Month: November 2018

Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon touted Friday the economic benefits to the United States of shoppers partaking in “Small Business Saturday.”

After Thanksgiving Thursday and Black Friday comes Small Business Saturday, a day focused on supporting small businesses who compete with big, national, and online stores as Americans head into the Christmas gift-giving season. McMahon has visited nearly 800 businesses in her time heading up the Small Business Administration.

“This Small Business Saturday, I invite shoppers to support the local retailers that make their communities special,” McMahon wrote in a Friday op-ed for Fox News.

“A survey by NFIB [National Federation of Independent Business] found 108 million consumers reported shopping or dining at local businesses on Small Business Saturday in 2017,” said McMahon. “And 90 percent of consumers agreed that Small Business Saturday makes a positive impact on their community.”

McMahon pointed to National Retail Federation forecasts for an over four percent increase in retail sales over the 2018 holiday season. She pointed to a strong U.S. economy, high consumer optimism, record unemployment, and an 18-year consumer confidence high as drivers for the predicted boost. She further gave credit to the Trump tax cuts as one of the contributing factors fueling these milestones.

“Small businesses create two out of three net new jobs in the private sector, and about half of America’s workforce either works for or owns a small business,” wrote McMahon. “These businesses reflect the innovative spirit of our nation and invigorate neighborhoods and cities, making them vibrant places to live, work and raise a family.”

Michelle Moons is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News — follow on Twitter @MichelleDiana and Facebook.

Modern liberalism is diseased.  It is wrought by mental maladies exacerbated by postmodernism’s delusional insistence that empirical facts are figments of white male rule.  This warped view subverts reality if it doesn’t conform to their revisionist left-wing propaganda.  Eight years ago, Michael Savage made this call in his book, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.  The mass malady also foments mental discontinuity and cognitive dissonance, ensnaring misguided college students in particular.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual’s thoughts or beliefs are rooted in inconsistency, which is precisely what modern liberalism wallows in.  Under the auspices of effete liberal intellectuals, postmodernism is prevalent in academia where it enfeebles budding liberals’ thoughts with nihilistic notions that ravage objective truths.  The resultant relativism engenders delusions and waywardness amongst malleable students – particularly in the soft social sciences that the would-be social activists pursue.  Is it any wonder, when combined with their addiction to social media, that depression is the most common health problem afflicting college students?

Whereas classical liberalism underpins much of America’s greatness, modern liberalism dallies with madness that develops in the contrived curricula that pervades the humanities, sociology, and women’s studies.  Research in these fields is tainted by biased academicians  who manipulate their methodologies to predispose positive results that favor social activism.  Often motivated by the “publish or perish” syndrome, null results are given short shrift, skewing social science literature towards leftist tautologies.  And skewering the impressionable minds of their dutiful minions-cum-social warriors who are all too willing to intimidate non-believers and desecrate the public square.

Stifled by an overwhelmingly liberal orthodoxy on campus, even instructors risk professional peril should they dare jump off the bandwagon bias.  What chance do the gullible students stand other than to embrace the pathos of resentment and bitterness toward Western Civilization, and America itself?  The susceptible students are even conditioned to question whether America is the land of opportunity.    They are told that America was never really that great, even as many of the world’s wretched masses have been entranced by our brilliant beacon of freedom throughout our magnificent history.

These perverted teachings reverberating around campus do not nurture happy, well-adjusted people.  Instead, postmodern liberalism provokes mental discomfort when confronted with empirical facts.  For example, migrant caravans continue to assemble on our southern border – not so much in search of asylum, as they wave their home nation’s flags, but better economic opportunities, especially under President Trump.   Liberals — who put globalism over nationalism, and illegals over citizens — welcome the disruptive hordes.  Nevertheless, they deny their obvious motivation:  seeking a better life in the land of opportunity, the last great hope of earth.  Now that’s madness, but it gets even more dissonant when the postmodern intelligentsia root for the United Nations over America; when they will a recession; and when they make a mockery of superb economic indicators.

Even as liberal media outlets such as the AP recently proclaimed that “Democrats fight vibrant economy in bid for House,” and the NY Times conceded that the economy is firing on all cylinders, college kids are being hoodwinked into the benefits of socialism. I wonder if they could even find Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba on a map since their propagandizing professors have glossed over the human misery socialism hath wrought?

Mental illness is often accompanied by a break from reality, such as believing something to be true that is false, or vice-versa.  Such delusions may explain why misguided youth support socialism, and why polling indicates that most Dems do not approve of President Trump’s handling of the economy, arguing his deregulatory agenda and tax cuts are merely a “sugar fix.”   Actually, they incentivize production and profits, and repatriate factories.

Whereas defeatist Obama defiantly told us that manufacturing jobs weren’t coming back to America, Trump is bringing them back.  Manufacturing and industrial production indicators are generally bullish.  One has to be delusional to deny that policies have stimulated record low unemployment, and have inspired record high consumer and small business confidence.  But that doesn’t stop today’s perseverating liberals from conjuring a dystopian reality.

Harboring such misguided sentiments in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence can usher cognitive dissonance or other mad stuff like dissociative disorder.  Now, there are more job openings than candidates.  Now, the soft-science snowflakes can escape indulgent mommy’s yoke and embark on a rewarding career.  Now is simply not the time to be dallying with socialism.  One wonders if they actually prefer Marxist mobs over jobs. Perhaps their liberal disease has progressed so insidiously that they are actually disassociated from the here and now.

It’s a shame they have been inculcated with such postmodern pessimism proclaiming, “You’re in danger, you’re in danger.  You can’t succeed.”   That’s so Obama, and guaranteed to elicit mental discontinuity from the quantifiable economic optimism prevalent under Trump.  Many impressionable students haven’t developed the mental faculties to resist the tenured faculty; they simply succumb to absurdism marked by distorted views of their perceived plight and contorted views of reality.

Examples abound, but perhaps none are more poignant than the wayward female student who’s up on assault charges after disrespecting her male counterparts by indignantly throwing chocolate milk over nice College Republicans at Florida State University.  They remained composed as she went on a bizarre tirade about fascism, apparently lacking any self-awareness or her own antics. Talk about a dissociative mental case!  This tantrum-throwing girl, and her ilk, cannot be allowed to run amok.  She’ll now have to undergo cognitive behavioral therapy to quell her intermittent explosive disorder, and soothe her tormented liberal mind.

The college years are fertile ground for cognitive development in young adults, so it’s a shame they are imbued with leftist dogma which contrives a new “reality” to suit their postmodern sensibilities.  Anyone who strays too far from the liberal asylum is labelled as sexist, misogynist or racist.  But just consider the source – they’re a bunch of delusional socialists.

Vibrant debate born of classical liberalism bequeathed our great birthright, the last great hope of earth.  Today’s liberalism mollycoddles the precious little cupcakes whose delicate psyches cannot withstand the rigors of free speech.  Faced with existential crisis every time they are contradicted, their behavior becomes disturbingly bi-polar.  They either retreat to sympathetic safe spaces, or engage in rapacious, mob-like intimidation that is more reminiscent of the socialist upheavals they bizarrely favor, than a flourishing marketplace of freely exchanged ideas.

George Orwell observed that, “[w]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.”  There sure is a lot of cognitive twisting going on within the impudent liberal intelligentsia as they manufacture prejudiced research to sustain their postmodern madness. 

Image credit: Max Pixel

Modern liberalism is diseased.  It is wrought by mental maladies exacerbated by postmodernism’s delusional insistence that empirical facts are figments of white male rule.  This warped view subverts reality if it doesn’t conform to their revisionist left-wing propaganda.  Eight years ago, Michael Savage made this call in his book, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.  The mass malady also foments mental discontinuity and cognitive dissonance, ensnaring misguided college students in particular.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual’s thoughts or beliefs are rooted in inconsistency, which is precisely what modern liberalism wallows in.  Under the auspices of effete liberal intellectuals, postmodernism is prevalent in academia where it enfeebles budding liberals’ thoughts with nihilistic notions that ravage objective truths.  The resultant relativism engenders delusions and waywardness amongst malleable students – particularly in the soft social sciences that the would-be social activists pursue.  Is it any wonder, when combined with their addiction to social media, that depression is the most common health problem afflicting college students?

Whereas classical liberalism underpins much of America’s greatness, modern liberalism dallies with madness that develops in the contrived curricula that pervades the humanities, sociology, and women’s studies.  Research in these fields is tainted by biased academicians  who manipulate their methodologies to predispose positive results that favor social activism.  Often motivated by the “publish or perish” syndrome, null results are given short shrift, skewing social science literature towards leftist tautologies.  And skewering the impressionable minds of their dutiful minions-cum-social warriors who are all too willing to intimidate non-believers and desecrate the public square.

Stifled by an overwhelmingly liberal orthodoxy on campus, even instructors risk professional peril should they dare jump off the bandwagon bias.  What chance do the gullible students stand other than to embrace the pathos of resentment and bitterness toward Western Civilization, and America itself?  The susceptible students are even conditioned to question whether America is the land of opportunity.    They are told that America was never really that great, even as many of the world’s wretched masses have been entranced by our brilliant beacon of freedom throughout our magnificent history.

These perverted teachings reverberating around campus do not nurture happy, well-adjusted people.  Instead, postmodern liberalism provokes mental discomfort when confronted with empirical facts.  For example, migrant caravans continue to assemble on our southern border – not so much in search of asylum, as they wave their home nation’s flags, but better economic opportunities, especially under President Trump.   Liberals — who put globalism over nationalism, and illegals over citizens — welcome the disruptive hordes.  Nevertheless, they deny their obvious motivation:  seeking a better life in the land of opportunity, the last great hope of earth.  Now that’s madness, but it gets even more dissonant when the postmodern intelligentsia root for the United Nations over America; when they will a recession; and when they make a mockery of superb economic indicators.

Even as liberal media outlets such as the AP recently proclaimed that “Democrats fight vibrant economy in bid for House,” and the NY Times conceded that the economy is firing on all cylinders, college kids are being hoodwinked into the benefits of socialism. I wonder if they could even find Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba on a map since their propagandizing professors have glossed over the human misery socialism hath wrought?

Mental illness is often accompanied by a break from reality, such as believing something to be true that is false, or vice-versa.  Such delusions may explain why misguided youth support socialism, and why polling indicates that most Dems do not approve of President Trump’s handling of the economy, arguing his deregulatory agenda and tax cuts are merely a “sugar fix.”   Actually, they incentivize production and profits, and repatriate factories.

Whereas defeatist Obama defiantly told us that manufacturing jobs weren’t coming back to America, Trump is bringing them back.  Manufacturing and industrial production indicators are generally bullish.  One has to be delusional to deny that policies have stimulated record low unemployment, and have inspired record high consumer and small business confidence.  But that doesn’t stop today’s perseverating liberals from conjuring a dystopian reality.

Harboring such misguided sentiments in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence can usher cognitive dissonance or other mad stuff like dissociative disorder.  Now, there are more job openings than candidates.  Now, the soft-science snowflakes can escape indulgent mommy’s yoke and embark on a rewarding career.  Now is simply not the time to be dallying with socialism.  One wonders if they actually prefer Marxist mobs over jobs. Perhaps their liberal disease has progressed so insidiously that they are actually disassociated from the here and now.

It’s a shame they have been inculcated with such postmodern pessimism proclaiming, “You’re in danger, you’re in danger.  You can’t succeed.”   That’s so Obama, and guaranteed to elicit mental discontinuity from the quantifiable economic optimism prevalent under Trump.  Many impressionable students haven’t developed the mental faculties to resist the tenured faculty; they simply succumb to absurdism marked by distorted views of their perceived plight and contorted views of reality.

Examples abound, but perhaps none are more poignant than the wayward female student who’s up on assault charges after disrespecting her male counterparts by indignantly throwing chocolate milk over nice College Republicans at Florida State University.  They remained composed as she went on a bizarre tirade about fascism, apparently lacking any self-awareness or her own antics. Talk about a dissociative mental case!  This tantrum-throwing girl, and her ilk, cannot be allowed to run amok.  She’ll now have to undergo cognitive behavioral therapy to quell her intermittent explosive disorder, and soothe her tormented liberal mind.

The college years are fertile ground for cognitive development in young adults, so it’s a shame they are imbued with leftist dogma which contrives a new “reality” to suit their postmodern sensibilities.  Anyone who strays too far from the liberal asylum is labelled as sexist, misogynist or racist.  But just consider the source – they’re a bunch of delusional socialists.

Vibrant debate born of classical liberalism bequeathed our great birthright, the last great hope of earth.  Today’s liberalism mollycoddles the precious little cupcakes whose delicate psyches cannot withstand the rigors of free speech.  Faced with existential crisis every time they are contradicted, their behavior becomes disturbingly bi-polar.  They either retreat to sympathetic safe spaces, or engage in rapacious, mob-like intimidation that is more reminiscent of the socialist upheavals they bizarrely favor, than a flourishing marketplace of freely exchanged ideas.

George Orwell observed that, “[w]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.”  There sure is a lot of cognitive twisting going on within the impudent liberal intelligentsia as they manufacture prejudiced research to sustain their postmodern madness. 

Image credit: Max Pixel

The focus of the liberal media and many liberal commentators and pundits has been on President Trump’s uncompromising defense of the USA from the migrant caravans, some of which now encroach on our southern border.  They don’t tend to praise him for doing the right thing.  Rather, they are wholly critical of his unflinching intent to secure the border with the help of the military.  They condemn President Trump for doing his duty to safeguard US national security and claim that the migrants are harmless and an asset to our country. 

In their rage against President Trump, they commit themselves to the ill-informed and myopic view that he is harming the migrants.  In reality, President Trump is being compassionate to countless future would-be migrants who would face a treacherous and often deadly journey on a misguided quest to enter the US illegally.

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz visited the migrant caravan that began in Honduras and reported that it is comprised of relatively few women and children, with an estimated 90 – 95% of the caravan being men.  Horowitz reported that the caravans did not just naturally coalesce and was not spontaneous, but rather is highly organized.  People in the caravan tend to be looking for a better life in the United States, rather than fleeing for their lives from their home countries.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras organizes these caravans.  In English the organization is known as People Without Borders, and, true to its name, its goal is for open borders — something that poses a direct threat to the national security of the United States and other sovereign countries.  Pueblo Sin Fronteras organizer Alex Mensing admitted to USA TODAY that the caravans are “a mass exodus” of people from Central America to the US — effectively an attempt to begin to render the US border meaningless.

According to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, as many as 10,000 migrants are expected to arrive at the US border, while the Mexican Consulate has reported on the presence of about 8,200 migrants.  Secretary Nielsen made clear that seeking employment or seeking to reunite with family does not constitute a legitimate basis to seek asylum.  According to Nielsen, most of those in the caravans are teenage or adult males, including an estimated 500 criminals, some of whom are gang members.  The Mexican ambassador to the US, Geronimo Gutierrez, has also confirmed the presence of criminals among the caravans, though he is unsure about the number.  It is noteworthy that Mexico has detained 213 migrants from the fourth caravan.

There are reports that 3,000 migrants plan to force their way through the US border as a stampede, posing an unprecedented threat to US border officials.  Such a plan should not come as a surprise in light of an estimated 3,000 migrants who forcibly overran the Guatemalan border in order to break into Mexico last month, then took rafts to cross the river and enter Mexico. 

It is imperative that the US military be properly prepared to completely stop any such stampede for the sake of their own safety and the safety and security of US citizens, including many who live right on the border.  If thousands of the migrants break into the US, it will be that much more difficult to successfully track all of them and put them into detention facilities.  With potentially hundreds of criminals among the migrants, President Trump must immediately ensure that the US military on the border is fully prepared, with all offensive and defensive measures necessary to protect US national security — beyond the placement of troops and razor wire.  US troops at the border must be armed as a last resort for self-defense and defense of the border, but even more importantly as a deterrent against riotous and potentially deadly behavior by members of the caravan.

While many of those in the migrant caravan will not qualify for asylum, the US is processing between 60 and 100 asylum seekers per day.  The US offers asylum to those who flee persecution for a whole host of reasons.

President Trump is not simply upholding basic US national security by protecting the southern border; he is showing great compassion to countless future migrants who may seek asylum in the US.  He is effectively saying that if you legitimately seek asylum, you should enter the US directly rather than take a treacherous journey from Columbia through Central America and Mexico and into the US.  As long as a pathway exists to enter the US through subterfuge by traveling from countries like Guatemala and Honduras into the United States, many thousands of migrants will continue on that path, endangering their lives in the process.  If President Trump, and perhaps other governments to the south, effectively shut off this pathway, far fewer people will attempt to enter the US illegally from the south.

The most dangerous part of the journey that migrants take to the US is through the Darien Gap.  The Darien Gap is a 60-mile swath of jungle that separates Columbia from Panama.  It is traversed by tens of thousands of people each year on their trek to the United States.  A recent CBS documentary on the journey through the Darien Gap highlights the great danger to the lives of those who choose to traverse it:

Augustin, one of the smugglers we follow, says “The Darien Gap is… very dangerous. Because there are many hills, many rivers… many snakes, many jaguars. I’ve seen many people die. Not just one. Many.” Added to that, there are violent paramilitary groups who control the drug smuggling corridor that runs parallel, but deeper inside the jungle… According to Augustin, “People go in circles like a snail and they never make it. And many have come here like that and have never made it.”

While it is imperative that the US grant asylum to those who qualify — as it does — it is also similarly appropriate for the US to shut down the backdoor into the US that often traverses the dangerous Darien Gap.  If President Trump continues to stand unwavering in his determination to stop those who seek to illegally enter the country, even in the face of seemingly unrelenting criticism from many in the media and other supposed experts, he will be encouraging people who legitimately seek to enter the US to travel directly to the US and enter legally.  He will also likely save the lives of many who would otherwise take the arduous journey from South America through the Darien Gap to Central America.

It is high time that President Trump receives the wall-to-wall commendation and support that he deserves for securing the border and for the border wall.  His defense of the US border is ultimately a great humanitarian act in defense of the safety and the very lives of future migrants who seek to enter the US.  The message is: Enter through the front door — we will all be better off.

The focus of the liberal media and many liberal commentators and pundits has been on President Trump’s uncompromising defense of the USA from the migrant caravans, some of which now encroach on our southern border.  They don’t tend to praise him for doing the right thing.  Rather, they are wholly critical of his unflinching intent to secure the border with the help of the military.  They condemn President Trump for doing his duty to safeguard US national security and claim that the migrants are harmless and an asset to our country. 

In their rage against President Trump, they commit themselves to the ill-informed and myopic view that he is harming the migrants.  In reality, President Trump is being compassionate to countless future would-be migrants who would face a treacherous and often deadly journey on a misguided quest to enter the US illegally.

Border wall prototypes (Photo credit: Mani Albrecht)

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz visited the migrant caravan that began in Honduras and reported that it is comprised of relatively few women and children, with an estimated 90 – 95% of the caravan being men.  Horowitz reported that the caravans did not just naturally coalesce and was not spontaneous, but rather is highly organized.  People in the caravan tend to be looking for a better life in the United States, rather than fleeing for their lives from their home countries.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras organizes these caravans.  In English the organization is known as People Without Borders, and, true to its name, its goal is for open borders — something that poses a direct threat to the national security of the United States and other sovereign countries.  Pueblo Sin Fronteras organizer Alex Mensing admitted to USA TODAY that the caravans are “a mass exodus” of people from Central America to the US — effectively an attempt to begin to render the US border meaningless.

According to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, as many as 10,000 migrants are expected to arrive at the US border, while the Mexican Consulate has reported on the presence of about 8,200 migrants.  Secretary Nielsen made clear that seeking employment or seeking to reunite with family does not constitute a legitimate basis to seek asylum.  According to Nielsen, most of those in the caravans are teenage or adult males, including an estimated 500 criminals, some of whom are gang members.  The Mexican ambassador to the US, Geronimo Gutierrez, has also confirmed the presence of criminals among the caravans, though he is unsure about the number.  It is noteworthy that Mexico has detained 213 migrants from the fourth caravan.

There are reports that 3,000 migrants plan to force their way through the US border as a stampede, posing an unprecedented threat to US border officials.  Such a plan should not come as a surprise in light of an estimated 3,000 migrants who forcibly overran the Guatemalan border in order to break into Mexico last month, then took rafts to cross the river and enter Mexico. 

It is imperative that the US military be properly prepared to completely stop any such stampede for the sake of their own safety and the safety and security of US citizens, including many who live right on the border.  If thousands of the migrants break into the US, it will be that much more difficult to successfully track all of them and put them into detention facilities.  With potentially hundreds of criminals among the migrants, President Trump must immediately ensure that the US military on the border is fully prepared, with all offensive and defensive measures necessary to protect US national security — beyond the placement of troops and razor wire.  US troops at the border must be armed as a last resort for self-defense and defense of the border, but even more importantly as a deterrent against riotous and potentially deadly behavior by members of the caravan.

While many of those in the migrant caravan will not qualify for asylum, the US is processing between 60 and 100 asylum seekers per day.  The US offers asylum to those who flee persecution for a whole host of reasons.

President Trump is not simply upholding basic US national security by protecting the southern border; he is showing great compassion to countless future migrants who may seek asylum in the US.  He is effectively saying that if you legitimately seek asylum, you should enter the US directly rather than take a treacherous journey from Columbia through Central America and Mexico and into the US.  As long as a pathway exists to enter the US through subterfuge by traveling from countries like Guatemala and Honduras into the United States, many thousands of migrants will continue on that path, endangering their lives in the process.  If President Trump, and perhaps other governments to the south, effectively shut off this pathway, far fewer people will attempt to enter the US illegally from the south.

The most dangerous part of the journey that migrants take to the US is through the Darien Gap.  The Darien Gap is a 60-mile swath of jungle that separates Columbia from Panama.  It is traversed by tens of thousands of people each year on their trek to the United States.  A recent CBS documentary on the journey through the Darien Gap highlights the great danger to the lives of those who choose to traverse it:

Augustin, one of the smugglers we follow, says “The Darien Gap is… very dangerous. Because there are many hills, many rivers… many snakes, many jaguars. I’ve seen many people die. Not just one. Many.” Added to that, there are violent paramilitary groups who control the drug smuggling corridor that runs parallel, but deeper inside the jungle… According to Augustin, “People go in circles like a snail and they never make it. And many have come here like that and have never made it.”

While it is imperative that the US grant asylum to those who qualify — as it does — it is also similarly appropriate for the US to shut down the backdoor into the US that often traverses the dangerous Darien Gap.  If President Trump continues to stand unwavering in his determination to stop those who seek to illegally enter the country, even in the face of seemingly unrelenting criticism from many in the media and other supposed experts, he will be encouraging people who legitimately seek to enter the US to travel directly to the US and enter legally.  He will also likely save the lives of many who would otherwise take the arduous journey from South America through the Darien Gap to Central America.

It is high time that President Trump receives the wall-to-wall commendation and support that he deserves for securing the border and for the border wall.  His defense of the US border is ultimately a great humanitarian act in defense of the safety and the very lives of future migrants who seek to enter the US.  The message is: Enter through the front door — we will all be better off.

When asked how the Democrats will pay for Medicare for All, the “honest” answer from the DNC CEO, Seema Nanda, was that they didn’t know. This isn’t actually truthful, because they know what it will take to pay for this monstrosity, and if they admit it, the party will be sent packing come 2020.

The press was willing to give Obama a pass when he lied about ObamaCare to say that “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” They looked the other way when he said premiums would go down. The media even took his, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s word when they said it won’t cost the taxpayers a penny.

The $40 trillion truth about Medicare for All funding is that the Democrats can’t lie their way out of this reality no matter how deeply the compliant media buries their collective heads in the sand. No number of “experts” can convince enough people to go along with this boondoggle in the making.

Remember, ObamaCare passed by a whisker because the Democrats had complete control of both houses and the White House. Today they may have enough votes in the House to pass something, no matter how crazy, but it won’t see the light of day in the Senate.

ObamaCare exempted company-sponsored plans, and they were going to do it in a way that nobody would have to pay a penny more in taxes. By doing this, they would supposedly limit the impact on the vast majority of the population. That made it easy for Joe and Jane Voter to go along with it. On the surface, ObamaCare was not a bad idea. Even the average Republican was in favor of doing something. So the messaging from Washington’s left was that our company insurances would stay the same, it wouldn’t cost us any money and we it was a good thing to do. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice…

Even if the Democrats are able to get the media to ignore Trump’s tweets on this subject for the next two years, they have insurmountable hurdles that amount to political suicide.

First, ObamaCare, the plan that they expended so much goodwill and political capital to keep on life support, will have to be repealed and replaced. That will amount to admitting that it isn’t working. That’s a tough pill to swallow, especially if the Medicare for All push fails. It will open the door to a Republican replacement plan option.

Second, Democrats will have to convince a couple hundred million hard-working families that it’s a good thing for them to give up their company plans which they love so much. All for the good of the 10% who either don’t want or can’t afford health insurance.

Third, this plan will put millions of people who work in the health insurance industry out of a job. Along with them, shareholders whose pensions and 401(k) Plans rely on dividends from insurance companies will be financially impacted. They may not be able to eat but don’t fret, at least you won’t have to worry about your health care. The government will be there to take care of you for free.

Fourth, yes, companies will pay those health insurance premiums to the government instead of greedy insurance companies, but it will be impossible to ignore the fact that these payments will not even come close to covering the government’s cost. Millions of small businesses that only survive because they aren’t paying for employee insurance will be forced to pay government premiums too, putting them instantly out of business. Still not enough to cover the costs, but now there are a lot more people for the government to care for. But don’t be concerned, because the dimwitted Democrats will reverse Trump’s tax breaks for corporations and raise taxes on the rich. 

As always occurs under socialism, the leftists will eventually run out of other people’s money and have to make big cuts in benefits and services. Republicans predicted a death spiral for ObamaCare. This plan will put the death in death spiral for the people.

Medicare for All is merely a campaign slogan. If the democratic socialists of the DNC admitted to the truth, they would all lose their jobs. For now, it’s easiest to just claim that they don’t know how it will be paid for.   

When asked how the Democrats will pay for Medicare for All, the “honest” answer from the DNC CEO, Seema Nanda, was that they didn’t know. This isn’t actually truthful, because they know what it will take to pay for this monstrosity, and if they admit it, the party will be sent packing come 2020.

The press was willing to give Obama a pass when he lied about ObamaCare to say that “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” They looked the other way when he said premiums would go down. The media even took his, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s word when they said it won’t cost the taxpayers a penny.

The $40 trillion truth about Medicare for All funding is that the Democrats can’t lie their way out of this reality no matter how deeply the compliant media buries their collective heads in the sand. No number of “experts” can convince enough people to go along with this boondoggle in the making.

Remember, ObamaCare passed by a whisker because the Democrats had complete control of both houses and the White House. Today they may have enough votes in the House to pass something, no matter how crazy, but it won’t see the light of day in the Senate.

ObamaCare exempted company-sponsored plans, and they were going to do it in a way that nobody would have to pay a penny more in taxes. By doing this, they would supposedly limit the impact on the vast majority of the population. That made it easy for Joe and Jane Voter to go along with it. On the surface, ObamaCare was not a bad idea. Even the average Republican was in favor of doing something. So the messaging from Washington’s left was that our company insurances would stay the same, it wouldn’t cost us any money and we it was a good thing to do. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice…

Even if the Democrats are able to get the media to ignore Trump’s tweets on this subject for the next two years, they have insurmountable hurdles that amount to political suicide.

First, ObamaCare, the plan that they expended so much goodwill and political capital to keep on life support, will have to be repealed and replaced. That will amount to admitting that it isn’t working. That’s a tough pill to swallow, especially if the Medicare for All push fails. It will open the door to a Republican replacement plan option.

Second, Democrats will have to convince a couple hundred million hard-working families that it’s a good thing for them to give up their company plans which they love so much. All for the good of the 10% who either don’t want or can’t afford health insurance.

Third, this plan will put millions of people who work in the health insurance industry out of a job. Along with them, shareholders whose pensions and 401(k) Plans rely on dividends from insurance companies will be financially impacted. They may not be able to eat but don’t fret, at least you won’t have to worry about your health care. The government will be there to take care of you for free.

Fourth, yes, companies will pay those health insurance premiums to the government instead of greedy insurance companies, but it will be impossible to ignore the fact that these payments will not even come close to covering the government’s cost. Millions of small businesses that only survive because they aren’t paying for employee insurance will be forced to pay government premiums too, putting them instantly out of business. Still not enough to cover the costs, but now there are a lot more people for the government to care for. But don’t be concerned, because the dimwitted Democrats will reverse Trump’s tax breaks for corporations and raise taxes on the rich. 

As always occurs under socialism, the leftists will eventually run out of other people’s money and have to make big cuts in benefits and services. Republicans predicted a death spiral for ObamaCare. This plan will put the death in death spiral for the people.

Medicare for All is merely a campaign slogan. If the democratic socialists of the DNC admitted to the truth, they would all lose their jobs. For now, it’s easiest to just claim that they don’t know how it will be paid for.   

This November was meant to be the month for MP Geert Wilders’ second “Draw Muhammad” contest, but Islamic law won a de facto victory over Dutch law mere weeks ago as Wilders announced the contest’s cancellation. When — among many other threats similar attacks — a 19-year-old Afghan stabbed two American tourists in Amsterdam, citing the planned contest as motive, Wilders canceled the event out of concern about further violence.

The Islamists had made their point: “Having the law on your side makes no difference. Do what we want, or somebody is going to get hurt.”

Such antics by Islamist Muslims are not new to Wilders and other speech and conscience advocates. In retribution for his firm and outspoken stance on this subject, he has “spent 15 years living in safe houses and escorted by a security detail due to constant death threats.” These are the tactics, of course, of any common mafia.

In securing Wilders’ retreat, the terrorists established Sharia’s authority for now in the Netherlands on the issue of speech.

The first “Draw Muhammad” contest, organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, was held on May 3, 2015 in Garland, Texas. The purpose of Geller and Spencer, and the purpose of Wilders in organizing another this year, was to preserve space for free speech in the face of known supremacist Muslim intentions to forcefully diminish that space.

During the 2015 event, two Muslim men — one a convert but both American-born — armed with multiple rifles and handguns and 1500 rounds of ammunition, began shooting their way into the venue. Both were killed. The purpose of “the Islamist mob” is to assert authority for Islam over all other legal authorities, to become dominant.

What is going on, in other words, are tests of national sovereignty, a battle of civilizations. In this most recent round, I regret to report, the winner was not Western civilization, but rather the Islamist mob.

The Islamist mob is training many societies, and most particularly non-Muslims within them, to behave the way it wants them to behave. They are doing so through well-known manipulative techniques. Some being employed in this case include:

Threats of violence: “If I don’t not get my way, you will suffer or die. And it will be your fault, since I gave you fair warning.” (No. The guilt for an act of violence lies with the perpetrator of that violence.)

Tantrums: “I am going to lose control and make a big scene because of what you do.” (No. Children throw tantrums but grownups find more productive ways to resolve their concerns.)

False equivalence: “My hurt feelings warrant your death.” (No. Hurt feelings are unfortunate, but death of the one who gave a perceived or actual slight is hardly a proportionate or justified response.)

Any mob is comprised of several different types of people:

Agitators

These are the vocal demagogues who take center stage or move about the crowd stirring people up. There are typically only a small number of agitators in any given mob. In this analogy, the agitators are those Muslim leaders and activists, and their Western leftist allies, who call for the imposition of Islamic law’s speech limits in the West.

 Sympathetic attendees

These are people who readily assent to the ideas of the agitators. Not all sympathetic attendees take direct action, but their presence and consent helps to advance the cause of the agitators.

In this analogy, the sympathetic attendees are the portion of Muslims and non-Muslims in the West and abroad who support restrictions on speech relating to Muhammad and the Qur’an, both those who speak out and those who remain silent as the agitators move their argument forward.

 “Lookie-loos”

These are curious, indifferent, or timid onlookers. They are not sympathetic to the cause and many would oppose it if they gave it some thought but are useful to the agitators for their silence, which helps the optics by giving appearance of wide agreement. In this analogy, these are regular folks who may know something is wrong but don’t want to stick their necks out.

Today is a moment in history. Many of us see ourselves as spectators without a serious part to play in the larger affairs of the world. I encourage you to understand that what you say matters. I encourage you to live purposefully and to, in love for your neighbor, take a stand for liberty in speech and deed as you go about your daily life.

Do not give up free speech so casually. It is a precious thing.

Dr. Daniel A. Brubaker is a writer for the Legal Project, an effort of the Middle East Forum.

This November was meant to be the month for MP Geert Wilders’ second “Draw Muhammad” contest, but Islamic law won a de facto victory over Dutch law mere weeks ago as Wilders announced the contest’s cancellation. When — among many other threats similar attacks — a 19-year-old Afghan stabbed two American tourists in Amsterdam, citing the planned contest as motive, Wilders canceled the event out of concern about further violence.

The Islamists had made their point: “Having the law on your side makes no difference. Do what we want, or somebody is going to get hurt.”

Such antics by Islamist Muslims are not new to Wilders and other speech and conscience advocates. In retribution for his firm and outspoken stance on this subject, he has “spent 15 years living in safe houses and escorted by a security detail due to constant death threats.” These are the tactics, of course, of any common mafia.

In securing Wilders’ retreat, the terrorists established Sharia’s authority for now in the Netherlands on the issue of speech.

The first “Draw Muhammad” contest, organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, was held on May 3, 2015 in Garland, Texas. The purpose of Geller and Spencer, and the purpose of Wilders in organizing another this year, was to preserve space for free speech in the face of known supremacist Muslim intentions to forcefully diminish that space.

During the 2015 event, two Muslim men — one a convert but both American-born — armed with multiple rifles and handguns and 1500 rounds of ammunition, began shooting their way into the venue. Both were killed. The purpose of “the Islamist mob” is to assert authority for Islam over all other legal authorities, to become dominant.

What is going on, in other words, are tests of national sovereignty, a battle of civilizations. In this most recent round, I regret to report, the winner was not Western civilization, but rather the Islamist mob.

The Islamist mob is training many societies, and most particularly non-Muslims within them, to behave the way it wants them to behave. They are doing so through well-known manipulative techniques. Some being employed in this case include:

Threats of violence: “If I don’t not get my way, you will suffer or die. And it will be your fault, since I gave you fair warning.” (No. The guilt for an act of violence lies with the perpetrator of that violence.)

Tantrums: “I am going to lose control and make a big scene because of what you do.” (No. Children throw tantrums but grownups find more productive ways to resolve their concerns.)

False equivalence: “My hurt feelings warrant your death.” (No. Hurt feelings are unfortunate, but death of the one who gave a perceived or actual slight is hardly a proportionate or justified response.)

Any mob is comprised of several different types of people:

Agitators

These are the vocal demagogues who take center stage or move about the crowd stirring people up. There are typically only a small number of agitators in any given mob. In this analogy, the agitators are those Muslim leaders and activists, and their Western leftist allies, who call for the imposition of Islamic law’s speech limits in the West.

 Sympathetic attendees

These are people who readily assent to the ideas of the agitators. Not all sympathetic attendees take direct action, but their presence and consent helps to advance the cause of the agitators.

In this analogy, the sympathetic attendees are the portion of Muslims and non-Muslims in the West and abroad who support restrictions on speech relating to Muhammad and the Qur’an, both those who speak out and those who remain silent as the agitators move their argument forward.

 “Lookie-loos”

These are curious, indifferent, or timid onlookers. They are not sympathetic to the cause and many would oppose it if they gave it some thought but are useful to the agitators for their silence, which helps the optics by giving appearance of wide agreement. In this analogy, these are regular folks who may know something is wrong but don’t want to stick their necks out.

Today is a moment in history. Many of us see ourselves as spectators without a serious part to play in the larger affairs of the world. I encourage you to understand that what you say matters. I encourage you to live purposefully and to, in love for your neighbor, take a stand for liberty in speech and deed as you go about your daily life.

Do not give up free speech so casually. It is a precious thing.

Dr. Daniel A. Brubaker is a writer for the Legal Project, an effort of the Middle East Forum.

Artificial intelligence (A.I.) is the current hot item in “tomorrow world,” as techies see it as the next new thing to take over outmoded human brains, some of which actually do possess a modicum of native intelligence.  A.I. algorithms have been successfully implemented by many enterprises to do such tasks as determining credit risk, consumer marketing optimization, credit card fraud detection, investment decision making, x-ray and electrocardiogram interpretation, and efficient travel and navigation choices.  So far, so good.

In the mold of “I am from the government and here to help you,” A.I. is being promoted to even more critical tasks – say, driving a car.  However, programmers and engineers might reflect a bit more on one of the more pervasive and deadly laws of the universe – the law of unintended consequences – and the limits of programmed intelligence.

Consider the recent crash of a Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, operated by Indonesian Lion Air, killing all 189 people on board.  Flight data reports detail the vain struggle of the pilots trying to keep the aircraft level while the latest addition to the automated functions of the aircraft had erroneously declared an imminent stall and put the plane into a sharp, corrective dive.  Attempts by the pilots to pull the plane to level flight were apparently overridden by the newest enhancement of the on-board computer system, and it nose-dived into the sea.

While the A.I. computer was making a billion calculations per second in a game of “match the output of the sensors to the library of stored known objects,” the pilots of the doomed aircraft probably could tell that the aircraft was flying level in spite of questionable sensor input to the contrary.

Replacing human sensory input with electro-mechanical devices is common enough that the possibility of malfunction of either is a real consideration.  Humans have the evolutionary advantage in that their brains have an innate ability to make distinctions in the real world.  A.I. systems require learning exercises to identify objects and situations already mastered by a six-month-old child.  The A.I. computer must build its own library of objects against which it will base future decisions as it navigates its decision tree based on sensor inputs.  What happens when a bug or ice fouls a sensor?  A.I. also lacks the adaptability and value-judgement skills possessed by humans to deal successfully with a situation for which it has no prior training or reference data in its decision-tree core.

The unnecessary death of 189 people is a high price to pay for a computer programming glitch.  ”To err is human” is good advice for A.I. programmers as well.

Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Heartland Institute policy expert on environment; VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE).  His website is www.climateis.com.

Artificial intelligence (A.I.) is the current hot item in “tomorrow world,” as techies see it as the next new thing to take over outmoded human brains, some of which actually do possess a modicum of native intelligence.  A.I. algorithms have been successfully implemented by many enterprises to do such tasks as determining credit risk, consumer marketing optimization, credit card fraud detection, investment decision making, x-ray and electrocardiogram interpretation, and efficient travel and navigation choices.  So far, so good.

In the mold of “I am from the government and here to help you,” A.I. is being promoted to even more critical tasks – say, driving a car.  However, programmers and engineers might reflect a bit more on one of the more pervasive and deadly laws of the universe – the law of unintended consequences – and the limits of programmed intelligence.

Consider the recent crash of a Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, operated by Indonesian Lion Air, killing all 189 people on board.  Flight data reports detail the vain struggle of the pilots trying to keep the aircraft level while the latest addition to the automated functions of the aircraft had erroneously declared an imminent stall and put the plane into a sharp, corrective dive.  Attempts by the pilots to pull the plane to level flight were apparently overridden by the newest enhancement of the on-board computer system, and it nose-dived into the sea.

While the A.I. computer was making a billion calculations per second in a game of “match the output of the sensors to the library of stored known objects,” the pilots of the doomed aircraft probably could tell that the aircraft was flying level in spite of questionable sensor input to the contrary.

Replacing human sensory input with electro-mechanical devices is common enough that the possibility of malfunction of either is a real consideration.  Humans have the evolutionary advantage in that their brains have an innate ability to make distinctions in the real world.  A.I. systems require learning exercises to identify objects and situations already mastered by a six-month-old child.  The A.I. computer must build its own library of objects against which it will base future decisions as it navigates its decision tree based on sensor inputs.  What happens when a bug or ice fouls a sensor?  A.I. also lacks the adaptability and value-judgement skills possessed by humans to deal successfully with a situation for which it has no prior training or reference data in its decision-tree core.

The unnecessary death of 189 people is a high price to pay for a computer programming glitch.  ”To err is human” is good advice for A.I. programmers as well.

Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Heartland Institute policy expert on environment; VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE).  His website is www.climateis.com.

BY: Bill McMorris Follow
@FBillMcMorris

November 24, 2018 5:00 am

An elderly tech inventor is accusing the federal government of personally targeting him to block him from patenting his life’s work.

Anyone who uses a computer or television has enjoyed the fruits of Gil Hyatt’s labor. He has pioneered technology and computer programming used by Panasonic, Sony, Philips, and Toshiba. He poured the licensing fees back into the lab where he has continued his research for decades. But beginning in the mid-1990’s, Hyatt said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) began enforcing a blockade against his patent applications. The agency, his suit claims, went so far as to create a dedicated group of regulators committed to delaying numerous applications until the 80-year-old inventor expires.

“The PTO founded what the agency calls the ‘Hyatt Unit’ in 2012 for the purpose of miring all of Mr. Hyatt’s applications in administrative purgatory until Mr. Hyatt gives up or dies,” the suit says.

Hyatt’s suit mentions the monetary toll the PTO’s actions have had on his life. He has invested thousands of dollars into complying with the agency’s paperwork requests and eventually litigation to get them the up-or-down judgment regulators refuse to grant. The delays have no doubt cost him potential earnings, denied licensing and partnerships with companies interested in his inventions—earnings that might have netted him millions, but some of the research has been rendered obsolete as the agency sat on his applications. The money, however, is not his greatest concern. An inventor lives and dies by his reputation.

“Character assassination and poisoning the well are part of their [PTO’s] stock and trade,” he told the Washington Free Beacon in a phone interview. “They have taken away much of my wealth, caused me much emotional distress by making up these bad stories about me…I need closure and I need my reputation to be cleared.”

An agency spokesman declined comment, saying it does not discuss ongoing litigation.

Hyatt is no stranger to delays. He waited 22 years before the microprocessing tech he pioneered received a patent in 1990—one of the 75 patents has obtained from the agency before seeing his applications go seemingly dormant. The agency treated him as a “submariner”—one who adds small tweaks to existing patents to generate new ones—or worse a “patent troll”—a person who uses patents solely to sue other companies in the same field. Hyatt insists he is neither.

“I believe that the PTO, starting in the mid-90s was very strongly against individual inventors and were being lobbied and to some degree controlled by big companies,” Hyatt said. “I’ve never litigated against a company for infringement—I’ve never sued anyone for patents.”

PTO has argued that Hyatt is inappropriately attempting “to have this Court provide oversight into the complex and ongoing examination of his almost 400 applications comprised of over 115,000 claims.” The agency says the Court cannot issue a review until it renders a final judgment on the worthiness of the applications. PTO blamed Hyatt for the decades-long delay, saying his litigation “only serve to inhibit the agency from coming to a final decision.”

“There is simply no legal basis for the relief Mr. Hyatt seeks beyond the actions the USPTO has already taken,” the agency said in a motion to dismiss. “Agencies need the freedom to deliberate and come to final decisions on their own before the courts step in and review.”

Hyatt’s attorney, Andrew Grossman of Baker Hostetler, said the agency has abused its discretion in violation of the inventor’s constitutional rights. Regulators had “acted in bad faith” and sat on his applications for decades, stalling tactics that deprived him of his intellectual property and his ability to seek judicial relief. He described PTO as a “rogue agency” hoping to dodge oversight.

“The idea that an agency can decide to discriminate in every way against a specific citizen and a court can’t do anything about it because the agency isn’t done discriminating against him yet is ludicrous,” Grossman said. “That’s the kind of stuff an agency argues when it cannot win on the merits.”

All Hyatt is asking for, according to Grossman, is an up-and-down decision. He’d take a rejection over the stalling tactics that prevent him from seeking relief. The agency should do away with the “Hyatt Unit” and weigh his inventions on their merits, rather than the name at the top of the applications.

“It is not PTO’s role to pass judgment on people. It’s their role to evaluate applications. They’re not supposed to be in the business of value judgments,” Grossman said. “They are violating their obligations as servants of the public and violating Gil’s constitutional property rights.”

The case is now before the U.S. District Court in Eastern Virginia.

Now that #MeToo has made heroines out of women accusing powerful men of sexual abuse, Monica Lewinsky is providing her side of the story of the encounters that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, the same array of forces that circled the first Clinton White House to dismiss her as one of the “nuts and sluts” (hat tip: James Carville, who is all but invisible in the media) would be suppressing her story. But now that Hillary is a loser and embarrassment, and Bill old, feeble, and evoking shame among those Dems that are capable of that emotion, the former intern has a platform and an audience.

The A&E cable network is running a six part documentary series, featuring new interviews with now middle-aged Monica Lewinsky. The UK Daily Mail has a lengthy account of what is contained in the episodes broadcasts so far, including:

Monica Lewisnky recounted the moment that the sitting president encouraged her to lie under oath on the final episode of the A&E docuseries The Clinton Affair.

It marked the first time that Lewinsky has actually stated that Bill Clinton advised her to deny their affair if called to testify in the Paula Jones case, pointing out that she could avoid being deposed if she simply denied the charge in an affidavit.

Then, in a shockingly bold move, Clinton called for Lewinsky a few days later and the pair enjoyed an intimate, and private, Christmas party in the White House.

Unbeknownst to Lewinsky that was the end of the pair’s relationship, with Clinton quickly bailing on his 24-year-old paramour who was left to do battle with the special prosecutor, the FBI and the American public on her own while he fell back on a multi-million dollar legal fund raised by supporters.

It became too much for Lewinsky at one point she said, and she seriously considered taking her own life.  

When Bill told her that she was on the witness list to be called to testify in the Paula Jones lawsuit, he didn’t directly ask her to lie, but hinted at the possibility:

‘I was petrified. I was frantic about my family, and this becoming public. Thankfully, Bill helped me lock myself back from that and he said I could probably sign an affidavit to get out of it, and he didn’t even know if a 100 percent I would be subpoenaed.’

Lewinsky then pointed out that Clinton never said: ‘Now, listen you’re gonna have to lie here.’

She followed that up though by stating he also never said: ‘Listen, honey, this is gonna be really awful we’re gonna have to tell the truth.’

In case anyone doubted that Bill Clinton is a cad (I know, it’s an old fashioned word in this era of Grinder and hookups), her account of his arranging a final tryst before letting her know that her services were no longer required settles the question.

Read the whole thing.

There is more to come, no doubt. Lewinsky speaking out will not help Hillary appeal to the feminist wing of the party if she seeks the nomination in 2020.

Now that #MeToo has made heroines out of women accusing powerful men of sexual abuse, Monica Lewinsky is providing her side of the story of the encounters that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, the same array of forces that circled the first Clinton White House to dismiss her as one of the “nuts and sluts” (hat tip: James Carville, who is all but invisible in the media) would be suppressing her story. But now that Hillary is a loser and embarrassment, and Bill old, feeble, and evoking shame among those Dems that are capable of that emotion, the former intern has a platform and an audience.

The A&E cable network is running a six part documentary series, featuring new interviews with now middle-aged Monica Lewinsky. The UK Daily Mail has a lengthy account of what is contained in the episodes broadcasts so far, including:

A&E screen grab

Monica Lewisnky recounted the moment that the sitting president encouraged her to lie under oath on the final episode of the A&E docuseries The Clinton Affair.

It marked the first time that Lewinsky has actually stated that Bill Clinton advised her to deny their affair if called to testify in the Paula Jones case, pointing out that she could avoid being deposed if she simply denied the charge in an affidavit.

Then, in a shockingly bold move, Clinton called for Lewinsky a few days later and the pair enjoyed an intimate, and private, Christmas party in the White House.

Unbeknownst to Lewinsky that was the end of the pair’s relationship, with Clinton quickly bailing on his 24-year-old paramour who was left to do battle with the special prosecutor, the FBI and the American public on her own while he fell back on a multi-million dollar legal fund raised by supporters.

It became too much for Lewinsky at one point she said, and she seriously considered taking her own life.  

When Bill told her that she was on the witness list to be called to testify in the Paula Jones lawsuit, he didn’t directly ask her to lie, but hinted at the possibility:

‘I was petrified. I was frantic about my family, and this becoming public. Thankfully, Bill helped me lock myself back from that and he said I could probably sign an affidavit to get out of it, and he didn’t even know if a 100 percent I would be subpoenaed.’

Lewinsky then pointed out that Clinton never said: ‘Now, listen you’re gonna have to lie here.’

She followed that up though by stating he also never said: ‘Listen, honey, this is gonna be really awful we’re gonna have to tell the truth.’

In case anyone doubted that Bill Clinton is a cad (I know, it’s an old fashioned word in this era of Grinder and hookups), her account of his arranging a final tryst before letting her know that her services were no longer required settles the question.

Read the whole thing.

There is more to come, no doubt. Lewinsky speaking out will not help Hillary appeal to the feminist wing of the party if she seeks the nomination in 2020.