Friday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~
The Widening Generation Gap
Tom McLaughlin
Mark Levin: Notice How 
Democrats Never Want to “Expand Liberty”
by Andrew } ~ On his radio program on Tuesday, legendary conservative talker Mark Levin turned his attention to the Democratic presidential race and some of the most prominent talking points being used by the leading candidates... Discussing the platforms of contenders like Elizabeth dinky-Warren and commie-Bernie Sanders, Levin explained why conservatives would be better off letting these Democrats defend concepts like universal healthcare and reparations for slavery than to attack them head on. The policies, he said, were ridiculous enough to implode on their own. “People don’t support abolishing private health care,” Levin said. “They want prices to come down; they want more options; and only the private sector — really only competition — can provide that. Not a government-run private system, which is kind of what we have today. So the Democrats should be forced to eat their proposals. The Democrats want to run on reparations? Let them run on reparations! But first let them explain it.” Levin said that, if Democrats don’t self-destruct by simply explaining their imbecilic plans to the American public, then allowing them to explain how they intend to pay for it should do the trick. “Now they want a federal wealth tax on your real estate,” Levin said. “Do you know why there’s no federal property tax? Because it’s not in the Constitution. So how’re they going to get federal wealth tax? If you own a private business, you’re now going to have towns and states telling you what your minimum wage is. You’re going to have health care for all that you’re going to have to pay for; it’ll be a monumental cost. You’re going to have to pay for family leave, another monumental cost. “And then on top of that, the federal government’s going to come in and say, ‘Uh, wealth tax,’” Levin continued. “Why is it that the Democrats never think of ways to expand liberty and opportunity and creativity and productivity? Instead, they’re always trying to choke the golden goose. And they think they’ll choke the golden goose and yet the golden goose will continue to lay golden eggs. It doesn’t work that way.” No, it doesn’t, but there is an unfortunate number of voters who seem to think this way. Who think that innovation and excellence will just magically appear from the huddles masses, even if we completely take the profit motive out of the equation. Then again, these same people think that socialism/Communism are still valid ideologies, and that the only problem with them is that they haven’t actually been implemented correctly yet.
Trump's envoy for Middle East, 
architect of peace plan set to leave post
By BRETT SAMUELS } ~ President Trump's special envoy to the Middle East and an architect of the administration's long-awaited peace plan for the region is leaving the White House... a senior official confirmed to The Hill on Thursday. Jason Greenblatt will depart the administration in the coming weeks to return to New Jersey, where his wife and six kids reside, the official said. His exit had been discussed at the end of 2018, and the administration began taking steps to transition oversight of the peace plan. Trump's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, will assume some of the responsibilities of handling the Middle East peace process, according to the administration official. Avi Berkowitz, a top aide to senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, will also play a more prominent role. Trump thanked Greenblatt in a tweet for being "a loyal and great friend and fantastic lawyer." Greenblatt previously worked as an attorney for the Trump Organization. "His dedication to Israel and to seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians won’t be forgotten," Trump tweeted. "He will be missed. "The New York Times first reported Greenblatt's impending exit from the administration. The move further throws into question the timing and viability of the Trump administration's long-promised Middle East peace plan. Greenblatt and Kushner have taken the lead on negotiations and have met with leaders in the region throughout the past two years...   
Why Republicans Shouldn’t 
Cave To Democrats On Guns 
By Mark Overstreet } ~ It has been said that Republicans are the “party of stupid” and Democrats the party of something worse... In their reaction to Democrats’ demand for gun control several weeks ago, President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared ready to prove the comparison about the GOP. Soon after the multiple-victim murders in Dayton and El Paso—the former by a Democrat and self-described leftist supporter of Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren, the latter allegedly by someone who, for the sake of the environment, theorized “if we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can be more sustainable”—Trump and McConnell said they were considering two elements of Democrats’ decades-old civilian disarmament agenda: “universal” background checks and a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, including those for handguns. If Trump and McConnell, encouraged by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, who supports susceptible-to-abuse “red flag” gun confiscation laws; Rick Scott, who as governor of Florida signed legislation prohibiting young adults from buying firearms; and Pat Toomey, co-sponsor of a version of “universal” checks, cave to Democrats on guns, they might alienate enough voters to assure that Democrats re-take the White House and Senate, and hold the House of Representatives in the 2020 elections. However, there are more important reasons Republicans should reject Democrats’ demands on guns. By way of background, firearm dealers are required to run a background check on anyone to whom they sell guns. “Universal” checks would impose the same requirement on everyone else...
Failed Chicago Mayor Blames Republicans 
For Gun Violence, Dana Loesch 
Steps In And Demolishes Her
By Jon Dougherty } ~ Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) has picked a fight with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over the issue of gun control... but she’s been bested by former NRA spokeswoman and talk show hostess Dana Loesch, who used facts — and Chicago officials — to refute the mayor. The feud comes as Chicago suffered another heavy casualty weekend of shootings, with more than 25 people shot and seven killed — the near-daily equivalent of a mass shooting. “Gun control doesn’t work. Look at Chicago. Disarming law-abiding citizens isn’t the answer. Stopping violent criminals—prosecuting & getting them off the street—BEFORE they commit more violent crimes is the most effective way to reduce murder rates. Let’s protect our citizens,” Cruz tweeted on Labor Day. That drew the ire Lightfoot, who tried to blame her city’s historic gun murder rate on…Republicans. “60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside IL—mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation. Keep our name out of your mouth,” she wrote. She then went onto blame Cruz and Republicans for dismissing “common sense gun policies” — which, apparently, aren’t working in her city with strict gun control laws. Loesch wasn’t having any of it. She counterattacked with local reporting in Chicago to refute Lightfoot’s “facts.” In fact, Loesch noted the biggest flaw in Lightfoot’s argument: It does not matter where guns come from if they wind up in the hands of people who, by law, aren’t supposed to have them... Always a dem governor fails they start pointing towards others.   
Andrew Yang's 'free money' 
idea in total collapse
by ~ Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang claims that implementing his proposal to provide a universal basic income of $1,000 monthly to every American adult... would lift people out of poverty and create millions of jobs. But it's been tried many times on a smaller scale, noted Breitbart News, and the latest experiment, as with many others, doesn't bode well for the Silicon Valley entrepreneur's grand scheme. The Washington Post reported a nonprofit implemented a plan last November that gave 20 African American single mothers living in public housing $1,000 each month for a year with no strings attached. Fifteen of the women were working at the time. Twelve of the 20 "had reported being so short on cash that they had used an emergency lender in the preceding six months," the Post reported. Kira Johnson, a social worker, asked the women how much money they had saved. One woman said she "blew all of it," and most of the others said the same. The women knew how to make minimum-wage paychecks stretch, Johnson said, but they had little experience with discretionary income. "Then, they asked if we were going to hand them the next check," Johnson said. The Post said that "despite Yang's prediction, the number of women who were in the workforce did not change." Other trials have seen similar results. The province of Ontario, Canada, canceled its three-year universal basic income pilot program last year after just over a year due to the high cost. Finland also ended its universal basic income experiment last year. An analysis found the experiment did little to nothing to assist people in finding jobs and ultimately didn't change their lives. But Yang told "Face the Nation" in an interview in August that if his plan is implemented, Americans "will work even harder when they get the resources in place to actually get ahead." "This is the trickle-up economy from our people, families and communities up,” he said... An example of getting free stuff.   
The Widening Generation Gap
Tom McLaughlin
{} ~ Solid evidence has arrived to confirm what many feared. Despite what has been visibly obvious for the past several years, many held out hope that it really wasn’t so bad, or that it was only temporary and would eventually turn around again. The results of an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last week dispelled that hope. They were a reality slap and a very painful one at that.

According to the poll, nearly four out of five Americans aged 55+ consider patriotism a strong value, but only about half as many millennials believe that. Two out of three aged 55+ believe religion/belief in God very important, while fewer than one in three millennials do. Lastly, desire for children is way down too. Most 55+ Americans consider having children very important, but fewer than one in three millennials do. There is a little good news, however. Most of us still value hard work, community involvement, and tolerance for others.  

The values my generation (I’m 68) considers essential for the continued survival of America as we know it are dying and will soon expire along with us. As conservativeessayist Rod Dreher put it: “Those under 40 don’t believe in God, their country, or having children (which is to say, the future), but they do believe in fulfilling themselves. They have nothing to live for except themselves and their jobs.”  
While millennials believe in hard work, what about the fruit of their toil? If their money isn’t spent raising a family, what is it for? If it’s not donated to a church, where does it go? Do millennials spend it all on themselves? And why don’t they want children? It’s a question I’ve visited in this space often over the past twenty years. Asking millennials why they eschew raising a family, they cite the high cost of children — a claim for which there is much evidence. Others point to the huge sacrifice of time and energy. Still others want to avoid pregnancy because it can cause stretch marks and sagging breasts.  
Also released last week was a very insightful book by essayist Mary Eberstadt called Primal Screams, a collection of essays by several authors which attributes the rise of identity politics to many of the trends highlighted in the above-mentioned poll. During an interview with Kathryn Lopez in National Review, Eberstadt claimed that Americans are becoming more tribal as family support diminishes. They identify with others of their race, sex, and sexuality and Eberstadt claims these trends result from the sexual revolution and social upheaval of the ’60s and ’70s.  
When asked what the connection is, Eberstadt said: “In part, it’s simple arithmetic. Think of all the post-revolutionary phenomena that are quotidian facts of life. Abortion, fatherlessness, divorce, single parenthood, childlessness, the shrinking family, the shrinking extended family: Every one of these developments has the effect of reducing the number of people whom we can call our own. And since we are relational creatures, the result is a great vacuum. That’s a lot of what the increasingly panicked flight to collective identities is about.”  
As an undergraduate sociology major in the seventies, I recall my left-wing professors still referring to the family as “the basic unit of society.” I doubt sociology departments would countenance that assertion today. Eberstadt points to recent confusion about “gender identity” stemming from the same source. Social upheaval starting in the sixties, she said: “… whittled away at our primary attachments [and] have by now deprived a great many people of traditional answers to the question, ‘Who am I?’ These traditional answers involve our relations to others: I am a sister, mother, aunt, cousin, wife, etc. We define our identities relationally — as the popularity of 23 and Me indicates; as the well-known search for biological relations by children of anonymous sperm donors also affirms. But for a lot of us today, thanks to family vanishing, those fundamental familial building blocks of identity are harder to come by.” 

They are indeed. Throughout my long teaching career I assigned students to interview someone seventy or older and ask them: Do you think it’s easier for children to grow up today compared to sixty years ago? Elders said it was easier back then because everyone had the same values. Other questions included: How many brothers and sisters did you have? How many children did the average family have when you were growing up? Did you know any couples who got divorced? To that last question, the answer would often be: “No. I didn’t know anyone who was divorced.” I wanted students to understand, first hand, that it didn’t use to be this way.  

The great unraveling began in the late 20th century and continues at an accelerated pace today. Not only are we unable to answer the question “Who am I?”; we can’t even figure out if we’re male or female — or something else entirely.  
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center