What do Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want America to look like? They say they want America to emulate Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Sweden. But do their proposed policies reflect that? Or do they point down a darker path? Debbie D’Souza, a native Venezuelan and political commentator, investigates.
Author: Papa Giorgio
NYTs Buries What Trump Paid in Taxes (UPDATED)
UPDATE:
New York Times caves to truth… but Twitter never censored these lies:
It’s not everyday The New York Times undercuts its own Trump-Russia saga by admitting that there’s no evidence President Donald Trump owes money to Russia.
In a shocking story headlined “No, There Isn’t Evidence That Trump Owes Money to Russia,” Times Business Investigations Editor David Enrich wrote: “Lately, liberals and other social media accounts have been spreading rumors, presented as fact, that [Trump] owes [money] to the Kremlin or Russian oligarchs.” The rumors, according to Enrich, “don’t hold up.”
The rumors, according to Enrich, were based on The Times report on Trump’s tax returns. This would appear to undercut earlier speculation by The New York Times Editorial Board (The Editorial Board) in a 2017 piece headlined “The Trump-Russia Nexus.” In that piece, The Editorial Board attempted to connect Trump’s business dealings to the Russians. But here’s the kicker: “The world would know much more about Mr. Trump’s foreign partnerships if he had released his tax returns, as every president has done for the last 40 years.” [Emphasis added.]
Apparently, since The Times claimed that it finally obtained Trump’s tax returns, it turns out that portion of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory apparatus didn’t exactly pan out.
Enrich documented some of the false theories liberals had been pushing on Trump’s tax returns. According to one “conspiracy theory,” said Enrich, “Deutsche Bank agreed to make the loans because they were backstopped by Russians — the Kremlin or a state-owned bank or an oligarch.” The theory stipulated that “If Mr. Trump were to default, it would be the Russians, not Deutsche Bank, on the hook for the losses.”
Enrich outlined another false theory: “[A]fter Deutsche Bank made the loans, it sold chunks of them to Russians. It is common for large loans to be syndicated or securitized — in other words, chopped up and sold to investors. In the late 1990s through the mid-2000s, Deutsche Bank did this with some of its large loans to Mr. Trump.” The theory suggests that “the president would owe the money to Russians, not the German bank.”
But, to reiterate Enrich, “the theories don’t hold up.”
Enrich summarized: “Deutsche Bank didn’t chop up and sell the latest batch of debt — the only portion that is still outstanding, according to bank officials with direct knowledge of the transactions. The loans remain on Deutsche Bank’s books.”……..
Mark Levin reads a few sentences from the New York Times article:
...Mr. Trump was periodically required to pay a parallel income tax called the alternative minimum tax, created as a tripwire to prevent wealthy people from using huge deductions, including business losses, to entirely wipe out their tax liabilities.
Mr. Trump paid alternative minimum tax in seven years between 2000 and 2017 — a total of $24.3 million, excluding refunds he received after filing. For 2015, he paid $641,931, his first payment of any federal income tax since 2010….
(NYTs)
What did the NYTs article show?
- (a) Trump followed the tax laws; (b) did not pay Cohen [as #nevertrumpers and Democrats said for two years]; (c) nor Russians [or get paid by them – as #nevertrumpers and Democrats said for three years]; (d) and was under audit [as Trump said, and #nevertrumpers and Democrats said was not the case]. (e) Also, as it turns out — the only wire transfers from Moscow were into Hunter Biden’s bank account.
Here is the DAILY HOWLER article referenced by Mark Levin:
….Much more significantly, consider what Buettner says about the AMT—the alternative minimum tax.
As Buettner notes, the AMT was created as a type of substitute for the federal income tax. If, under the tax code’s welter of rules, an individual ended up owing no income tax, he would have to pay the AMT instead.
Sad! According to the Times, in seven years when Trump “paid no income tax,” he did make AMT submissions—and those submissions totaled slightly more than $24 million.
During those seven years, Trump averaged $3.5 million per year in AMT submissions. Did we mention the fact that the AMT was designed as an alternate form of—as a substitute or replacement for—the federal income tax?
During seven of the years in question, Trump paid no “income tax”—but he paid an average of $3.5 million in the alternative minimum tax! Journalistically, that has to be an all-time example of a “distinction without a difference.”
Sadly, it seems to leave us with only three years when the commander paid no income tax. Let’s review the basic concepts:
The T in AMT does in fact stand for “tax.” (The A stands for “alternative.”)
In other words, the AMT was designed as an alternative form of the income tax. It takes the place of the income tax when, under the rules of the game, no “income tax” is owed.
Yesterday morning, Joe and Mika (literally) didn’t know the first thing the Times had said. Beyond that, it’s hard to tell if the new data the Times acquired covers seventeen or eighteen years….
After the news came out about Trump paying very low taxes in recent years, Larry Elder was left wondering: Where are all the people who are paying more in taxes than they’re legally required to? How would this possibly make sense to a businessman? Meanwhile, experts say there is nothing wrong with arranging your financial affairs to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible. Everyone does it, rich or poor.
Twitter’s Maoist Revolution (This Is How Freedom Dies)
I heard about the “Twitterverse” not even allowing a story by the NEW YORK POST to grace their site. When I got home I tried it. And sure enough, the story would not post. So I tried it again early this morning… nope:
I just tried it again this evening. HUGH HEWITT in his first hour played Tucker Carlson and then the President… I also include a call from Detective Tom – as – he asks good questions as usual.
The real story now as well is the idea that Twitter and Facebook can control what they feel is a hoax and what is genuine news. As the NEW YORK POST reasonably asks: “If ‘unreliable’ is the issue, why did social media never block anti-Trump stories?” Indeed… they continue:
….Misinformation? Lack of authoritative reporting? The story explained exactly The Post got the material, and the supporting evidence. Yet the past four years have seen left-of-center outlets devote millions of column inches to anti-Trump stories that turned out to be utter bunk — yet neither Facebook nor Twitter took similar action as part of any “standard process”:
- Remember when four CNN reporters claimed, in June 2017, that James Comey was about to dispute in congressional testimony Trump’s claim that the FBI director had reassured the president he wasn’t under investigation? Comey did no such thing, but did Twitter and Facebook censor the story? Nope.
- Or recall when The Guardian newspaper concocted a story, seemingly out of thin air, about Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange meeting at Ecuador’s embassy in London? There was no such meeting, as the special counsel’s report confirmed. So did Facebook or Twitter block that story? Nope, you can still post the debunked nonsense on either platform.
- Or remember when The Atlantic published a several-thousand-word story suggesting that then-Sen. Jeff Sessions had lied when he said he didn’t meet the Russian ambassador as a Team Trump surrogate, but as a routine matter? The Mueller report debunked The Atlantic decisively with its finding that the meeting in question didn’t “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.” So is The Atlantic story blocked as misinformation? Nope.
- Or how about when the McClatchy news agency claimed that Trump attorney Michael Cohen had secretly traveled to Prague to meet with his Kremlin handlers? “Cohen had never traveled to Prague,” the Mueller report found. So is the McClatchy report blocked? You know the answer — of course it isn’t.
- Then there was BuzzFeed’s big bombshell that fizzled: a major story claiming that Trump had ordered Cohen to lie to Congress. The Mueller report’s verdict: “The president did not direct [Cohen] to provide false testimony. Cohen also said he did not tell the president about his planned testimony.” Did Facebook and Twitter block the link or otherwise “reduce distribution” pending fact-checking? Of course not. You can still post the lies freely.
- Then there was the biggest of whopper of all: the salacious — and utterly discredited — Steele dossier, first reported by David Corn of Mother Jones and later published by BuzzFeed. Blocked by Big Tech? Ha!
The Post will continue to chase the truth wherever it takes us. But this episode should alarm every American. A very few people can unaccountably shape what you read.
This is how freedom dies.
The New York Post has published two bombshell stories that raise more questions over whether Joe Biden abused his power as the vice president of the United States for the financial benefit of his family. It’s a made-for-TV tale of foreign business dealings, money, corruption, and power – and the social media gods really, really don’t want you to read it.
Corey Booker’s Trump Card Is A Race-Card (ACB/BDP/EPMD Edition)
Firstly, Amy Coney Barrett’s simple “yes” reminded me of a song from my younger years: “Boogie Down Productions – My Philosophy”, so I mixed it in a couple of times.
This upload is really in edition to the CRAZY notion by Democrats that Trump has never condemned neo-NAZIs or white supremacists. Here are my other editions of this lie:
MORE
- Jake Tapper Gets Trump’s Comments Correct (Tapper Edition)
- “Fine People On Both Sides” (Biden Edition)
- “Fine People On Both Sides” (Larry Elder’s “Biden Edition”)
- Good People On Both Sides (Prager)
- “Fine People On Both Sides” (Larry Elder’s “Biden Edition”)
The video I used for Cory Booker is via BREITBART’s YouTube. The first montage of Trump condemning over the years racism/David Duke/white supremacy/neo-NAZIs is with a hat-tip to PATRIOT POST. And the second montage (w/music) is via Adrian Norman (TWITTER). I end with an older mix I did for “The Sage” using EPMD’s “Strictly Business”.
“Not going back that way”
One Day Of Biden Gaffes (Hugh Hewitt)
As above/below:
I just wanted to share a couple posts about polls, the first is via POWERLINE:
It is an odd election season. Pretty much everyone thinks the Democrats are on their way to a crushing victory, yet it is hard to see why. A whopping 56% of Americans say they are better off now than they were four years ago, and President Trump draws large, enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is a pale shell of his formerly buffoonish self. When Joe is able to get out of bed, his campaign schedules intimate invitation-only events. Supposedly this is because of COVID, but everyone knows it is really because he doesn’t want to be embarrassed by his inability to draw a crowd. Probably no one outside of Biden’s immediate family particularly wants him to be president.
So what is going on? One possibility is that the conventional wisdom is wrong. At TOWNHALL, Kevin McCullough, who has a pretty good record as an election forecaster, argues that we should believe our lying eyes:
To be exceedingly clear — I find no evidence of a Biden win outside of the media polls.
The candidates already know that the president is winning by a mile. President Trump can’t help but to continue to draw massive crowds (even while in the hospital.) Every weekend, in every state, in hundreds of cities bikers, truckers, boaters, horse and buggy people, and regular pedestrians are having larger and larger participation in various parades of support from Miami to Manhattan and from Beverly Hills to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile Biden has trouble getting more than a dozen to show up at a tour stop in Yuma. And we all know people who say “I didn’t vote for him then,” or “I wasn’t really sure about him in 2016,” who have converted to “I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.”
[….]
We can dream. Finally, here is McCullough’s predicted electoral map (the first graphic is his most updated prediction):
Not to pour cold water on a much-needed bit of optimism, but McCullough has Minnesota going for Trump. But it has been reported here that the Trump campaign has pulled all of its remaining television ads from Minnesota stations.
Still, we can dream.
Remember, Kevin McCullough called the map dead on in 2016. Okay, the next is from RED STATE
Mainstream media have been trumpeting a lot of the polls being for Joe Biden.
We’ve pointed out the problems of some of those polls and how there are the other polls, like the Democracy Institute poll, that find President Donald Trump ahead because they’re measuring likely voters not registered voters and they aren’t oversampling Democrats. Most are also not measuring things like the shy Trump voter or that the youth vote is again unlikely to come out in greater numbers.
But what’s missing in a lot of the discourse is that the measures apart from MSM national polls by which you judge whether a president will be reelected are all for Trump.
First there’s no indication of a youth voter surge, that’s bad for the Democrats who poll much higher with the young than other age groups.
As I already wrote about, Trump has a 51% approval rating from Zogby.
[….]
Gallup has found whenever the incumbent has over 50%, he’s reelected.
Gallup also found that 56% Americans thought they were better off now than four years ago under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. A reporter asked Joe Biden about that, he got snippy and said that if people thought that they didn’t have to vote for him and that their memories were somehow wrong.
% of Americans who say they are better off now than they were 4 years ago
Sept 2020: 56 percent
Dec 2012: 45 percent
Oct 2004: 47 percent
Oct 1992: 38 percent
July 1984: 44 percenthttps://t.co/CmUJ6rOG3E pic.twitter.com/LadV3G1GdI
— Rob Henderson (@robkhenderson) October 8, 2020
The important thing to note? How high that number is for Trump and that all the prior president in 2012, 2004, 1992, 1984 who even had lower numbers were reelected.
[….]
David Chapman did a great Twitter thread of some of the other historical measures.
From Townhall:
“[N]o incumbent who has received at least 75% of the primary vote has lost re-election. Donald Trump received 94% of the primary vote, which is the 4th highest all-time. Higher than Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, and Obama.”
Oh, and it gets better.
“Three times in history America has faced a pandemic, recession, and civil unrest during an election year. The incumbent party is 3-0 in those elections,”
This tallies with the Helmut Norpoth prediction model that cites the importance of the primary numbers and also predicts a Trump win. People came out in droves for Trump in the primary when they didn’t even have to.
Want more? There’s more.
Every candidate who has led in voter enthusiasm since 1988 has won. Trump not only leads in voter enthusiasm, he leads by a lot, a 19 point enthusiasm gap….
The Origin Story Of “The Proud Boys”
See the fuller Gavin McInnes explanation of how he founded the men’s club, Proud Boys, and how the media misrepresents them as a group — HERE.
Trump’s Taxes Were Legal!
After the news came out about Trump paying very low taxes in recent years, Larry Elder was left wondering: Where are all the people who are paying more in taxes than they’re legally required to? How would this possibly make sense to a businessman? Meanwhile, experts say there is nothing wrong with arranging your financial affairs to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible. Everyone does it, rich or poor. (See also: “NYTs Buries What Trump Paid in Taxes“)
How Government Caused “The Boy Crisis”
Author Warren Farrell says welfare programs encouraged fatherless households.
Warren Farrell, author of The Boy Crisis, was once associated with the feminist movement. Then he changed his views. “I don’t agree with the part of feminism that says, ‘Men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed,'” Farrell tells Maxim Lott, a senior producer of Stossel on Reason.
For example, men die five years earlier than women, have more dangerous jobs, and are often passed over for custody. Boys are two times more likely than girls to commit suicide. Boys are 29 percent less likely to get a college degree than girls.
So why do men earn more and have more influence in government and business? A big reason, Farrell argues, is that men are filling social expectations to become the family breadwinner.
“Our dads and our grandpas, they made sacrifices…to make more money, and then the feminist movement turned all of that sacrifice on the part of men against men,” Farrell says.
Both sexes struggle, but Farrell thinks the feminist movement’s single-sided focus on women’s inequalities has led to an atmosphere that harms boys. A dramatic increase in fatherless households—which Farrell believes is largely responsible for boys’ problems—goes ignored.
Study after study finds that having both a mother and father is best, at least for straight families. (Gay families may do just as well; Farrell notes that the overall evidence is inconclusive.) “Even when we control for the amount of money a father and mother earn, children with dads still do much better,” Farrell notes.
The rate of fatherless households has increased partly because of welfare programs that “tear the family apart by giving the money to mothers when fathers are absent,” Farrell argues, “and not giving money to mothers when fathers are present.”
Why would fatherless households hurt boys more than girls? “Boys tend to not have as many skills at developing friendships, at developing emotional connections,” Farrell says. “So when the family connection breaks apart, it affects them more profoundly than it does their sisters.”
Farrell says fathers are critical for several non-intuitive reasons. One is roughhousing, which teaches kids boundaries. Fathers roughhouse more than mothers, and when they do, “the father is creating a bond with the child, so the children don’t mind discipline….The discipline is the price they pay for more fun with dad.”
Many people think that mothers tend to be better parents because women are, on average, more empathetic and pay more attention to a child’s needs. But Farrell says this by itself is not enough, because “an empathetic parent does not create an empathetic child. An empathetic parent is someone who’s always thinking of the children’s needs, which teaches the children to always have his or her needs thought of.”
Requiring a child to think of others’ needs is what actually build empathy, Farrell says.
Finally, Farrell says that mothers are more likely to express their love for a child by doing things like homework for the kid. They’re more likely to engage in “helicopter parenting,” which leads to overly dependent kids.
What’s the solution to “the Boy Crisis”? Farrell says that society should offer more respect to men who focus on fathering rather than career success. He wishes there were more men in classrooms, and that schools would bring back things like recess.
The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel, his independent production company, Stossel Productions, and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
LeBron James Analyzes MVP “Narrative,” But Not Killer Cop Narrative
What’s up with these celebrities and athletes weighing in on police shootings and buying the narrative that police are out killing black people just because they’re black? For example, LeBron James has been very vocal about the Black Lives Matter movement. This year, James did not win the Most Valuable Player award, and he gave a thoughtful response, saying voters may have embraced a “narrative” instead of “really watching the game of basketball.” Why didn’t he use this type of analysis to study police interactions with black people?
Jason Whitlock Discusses BLM’s/Left’s Anti-Christianity
Jason Whitlock: “This has been the intent from Black Lives Matter from the very beginning. We’re seeing it reshape right before our eyes the hostility toward Christianity is overtaking the sports world and Kurt Beathard is paying the price… It’s a calculated, not an organic deal. This has been underway for years… You’ve got to usher out God to usher in immorality.”
The Bible vs. Andy Stanley (Updated)
I do wonder if Andy Stanley considers Trump, like he did Obama, a “pastor-in-chief.” But I like how REFORMATION CHARLOTTE puts it: “Andy Stanley’s Church Closing is a Blessing From God to His People, We Should Thank Him!” Heh, so true.
This is an updated post regarding the false teacher, Andy Stanley, with some more video by Wretched (above). But always the J. Gresham Machen’s portion comes first — with some video of the questionable sermons added as well:
J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, first published in 1923, has shown amazing resiliency in the applicability of its message. When I heard Andy Stanley’s recent comments that we should stop asking, “What does the Bible say about that?” Machen’s words immediately came to mind. According to Stanley, that terrible question should be exchanged for, “What does the New Covenant teach?” or “Even better, what does Jesus teach?” because the two covenants conflict. Watch his comments here, or the full message entitled “Mix ‘N Match”. In light of Stanley’s teaching, read the quote below from Machen, but every time Machen writes about the modern liberal substitute the name Andy Stanley.
If the Christian make full use of his Christian privileges, he finds the seat of authority in the whole Bible, which he regards as no mere word of man but as the very Word of God. Very different is the view of modern liberalism. The modern liberal rejects not only the doctrine of plenary inspiration but even such respect for the Bible as would be proper over against any ordinarily trustworthy book. But what is substituted for the Christian view of the Bible? What is the liberal view as to the seat of authority in religion?
The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberal substitutes for the authority of the Bible the authority of Christ. He cannot accept, he says, what he regards as the perverse moral teaching of the Old Testament or the sophistical arguments of Paul. But he regards himself as being the true Christian because, rejecting the rest of the Bible, he depends upon Jesus alone.
This impression, however, is utterly false. The modern liberal does not really hold to the authority of Jesus. Even if he did so, indeed, he would still be impoverishing greatly his knowledge of God and of the way of salvation.
The words of Jesus, spoken during His earthly ministry, could hardly contain all that we need to know about God and about the way of salvation; for the meaning of Jesus’ redeeming work could hardly be fully set forth before that work was done. It could be set forth indeed by way of prophecy, and as a matter of fact, it was so set forth by Jesus even in the days of His flesh. But the full explanation could naturally be given only after the work was done. And such was actually the divine method. It is doing despite, not only to the Spirit of God but also to Jesus Himself, to regard the teaching of the Holy Spirit, given through the apostles, as at all inferior in authority to the teaching of Jesus.
As a matter of fact, however, the modern liberal does not hold fast even to the authority of Jesus. Certainly, he does not accept the words of Jesus as they are recorded in the Gospels. For among the recorded words of Jesus are to be found just those things which are most abhorrent to the modern liberal Church, and in His recorded words Jesus also points forward to the fuller revelation which was afterwards to be given through His apostles. Evidently, therefore, those words of Jesus which are to be regarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be selected from the mass of the recorded words by a critical process. The critical process is certainly very difficult, and the suspicion often arises that the critic is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only those words which conform to his own preconceived ideas. But even after the sifting process has been completed, the liberal scholar is still unable to accept as authoritative all the sayings of Jesus; he must finally admit that even the “historical” Jesus as reconstructed by modern historians said some things that are untrue.
So much is usually admitted. But, it is maintained, although not everything that Jesus said is true, His central “life-purpose” is still to be regarded as regulative for the Church. But what then was the life-purpose of Jesus? According to the shortest, and if modern criticism be accepted, the earliest of the Gospels, the Son of Man “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Here the vicarious death is put as the “life-purpose” of Jesus. Such an utterance must, of course, be pushed aside by the modern liberal Church.
The truth is that the life-purpose of Jesus discovered by modern liberalism is not the life-purpose of the real Jesus, but merely represents those elements in the teaching of Jesus—isolated and misinterpreted—which happen to agree with the modern program. It is not Jesus, then, who is the real authority, but the modern principle by which the selection within Jesus’ recorded teaching has been made. Certain isolated ethical principles of the Sermon on the Mount are accepted, not at all because they are teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern ideas.
It is not true at all, then, that modern liberalism is based upon the authority of Jesus. It is obliged to reject a vast deal that is absolutely essential in Jesus’ example and teaching—notably His consciousness of being the heavenly Messiah. The real authority, for liberalism, can only be “the Christian consciousness” or “Christian experience.” But how shall the findings of the Christian consciousness be established? Surely not by a majority vote of the organized Church. Such a method would obviously do away with all liberty of conscience. The only authority, then, can be individual experience; truth can only be that which “helps” the individual man. Such an authority is obviously no authority at all; for individual experience is endlessly diverse, and when once truth is regarded only as that which works at any particular time, it ceases to be truth. The result is an abysmal skepticism.
The Christian man, on the other hand, finds in the Bible the very Word of God. Let it not be said that dependence upon a book is a dead or an artificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was founded upon the authority of the Bible, yet it set the world aflame. Dependence upon a word of man would be slavish, but dependence upon God’s word is life. Dark and gloomy would be the world, if we were left to our own devices, and had no blessed Word of God. The Bible, to the Christian, is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty.
It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism, on the other hand, is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923), 64-66. (FREE HERE)
EVANGELICAL DARK-WEB
The Evangelical Dark Web exposes Andy Stanley’s heretical worldview. Andy Stanley is a pastor at one of America’s largest megachurches 5th according to Wikipedia, #1 according to Outreach. His influence on the evangelical church is perhaps second to none. As a result many, Christians and churches are influenced by his teachings. This video is intended to be a concise way to show fellow believers that Andy Stanley is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
UNBELIEVABLE
[Editor’s note: I think the main issue is shown well at the 1hr-2-min and 25 second mark] Don’t miss this very special event! Tell the world! Andy Stanley and Jeff Durbin spend time discussing Andy’s book, “Irresistable”. They have a radio debate on the “Unbelievable Radio” program with Justin Brierley. Andy has claimed that we should “unhitch” the Old Testament from the New Testament. He claims that we the Old Testament Law (like the 10-commandments) is not binding upon Christians, today. In this radio show, Andy and Jeff discuss apologetic methodology (how to defend the faith) and whether or not the Law of God in the Old Testament is relevant for Christians, today.
FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH
Andy Stanley Denies the 10 Commandments (and the Old Testament)