Fundamental Contradictions that Doom the Left

There are two moral imperatives that the American Left relies on to attract supporters and demonize their opponents – saving the planet, and fighting racism.

In both cases, however the policies chosen by the Left to pursue these moral imperatives are in opposition to well established facts. Moreover, these facts that doom Leftist policies to failure are not subtle. They don’t require convoluted explanations. They are explicable to anyone with common sense, which is why the Left must rely on deplatforming and cancel culture; it is why they must accuse their critics of being “deniers” and racists. They cannot argue the facts.

Contradiction #1 – Ban Fossil Fuel Without Any Viable Alternative

Instead of addressing genuine environmental challenges, such as poaching of endangered species, overfishing the oceans, or grossly unhealthy air in cities like Beijing and New Delhi, America’s Left has instead focused almost exclusively on combating “climate change.” But their remedy, to eliminate fossil fuel, ignores the indisputable fact that fossil fuel production must rapidly increase in order to meet the demands of a growing world economy.

For everyone on earth, including Americans, to consume half as much energy as Americans currently consume, global energy production would have to increase to 2.5 times its current output. Meanwhile, in 2018, biofuel, solar and wind energy combined supplied just over 3 percent of total energy produced in the world.

Reasonable people can disagree over the so-called “carrying capacity” of planet Earth. Maybe mining the moon, the asteroids, and the ocean […] Read More

How to Simultaneously Lower College Tuition and Solve the Homeless Crisis

Two of the most pressing challenges facing Americans are unaffordable college tuition and an epidemic of homelessness. But an elegant solution is just waiting to be implemented by some innovative, progressive state or region. House the homeless on college campuses.

It isn’t as though colleges and universities across America aren’t already searching for new sources of revenue. A December 19th article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Seniors Want to Go Back to Class. Universities Want to Sell Them Real Estate” describes a new trend: growing baby boomers entering retirement at the same time as college enrollments are projected to decline. So across America, colleges and universities, which have already opened hotels and restaurants on campus to earn profits from visiting parents and faculty, are now building and selling condos for seniors.

Why not go one step further, and admit America’s homeless?

Doing this is consistent with the general mission and mentality of the faculty and administrators at America’s institutions of higher learning. After all, social justice indoctrination will be far more effective if it isn’t merely academic. Allow academia to practice real world equity; real world diversity; real world inclusion.

There might be a few hiccoughs implementing this plan. For example, on-campus cultural safe spaces, which would be excellent venues for homeless people to be afforded sanctuary, would have to be desegregated. Otherwise, campuses would not be eligible for FEMA money, HUD grants, or Section 8 vouchers – all of which cannot be tapped unless true integration is […] Read More

The Manger vs The Monster

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. – Luke 2:7

Advocates for the homeless frequently invoke biblical passages in order to appeal to the Christian compassion that still guides the hearts of most Americans, whether they are religious or secular. “No room at the inn,” is a phrase the American Left relies upon to justify everything from open borders and immigration amnesty to affordable housing and homeless shelters. But what sort of inn? An inexpensive manger that is warm, dry, and safe? Or an overbuilt monstrosity? Both options are warm, dry, and safe, but the monster is so grossly expensive that only a few find shelter.

California’s policies currently favor these overbuilt monstrosities, with the biggest losers the homeless. The average cost for “permanent supportive housing” in California is now easily in excess of a half million per unit. A recent audit in the City of Los Angeles estimated the average cost at $550,000 per unit. According to a program overview released by the Santa Clara County’s Office of Supportive Housing, their average cost is in excess of $500,000 per unit. In San Francisco, according to a report released by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, over $700,000 per unit. Across the Bay in Alameda County, a 2018 report released by the City of Oakland discloses average costs of over $600,000 per unit. […] Read More

The Inclusion Delusion

California’s public universities already apply variable standards to their undergraduate admissions programs in order to fulfill defacto racial quotas. Now they’re requiring their faculty applicants to submit “diversity statements.”

Both of these practices distract from more important questions: Are student applicants academically competitive? Are faculty applicants experts in their fields? As will be seen, California’s public universities have moved far away from these fundamentals. And as goes California, so goes the nation.

Prioritizing race and gender diversity over academic excellence has consequences, not the least of which is how those who object to these priorities are intimidated. Dr. Abigail Thompson, professor and chair of the Department of Mathematics at UC Davis is one of the most recent victims.

In a letter published by the American Mathematical Society, of which she is a vice president, Thompson objected to the “diversity statements” which are now required of all faculty applicants, and which she claims have become “central to the hiring process.” Thompson compared these diversity statements to the “loyalty oaths” that were required of UC faculty during the 1950s McCarthy era.

One specific example Thompson cites describes how these diversity statements are scored. Using UC Berkeley’s official “rubric to assess candidate contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” she shows how if a faculty applicant asserts that they will mentor and treat “all students the same regardless of background,” they will earn a score of 1 or 2, on a scale where 1 is the worst and 5 is the best.

[…] Read More

We Three Kings of America

This Christmas season, decorate your trees and hang your stockings, and know that three kings come again, bearing gifts. But this time, 2,020 years later, these three kings bear gifts not for the baby Jesus, but for the Democratic party. The biggest lie in American politics today is that Republicans are the party of the wealthy elite, and the Democrats are fighting for the little guy.

While corporate political spending is split roughly equally between Democrats and Republicans, in all other categories the Democrats are way in front. Labor unions, which collect and spend at least $14 billion per year in the United States, are almost exclusively committed to Democratic candidates. And while Republicans still have some mega donor individuals, most of them only contribute to candidates who espouse the same agenda as the Democrats – open borders, “free” trade, and endless wars.

The Democratic mega donors, however, not only outspend their Republican counterparts, they know how to get results. Which brings us to the first of our Three Kings of the 2020 political season.

Tom Steyer, with an estimated net worth of $1.6 billion. As a presidential candidate, Steyer has no chance. But behind his hopeless campaign is a deeper strategy. Steyer is bringing visibility and building support for several organizations he’s founded, all of them already powerful forces in national politics.

Steyer may not be the wealthiest mega donor on the scene, but he’s willing to spend what he’s got. As cited in Read More

The Many Unintended Consequences of AB 5

By now anyone who works as an independent contractor in California has heard of AB 5, which will force companies to reclassify them as employees. The justification for AB 5, which was reportedly written by the AFL-CIO, is to prevent companies from exploiting workers. Without AB 5, the reasoning goes, companies hire freelancers to do the same work employees would do, in order to avoid paying for benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workman’s compensation.

The Social Security argument has no merit, because freelancers are still required to pay Social Security taxes, and still get Social Security benefits when they retire. They pay the employee and employer share, because they’re self employed. Ditto for Medicare. The rate a self-employed independent contractor accepts in exchange for their services should take that into account.

While there may be some merit to the argument that companies hire freelancers to avoid paying unemployment insurance and workman’s compensation, there might have been other legislative solutions to that, such as setting up the means for independent contractors to purchase their own unemployment and workman’s compensation insurance – or, (gasp), roll a workman’s compensation individual option into Covered California.

Instead, AB 5 creates far more problems than it solves.

Predictably enough, those special interests with enough clout to carve out their own industries from being affected by AB 5 made their voices heard in Sacramento. Courtesy of CalMatters, here are some of the jobs that are exempt from the impact of […] Read More

Alliances Necessary for the Great Realignment

Anyone who doubts that a fundamental realignment in American politics is at least possible should come to California. With nearly 7 million of its 40 million residents living below the poverty line, and 150,000 homeless, the Golden State, for all its economic might and cultural clout, is becoming a failed state.

What Californians need is affordable energy, affordable housing, water that isn’t rationed, practical transportation options, law and order, a friendly business climate, and a quality system of public education. Californians get none of those things today. Instead they are subjected to a nonstop barrage of divisive political indoctrination on the topics of race, gender, and the imminent climate apocalypse.

It’s easy to give up, because there’s a reason Californians can’t afford to live in California, or run a small business, or get a decent education for their children in the public schools. California has reverted to a political economy that can best be described as feudal. There is an aristocracy of super rich tech billionaires, wealthy entertainment celebrities, and international investors. They are supported by a privileged elite consisting of unionized government workers, service professionals such as attorneys and CPAs, and those who are fortunate enough to manage or work for very large global corporations.

These privileged elites benefit from keeping things just the way they are. They control the media, academia, K-12 education, and the government bureaucracy. They’ve used their financial and administrative clout to buy nearly every elected official in the state. They exercise absolute […] Read More

Can Americans Still Be Bigger Than Their Differences?

Sooner or later the lights up above Will come down in circles and guide me to love – Fall On Me, by A Great Big World & Christina Aguilera

What does it take to step beyond the mundane, the known, the settled certainties that govern our ideologies and alliances? What exceptional American passion still guides all of us, no matter how far apart we may think we are on so many issues that matter so much?

Last month the American Music Awards had its annual televised extravaganza. While show’s format inevitably presented fodder for conservative criticism, late in the program, singers Christine Aguilera and Ian Axel took the stage to deliver a new song of extraordinary beauty. Not only was the song utterly apolitical and touched universal themes, if you changed just a few words it could have been a gospel hit delivered by Hillsong.

The rapturous reception this song received, and the enduring power of a song like this before any audience, speaks to something universally present in the American psyche that can still be tapped – traits all Americans share of empathy, compassion, hope, and transcendental love.

So much has been alleged about how facts guide the conservative right-wing agenda, and emotion guides the liberal left-wing agenda. There’s probably some truth to this. One could go further and allege that to the extent the conservative agenda invokes fear and emotion, it is fear and emotion based on facts – welfare states cannot afford to absorb millions […] Read More

California Pioneers Subsidized Housing for Public Employees

When it comes to affordable housing, what California’s state legislators have done epitomizes what happens when you have a government bureaucracy that serves itself instead of the public, one that is under the complete control of special interests.

They have enacted laws that have made it nearly impossible for the private sector to build homes, which has made homes unaffordable. Then to supposedly solve the problem they created, they brought in the public sector to build “affordable housing.” Their “solution” is a preposterous fraud that has already wasted tens of billions, and the worst is yet to come.

Nothing about publicly subsidized affordable housing is affordable. As a matter of fact, government funded “affordable housing” costs far more to construct than privately funded housing. But thanks to the politically engineered shortage of privately funded housing, and thanks to the result of this, a politically engineered and unaffordable price to rent or purchase homes, public housing is being sold to voters as a humanitarian necessity. And after the taxpayers foot the bill to construct this housing, taxpayers then foot the bill to subsidize the “affordable” rental rates charged the lucky occupants. Forever.

Subsidized housing developments were once known as the “projects,” which back in the 1960s were built as part of the “war on poverty.” These attempts at providing free housing backfired, as tenants with no ownership stake had no incentive to care for their property. But at least the projects were built cost-effectively. No such luck this time around. […] Read More

Is Another YouTube Purge Imminent?

Get ready for the new euphemism for social media censorship: “no longer commercially viable.” YouTube on December 10 reportedly will implement new terms of service that allow the video-sharing goliath to end creator accounts summarily if they cannot be monetized. And how will YouTube decide if an account cannot be monetized? By removing ads from a channel ahead of the changing terms.

British nationalist Laura Towler sounded the alarm on Wednesday and urged her viewers to subscribe to her BitChute account after receiving a notification from YouTube of the impending changes. Towler reported that her videos were still monetized as of Tuesday. But after she received the notice, she discovered that YouTube had peremptorily removed all of the ads on her videos.

As a result, her channel is “no longer commercially viable.”

Since 2016, and with increasing frequency, conservatives and nationalists are seeing their YouTube channels erased, often with no warning or explanation. In the blink of an eye, years of work creating content and building an audience are lost, often along with the related income.

Towler is not the first right-of-center vlogger to warn of another impending purge. Earlier this month, Chadwick Moore, a columnist for Spectator USA with 51,100 Twitter followers, tweeted: “Any political YouTubers with remotely interesting, controversial, or right-of-center content needs to set up their @bitchute or other alt account now and start moving videos over and promoting their new platform. Sources say massive purge is starting mid-December. Worse than ever.”

The […] Read More