“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Wednesday, April 04, 2018

Is it US or Them? There are 5 billion too many people in the World

Frog-Marching to Revolution

The lightning-fast takedown of Fox television host Laura Ingraham last week signals escalating partisan fevers that show no sign of breaking or going away. News viewers today want something quick and lurid, something that’s “entertaining,” and they want it Twitter-brief. Many tune in to watch a fight club and are quick to change a channel if they don’t see some sparks and heat. Message journalism is frog-marching America from spectacle to spectacle, trying to sow revolutionary zeal as it goes.

Like a Greek chorus, the Parkland Survivors move from newsroom to newsroom. They are on the Resistance circuit, voices of the gods, ethereal and irreproachable, managed by seasoned politicos eager to gut the Second Amendment and impeach President Donald J. Trump after mid-term elections.

The Survivors tug at heartstrings and stir maternal feelings. The dead were good kids, not ghetto thugs or victims of illegal handguns, the true seed of armed crime and gun violence. Yet less than two weeks after March For Our Lives, even the New York Times asks about gun control’s ability to drive fall elections: moment or movement?

Immigration policy and national integrity have more political traction than gun restriction. Down Mexico way, thousands of raggle-taggle Hondurans are marching toward the United States border in a Camp of the Saints-style pilgrimage called Pueblos Sin Fronteras. Its organizers would like nothing better than to provoke a televised standoff between border patrol agents and drifters, or to create an impasse between state authorities and the federal government.
Caravans coming, the President tweets, shrewdly aware of the optics and their opportunities. The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming across Mexico and heading to our “Weak Laws” Border, had better be stopped before it gets there. 

Who’s behind Pueblos Sin Fronteras? Mainstream U.S.-based religious and legal authorities, including the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, American Immigration Council, and — surprise! — American Immigration Lawyers Association. Refugees seeking asylum have special border rights and staying powers.

Open-borders advocates claim American greed and imperialism are the sources of Central American misery. In fact, Mexican drug cartels began to use violent, lawless Honduras as a depot twenty years ago. A generation of disinvestment, crime, and anarchy has poisoned any prior semblance of civil society. Where those drugs go, that’s part of the story too, so the U.S. is not without impunity.

These itinerant Hondurans are poignant extras in a big political television movie slowly playing out in El Norte and all over the world. Uprooted peasants and day laborers in hoodies and Mickey Mouse T-shirts marching north have little to lose. If admitted to the U.S., some might fill low-end jobs that others avoid. More will scrounge indefinitely through aid and social services. The plight of billions is something Americans can’t fix.

World population world has risen from 2.5 to 7 billion in the last 50 years. Europe still reels from the 2015 Muslim incursion, a mere million migrants. No one in Europe’s ruling class can talk about fending off prospective African incursions. Davos globalists think immigrant restriction is racist — or just expensive. From Israel to Australia, firm efforts to keep the Fourth World at bay receive intensely hostile press.

American voters by and large like the immigrant idea. The questions are who and how many. Semi-literate, young vagabonds with neck and body tattoos suggest armed gangs, desolate neighborhoods, and scary schools. We have plenty of this already, voters think to themselves.
The Fourth World proves incapable of providing civil security, hospitals, sanitation, or even steady electricity. Buildings fall down. Wells dry up. Officials are brazen thieves and themselves can be drug dealers. The rule of law is barely a fiction. So why not colonize the First World instead?

The “refugee caravans” have only begun. How the First World will deal with them is not yet known.

If spurred by dire misfortune, the wretched of the earth — and they are limitless — will not dwell on fine points of law or hesitate to use force to expropriate what their First World allies insist rightfully belongs to them. U.S. resistance to gun controls intersects with sinking social trust and fear of civil disorder.

Native-born and naturalized citizens together demand for themselves and their children a country that’s safe and recognizable. Gun and immigration policies are essential parts of their calculation. Many side with President Trump, warts and all, on account of these issues. To its detriment the Resistance cannot yet accept that vital political fact.


  1. .

    Is it US or Them? There are 5 billion too many people in the World

    A provocative headline and I think most here will agree as to whom the author thinks is the US and the Them.


    1. .

      The Anti-Science President

      Those who argue that population growth can be managed usually pin their hopes on the intelligence of humans and the technological achievements they continue to produce.

      If they are counting on a big surge in innovation out of the US, they may have to wait until Trump is out of office.

      Trump has been called the first 'Anti-Science President'. This is because of the people he surrounds himself with and the things he says and does.

      "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

      It's obvious from his budget proposal that Trump's main priority (other than profit and self-aggrandizement) is the military. The military is his first option whether it comes to intimidation, diplomacy, or now immigration control. His budget reflects this. Over the past two years we have seen massive increases in military spending, increases that are projected to go on for years such as the $trillions we'll be spending modernizing our nuclear arsenal.

      But even the GOP realizes that there is a limit to the amount of money you can print each year, therefore, the budget cuts in other major programs including medical and scientific research. The following article list some of the cuts he has made that affect science now and going forward.

      Some of the other weird Trump beliefs...

      You could find dozens of similar articles.

      In search of short term gain and approval from his base Trump guts key regulations affecting the health and safety of millions of Americans; because of promises to his major contributors he swings trade deals that can and will likely affect the health of American's; responding to big oil and coal he guts clean air and water regulations and pulls out of the Paris Accord a completely voluntary agreement, with no punishment for non-compliance where each country to set our their targets for reducing air pollution.

      Infrastructure spending? A pipe dream. Maybe he'll get around to it later. Maybe not.


    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Idaho had 150,000 people when I was born Now it has 1,5000,000 and Boise area is the fastest growing area in the state :(:(

    I have found two really good places that have lost people here, due to the young people giving up hunting and fishing....u-tubing is so much easier....

    1. Go back a little earlier and it was just a few horse farmers and the red men holding on for dear life....

  3. Shit up a beautiful Earth, jump to lifeless Mars.

    What could go wrong?

  4. I read that with out the immigrants, legal and otherwise coming in, we'e have a sable population.

    1. The country needs more immigrant sables, the living kind, not the dead kind.

      I've always maintained that. The sable population needs to be stabilized.

  5. "You can't lose a trade war when you're already a trillion in the hole"

    from: Sayings Of The Agricultural Ancestor

  6. April 4, 2018
    Leak that Trump is not a 'criminal target' of Mueller team looks like manipulation

    By Thomas Lifson

    I am suspicious of the latest "news" regarding the Mueller probe that has morphed from its original charter to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election into something far broader, based on a secret memo from Rod Rosenstein. According to leaks to the Washington Post by "two people with knowledge of the conversations":

    Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump's attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

    In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

    Before any Trump-supporters take comfort in this, consider that this is far from a final dismissal of charging Trump. The difference between a "subject" and a "target" is explained in The Week:

    A "subject" is someone whose conduct prosecutors are investigating but they don't have sufficient evidence to bring charges against. Mueller and Trump's attorneys were negotiating the terms of a possible presidential interview when he made the announcement, and Mueller said he wants to ask Trump about whether he tried to block the investigation so he can finish this part of the probe, the Post reports. Mueller also told Trump's attorneys he is working on a report about Trump's actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice, two people with knowledge of the matter told the Post.

    Josh Gerstein in Politico adds:

    "As a practical matter, federal prosecutors typically don't decide until late in an investigation whether they will charge a person who is under investigation," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote on Twitter. "Usually prosecutors don't make that judgement [sic] until they've interviewed witnesses and reviewed the relevant documents. ... All today's news tells us is that Mueller hasn't decided to indict Trump at this time. If Trump's lawyers know what they're doing, they'll tell him he's still under great risk."

    But what leaped out at me is something highly irregular, it seems. From the WaPo:

    Mueller's investigators have indicated to the president's legal team that they are considering writing reports on their findings in stages – with the first report focused on the obstruction issue, according to two people briefed on the discussions.

    1. Under special counsel regulations, Mueller is required to report his conclusions confidentially to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who has the authority to decide whether to release the information publicly.

      The key word here is "confidentially." Yet the very next paragraph in the story, written by Carol D. Leonnig and Robert Costa, tells us:

      "They've said they want to write a report on this – to answer the public's questions – and they need the president's interview as the last step," one person familiar with the discussions said of Mueller's team.

      Clarice Feldman notes that Mueller has no authority to issue a public report. The statute governing him is different from the one that that applied to the Kenneth Starr investigation.

      (c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

      Yet left-wing Trump-hating Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe is exultant about the prospect of a report that has no basis in law:

      It appears to me that, based on the WaPo's leaks (if accurate), the Mueller team is planning to manipulate public opinion and thereby Trump's decision on whether to speak with the investigators:

      Mueller's investigators have indicated to the president's legal team that they are considering writing reports on their findings in stages – with the first report focused on the obstruction issue, according to two people briefed on the discussions. ...

      The president's allies believe a second report detailing the special counsel's findings on Russia's interference would be issued later.

      Obstruction would be a process crime. We have no information about what exactly might be in such a report, but there have been suggestions that President Trump's firing of James Comey as FBI head – his clear constitutional prerogative – could be taken as obstruction. I am no lawyer, but this would require mind-reading of a high order. And criminalizing the exercise of constitutionally stipulated powers seems highly dubious.

      The Post cites anonymous "experts" who believe that the goal is not criminal charges, but impeachment:

      If Mueller finds Trump engaged in criminal conduct, he could detail it in a report, experts argue, and let Congress to decide whether to launch impeachment proceedings based on Mueller's findings.

      "The president's personal risk is primarily on the impeachment front," [Princeton professor Keith] Whittington said. "Even if there are not things that lead to indictment, there may be matters that warrant an impeachment investigation and proceedings."

      I am highly suspicious that the leak that he is not a criminal target and prospect of a public report by Mueller – despite the fact that the law specifies that his report must be confidential – is being used to manipulate President Trump into speaking with the Mueller investigators. As General Flynn learned, even innocent memory lapses or inadvertent misunderstanding of the scope of a question can lead to criminal charges with this group made up of mostly or exclusively Democrat partisans.

      The Trump legal team is remaining silent for now.

      Private lawyer for Trump, Jay Sekulow, declined to say Tuesday whether Mueller's office has raised the possibility of a report or offered an assurance about Trump's status in the ongoing probe.

      "We do not discuss real or alleged conversations between our legal team and the Office of Special Counsel," Sekulow said. White House attorney Ty Cobb also declined to comment.

  7. For QUIRKto put in his pipe and smoke -


  8. What happened to Laura Ingraham?

    1. She got Hogg tied, but she'll be back next week.

    2. She told Srudent Hogg off and people started pulling her ads and she took a pre planned vacation for a week.

      Now there is a counter boycott against Student Hogg.

      She returns next week after everyone has forgotten all about it.


    3. .

      He's a sweet boy proud of his dad and his corrupt institution.


  9. Joe Di Nenowa and Allen Dershowitz are up next on Hannity. Don't miss it.

    1. Chief Joe of the Nenowa Tribe.

    2. When did Joe finally make Chief ?

      I always knew him as just another Brave.

      Are all the Nenowa Chiefs now ?

  10. President Trump Job Approval - RCP Average: -11.5 (Disapprove)
    2018 Generic Congressional Vote - RCP Average: Democrats +7.5

  11. Congressional Job Approval: -59.2 (Disapprove)
    Direction of Country: -20.3 (Wrong track)


  12. Putin cements powerful new alliance with Iran and Turkey in challenge to Trump and the West as the three leaders vow to bring a 'lasting ceasefire' to Syria at summit in Ankara

    Iran's Hassan Rouhani joined President Erdogan and President Putin in Ankara Wednesday for talks on Syria
    Leaders are attempting to put aside their differences to achieve a 'lasting ceasefire' in the war-torn country
    Trio form unlikely allies as Iran and Russia back the Syrian regime while Turkey backs Free Syrian Army rebels
    Partnership is increasingly diminishing western influence in the region, as Trump mulls pulling troops out


    PUBLISHED: 12:55 EDT, 4 April 2018 | UPDATED: 02:52 EDT, 5 April 2018

    The leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran met in Ankara for talks yesterday as they cemented their unlikely alliance over Syria in a challenge to US and western influence in the region.

    President Putin, President Erdogan and President Rouhani vowed to work together to create a 'lasting ceasefire', build a hospital for wounded civilians in Eastern Ghouta and allow refugees to return home.

    But the deepening ties between the trio will be a concern to the US as its ability to influence the future of the country and the region wains and President Trump openly mulls pulling troops out.

    Time to vote Turkey out of NATO.

    1. US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania –
      Aug 18, 2016 - EXCLUSIVE/ Two independent sources told that the US has started transferring nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey to Romania, against the background of worsening relations between Washington and Ankara. ... According to a recent report by the Simson Center, since the Cold ...
      Missing: doesusa

  13. One whacked out bitch.

    Almost reminded me of Hillary for some odd reason.

  14. April 5, 2018

    Wow! Must-see evisceration of Rod Rosenstein and the Mueller investigation
    By Thomas Lifson

    Sean Hannity's timing and choice of guests last night could not have been better. Combine Alan Dershowitz, the liberal with principles, and Joe diGenova, the principled foe of government abuse, to discuss the ex post facto secret memo from Rod Rosenstein expanding Mueller's investigation, and you get intelligent fireworks that shed a lot of light.

    This is one video that pays huge dividends for the eight minutes you invest in it.

  15. HERE IT IS=> The 10 Different Reasons the Mueller Investigation is Unconstitutional!
    Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft April 5, 2018
    Guest post by Joe Hoft

  16. .


    American Thinker and Gateway Pundit.

    That's a big bet on double-zero if I've ever seen one.



    1. .

      WaPo is truth.

      That is all.


    2. We await Quirk's refutation of the substance of the charge.

  17. Planned Parenthood's Graphic, Violent Sex Ed in Public Schools

    Sex education in public schools has gone off the deep end. Gone are the days of handing out birth control and practicing putting condoms on bananas.

    These days your kid is more likely to come away from school with more sexually deviant knowledge than single gay dudes in New York City have thanks to Planned Parenthood's comprehensive sex ed program that has somehow made it into public school curriculums.

    These programs teach dangerous and violent practices like BDSM, asphyxiation, gender-bending, anal sex, and let's not forget "rimming," which can saddle your kid with nasty parasitic infections.

    1. BDSM is a variety of often erotic practices or roleplaying involving bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadomasochism, and other related interpersonal dynamics.

    2. Jeez, that sounds rough. Brutal even. Quirk couldn't be involved in something like that because he's basically a wimp at heard.

      He might pay to watch, though.


    3. Rosenstein's face always reminds me of someone involved in such behavior.

    4. Mueller back at control central giving orders.

    5. Rim him again, Rod, then take it!

      (The Rod)

    6. Rod The Rimmer Rosenstein.


    8. Practice:,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1440,w_2560,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1495154394/170518-woodruff-mak-rosenstein-tease_jmw3oi

  18. My Mom Reacts To My Articles

    - Christina Muoio

    When I first got published, I sent my mom my article. Instead of being excited and proud of me, my mom sent me a list of critiques that will, no doubt, make me a better writer. Step aside, Daily Nexus editors, because my mom is after your job.

    1. “Why do you use swear words in your articles? That’s not proper!”

    I fucking swear because I’m a fucking adult. I go to school with other adults who also fucking swear. It’s fucking fine.

    2. “This is supposed to be a joke, right? Please tell me this is a joke.”

    Nope, Nexustentialism is 100 percent real facts. I promise.

    3. “Don’t promote drug use and drinking.”

    Chill, fam. #partyschoolreaxonly

    4. “Stop writing bad articles and do your homework.”

    But Mom! Homework is boooooring!

    5. “Stop making fun of white people. You’re half white, you should know better.”

    This comment is too spicy for me to handle. Do you happen to have water or milk by any chance?

    6. “Stay away from raccoons! They’re so dirty!”...

  19. By the way, Mueller has come up with a dry hole, says The Donald isn't a 'target'.

    Quirk, dressed all in black, is devastated, and in mourning, and Ash has gone silent.

    Hillary has all along been the one richly deserving a Special Council.

    Whole thing has been a FARCE since Day 1, an opinion often expressed on these august pages by no one other than YOURS TRULY, Bob.

  20. GOP Will Soon Reap What Dems Sowed
    In Their Resistance

    By CONRAD BLACK, Special to the Sun | April 3, 2018

    The thrusting green shoots of early spring and visions of cotton-tailed rabbits confounding my wife’s splendid Hungarian dogs by their acrobatic zig-zag jumping have incited me to make some predictions about this midterm-election year. Congress has given notice that it has effectively shut down, having passed its egregious omnibus-spending bill, as Senator Schumer and Minority Leader Pelosi welcomed Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan back to the pre-Trump days of Congress’s just rolling the pork barrel around with no serious guidance from the White House and unfazed by overwhelming disapproval ratings in the polls.

    Eighty-five percent of Americans are currently contemptuous of the Congress, but they are not so angry as to become revolutionary about it, so the legislators, almost all of whom were subjected to withering ridicule by Candidate Trump, are radically divided. The House Democrats would impeach the president, for no cause, but for the fun of it and to immobilize him while the infantile nonsense of a Senate trial failed to remove him. This is the Maxine Waters/Jerrold Nadler/Red Queen Law School.

    The Republicans would spare the president, the country, and the world that indignity, but lack the energy or imagination to do anything about health care, immigration, infrastructure, welfare reform, the deficit, or anything else of any significance. The Congress claims to have just 75 work days left before the November elections, and the Senate, strangled by Democratic intransigence, will do brilliantly by its recent standards if it confirms the nominees to the present cabinet vacancies (State, Veterans Affairs, CIA). The many vacant embassies and judgeships will have to wait, for the voters.

    Mr. Trump’s assault on the entire political class has won him the White House, and brought over most of the Republican senators and congressmen to support of his program, if not with the The president is slowly climbing in the polls, as prosperity rises steadily. The total-immersion smear campaign of the Democratic party and the press is reduced to demented repetition (Adam Schiff, the legislative voice of the intellectual abyss of Hollywood), Carl Bernstein’s constitutional-crisis tour (now in its 45th year), and the theories that Mr. Trump’s lawyer’s paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 constituted an illegal campaign contribution (to Mr. Trump) or that firing James Comey for obvious cause might be a triable case of obstruction of justice.

    Before we get to the first week in November, I think approximately the following events will occur. There will be a four-power agreement between the two Koreas, China, and the United States that the Korean peninsula will, as verified by believably rigorous inspection, be denuclearized and it will be agreed that the Peninsula will be reunified only by spontaneous consent between the two Koreas without outside influence. Kim Jong Un can claim this is a victory of legitimization, but the removal of the North Korean nuclear threat will be a clear victory for President Trump also.

    1. If the talks with North Korea do not produce such an outcome, the administration will achieve the denuclearization by direct air attacks at minimum cost in lives and without a land war, yielding no concessions at all to the North, so the agreement described is likely.

      Hysteria about trade wars will settle down, and it will become clear that the administration is negotiating toward trade arrangements that do not yield such lopsided deficits for the United States as do the present arrangements with China, Japan, and Mexico. Everyone will see that the Russian-collusion argument, which was the Holy Grail of the Democratic party and the press for 18 months, is a gigantic canard.

      In fact, as any historically informed person would agree after two seconds’ reflection, no one ever nominated by a major party to the presidency of the United States would have entertained for an instant colluding with a foreign power to rig or influence an American presidential election. It is too outlandish a suggestion to be taken seriously, or even made the stuff of a novel.

      The attempts to present Donald Trump as a Manchurian Candidate, “groomed for the presidency by the Russians” (as the DNC-funded Steele dossier claimed), and promoted by $1 million a month on Facebook (most of which went to decry the condition of the country with nonpartisan impartiality, or to promote Bernie Sanders or the Greens), is a descent to the ahistorical, inconceivable nether region of outright madness.

      This was a campaign in which Mrs. Clinton smashed all records by spending $250 million in attack ads — “advertisements of no policy content,” as they are officially classified. She outspent Mr. Trump almost two to one overall, in a campaign where the two candidates splashed out almost $2.5 billion.

      The main Russian component was the Democratic National Committee’s commitment of over $10 million for the Steele dossier, replete with scatological and salacious trimmings for the delectation of the FBI, which made it the core of illegal acts of surveillance and harassment by one party against another through a suborned and corrupted legal system.

    2. We must be close to the point where Robert Mueller has to decide whether he is going to acknowledge that the cause for which his special-counsel investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 election was set up — after the illegal leaking of a contested account of a conversation with the president by James Comey immediately after he was fired as director of the FBI — has been thoroughly plumbed and has yielded interesting information about Russian endeavors but no evidence whatever of any collusion with any substantial American political party.

      There obviously is no such evidence, despite 18 months of tearing everything apart, and shock-and-awe prosecutions of peripheral people for unconnected alleged offenses, all by a rabidly partisan Trump-hating gang of partially lawless vigilantes recruited by Mr. Mueller for the task. If he can’t face such an honorable but unsensational dénouement, Mr. Mueller can wander around a while longer in Mr. Trump’s doubtless complicated finances, but with no visible hope of connecting anything Mr. Trump received with political improprieties.

      Mr. Mueller can take a step toward making respectable what is now a warlock-hunt of the oppressive special-counsel system, or “fade away” like General MacArthur’s “Old Soldier” as he sifts irrelevancies from the past in unpublicized futility, another redundancy in the vast Washington wasteland of dispensable people and activities, a trivia question and “whatever happened to” subject.

      Whatever Mr. Mueller does, he will be overshadowed by the long-delayed blow-up of the nuclear grenade of Democratic skullduggery: the complicity of senior officials of the Obama administration, including the former president himself and his attorney general and deputy attorney general (Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates), in false or negligently incomplete information securing an illegal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant against the innocuous Carter Page, deliberately mishandling and misstating the Clinton email abuse, and slipshod handling, including by then–FBI director Mueller and then U.S. attorney Rosenstein, of the Uranium One controversy.

      It will start to explode with the inspector general’s report on the FBI, and will eventually expose the most outrageous political dirty trick (Steele dossier) and greatest scandal (politicization of the federal justice system) in U.S. history. The much-denigrated J. Edgar Hoover, in 48 years at the head of the federal police, never intervened in a presidential election or gave any hint of partisanship. Watergate was a forced entry of which the president had no knowledge, which resulted in no theft or property damage.

      Mr. Trump will run on prosperity, Democratic corruption, the Korean settlement, and immigration — especially the Democrats’ ambition to flood the country with illegal welfare cases and perpetuate their incumbency with the bought votes of unskilled foreigners, while preventing the census from accurately attributing congressional districts and Electoral College votes and while conspiring with mayors (including in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago) to violate federal immigration laws. He will promote deportation of the 3 million convicted lawbreakers among them and naturalization of the rest including the DACA people and Dreamers, and the adoption of merit-based immigration as in most advanced countries, such as Canada and Australia.

      So dependent have the Democrats become on these illegal-migrant votes, they have no apparent notion of their political vulnerability. My prediction is that the president will conduct an unprecedentedly strenuous midterm campaign, the Republicans will gain six or seven senators and retain control of the House of Representatives, a number of the prominent Democrats mentioned above will be indicted, and the congressional Republicans, with refreshed leadership, will be energized to deal with the president’s program. The Democrats have sown, and Donald Trump shall reap.

  21. Chinese Girl in the Ghetto

    As China opens itself to the world and undertakes historic economic reforms, a little girl in the southern city of Guangzhou immerses herself in a world of fantasy and foreign influences while grappling with the mundane vagaries of Communist rule. She happily immigrates to Oakland, California, expecting her new life to be far better in all ways than life in China. Instead, she discovers crumbling schools, unsafe streets, and racist people. In the land of the free, she comes of age amid the dysfunction of a city's brokenness and learns to hate in the shadows of urban decay. This is the unforgettable story of her journey from China to an American ghetto and how she prevailed.


    "Direct and unvarnished, this book describes the endless possibilities of a free society that allows its citizens to chart their own destiny. Ying Ma takes her readers to dark corners where poverty, crime, and racism reign, all the while reminding us that even amid a sea of hate, individuals can choose to believe in kindness, decency, personal responsibility, and racial equality."
    -- Ward Connerly, Founder and President, American Civil Rights Institute, and Author, Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences

    "A beautiful account of a young girl's encounter with the insidiousness of authoritarianism in China and the tragedies of inner-city America. Ying Ma boldly details some of the worst imperfections of American society, all the while showing, with her own example, why freedom is worth choosing."
    -- Xiao Qiang, Adjunct Professor, University of California at Berkeley, and Founder and Editor-in-Chief, China Digital Times

    1. Interview starts @ 26 minutes in this podcast:

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Ying Ma spoke to the Conservative Women’s Network last Friday about

      “Immigrating to America Is Not an Entitlement.”

      Hosted by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and the Heritage Foundation, CWN is a monthly luncheon series featuring conservative women speakers.

      To view the program, please click HERE or the YouTube player below.

    4. Says Chinese refer to Kim as "The Third Fatty"


  22. April 5, 2018
    Is the Second Amendment for Just the Militia ?
    By William Sullivan

    Let's begin with the simplest of observations. Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes.

    The first is to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies (which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order.

    The second is to explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights exists. The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments. Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.

    Some miss this simplest of understandings.

    Take Brett Arends, who, in 2016 after the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, committed to a different argument at Market Watch. He argues that the Second Amendment does not describe a "limitation" of the federal government's authority, as is commonly understood of each of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. Rather:

    The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It's not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into a saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government.

    His argument as to the veracity of this statement is among the more laughable things you'll ever read. He cites Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, cherry-picking choice phrases from the essay, filling in the gaps with his own thoughts. For example, Arend writes:

    Each state militia should be a "select corps," "well trained," and able to perform "the operations of an army." The militia needed "uniformity in ... organization and discipline," wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army "in camp and in the field," and so that it could gain the "essential ... degree of proficiency in military functions."

    Hamilton was explicitly arguing against a standing, full-time federal military, favoring "well-regulated" militias among the states to preserve liberty from a tyrannical federal government. But Arend's logic appears to be based upon nothing more than an observation of the fact that a "well-regulated militia" is cited by both the Second Amendment and Federalist 29, so therefore, Federalist 29 must be making the case that the Second Amendment's purpose is to secure solely the militia's "right to keep and bear" firearms, not the right of "the people" as the Second Amendment explicitly states. There is nothing more that binds Federalist 29 to Arend's claim.

    1. Perhaps it's pertinent to note, however, that there are mountains of practical examples among Hamilton's contemporaries refuting that claim.

      Samuel Adams, in 1788 (the same year this Federalist Papers essay was published), said plainly that the "Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

      James Madison, in 1789, said before the explicit language of the 2nd Amendment had been ratified (emphasis added) that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

      George Mason, in 1788 to the Virginia Ratifying Convention: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

      Even Hamilton, in Federalist 29, asserts the same. It's pretty clear that Brett Arend missed a key point Hamilton makes in the essay.

      Arend offers that "Hamilton was scathing about the idea that the 'militia' could mean every Bob, Billy, and Benjamin with a musket," saying Hamilton wrote that a militia is "the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it."

      But that's not the whole quote by Hamilton in Federalist 29. It actually reads (emphasis added):

      [A]n army of any magnitude ... can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline or the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and the rights of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, should it exist.

    2. This is the sentence immediately before the one Arend references, which specifically cites that a "large body of citizens" – i.e., every law-abiding "Bob, Billy, and Benjamin" – should be both disciplined and armed with weaponry comparable to the "standing army," and that this is the "best possible security against [a standing army], should it exist." Arend conveniently left that last bit out in his selective dissection of the essay, too. Because that "standing army" does exist, and Hamilton's words are still relevant.

      Hamilton's prescription for liberty was explicit. It describes an armed populace. Never once does he say guns should be limited among law-abiding citizens by the federal government, the tyranny feared by the anti-Federalists, whom he was entreating or hoped to pacify with this essay.

      Like the Second Amendment, Hamilton is describing the necessity of a "well-regulated militia" as a reason for an armed populace. Given that a "well-regulated militia" will, at times, be necessary to "the security of a free State," "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" by the federal government.

      This is all easily understood and sensible. Why is that wisdom disavowed by modern gun-grabbers, and worse, why are Hamilton's words being misrepresented?

      Leftists lost this battle long ago, because suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to protect a "state-sponsored militia" and not "the people" was always a losing battle when fought on the grounds of reason. The only way this "militia" boondoggle could succeed would be through revisionist assumptions about a "living Constitution" and judicial activism, not observation of history or honest appraisal of our Constitution's purpose.

      And thankfully, the Supreme Court abrogated all of that nonsense in recent years in the cases of Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago.

      Look no farther as to why former justice John Paul Stevens (whose last case over which he presided was McDonald) recently penned an op-ed for the New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. It is nothing short of surrender to the unmistakable logic of the Second Amendment's purpose. For the sweeping gun regulation that the left demands to be found consistent with the Constitution, the Second Amendment must first be abridged. And that will not happen anytime soon.

      Like most gun rights advocates, I appreciate Stevens's honesty, and I welcome the left's efforts to try.

  23. Dewpoint - 74°F (23°C)

    Temperature - 74°F (23°C)

    Humidity - 100%

  24. How refreshing to have a president with the testosterone to take up the cause of America first.

    1. .

      How refreshing to have a president with the testosterone to take up the cause of America first.



      He's a nutjob with no impulse control.

      His latest talk of trade wars is the perfect example. The fact that he is stirring the markets, that no small company affected by trade will want to invest because of the uncertainty he creates, that he throws out bullshit threats that he can't legally implement, that economist predict if the current bluster expands into a full grown trade war it will wipe out any benefit that comes from the tax bill, all of that means little to Trump because it affects him little. Sure Tech and Banking are suffering but Real Estate is one of the market leaders.

      You can bet if his actions actually negatively affected one of his (or one of his families) overseas properties we would be hearing a completely different tune from the man. Trump treats the presidency as a promotion scheme for his business interests.

      And the people who actually suffer? His base.

      And the people who say 'Man that guy's got balls. Thank you, sir, may I have another?' That's right, his base.


  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

  26. Rubbish, the Chinese have been hosing us from the moment Nixon "opened China". They are thieving , duplicitous cheats. Nothing can be done to undo that insane inanity of the current system that has financed the rise and militarization of China, but we can do plenty now to slow it and we should. We have a choice, continue, capitulate and put ourselves at their mercy, of which they have none.

    We can correct it and we should.

    There is no easy way, but the Chinese will have to pay the higher price. If they want to sell their bonds let them. If they want to redeem them, send them a check. If they want to go toe to toe on tariffs, that automatically puts them at a 3 to 1 disadvantage.

    The Fed has proven they can buy as many bonds as the Treasury can issue. If we have to cram down the upper 3% by forcing them to but treasuries, we can.

    If we have to engage in a national strategy of Chinese import replacement, good. We can, and we can make money doing it. It would be fantastic starting out with all new automated state of the art factories, made in USA.

    There is ample precedent. The Japanese and German , industrial base was decimated after WWII. They retooled and in a very short period of time became global competitors. The British were stuck with old factories and they died. We have a capital creating dynamo and can recreate any industry we choose in the Americas. This is a war that was inevitable.

    I welcome the fight.

    1. Deucce wrote:

      "If we have to cram down the upper 3% by forcing them to but treasuries, we can. "

      Force them to buy treasuries? Really, how?

    2. Simple. Pass a surcharge tax of 4%. Give them a 25% discount by buying the 3% amount in treasuries.

    3. surcharge tax on what? the money they hold offshore that they've so kindly told the IRS about?

  27. How large are the economic losses from intellectual property theft?

    The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property estimates the annual costs from the loss of intellectual property ranges from $225 billion to $600 billion. Of this amount, it’s unclear how much can be attributed to Chinese businesses.

    In a 2018 survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, more than half of members reported that leakage of intellectual property was a larger concern when doing business in China than elsewhere.

  28. How does China acquire intellectual property?

    American firms have to agree to set up a partnership, or joint venture, with a Chinese company to sell their goods in China, with technology transfer thrown into the bargain. Though this type of quid pro quo is formally disallowed by the WTO, analysts say such negotiations are usually conducted in secret.

    A paper by the St. Louis Federal Reserve in 2015 estimated that half of the technology possessed by Chinese companies came from foreign firms.


    Academics and lawyers say patent infringement is still widespread, but highlight Beijing’s resolve to strengthen its intellectual property laws, perhaps in recognition that domestic innovation is being held back by inadequate protections. This broader shift towards stiffer regulation also reflects China’s ambition to climb up the value chain as it looks to develop homegrown brands in films, semiconductors and cars, that are often occupied by U.S., Japan and other advanced economies.

    One source of complaint for foreign firms is that China also employs a first-to-file patent system, in other words, the first firm to file a trademark will receive it, whether or not they originated the product. This has sometimes allowed Chinese companies to sue American firms like Apple for patent infringement even though the allegedly imitated product was designed by the U.S. company.

  30. The United States mistakenly supported China’s membership of the World Trade Organization in 2001 on terms that have failed to force Beijing to open its economy, the Trump administration said on Friday as it prepares to clamp down on Chinese trade.

    Who was genius in chief in 2001?

  31. THE CHINA TRADE WRANGLE: THE BUSH SPEECH; Bush, Invoking 3 Presidents, Casts 'Vote' for China Trade


    Calling trade relations with China the work of ''13 years and three administrations,'' Gov. George W. Bush of Texas today urged Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike to support President Clinton and vote next week to grant China permanent trade rights.

    Although Mr. Bush has long favored free trade, his address here today on the vast factory floor of a Boeing plant marked one of the very few times that he has tried publicly to affect pending legislation in Congress. He called next week's House vote ''among the most serious decisions our government will make this year.'' And he said ''no one serious about shouldering the responsibilities of the Presidency'' should remain silent.

    ''From the start of this campaign I have defined some sharp differences with the Clinton-Gore administration,'' Mr. Bush said, a sleek Boeing 777 behind him. ''But today I want to address an important area of agreement. A pressing question now confronts the Congress and it will not wait until the next president takes office.''

    Mr. Bush drew some sharp distinctions between himself and Vice President Al Gore on China. But he portrayed the quest for a more open China, advanced through trade and the rule of law, as one that Presidents of both parties had fought for.

    ''This is not a Republican or Democratic concern,'' Mr. Bush said. ''It is an American concern. This trade agreement is the work of 13 years and three administrations. We cannot let that work be undone.'' He did not mention his father by name, although he was one of those Presidents. But he quoted Ronald Reagan, who called free trade ''a forward strategy for freedom.''

    With his remarks, Mr. Bush put himself in a tradition of bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy that has increasingly been eroded in recent years. And the speech was just the latest example of his efforts to portray himself as leader willing to reach across party lines.

    MAY 18, 2000

  32. .

    Nonsense back at you.

    No one denies the Chinese are a bunch of crooks. That wasn't what I was complaining about. Most people would target specific actions designed towards the problem not threaten trade wars and actions you can't legally pull off under current international rules.

    Trump threatens $100 million in tariffs but his own trade experts have only come up with $48 billion that they can document at this point. Unless you want to dump the WTO and its rules, Trump's threats are going to require additional work proving the claims. In the mean time, he sends the markets down 700 points today.

    I meant what I said. If his words negatively affected his holdings by 3% instead of the markets, he wouldn't be so cavalier.



  33. .

    DougThu Apr 05, 04:25:00 PM EDT
    We await Quirk's refutation of the substance of the charge.

    What charge, you nitwit? You never make charges. When is the last time you actually came out and in plain English issued a single declaritive sentence? It's not in your nature.

    A year or two back, you came up with your little dot act. Admittedly, it was a clever move.

    When you first did it.

    Now, it appears that was it, you blew your wad and now prove daily you are simply a one-hit wonder like an aging Norman Greenbaum trying to live off residuals from 'Spirit in the Sky'.

    You were a pasive aggressive sap before the dots and you are a passive agressive sap now. You have simply adjusted your technique. Your Dot-Boy act grew old about 48 hours after you started it. It grew stale many months ago. Now, its just a continuous stream of the same old bullshit. You ought to at least try to come up with some new material. But you don't or can't.

    I wasn't kidding when I pointed out how many times you had put up that same stale shit, 'Mueller's my hero!'. And as I pointed out, it's stupid. No one here has ever said that. I've never have. I haven't talked about Mueller's character at all. I don't talk about Mueller at all except on two occasions; one, when talking about how he is conducting the current investigation pretty well and two, in mocking you guys when you put up fake news like 'He can't be trusted because he is Comey's BFF' and other nonsense you cull from your conspiracy sites.

    I think your little act is old, stale, and unfunny but I put up with it until recently when half the stuff you imply I say is just bullshit you make up. This...


    WaPo is truth.

    That is all.


    As with most of your posts it is indecipherible. It may make sense to you, but to any normal reader they would have to ask, 'What the fuck does that mean?'.



    1. {...}

      Are you implying I said it? Well, if so, that like most of the stuff you put up, is a friggin lie.

      Are you saying people shouldn't read the WaPo? Well, that's mighty damn hypocritical since you put up articles from them whenever it suits you.

      Are you saying the WaPo is part of your other buggaboo, the infamous 'MSM', a term you throw around here all the time yet have continued to refuse to define for us either because you don't have a clue or because they never gave you the definition of the term in those daily talking points you guys get from Fox News and Gateway Pundit.

      Without a definition, we are left to assume it is like one of those fairy tales parents scare their kids with to make them be good, that or that it's simply anyone who says or writes something you don't like. Trust me, your continuous whine about the 'MSM' truly does make you look stupid. And I mean that in the best possible way.

      Do you press it because you believe the 'MSM', no matter what you think it is, is part of a worldwide conspiracy to bring down Trump, a conspiracy that like all the others you dolts believe in varies only in it's breadth.

      I realize this will fall on deaf ears but it is you guys who are the ones who have been brainwashed.

      You talk about 'fake news' being used as an attack on Trump.

      Pure nonsense. Trump is the 'fake news' king. He is the liar-in-chief. Every other word he says it a lie. He can't help himself. You guys prove it true everytime you (or his lawyers) argue he shouldn't testify in person before Mueller. You know it's true and that he would likely hang himself. But the worst part is he tells you black is white and you believe it lie some dumbass Stepford Wives clone.



    2. {...}

      You whine about Fusion GPS. You're silent about Cambridge Analytica.

      Not only are you a passive aggressive hypocrite, you are a brainwashed moron.

      The great "MSM" conspiracy?

      The same as with "fake news", it's simply a matter of projection with you guys on the right.

      Well, not you guys here. You're a little different. You would prefer reading some bullshit conspiracy theory printed in 'The Gateway Pundit' than listen to real news. You're like some teeny bopper reading 'Teen Life' or those bored housewives reading the 'National Enquirer'. But let's talk about the fairly 'normal' people in Trump's base.

      Trump and his supporters have made a concerted effort to prevent real news from reaching his base. His first ploy was of course to start trying to classify any negative story about him or his policies as 'fake news'. His right wing supporters in the media took up the meme and ran with it, the Limbaughs, FOX, all the conspiracy sites you guys visit. We've documented it here before but you still refuse to believe it.

      Here, however, is the latest example. The latest Pew research polling on how people get their news has been cited and posted here before. One key finding from the research was that most people get their political information from local news services. The same research showed that they do that because they have significantly more faith in what they hear from the local guys than they do from the national media.

      The conservative Sinclair Broadcasting Group, has been reported on here before too. It is the largest owner of local TV stations in the US and it is expected to get even larger with the purchase of the Tribune Group of stations. The move is currently being reviewed but is expected to be approved by the Trump administration. When it is Sinclair will be able to reach 72% of Americans on local TV.

      You want a conspiracy? Watch this video...

      Stepford Wives? How about Stepford News Anchors?

      Here is just one of the articles discussing the video...

      Conservative Media Giant Gives us 1984 Redux in 2018

      For a list of the numerous controversies Sinclair has been involved in from offering up commercial advertising as real news reports to the 'must read editorials' to the demanding that each local stations run at least 9 'reports' by ex-Trump flunky Epstein each week and more see the Wiki link...

      Sinclair Broadcasting Group

      - or-

      For a slightly more humorous take on Sinclair (it would be funnier if it weren't so serious) see the video below...

      Trump Broadcasting Group

      There is little doubt right wing media has become an echo chamber for Trump. The presidents own actions blatantly exploits it. He tries to discredit any media outlet that says one thing negative about him or his policies. Any story he doesn't like he labels it 'fake news'. Truly ironic coming from the 'liar in chief'. It is very likely his administration will be very receptive to any moves that expand his right wing propaganda machine as in the Sinclair purchase of Tribune this at the same time he is threatening Amazon who is run by the same guy that owns the WaPo or that he is fighting the AT&T merger with Time Warner, a company that owns CNN.

      Dougissa, every time you open your mouth about this grand "MSM" conspiracy you simply prove the dumb can get dumber.

      Keep up the good work.


    3. The charge was about the ex post facto memo authorizing Mueller to do what he did after he had already done it.

    4. .

      Right, and my charge was about you.


  34. Doug Thu Apr 05, 04:25:00 PM EDT

    We await Quirk's refutation of the substance of the charge

  35. How China can win a trade war in 1 move

    Jeff Spross
    REUTERS/David Gray
    April 6, 2018

    China will not be easily cowed in a trade dispute. Chinese President Xi Jinping is now exchanging threats of tit-for-tat tariffs with President Trump, who announced Thursday he's considering raising the stakes another $100 billion. China vowed to defend itself "at any cost."

    Compared to the scale of the U.S. economy, the numbers are still relatively trivial and mostly theoretical. But if things do spiral into all-out trade war, it's worth noting China has a nuclear option.

    I'm referring to rare earth metals.

    These are elements like dysprosium, neodymium, gadolinium, and ytterbium. They aren't actually rare, but they do play crucial roles in everything from smart phones to electric car motors, hard drives, wind turbines, military radar, smart bombs, laser guidance, and more. They're also quite difficult to mine and process.

    It turns out the United States is almost entirely dependent on foreign suppliers for rare earth metals. More importantly, it's almost entirely dependent on China specifically for rare earth metals that have been processed into a final and usable form.

    Basically, if China really wanted to mess with America, it could just clamp down on these exports. That would throw a massive wrench into America's supply chain for high-tech consumer products, not to mention much of our military's advanced weapons systems.

    In fact, China isn't just America's major supplier of rare earth metals; it's the rest of the globe's major supplier as well. And in 2009, China began significantly clamping down on its rare metal exports. Once, China briefly cut Japan off entirely after an international incident involving a collision between two ships. This all eventually led to a 2014 World Trade Organization spat, with America, Japan, and other countries on one side, and China on the other.....

    I'm just glad we've got Kudlow on the job looking out for USA now.

    1. In my book, the only fella that knows more about macro economics than Kudlow is Quirk.

      If things get tough the nation can always turn its longing eyes to Quirk-O.

    2. As long as he stays out of jail -

      Trump Derangement Syndrome leads to police charges against city council member - 4/6/18
      A mental health crisis grips tens of millions of Americans, causing untold anguish to their friends and families, and costing the victims dearly in terms of emotional turmoil and self-destructive behavior More

      A mental health crisis grips tens of millions of Americans, causing untold anguish to their friends and families, and costing the victims dearly in terms of emotional turmoil and self-destructive behavior they undertake in the grip of this vicious mass hysteria: Trump Dermangement Syndrome (TDS). The latest example comes from the affluent City of West University Place, Texas, a bedroom suburb of Houston with a population of just under 15,000 people, 90%-plus of them white. Channel 2 in Houston reports:....

  36. I don't know any thing about economics but I get the feeling The Donald is pushing things too fast.

    1. Also The Donald is mistreating the Kurds.

      'Pain' will make us 'much stronger'....DRUDGE

      I don't like the sounds of that.

    3. The pain in my hip ain't making me any stronger. I can barely hobble around.

      Never trust a politician who say pain is gonna make you stronger.

      It usually just hurts and takes your energy away.

    4. If Quirk said:

      "Bob, the pain's good for ya" I wouldn't believe a word of it.

      Even coming from Quirk, who is usually a straight shooter.

    5. Though he exaggerates a lot, so much so one can't believe a word he says.

    6. Ah, Tucker is on. He's a straight shooter.

    7. Kudlow: We’re Not In A Trade War With China … Yet
      ED MORRISSEYPosted at 4:01 pm on April 6, 2018

      The pain hasn't yet begun.

  37. Swamp: Guess Who Set Up Andrew McCabe's Legal Fund ?

    Read and find out, and make your skin crawl.

  38. Har de har har - some joke -

    April 6, 2018
    Senator Kamala Harris jokes about killing Trump, Pence, or Sessions
    By Thomas Lifson