Monday, March 2, 2020

Attorney General William Barr Skewers ‘Remarkably Monolithic’ Press

Attorney General William Barr Skewers ‘Remarkably Monolithic’ Press

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
FONT SIZE:
Attorney General William Barr lamented the “massively consolidated” liberal press in the United States which has become “remarkably monolithic in viewpoint” and no longer effective in preventing the “tyranny of the majority.”
Barr’s Wednesday speech at the 2020 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, Tennesee focused on “religion, the decentralization of government power, and the free press” as three “bulwarks against this slide toward despotism” in the United States.
“Today in the United States, the corporate – or ‘mainstream’ – press is massively consolidated,” Barr said. “And it has become remarkably monolithic in viewpoint, at the same time that an increasing number of journalists see themselves less as objective reporters of the facts, and more as agents of change. These developments have given the press an unprecedented ability to mobilize a broad segment of the public on a national scale and direct that opinion in a particular direction.”
“When the entire press ‘advances along the same track,’ as Tocqueville put it, the relationship between the press and the energized majority becomes mutually reinforcing,” he continued. “Not only does it become easier for the press to mobilize a majority, but the mobilized majority becomes more powerful and overweening with the press as its ally. This is not a positive cycle, and I think it is fair to say that it puts the press’ role as a breakwater for the tyranny of the majority in jeopardy. The key to restoring the press in that vital role is to cultivate a greater diversity of voices in the media.”
Comparing the liberal democracy envisioned by America’s founders to the “totalitarian democracy” influenced by Rousseau and the French Revolution, Barr contended that the latter’s “path to perfection is to tear down these artifices and restore human society to its natural condition.”
“This form of democracy is messianic in that it postulates a preordained, perfect scheme of things to which men will be inexorably led,” Barr said. “Its goals are earthly and they are urgent. Although totalitarian democracy is democratic in form, it requires an all-knowing elite to guide the masses toward their determined end, and that elite relies on whipping up mass enthusiasm to preserve its power and achieve its goals. Totalitarian democracy is almost always secular and materialistic, and its adherents tend to treat politics as a substitute for religion. Their sacred mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society according to an abstract ideal of perfection.”
The process towards totalitarian democracy, Barr contended, “would be slow and imperceptible” as “able-bodied citizens” become “more dependent, subject to greater control, and increasingly supportive of dependency.”
The rest of the attorney general’s speech focused on revitalizing not just the free press, but also religion and governmental power. (RELATED: Liberty, Federalism and the STATES Act Bring People Together)
“The Framers would have seen a one-size-fits-all government for hundreds of millions of diverse citizens as being utterly unworkable and a straight road to tyranny,” he said. “That is because they recognized that not every community is exactly the same. What works in Brooklyn might not be a good fit for Birmingham. The federal system allows for this diversity. It also enables people who do not like a certain system to move to a different one. It is easier to run away from a local tyranny than a national one. If people do not like the rule in a state, they can vote with their feet and move. But if it is one size fits all – if every congressional enactment or Supreme Court decision establishes a single rule for every American – then the stakes are very high as to what that rule is.”
WATCH the entire speech below, courtesy of Fox News:

WHY DID SANDERS CLING TO FAILING COMMUNIST REGIMES DECADES LONGER THAN OTHER LEFTISTS?

WHY DID SANDERS CLING TO FAILING COMMUNIST REGIMES DECADES LONGER THAN OTHER LEFTISTS?

I think it was in the summer of 1962 that our family stayed with my father’s brother and his family in Brooklyn. I had a cousin who was a year or two older than I was and, being a New Yorker, probably five years older in sophistication years.
During the visit, my cousin, age 14 or 15 going on 20, extolled the virtues of Fidel Castro. I was skeptical, but he had the numbers to back up his arguments — literacy statistics, statistics about health care, and so forth.
When I returned to the provinces — our home in the D.C. suburbs — I did a little bit of research to confirm my cousin’s stats, and became an apostle of Castro’s revolution. I don’t think I persuaded anyone at my junior high school of the virtues of communist Cuba, but I never lost an argument — at least as I perceived it.
Two years later, our family again stayed with my father’s brother and his family in Brooklyn. I was full or facts and figures with which to show my cousin how sophisticated I had become about Cuba, if nothing else. But before I could really get going, my cousin cut me off: “Fidel? I gave up on him last year.”
Bernie Sanders seems never to have given up on Fidel completely. He remained a fan through the 1980s and still defends Castro based on those literacy programs.
My father (and his brother, I think) were Brooklyn socialists in the 1930s. My father was never a communist and hated the Soviet Union, but many of his friends in the 30s believed in Stalin and his “workers’ paradise.”
Many of them gave up on Stalin when he signed that pact with Hitler’s Germany in 1939. Others drifted away during the 1940s.
By the time Stalin died and his successor publicized the tyrant’s crimes, no one my father liked still had any use for the Soviet Union. Nor, when I became a radical leftist in the late 1960s, did any leftist I knew.
But Bernie Sanders never gave up on the Soviet Union. He honeymooned there in the late 1980s. By then, even his tour guide, assigned by the Communist Party, was telling him the system was collapsing.
It didn’t matter. Sanders stuck to his guns and heaped praise on the Soviet Union. He even made Burlington, Vermont, of which he was mayor, the sister city of one the USSR’s failing outposts.
It should be clear from the foregoing that socialist ideology didn’t require Sanders to remain a fan of Cuba and the Soviet Union. Nearly all true believing socialists gave up on these two regimes half a century before Sanders was still defending them and touting their accomplishmentss.
And true democratic socialists never had any use for these murderous regimes. By definition, they couldn’t.
Is Sanders that much more oblivious than other socialists? Or does he just hate America much more than they did, to the point that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and therefore must be defended? I think it’s the latter.

Sunday, March 1, 2020

Klobuchar (and Tim Allen) Share Some Truths About Bernie's Socialist Agenda

Klobuchar (and Tim Allen) Share Some Truths About Bernie's Socialist Agenda
Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) was the only Democrat onstage in New Hampshire earlier this month to admit she's concerned by the potential for her party to nominate a socialist. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner, having won the first three presidential primary contests. He calls himself a democratic socialist, but we all know he can drop the first part.
Klobuchar shared that same concern at Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, SC a few days before Saturday's South Carolina primary. She then did what Bernie has refused to do. She explained just what's in store for America if Sanders ever enacts his radical, socialist Medicare for All plan.
"The math does not add up!" she declared.
"In fact, just on '60 Minutes' this weekend, he said he wasn't going to rattle through the nickles and dimes," Klobuchar noted. "Well let me tell you how many nickles and dimes we're talking about. Nearly $60 trillion. You know how much that is? For all of his programs, that is three times the American economy." 
On page eight of his Medicare for All plan, Sanders notes he will kick 149 Americans off their health insurance in four years. Klobuchar wants to offer something "more affordable," including a non profit public option.
He is "alienating" voters, Klobuchar later added.
As expected, Sanders also had to face the music over his repeated praise of Cuba's old communist leader Fidel Castro. He was a brutal dictator, but Sanders was apparently impressed by his education plan. 
As former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg asked at one point during Tuesday's debate, how are Senate and House Democrats going to explain how their Democratic nominee told Americans to "look at the bright side" of Castro's murderous regime?
Tim Allen was watching the debate it seemed, because he shared this relevant dictionary reference.

Donald Trump vs corona hysteria

Donald Trump vs corona hysteria

His critics are desperate for him to mishandle a crisis. So far he hasn’t

February 28, 2020
12:20 PM
I like to keep a couple of books within easy reach of my desk to remind myself what sort of creature I am dealing with. As I often write about academics and academic administrators, one of these is Ralph Buchsbaum’s Animals Without Backbones: An Introduction to the Invertebrates, whose title perfectly captures the mushy, moist, moral manner of those matchless, modern martinets.
Since I also often write about what Lionel Trilling called the ‘bloody crossroads’, where politics and culture meet, the other book within easy reach is Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. 
The chief instigator of madness these days is Donald Trump. He is like that old-fashioned confection called Fizzies. Drop him, or his works, anywhere into the ambient fluid of the body politic and, bang! Instant gaseous effervescence.
Trump is elected president, the excited Chihuahuas of the press go mad, confidently predicting the apocalypse. Trump delivers his first inaugural address, thousands of furious females congregate on the Washington Mall. Accoutered in ‘pussyhats’ — representing female genitalia — they march and skirl and weep, denouncing the president’s crudity.
The president fires James Comey, the treacherous viper who ran the FBI. What should have been a routine transaction sparks a frenzied two-year witch hunt overseen by a geriatric fantasist.
And so on. The president of the United States has a telephone call with the president of Ukraine about, inter alia, Ukraine’s role in mucking about in the 2016 presidential election. Pow! Max Boot wets his pants while Adam Schiff turns into a jack-in-the-box. Wind him up and out pops his head shouting ‘Impeach him! Impeach him. Impeach him!’ Meanwhile, Jerry Nadler waddles about the floor of the House trying to correct his lisp.
The madness occasioned by Donald Trump is not confined to himself. Go back and watch, if you can bear it, the truly disgusting effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh.
Michael Avenatti ­— Michael Avenatti! — shows up with a long train of lonely losers willing to perjure themselves for a moment in the spotlight. (And speaking of perjury, has anyone, anyone been charged who did so during that circus? There they were, willing to destroy a man by lying about him under oath, with what consequence?)
The most recent access to the madness of crowds was sparked by the coronavirus — China’s latest gift to the world. The hysteria over this flu-like ailment has been building for weeks. It finally took hold of the US markets on Monday, precipitating a panicked sell-off and creating a slew of bargains for people in the market to buy.
No one knows exactly how far or how fast the coronavirus will spread. Nor does anyone yet know what its toll will be. China did not help matters by its initial secrecy and posture of denial. But those Chicken-Little-like hobbits shouting ‘the sky is falling, the sky is falling’ should pause to catch their breath. There is a lot we do not know about this virus and a vaccine is likely a good year way. But those predicting ­— at times, their eagerness makes it seem they are hoping for — something as deadly (and newsworthy: ratings, my dear, ratings!) as the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 (when some 50 million were killed) are likely to be disappointed.
No sooner had news of the virus emerged than the left tried to weaponize it against Donald Trump. But his response to this apparent medical emergency has been magnificent. At first, the media condemned him for taking swift action to stop flights from places, like China, where the infection was rife and growing. ‘Can you believe it? Trump restricted flights from China. What a racist!’
Then, as more and more cases were reported and the markets turned sour, they berated him for not doing enough. ‘Why did you only ask Congress for $2.5 billion? Chuck Schumer said you should have $8.5 billion!’
Anyone wanting to see what patient leadership in action looks like should watch the president’s press conference Wednesday on coronavirus. He did what a leader should do. He reassured people. He presented the facts, so far as we know them. He outlined the many actions his administration was taking to mitigate danger and the various contingency plans should the disease worsen or spread more than we currently expect.
The president called on medical experts to explain various aspects of the situation. He was calm but serious, cautious but optimistic. The danger to the US at present, he pointed out several times, is very low.  Currently, he said, there are 15 confirmed cases here. Fifteen. Most patients are recovering; one is in a serious condition. He also highlighted that every year, the flu claims anywhere from 25,000 to 60-odd thousand lives.
I said that Trump exhibited ‘patient leadership.’ The element of patience was paramount. Not for the first time, I was reminded that the White House press corps resembles a flock of bad-tempered schoolchildren, lazy and slightly dim, but from fancy families so firm in their sense of entitlement and outrage.
All the adults in the room were on or next to the podium. The press gaggle, desperate to find something to blame the president for, kept repeating the same questions, fighting to frame ‘gotcha’ remarks, and appearing exactly like they are: snotty, ill-prepared hacks whose goal is not to report and inform, but play smarmy partisan games. The president, just back from a trip to India, looked tired but commanding. The press looked small, sweaty, petulant.
The public saw a president who, in his concern for the welfare of the American people, communicated sober competence and steady confidence. They also saw a press swept away by extraordinary delusions and partisan madness. I think it was the great Balliol don, Benjamin Jowett, who once observed that ‘Precautions are always blamed. When they are successful, they are said to have been unnecessary.’
In the grand scheme of things, it was a small event, another press conference about yet another crisis. But considered as a public performance, as an exhibition of leadership, it counts as one of Donald Trump’s greatest triumphs to date.

BERNIE SANDERS’S PARTY LINE APOLOGY FOR COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIPS

BERNIE SANDERS’S PARTY LINE APOLOGY FOR COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIPS

Fifty years ago in leftist circles, communist sympathizers like me could take one of two lines on Joseph Stalin. We could condemn Stalin and say he betrayed the communist revolution or we could spout the following: “Stalin did some good things and some bad things. He should be criticized for the bad things and praised for the good ones.”
I tried out the second line — the party line — once. Saying the words made me sick. I never uttered them again.
Bernie Sanders is still spouting the old party line. He’s just substituted Fidel Castro for Stalin.
What’s wrong, he asked last night, with praising Castro’s Cuba for its literacy rate and its health care system? Why was it wrong similarly to praise aspects of the Soviet Union when he honeymooned there in the late 1980s?
It’s wrong for the same reason it was wrong to praise Mussolini’s Italy because the trains ran on time. Trains can run on time without the need for oppression. So too with improving literacy rates and health care delivery.
Did German literacy improve under Hitler? How was Germany’s health care system during the Nazi era?
No one knows because no one cares. The questions are irrelevant to a verdict on Hitler’s Germany.
They are also irrelevant to a verdict on Castro’s Cuba and the Soviet Union — unless, of course, you’re an apologist for these regimes.
Sanders is an apologist for communism. Why? Because he’s sympathetic to communism.
Indeed, thinking back to the old party line on Stalin, I’ve heard more praise from Sanders for what Castro and the Soviet’s did “right” than criticism for what they did wrong — even though the negative side of the ledger includes eliminating basic freedoms, brutally imprisoning dissidents, and murdering citizens.
The praise of Cuba is clearly heartfelt. So was the praise of the Soviet Union. The condemnation of the “authoritarianism” (a weasel word — totalitarianism is the correct one), when Sanders remembers to deliver it, comes across as perfunctory.

'Bernie Sanders is your enemy': Venezuela socialism victims sound the alarm

  • As Sanders surges in the polls and is now the clear Democratic frontrunner, many on the left are sounding the alarm.
  • But many Venezuela socialism victims were sounding the alarm more than a year ago.

With Sen. Bernie Sanders now the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president, even some on the left have expressed worry over what a self-described Democratic Socialist on the ticket in November could mean not only for Democrats' chances of taking back the White House but also for their down-ballot odds, namely, control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. 
Among Sanders' most ardent supporters are college-aged voters, who favor the Democratic Socialist far more overwhelmingly than the broader electorate. However, from liberal MSNBC commentators Chris Matthews and Joy Reid to former Clinton campaign manager James Carville, a growing number of voices on the left are sounding the alarm, joining those with whom Campus Reform spoke more than a year ago. 
"Bernie Sanders is your enemy. Do not ever get involved with this individual or any of the other socialists"    
At a Washington, D.C. protest, Campus Reform's Cabot Phillips spoke with individuals who escaped socialism in Venezuela to come to America. 
[RELATED: Venezuelan socialism victims send message to American socialists]"You do not ever want anyone, not even close, to socialism to come to this country," one person said. 
The same person specifically invoked Sanders' name. 
"Bernie Sanders is your enemy. Do not ever get involved with this individual or any of the other socialists," he said. 
"It is not the route to go. It is not possible. It is not feasible. Don't fall for it," another said. 
"We also thought that this could never happen in our country," one victim of socialism said about the economic system's perils. "We had a balance of powers. We had democracy and we elected our leaders." 
One person who said that he was born and raised in Venezuela said that he has seen the country "deteriorate" under socialism. 
On Saturday, Sanders won the Nevada Democratic caucuses. The win follows his victory in the New Hampshire primary and his virtual tie for first place with former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Iowa. 
Sanders' wins in the first three contest states pave a clearer path for him to the Democratic nomination than for any other Democratic presidential candidate, although the South Carolina primary is just one week away, with Super Tuesday also quickly approaching. 
Follow the author of this article on Facebook: @JonStreetDC and Twitter: @JonStreet