of June 2017, not a single person had breached the fence. Here is a graph noting the drop:
The wall separating the West Bank and Israel worked as well. By 2012, 63 percent (277 miles) of the border was walled (25 feet high) or fenced. They have not built past the 63% mark:
In July 2015, Hungary began building a 13-foot-tall fence along its borders with Serbia and Croatia. This barbed wire enforced fence accomplished it’s goal:
LIKEWISE, as the length of the southwest barrier increased—evidence that even a limited barrier can deter illegal immigration:
Simply put, Walls Work:
Michael Gerson basically said wall don’t work. But they do. That is, if you look to the real world and not “experts.” The Border Patrol say they work. Again [sigh],
When charges of “racism” and “xenophobia” fail, Democrats’ fallback argument against President Trump’s proposed border wall is that it simply “won’t work,” so why waste billions building it? Tell that to the residents of El Paso, Texas.
Federal data show a far-less imposing wall than the one Trump envisions — a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration — already has dramatically curtailed both illegal border crossings and crime in Texas’ sixth-largest city, which borders the high-crime Mexican city of Juarez.
In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, ……..
The Border Patrol wants the same thing Trump does. An NBPC’s survey of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors confirmed this: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.
To conclude my comments, I would have to say that only someone who has a bad taste for reality would say this is a good article. From using Reagan, to saying barriers don’t work, to not understanding what Democrats really want, etc., This is the low bar the Washington Post sets.
Sad. Sad that thinking Reaganite’s fall for it.
*Financial and readership decisions + dislike of Trump: “trump” civility and truth.
…former executive editor of the New York Times says the paper’s news pages, the home of its straight-news coverage, have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”
Jill Abramson, the veteran journalist who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says the Times has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.
“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”
What’s more, she says, citing legendary 20th century publisher Adolph Ochs, “the more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased. Ochs’s vow to cover the news without fear or favor sounded like an impossible promise in such a polarized environment.”
Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes.
Trump claims he is keeping the “failing” Times in business—an obvious exaggeration—but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million….
(Editor’s note: A recent federal bill memorializing as a National Historic Trail what has come to be known as the Cherokee Indian Trail of Tears is based on false history, argues William R. Higginbotham. In this article, the Texas-based writer delves into the historic record and concludes that about 840 Indians not the 4,000 figure commonly accepted died in the 1837-38 trek west; that the government-financed march was conducted by the Indians themselves; and that the phrase “Trail of Tears” was a label that was added 70 years later under questionable circumstances.) The problem with some of our accounts of history is that they have been manipulated to fit conclusions not borne out by facts. Nothing could be more intellectually dishonest. This is about a vivid case in point.
Happens every Thanksgiving, doesn’t? Some bleeding heart liberal you’re “related to” gets on their moral high Crazy Horse and lectures about how horribly rotten the white man was to the Native Americans. Which is why this year we’re throwing in the tomahawk. Time to scalp the facts about the Indians. Feathers not dots….
MYTH: THE NATIVE AMERICANS WERE A PEACEFUL CULTURE TO WHOM THE CONCEPT OF WAR WAS FOREIGN
FACT: MANY WERE BRUTAL, CONQUERING ***HOLES
Native Americans warred with each other since, forever. Sometimes it was over hunting or farming grounds, sometimes revenge, sometimes to steal, sometimes to kill. I don’t say this to demonize them, they were no different than any other regressive, Neolithic cultures on other continents.
But the truth is that the only way settlers were able to conquer this land was through the help of Native Americans who teamed up with them to settle the score with the other, more assholish tribes. You think Cortes was able to conquer with only 500 Conquisadors. Course not, it took 50,000 ANGRY allied Native Americans who’d had it up to here with being enslaved and forced to carry gold for the other, Native Aztecs.
Some of of the Indian tribes were the most brutal in existence.
They practiced enslavement, rape, cannibalism, would sometimes target women and children, tribes like the Commanchees would butcher babies and roast people alive… and by the way, where do you think we LEARNED scalping?
MYTH: NATIVE AMERICANS WERE AN ADVANCED SOCIETY
TRUTH: NOT EVEN CLOSE
Smell that? It’s your sacred cow being torched. After I scalped her, of course. Unlike Rome, Greece, China, or pretty much any great empire which had already existed at that time, the Native Americans didn’t have advanced plumbing, transportation, mathematics or really… anything that led to the iphone on which you’re currently watching this. That whole beautiful “horseback Indian” culture you read about? It’s a lie because they hadn’t even domesticated horses. Not only that, but they didn’t even use the WHEEL. No really. 1400 AD… no wheel.
Even more reason that, when you’re that far behind, the clash of civilizations is going to be THAT much more drastic when the new wheel-using world catches up to you.
MYTH: THE SETTLERS DELIBERATELY INFECTED NATIVES WITH SMALLPOX BLANKETS TO WHIPE THEM OUT
TRUTH: ONLY IDIOTS COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE THIS
Think about it. You really believe Europeans waged microbial, biological warfare… long before discovery, mass acceptance or even close to an understanding of advanced germ theory?
So it’s not true. You can look forever for historical accounts of mass smallpox blankets being pajamagrammed to the peaceful Indians, but you won’t find them. But there is SOME truth to the myth, which brings us to our final point.
MYTH: EUROPEANS COMMITTED MASS GENOCIDE. KILLING EVERY NATIVE AMERICAN FOR SPORT
TRUTH: NOT EVEN CLOSE
However, it is estimated that at high as 95% of pre-Columbian Native Americans were in fact killed off by disease, WHY? Because Europeans introduced new diseases to which the Native Americans hadn’t developed an immunity not only with THEMSELVES but now contact with animals like again HORSES which Native Americans hadn’t domesticated. Again, because they were such an archaic, unadvanced society.
Sure there were plenty of bloody, horrendous, unimaginable battles that occurred, and generally when it comes to neoloithic tribes and more advances settlers, the guys with the boom-boom sticks win. This isn’t exclusive to America or all that uncommon.
But Europeans were not hellbent on wiping out Native Americans, they were actually encouraged to bring the people into European culture and convert them to Christianity. Plus, inter-marrying was incredibly common. How else do you explain Johnny Depp, Angalina Jolie, Kid Cudi and even imaginary Elizabeth Warren claiming to be 1/16th Cherokee?
Killing people is bad. But so is milking, misleading and guilting all future generations for crimes they didn’t commit. Yep, Europeans conquered the Native Americans, created a Constitutional Republic, and advanced in mere centuries what Natives couldn’t do for thousands of years here on the plot of land that is America. So close this smartphone window, go enjoy your turkey and tell your social justice warrior cousin at the table to shut that mustached, single-origin-coffee drinking-hole. Or just… hand him a smallpox napkin.
This is all POWERLINE, but soo important for the “Mantra Busting” that …. here ya go:
…This is what is going on: Some “scientists”–read anti-Trump Democratic Party activists–constructed a theoretical baseline of how many deaths would be expected to occur in Puerto Rico during the months after Hurricane Maria. They then compared this baseline to the actual number of deaths, and voila! The actual number was higher than their hypothetical guess by 3,000. So all of those deaths–whether caused by cancer, car accidents, or whatever–are attributed to the hurricane. These activists have not made any attempt to count the actual number of hurricane-related deaths.
No one would use such a foolish methodology except for political reasons. This is more fake news propagated by anti-Trump activists. The fake news media, like CNN, have attacked President Trump for disputing the “scientists” who came up with the 3,000 number. Sadly, some Republicans have joined them, probably because they are ignorant about what is actually going on here.
For what it is worth, Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico in September 2017, and Puerto Rico’s death rate declined in 2017, after years of increases:
(click to enlarge)
So, following the logic of the Left and the #NeverTrumpers, MORE hurricanes should hit Puerto Rico. Just sayin’ — I love the holes dug by these early reactors to the MSM. Some article to preserve:
…Excess mortality studies have been used to measure everything from the life expectancy of smokers to “temperature-related stress” in the Netherlands. The problem is that such studies are inherently reliant on conjecture. There can be other problems as well, namely politics, as I learned a decade ago while poking holes in an excess mortality study in Iraq published by the Lancet.
An article in the British medical journal estimated some 650,000 “excess” Iraqi deaths in the 40 months following the U.S. invasion. This figure was seven times higher than the toll based on body counts. It was based on field surveys supposedly done by a former health official in Saddam Hussein’s government and was authored by outspoken critics of the Iraq war — and of George W. Bush. It was also timed to come out just before the 2006 midterm elections.
To some neutral observers, the controversy underscored the importance of actually documenting wartime casualties. I don’t know how much Donald Trump knows about this topic. But he apparently is aware that “excess mortality” is not how U.S. authorities have previously tallied storm deaths. The National Hurricane Center, for example, estimated that 1,833 people died in Hurricane Katrina, most from drowning.
In Puerto Rico, there were myriad problems getting accurate data, the biggest being that electricity was knocked out for so long. This inhibited the reporting ability of island health officials. It also led to deprivations that killed health-impaired residents months after the hurricane season ended. In that environment, excess mortality studies made sense. Inevitably, they would be imprecise, and perhaps just wrong. The first such study, by researchers at Penn State University, estimated the number of deaths at 1,085 – when the government in San Juan was still listing the official toll as 64. Days later, the New York Times, using island death certificates, produced an estimate of 1,052.
Harvard went next. Its study, trumpeted uncritically around the world, had problems. For one thing, its range of 793 to 8,498 excess deaths was unhelpful. So the media settled on the median figure, 4,645, which was little more than a guess. The bigger problem is that the methodology was a mish-mash. Harvard’s researchers compared actual deaths in 2016 to estimates based on interviews – polling surveys – in 2017. “The big thing is the methodology is so completely different, you don’t now what you’re dealing with,” said University of Texas biostatistics professor Donald Berry. “What you end up with is garbage.”
That’s the background when the governor of Puerto Rico tapped George Washington University’s school of public health to do another excess mortality survey. Like all such studies, it’s based on assumptions and guesswork – in this case assumptions complicated by the outward migration of tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans to the mainland after the hurricane. That said, I know of no evidence that would undermine its estimate of 2,975 excess deaths…
The difference between survey results and demonstrable realities was also pointed out by the author of Hillbilly Elegy: “In a recent Gallup poll, Southerners and Midwesterners reported the highest rates of church attendance in the country. Yet actual church attendance is much lower in the South.”
Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2018), 23-25 (added references).
The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog, though, took a look at how Harvard, whose researchers admitted they conducted “a quick study on a limited budget,” came up with that number and found that the methodology was ridiculously flawed:
In effect, the researchers took one number — 15 deaths identified from a survey of 3,299 households — and extrapolated that to come up with 4,645 deaths across the island. That number came with a very large caveat, clearly identified in the report, but few news media accounts bothered to explain the nuances….
…It turns out there is no list of names. There is no accounting of what causes of death were attributable to the aftermath of the devastating storm. In fact, having now scanned the George Washington University report at the heart of this all, I have an itching feeling they missed a big statistical point.
The bottom line is that the researchers developed a model and made a projected estimate of the number of deaths to be expected on the island during the six months following the storm, based on previous year’s death numbers. They then factored in the fact that a full 8 percent of the population, 280,000 people roughly, left the island following the storm.
With that population change factored in, the “expected” number of deaths was about 3,000 fewer than the 16,000 deaths which were recorded September through February. Those 3,000 “excess” deaths above the projection are the one’s being attributed to the effects of the storm. I’m rounding because their report admits the projection is not exact. The chart I included above notes the higher death rate per 10,000 people.
There are not 3,000 death certificates noting hurricane-related causes (loss of electricity, stress, poor transportation response) and the authors chide the local medical community for not being sufficiently exact in filling out their death certificates. So they are left with models and projections and estimates, which have translated into MSM-accepted Truth.
Here’s my question, the itch not addressed in the report, that I saw: Who left? Who departed following the storm? Would the elderly, infirm and impoverished have been the ones to decamp to the mainland? Or would they have been the one’s left behind? Doesn’t the shift in the baseline also at least in part explain this? The death rate really only jumped dramatically when you reduce the baseline population…
Widely regarded as one of the most eloquent and powerful speakers of his generation, Dennis Prager has lectured in nearly every one of the 50 states and all seven continents. Every day, he hosts the widely popular and influential nationally syndicated Dennis Prager Show. Prager is a prolific commentator with a weekly column and the author of four books. He has also produced three films. How will students react?
This time, you can tune in LIVE to catch the explosive talk and every minute of the fiery Q&A clashes no matter where you are in the country! Young America’s Foundation engages with students across the country to inspire them with the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.
YAF is the principal outreach organization of the Conservative Movement and introduces hundreds of thousands of young Americans to these principles every year, most of whom have never heard the arguments for freedom and personal responsibility before. Learn more: http://yaf.org