TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
What 'They' Did to Language
Culture Beat
.
Trey Gowdy Rips 'Deeply Partisan'
scumbag-Adam Schiff
By Todd Beamon
{ newsmax.com } ~ Former Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., on Friday denounced House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag-Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as "deeply partisan" and said he "leaks" confidential information "like a sieve."... "When you put someone who is wrong as often as scumbag-Adam Schiff is wrong and is as deeply partisan as he is, in charge of the intelligence committee, then no, you’re not going to share confidential information because scumbag-Adam leaks like a sieve," Gowdy told Fox News. Now a Fox contributor, Gowdy, 55, chaired the House Oversight Committee and the House Benghazi Committee during his four terms on Capitol Hill. His comments came amid the congressional investigation into whistleblower allegations involving President Donald Trump. scumbag-Schiff, 59, who was first elected in 2000, told reporters Thursday after a closed-door hearing with intelligence officials that his panel may take legal action to obtain the complaint. Democrats charge that acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire is violating the law by not presenting the document to Congress, which Maguire's office disputes. In his Friday interview, Gowdy said that scumbag-Schiff's comments were "the consequence of putting someone that partisan as the head of the Intel Committee" and ripped Democrats for hypocrisy in their attacks on the Trump administration. "What does frustrate people is I seem to recall a president who said, 'I'll have more flexibility in a second term,'" Gowdy told Fox News. "That's on tape. "I don't think there was a similar level of outrage when President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama promised that to the Russian president."... https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gowdy-schiff-partisan/2019/09/20/id/933657/?ns_mail_uid=62cddd55-241d-495e-8ad9-b8a04d508a36&ns_mail_job=DM54291_09212019&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010504vbv5q0 .
Dems Veto Red Flag Law for Gangbangers
By Daniel John Sobieski
{ americanthinker.com } ~ If Democrats were serious about using red flag laws to keep guns out if the hands of people who might use them to senselessly murder others and therefore are danger to society, and not just as a gun-control tool to disarm law-abiding citizens... then why did they kill an attempt to use compiled lists of known gang members, which many police departments and law enforcement agencies possess? Why did they kill a measure to red flag gang members? And if socialist-Beto O’Rourke is going to come and take our guns, particularly our AR-15s, is he going to start on the south side of Chicago? As the Washington Examiner noted on September 14: House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member. “The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.” Dems like House Judiciary Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler warned that people could be wrongly identified as gang members, just as people have been mistakenly put on no-fly lists. But identifying NRA members and law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms as killers-in-waiting are okay to scumbag liar-Nadler, scumbag-Swalwell, and socialist-O’Rourke. Yet, as Buck points out, urban police departments have a pretty good idea of who the gang members in their community are and are held to a high standard before officially listing them as member: Buck pointed out his amendment requires law enforcement to limit red-flagging to only those with probable cause to be included on the list, which is a stricter criteria…“Maybe you are just doodling because it is the 13th of June,” Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler of New York said. Buck said police have to meet a much higher threshold to list someone as a gang member. “This is a situation where the police officers are trained, and there are very identifiable signs, and it isn't just one sign,” Buck told scumbag liar-Nadler... https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/dems_veto_red_flag_law_for_gangbangers.html .
Even Swedish Socialism was Violent
By Phillip W. Magness
{ aier.org } ~ Few subjects are more taboo among self-described socialists than the historical track record of socialism in action... commie-Bernie Sanders recently bristled at the suggestion of any commonality between the government of Venezuela and his own platform, even though less than a decade ago he was touting the country along with other leftist governments in South America as exemplars of the “American dream.” When Anderson Cooper presented commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a similar question, she scoffed at the suggestion. It is unfair to link their ideology to its violent forebears, they insist, because the “democratic socialism” they envision is a Scandinavian-style welfare state, modeled after the economy of Sweden. There are many problems with this comparison. Sweden’s government has actually been trending away from the centrally planned economic approach favored by commie-Sanders and commie-Ocasio-Cortez. The country reined in public spending with a system of budget caps in the 1990s, scrapped its wealth tax in 2007, and has generally followed a path of privatization and deregulation over the past two decades. But there’s also a neglected dark side to the Swedish welfare model that its “democratic socialist” admirers seldom mention. That same welfare system developed in explicit conjunction with a violent and coercive eugenics policy, intended to ensure its fiscal solvency and prevent abuses of its programs by persons who were deemed genetically “unfit” by the state. Both policies trace their modern origins to the 1930s with the political ascendance of the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SDP). Following an SDP victory in 1932, Swedish premier Per Albin Hansson organized his government around a principle he dubbed “folkhemmet,” roughly translated as “the people’s home.” This new philosophy sought to bring private industry into economic and political partnership with the state, subject to socially progressive regulatory guidance as an alternative to a more rigid centrally planned approach, as seen under Soviet socialism... https://www.aier.org/article/even-swedish-socialism-was-violent?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpJMFlUWTJZV1ZqTkdZeCIsInQiOiJycFZTQTU4YnVGREdwWE9lMlBzb0JLXC9CWWdcLzAzcFdGT2dCTnhCdGhrbVwvaUxPMEVxWkZMaUNIKzhGdzR3M3V2SVAzOXk1WVZqS29WXC8rZzNWeE45NURldXpCc0lZYnlvd2xFenhtMzgySURIUE9GVEtjeWNOUGtheVJRYnVJZFYifQ%3D%3D&utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theinsider .
Capitalism Is the Key to Fixing Climate Change
by RONALD BAILEY
{ reason.com } ~ Today's Climate Strike protests are supposed to bring attention to the science showing that human-made global warming is becoming a problem... Fair enough. But some participants see climate change as pretext for destroying a market system that they have always hated. Naomi Klein made this point crystal clear in her 2014 book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Speaking with New York magazine this week, Klein claimed that "taking climate change seriously decimates the entire neoliberal project because you can't have a laissez-faire attitude, where it's having your emissions in 11 years; you actually need to regulate your way out of it. And yeah, you can have a few market mechanisms in place, but the market is not going to do it for you." The science, insists Klein, "says our future is radical. The present is pretty radical too. The idea that there is some sort of gradual, incremental, let's-split-the-difference pathway to respond to this crisis is silly at this point." A headline in The Guardian put it even more forthrightly: "Ending climate change requires ending capitalism." Global warming is a classic example of what happens in an open-access commons. The atmosphere is unowned, so no one has an incentive to protect and conserve it. Instead, people overexploit and pollute it. Historically this happened with sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and smoke. In the United States, cities initially implemented regulations to cut back on noxious air pollutants. For example, the first smoke abatement regulations were enacted by Chicago and Cincinnati in 1881. Eventually federal regulations and market mechanisms were adopted. As a result, since 1980 air pollutants have collectively declined by 68 percent while the economy grew by 175 percent. Scientists call this the environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental commons tend to deteriorate as countries begin to develop economically—but once per-capita income reaches a certain level, the public starts to demand a cleanup. It's a U-shaped pattern: Economic growth initially hurts the environment, but after a point it makes things cleaner. By then, slowing or stopping economic growth will delay environmental improvement, including efforts to mitigate the problem of man-made global warming....
How The New York Times
Is Distorting American History
By WILFRED M. MCCLAY
{ commentarymagazine.com } ~ The New York Times seems to have made a grand splash with the August debut of its 1619 Project, which it unveiled to the world as an audacious effort to “reframe” all of American history as little more than the lengthened shadow of slavery... The title derives from the historical fact that 400 years ago, some 20 Africans were dropped off by probably a British privateer at Jamestown, Virginia—the first such individuals to appear in the British mainland North American colonies. The first effort in what is promised as an ongoing 1619 endeavor throughout the paper was a 100-page issue of the Sunday Magazine, devoted entirely except for the oddly jarring inclusion of the Times crossword and other puzzles to a series of short articles of varying length and genre. They ranged from highly compressed historical arguments to poems and other literary or memoiristic pieces, all of which are in some way devoted to the idea that slavery “and the anti-black racism it required” constitute the true foundation of American history. “Out of slavery,” declare the introductory remarks, “grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system,” and so on, down to the nation’s propensity for violence and its “endemic racial fears and hatreds.” The Project is therefore dedicated to “considering” the proposition that 1619, rather than 1776, should be regarded as “our nation’s birth year.” The language is both sweepingly hyperbolic and coy, since it leaves open the possibility that all that is being suggested here is merely a “what if” thought experiment. Hence it is frankly difficult to know how seriously we should take such vast declarations, or the 1619 Project as a whole. It is not even clear what such a proposition could possibly mean. Does it put forward the hypothesis that the introduction of these 20 individuals—who many scholars argue must have been indentured servants rather than slaves, since there was no provision for chattel slavery in the English common law—is to be taken to represent the nation’s real beginning, and thereby to supersede the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, among many other conventional items, in understanding and accounting for the nation’s creation?....
.
What 'They' Did to Language
Culture Beat: Merriam-Webster has added a fourth definition of the word “they” to include “nonbinary” usage of individuals with varying degrees of gender disorientation. Why does this matter? Because words matter.
Merriam-Webster publishes the modern version of the first American dictionary, compiled by Noah Webster. According to Wikipedia, “In 1806, Webster published his first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. In 1807 Webster started two decades of intensive work to expand his publication into a fully comprehensive dictionary, An American Dictionary of the English Language. To help him trace the etymology of words, Webster learned 26 languages. Webster hoped to standardize American speech, since Americans in different parts of the country used somewhat different vocabularies and spelled, pronounced, and used words differently.”
We note that history so as to emphasize Webster’s hope “to standardize American speech.” His purpose was to unify Americans around common spelling and definitions of words, as well as our understanding of language itself.
The iconoclasts of today’s Left want the opposite — to divide Americans by destroying the meaning of words, along with tearing down statues and renaming buildings. And then they wonder why Americans are so divided. Perhaps it’s because some of us still know what words mean and prefer to stick to age-old definitions, even when we’re labeled “bigots” by the wokes colds who live in an alternate reality.
It’s “newspeak” in all its, er, glory. What is newspeak? Coined by George Orwell in his novel 1984, no less than Merriam-Webster defines it thus: “Newspeak was characterized by the elimination or alteration of certain words, the substitution of one word for another, the interchangeability of parts of speech, and the creation of words for political purposes.” That pretty much sums up what Merriam-Webster has succumbed to.
~The Patriot Post
Comments