Chinese business executives revealed to Reuters on Thursday they were summoned earlier in the week to a meeting in Shenzhen, the city closest to Hong Kong, and urged to invest more heavily in Hong Kong so they could help the Chinese Communist Party exert more control over the city.

According to Reuters’ sources, the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were urged by agents of China’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) to invest in key Hong Kong industries, including real estate and tourism, to create more jobs for Hong Kong residents and “stabilize” both the markets and political situation.

Among the attendees at the meeting were enormous state-run corporations like the Sinopec oil company and the China Merchants Group, plus a number of corporations involved in China’s huge international infrastructure program, the Belt and Road Initiative.

Reuters reported these companies were explicitly told to use their very deep pockets to exert more control over Hong Kong:

Instead of simply holding stakes in Hong Kong companies, the Chinese SOEs were also urged to look to control companies and have decision-making power in them, one of the people familiar with the meeting said.

“The business elites in Hong Kong are certainly not doing enough. Most of them are just not one of us,” the SOE executive who was at the meeting told Reuters.

SASAC’s Communist Party chief, Hao Peng, appeared in Hong Kong on Wednesday at a forum for the Belt and Road infrastructure initiative and said that SOEs were looking for ways to cooperate in major projects in the city, according to a SASAC news release.

Hao, who was accompanied by a group of SOE executives, also met with Carrie Lam, the city’s chief executive.

Chinese state media reported on a similar meeting last month in which Hong Kong business leaders and politicians aligned with Beijing were encouraged to “have no fears and stand up” to the protest movement. Hong Kong’s top tycoons called for an end to the protests after collectively losing over $15 billion, but many of their employees remain supportive of the movement and view economic disruption as a means of forcing the government to address their demands.

Reuters noted that China has not been shy about squeezing corporations to act against the protest movement or at least refrain from supporting it in any way, with Hong Kong’s premier airline, Cathay Pacific, serving as a dramatic example. The corporation that runs Hong Kong’s metro rail service has also responded to pressure from Beijing, to the dismay and anger of pro-democracy activists.

The Wall Street Journal observed on Friday that for all of China’s talk about building up Shenzhen or Shanghai as a replacement for unruly Hong Kong, the city still plays an indispensable role in China’s relationship with the global economy. Hong Kong’s autonomy and the special rights granted by its “Basic Law” allow Beijing to take a firmer hand everywhere else, making Hong Kong a readily accessible lobby where foreigners can do business with confidence while China’s other cities are locked down and tightly controlled.

Beijing and its loyalists in Hong Kong have been warning protesters their continued activities will disrupt the economy and drive away businesses. According to a study published on Friday, a sizable number of enterprises are thinking about pulling out of Hong Kong if unrest continues, but only a few have made firm plans to relocate, and almost all of them are looking at Singapore, not Shenzhen or Shanghai.

The Hong Kong industry hit hardest by the protests is clearly tourism, with tourism from China falling by almost 90 percent over the past year according to some studies. This could make investing in tourism a hard sell to Chinese SOEs, but, on the other hand, they might see doing everything they can to stabilize the political system and repair the hospitality industry as a necessary investment.

An op-ed at China’s state-run China Daily on Thursday denounced American sanctions against nations like Iran and North Korea as “human rights violations” on the grounds that they cause ordinary civilians to suffer much more than the leadership of rogue regimes.

The article pushed Beijing’s view of sanctions, and most complaints about human rights for that matter, as a hypocritical tactic invented by the West to keep rising economies down:

U.S. leaders, past and present, like to tout the effects of their crippling sanctions on countries such as Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Syria. They claim that economic sanctions deprive some governments of the money to develop nuclear weapons, pressure their leaders to change course and defend human rights, freedom and democracy.

I am not defending every policy of these governments. But the U.S. and many other Western countries are indeed good at hijacking the moral high ground.

What is true is that none of these sanctioned countries has surrendered to Washington after decades living under maximum pressure. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. economic embargo has been imposed for nearly 60 years and is now widely regarded as a debacle, even among many in the US.

When US economic sanctions cause skyrocketing inflation and unemployment in Iran and other countries, it is ordinary people who are collectively punished by the U.S. administration.

The China Daily critique was especially preoccupied with Iran, citing the hardships endured by the Iranian people as proof that Washington’s expressions of concern for the Iranian people are hollow. The China Daily writer neglected to blame the brutal Iranian regime for forcing its people to suffer instead of cutting the funds it spends on international terrorism and military adventures to free up more money for domestic concerns:

In an interview with Borges, an Iranian doctor talked about a shortage of medicine and medical equipment despite the fact they are supposed to be spared from sanctions. Most global companies, fearing potential US reprisal, have suspended business in Iran.

If sanctions have worked as US leaders claimed, they have worked as a tool to impoverish the local population and deny them food, medicine, education and a normal life.

The boy Borges discussed is just one of the tens of thousands of heartbreaking stories resulting from US economic sanctions. And if these are not human rights violations, what are they?

So when US officials, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, say the US stands with the Iranian people, I doubt he dares look into the eyes of that boy’s father.

“Sanctions, though there are no bombs dropped or shots fired, constitute an act of war. And though it isn’t a true shooting war, the damage done to innocent people is no different,” the editorial concluded.

The possibility of Iran sanctions easing after the departure of U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton, an unflagging critic of the Iranian regime, remains a topic of much speculation. President Donald Trump has reportedly entertained the possibility of offering some sanctions relief to advance negotiations with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, but the Iranians have generally insisted all sanctions must be unilaterally dropped before they will consider talks.

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who revealed the mass surveillance of Americans in his 2013 leaks about the National Security Agency (NSA), has issued a warning about the rise of AI-driven policing in the near future.

Snowden spoke to The Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill, the same reporter he worked with to release his bombshell NSA revelations in 2013.

The western dissident, now living in exile in Russia, condemned western governments for using the threat of terrorism to justify undermining Americans’ civil liberties.

Snowden spoke of “a litany of American destruction by way of American self-destruction, with the promulgation of secret policies, secret laws, secret courts and secret wars” following the September 11 attacks in 2001.

He also warned of new technological threats to freedom and privacy in the future, including “the refinement of artificial intelligence capabilities, such as facial and pattern recognition.”

“An AI-equipped surveillance camera would be not a mere recording device, but could be made into something closer to an automated police officer.”

Recent protests in Hong Kong have seen demonstrators employ innovative methods to counter the communist government’s facial recognition technology, including the use of face masks and bright lasers aimed at cameras to avoid identification by the communist regime.

Facial recognition is becoming a commonly used technology in the west, too. Facebook recently rolled out facial recognition technology across its platform, despite a lawsuit against the company for using the technology without users’ consent.

The Metropolitan Police in London, England also employ a facial recognition database — although a recent report revealed that 81 percent of people who the system flags as possible suspects are innocent.

Are you an insider at Google, Facebook, Twitter or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com. 

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

When the economy is flourishing but a generation of the populace is fiscally failing, what has gone wrong?  Young Americans are struggling financially for a plethora of reasons, but one of those reasons is not the economy.  Then why are members of the Millennial and Z Generation struggling financially?  Primarily because of an insatiable taste for expensive goods and societal myths that continue to plague the nation in spite of a thriving economy.

Politics aside, the American economy is booming.  While this fact is often hard to admit for those who seek to discredit the success of the current presidential administration, the validity of the statistics is undeniable.  The United States currently has an unemployment rate of just 3.7 percent, the lowest rate since 1969, and a workforce of nearly 160,000,000 individuals.  While the stock market has recently fluctuated, the Dow Jones continues to sit above 27,000.  According to the Bureau of Labor, the U.S currently has over 7,200,000 job openings.  Besides that, wages continue to increase for the average worker at a rate not seen in over a decade, and consumer inflation continues to reside at the target two percent mark.

All of this means one thing: the United States economy is strong.

So, by extension of that fact, the average young and working American should be economically successful as well.  However, many are not.  NBC reports that 77 percent of all Millennials are currently in debt, and 25 percent of all Millennials have over $30,000 in debt.  While some young Americans must take out student loans for their college education, this is not the greatest cause of debt among Millennials.  Credit card debt is the highest debt form for young Americans, with 46 percent of Millennials having some form of credit-related debt.

Furthermore, Millennials within the U.S claim that they have delayed the purchase of a home, the starting of a family, and saving for retirement because of their debt.  This is coupled with the fact that over 50 percent of Millennials either have less than $1,000 in a savings account, or no savings account at all.

Have the schools failed to teach students to save and prepare for their future adequately?  Maybe.  Nonetheless, schools are not wholly responsible for the economic woes of an entire generation.  That generation is responsible for its own economic failures.

What are the roots of these woes?

The 1950s was a decade of unparalleled economic success in the United States.  Following the conclusion of World War II the economy grew at an undeniably fast rate and prosperity blossomed atop of the ashes of the Great Depression.  Those who succeeded in this generation were able to provide for themselves a livelihood never seen before, such as the purchasing of personal vehicles and suburban homes.  Consumer goods like television sets and household appliances also became available for the average American.  Parents also began to send their children to private educational facilities more than ever before.  In the 1950s, this was a life of luxury transposed on ordinary citizens.  These ordinary citizens were also able to provide this livelihood to their children of the Baby Boomer generation and children of Generation X.

The problem today is that many children who grew up with the success of their parents and grandparents desire that same level of success in their early adult years.  Beyond that, those same children desire the benefits of success before they have achieved their own level of personal success.  This leads to the issue of credit card and even student loan debt.

So young Americans have an insatiable taste for expensive goods and experiences that they do not yet have the means to obtain.

This argument can be supported by the vacationing trends of members of the Millennial and Z Generations and the Baby-Boomer Generation.  For example, in the state of Illinois, a person between the age of 18 and 34 (millennial) will make approximately $40,000 in one year.  A person between the age of 55 and 74 (Baby-Boomer) will make approximately $60,000 in one year.  A person between the ages of 18 and 34 will spend approximately $1,400 on vacation during the summer months, while a person between the ages of 55 and 74 will spend approximately $1,900 in the same period.  While Millennials spend less overall on vacation, they are spending a greater percentage of their annual income.  This is particularly alarming considering that many Millennials have insignificant levels of savings.

In addition, Millennials are sometimes known as the “avocado toast” generation because of their propensity to over-spend on dining out, splurge on expensive coffee, and buy unneeded or excessive amounts of clothing and technology.  This is in combination with statistics that show that the average American will now spend over $120,000 to obtain a bachelor’s degree that and 67% of students entering college will attend a four-year university rather than a trade school or community college.

What does this all mean?  Young Americans are in a poor financial state, but it’s not the economy’s fault.  Young Americans are spending beyond their means for unnecessary items and experiences while paying far too much for a college education.

This is not to suggest that recent high school graduates should forgo a college education.  Neither is this suggesting that young Americans should live a miserable existence without technology or modern amenities.  This is suggesting, however, that more young Americans should consider four-year university alternatives like trade schools that are far less expensive, where earning potential is only slightly less in a much more stable market.  This is suggesting that young Americans should try harder to live within their means and establish savings accounts.  This is suggesting that the economy is strong, and when a nation’s economy is strong, it should not be blamed for the economic woes of its people.

The takeaway?  Lay off the Starbucks, start a savings account, and stop blaming the American economy for a problem it didn’t create.

Andrew Cunningham is a published author and a junior at the University of Illinois, Springfield.  Follow his writings at Conservative Roundtable.

When the economy is flourishing but a generation of the populace is fiscally failing, what has gone wrong?  Young Americans are struggling financially for a plethora of reasons, but one of those reasons is not the economy.  Then why are members of the Millennial and Z Generation struggling financially?  Primarily because of an insatiable taste for expensive goods and societal myths that continue to plague the nation in spite of a thriving economy.

Politics aside, the American economy is booming.  While this fact is often hard to admit for those who seek to discredit the success of the current presidential administration, the validity of the statistics is undeniable.  The United States currently has an unemployment rate of just 3.7 percent, the lowest rate since 1969, and a workforce of nearly 160,000,000 individuals.  While the stock market has recently fluctuated, the Dow Jones continues to sit above 27,000.  According to the Bureau of Labor, the U.S currently has over 7,200,000 job openings.  Besides that, wages continue to increase for the average worker at a rate not seen in over a decade, and consumer inflation continues to reside at the target two percent mark.

All of this means one thing: the United States economy is strong.

So, by extension of that fact, the average young and working American should be economically successful as well.  However, many are not.  NBC reports that 77 percent of all Millennials are currently in debt, and 25 percent of all Millennials have over $30,000 in debt.  While some young Americans must take out student loans for their college education, this is not the greatest cause of debt among Millennials.  Credit card debt is the highest debt form for young Americans, with 46 percent of Millennials having some form of credit-related debt.

Furthermore, Millennials within the U.S claim that they have delayed the purchase of a home, the starting of a family, and saving for retirement because of their debt.  This is coupled with the fact that over 50 percent of Millennials either have less than $1,000 in a savings account, or no savings account at all.

Have the schools failed to teach students to save and prepare for their future adequately?  Maybe.  Nonetheless, schools are not wholly responsible for the economic woes of an entire generation.  That generation is responsible for its own economic failures.

What are the roots of these woes?

The 1950s was a decade of unparalleled economic success in the United States.  Following the conclusion of World War II the economy grew at an undeniably fast rate and prosperity blossomed atop of the ashes of the Great Depression.  Those who succeeded in this generation were able to provide for themselves a livelihood never seen before, such as the purchasing of personal vehicles and suburban homes.  Consumer goods like television sets and household appliances also became available for the average American.  Parents also began to send their children to private educational facilities more than ever before.  In the 1950s, this was a life of luxury transposed on ordinary citizens.  These ordinary citizens were also able to provide this livelihood to their children of the Baby Boomer generation and children of Generation X.

The problem today is that many children who grew up with the success of their parents and grandparents desire that same level of success in their early adult years.  Beyond that, those same children desire the benefits of success before they have achieved their own level of personal success.  This leads to the issue of credit card and even student loan debt.

So young Americans have an insatiable taste for expensive goods and experiences that they do not yet have the means to obtain.

This argument can be supported by the vacationing trends of members of the Millennial and Z Generations and the Baby-Boomer Generation.  For example, in the state of Illinois, a person between the age of 18 and 34 (millennial) will make approximately $40,000 in one year.  A person between the age of 55 and 74 (Baby-Boomer) will make approximately $60,000 in one year.  A person between the ages of 18 and 34 will spend approximately $1,400 on vacation during the summer months, while a person between the ages of 55 and 74 will spend approximately $1,900 in the same period.  While Millennials spend less overall on vacation, they are spending a greater percentage of their annual income.  This is particularly alarming considering that many Millennials have insignificant levels of savings.

In addition, Millennials are sometimes known as the “avocado toast” generation because of their propensity to over-spend on dining out, splurge on expensive coffee, and buy unneeded or excessive amounts of clothing and technology.  This is in combination with statistics that show that the average American will now spend over $120,000 to obtain a bachelor’s degree that and 67% of students entering college will attend a four-year university rather than a trade school or community college.

What does this all mean?  Young Americans are in a poor financial state, but it’s not the economy’s fault.  Young Americans are spending beyond their means for unnecessary items and experiences while paying far too much for a college education.

This is not to suggest that recent high school graduates should forgo a college education.  Neither is this suggesting that young Americans should live a miserable existence without technology or modern amenities.  This is suggesting, however, that more young Americans should consider four-year university alternatives like trade schools that are far less expensive, where earning potential is only slightly less in a much more stable market.  This is suggesting that young Americans should try harder to live within their means and establish savings accounts.  This is suggesting that the economy is strong, and when a nation’s economy is strong, it should not be blamed for the economic woes of its people.

The takeaway?  Lay off the Starbucks, start a savings account, and stop blaming the American economy for a problem it didn’t create.

Andrew Cunningham is a published author and a junior at the University of Illinois, Springfield.  Follow his writings at Conservative Roundtable.

Do you think the Trump economy has been good to all Americans?

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.”
―Confucius

The slowly diminishing circus of Democratic presidential hopefuls is engaged in a black cat–seeking exercise on a grand scale with regard to the highly emotional climate hoax.  They are seeking to frighten the populace with what is not there.  The clear and present danger is not weather-related disaster, but rather the assured calamity that will result from the outlandish proposals offered as solutions to a nonexistent problem.

The vacuity of the whole concept of climate change has been demonstrated in provable detail by many learned papers by credible authors.  Civilization as we know it will absolutely not end in ten or twelve or any number of years because of weather changes induced by mankind, as the alarmists so shrilly contend.

What is happening is that rabid socialists have found a fertile audience in the emotionally driven shallow thinkers of our society.  This group can be easily manipulated by appeals to emotion without having to resort to facts.

The political Left, the socialists and Marxists best defined by the current Democratic Party, have adapted the climate, made it an issue, and weaponized it as a tool in their long-term quest for total consolidation of power in the government and total control over our lives.

The Democratic presidential candidates are climbing all over each other trying to out-left the next one in their platform proposals, but let’s stick to their recent climate proposals as illustrative of how absolutely absurd they have become.

To bring the insanity together, CNN felt compelled to host a Climate Change Town Hall so all the socialists could showcase their delusions in one place.  Here are some of the more mind-blowing solutions proposed to the non-problem.

Andrew Yang proposed that the government confiscate gas-fueled vehicles.  Everyone will have to drive electric cars.  He would also ban fracking.

Joe Biden will eliminate fossil fuel and certainly ban fracking.  He  opposes nuclear energy.  He blames climate change for cancer.  Doesn’t everyone?

Kamala Harris’s solution was to ban plastic straws and ban fracking.  She opposes nuclear energy.  Tough to suck it up with Kamala.

Bernie Sanders proposed abortions, especially for women in poor countries, to control population growth.  He would nationalize energy production and ban fracking.  He opposes nuclear energy.

Cory Booker cast the issue as environmental racism and would ban fracking.  How did we miss the connection between hurricanes and racism?  Oh, wait, see Bernie Sanders with regard to abortions.

Fauxcahontas Warren would stop building nuclear energy plants and ban fracking.  Said nothing about signal fires.

Beto O’Rourke, a representative from Texas, no less, vowed to get rid of all fossil fuels and ban fracking.  Also opposes nuclear energy.  Beto needs a new state — quickly.

Pete Buttigieg would tax fossil fuel and give the money to the poor.  There’s a solution everyone missed.  He would also ban fracking and opposes nuclear energy.  Says God thinks greenhouse gases are a sin.  Let’s be sure we have this straight: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and necessary for plant life, so, by extension, God says supporting plant life is a sin.

All of the candidates want to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that Obama committed the U.S. to by executive order and President Trump wisely withdrew from.  The agreement amounted to a resource redistribution plan for the benefit of third-world nations, particularly since there is no climate change to solve.

None of the candidates seems to understand that the United States is the only nation in the world that has reduced its emissions over the past 15 years while growing its economy, nor do they understand that a major reason for that is the increase in the use of natural gas made possible by hydro-fracking technology.  They all want to ban the cleanest energy of all: nuclear energy.  None seems to have contemplated how greatly increased electrical demand will be satisfied with no fossil fuel or nuclear generation.  Wind and solar are too intermittent to satisfy a large percentage of demand anytime soon, and, without huge government subsidies, no alternative energy source is close to being affordable, not that any of these clowns cares.

The “Green Proposals” would destroy the economy of our nation, costing tens of trillions of dollars and returning nothing even if any of them were viable.  Worse, none solves any climate problems because there are no climate problems to solve.

The real irony is that less than 50 years ago, the previous generation of self-proclaimed climate experts were assuring us that the planet was on the verge of the next ice age.  Weather cycles in tens of thousands of years.  One must wonder what changed so dramatically in 50 years that our demise has gone from freezing to incinerating in a geological flash.  The answer is political narrative.  Certainly not the geophysics of weather.

Dave Ball is a voice for conservatism, the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official, and a county party official.

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.”
―Confucius

The slowly diminishing circus of Democratic presidential hopefuls is engaged in a black cat–seeking exercise on a grand scale with regard to the highly emotional climate hoax.  They are seeking to frighten the populace with what is not there.  The clear and present danger is not weather-related disaster, but rather the assured calamity that will result from the outlandish proposals offered as solutions to a nonexistent problem.

The vacuity of the whole concept of climate change has been demonstrated in provable detail by many learned papers by credible authors.  Civilization as we know it will absolutely not end in ten or twelve or any number of years because of weather changes induced by mankind, as the alarmists so shrilly contend.

What is happening is that rabid socialists have found a fertile audience in the emotionally driven shallow thinkers of our society.  This group can be easily manipulated by appeals to emotion without having to resort to facts.

The political Left, the socialists and Marxists best defined by the current Democratic Party, have adapted the climate, made it an issue, and weaponized it as a tool in their long-term quest for total consolidation of power in the government and total control over our lives.

The Democratic presidential candidates are climbing all over each other trying to out-left the next one in their platform proposals, but let’s stick to their recent climate proposals as illustrative of how absolutely absurd they have become.

To bring the insanity together, CNN felt compelled to host a Climate Change Town Hall so all the socialists could showcase their delusions in one place.  Here are some of the more mind-blowing solutions proposed to the non-problem.

Andrew Yang proposed that the government confiscate gas-fueled vehicles.  Everyone will have to drive electric cars.  He would also ban fracking.

Joe Biden will eliminate fossil fuel and certainly ban fracking.  He  opposes nuclear energy.  He blames climate change for cancer.  Doesn’t everyone?

Kamala Harris’s solution was to ban plastic straws and ban fracking.  She opposes nuclear energy.  Tough to suck it up with Kamala.

Bernie Sanders proposed abortions, especially for women in poor countries, to control population growth.  He would nationalize energy production and ban fracking.  He opposes nuclear energy.

Cory Booker cast the issue as environmental racism and would ban fracking.  How did we miss the connection between hurricanes and racism?  Oh, wait, see Bernie Sanders with regard to abortions.

Fauxcahontas Warren would stop building nuclear energy plants and ban fracking.  Said nothing about signal fires.

Beto O’Rourke, a representative from Texas, no less, vowed to get rid of all fossil fuels and ban fracking.  Also opposes nuclear energy.  Beto needs a new state — quickly.

Pete Buttigieg would tax fossil fuel and give the money to the poor.  There’s a solution everyone missed.  He would also ban fracking and opposes nuclear energy.  Says God thinks greenhouse gases are a sin.  Let’s be sure we have this straight: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and necessary for plant life, so, by extension, God says supporting plant life is a sin.

All of the candidates want to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that Obama committed the U.S. to by executive order and President Trump wisely withdrew from.  The agreement amounted to a resource redistribution plan for the benefit of third-world nations, particularly since there is no climate change to solve.

None of the candidates seems to understand that the United States is the only nation in the world that has reduced its emissions over the past 15 years while growing its economy, nor do they understand that a major reason for that is the increase in the use of natural gas made possible by hydro-fracking technology.  They all want to ban the cleanest energy of all: nuclear energy.  None seems to have contemplated how greatly increased electrical demand will be satisfied with no fossil fuel or nuclear generation.  Wind and solar are too intermittent to satisfy a large percentage of demand anytime soon, and, without huge government subsidies, no alternative energy source is close to being affordable, not that any of these clowns cares.

The “Green Proposals” would destroy the economy of our nation, costing tens of trillions of dollars and returning nothing even if any of them were viable.  Worse, none solves any climate problems because there are no climate problems to solve.

The real irony is that less than 50 years ago, the previous generation of self-proclaimed climate experts were assuring us that the planet was on the verge of the next ice age.  Weather cycles in tens of thousands of years.  One must wonder what changed so dramatically in 50 years that our demise has gone from freezing to incinerating in a geological flash.  The answer is political narrative.  Certainly not the geophysics of weather.

Dave Ball is a voice for conservatism, the author of conservative political commentary, a guest on political talk shows, an elected official, and a county party official.

Many modern leftists truly believe conservatives are evil. They can see no other reason why somebody would wish to deny other human beings free… well, anything. They fail to understand how someone would risk depriving others of their “right” to live anywhere they want, have everything that anyone else has, choose their own gender or genders—and be free from the consequences of their own actions.

In this way, they actually are evil, or, at minimum, the consequences of their beliefs and actions, even though they choose not to acknowledge them, are consistently, historically, evil. To those they (inadvertently?) victimize, this is a distinction without a difference. I know this is a difficult concept for a decent person to grasp, but it is factually so, nonetheless.

These leftists claim conservatives are evil and I claim they are evil, so obviously we are equally wrong—or right, depending on one’s perspective, no? This is clearly not how the mainstream media, academia and Big Tech see things. To the Media-Academic Complex, everything those on the left side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is for purely altruistic reasons, while everything those on the right side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is done out of intolerance, bigotry, greed or sheer spite.

Leftists impose their will on others because they purport to believe they know what’s best for them. They are the anti-Framers. This is why they slander the Founders, disdain the Constitution, and demand that statues and murals depicting them be removed. They would replace the Declaration of Independence with near total dependence on The State, meaning those like themselves. They try to repeal Natural Law and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — granted to us all by the Creator — by saying that equality of outcome supersedes equality of opportunity, and that God doesn’t really exist, is only a construct of ignorant, superstitious, backward rubes in rural wastelands.

They do this so they can replace God with themselves and Judeo-Christianity with the hyper-fundamentalist religions of Marxism-Socialism and Secularism. As Churchill said of the ultra-pompous Sir Stafford Cripps, “There but for the grace of God goes God.”

Communism extinguished over 100 million souls in the Twentieth Century alone. It has destroyed the lives of countless others in the two decades since. Western leftists should take a good look at the “quality of life” in “s—hole countries” like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, but of course they won’t. They are too busy denigrating the U.S.’s capitalist, free market system that feeds and donates money to much of the rest of the world’s nations to admit that there is a low quality of life –and often no life at all for dissenters — in these glorious “People’s Republics.” 

The United States was “born” by declaring that every person is born with equal rights to pursue human happiness and dignity… and that our rights come from God, not Rod… or Donald, Alexandria, Bernie, Joe, Elizabeth or Hillary. Far too many progressives and nearly all leftists believe that they and they alone are qualified to bestow rights upon others. They may disdain authority and the successful, yet they act as priest and pastor, judge, jury and executioner. They are the would-be arbiters of our freedoms, secret police waiting for us to carelessly use an incorrect pronoun to address someone in the “nanogender community” or declare that we aren’t convinced that climate change is entirely driven by human activity. They reject the idea of a higher power but are certain we — who could not ask to be created and cannot create ourselves — can choose our own sex.

Graphic credit: Pixabay

Many modern leftists truly believe conservatives are evil. They can see no other reason why somebody would wish to deny other human beings free… well, anything. They fail to understand how someone would risk depriving others of their “right” to live anywhere they want, have everything that anyone else has, choose their own gender or genders—and be free from the consequences of their own actions.

In this way, they actually are evil, or, at minimum, the consequences of their beliefs and actions, even though they choose not to acknowledge them, are consistently, historically, evil. To those they (inadvertently?) victimize, this is a distinction without a difference. I know this is a difficult concept for a decent person to grasp, but it is factually so, nonetheless.

These leftists claim conservatives are evil and I claim they are evil, so obviously we are equally wrong—or right, depending on one’s perspective, no? This is clearly not how the mainstream media, academia and Big Tech see things. To the Media-Academic Complex, everything those on the left side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is for purely altruistic reasons, while everything those on the right side of the political spectrum believe, do and propose is done out of intolerance, bigotry, greed or sheer spite.

Leftists impose their will on others because they purport to believe they know what’s best for them. They are the anti-Framers. This is why they slander the Founders, disdain the Constitution, and demand that statues and murals depicting them be removed. They would replace the Declaration of Independence with near total dependence on The State, meaning those like themselves. They try to repeal Natural Law and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — granted to us all by the Creator — by saying that equality of outcome supersedes equality of opportunity, and that God doesn’t really exist, is only a construct of ignorant, superstitious, backward rubes in rural wastelands.

They do this so they can replace God with themselves and Judeo-Christianity with the hyper-fundamentalist religions of Marxism-Socialism and Secularism. As Churchill said of the ultra-pompous Sir Stafford Cripps, “There but for the grace of God goes God.”

Communism extinguished over 100 million souls in the Twentieth Century alone. It has destroyed the lives of countless others in the two decades since. Western leftists should take a good look at the “quality of life” in “s—hole countries” like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, but of course they won’t. They are too busy denigrating the U.S.’s capitalist, free market system that feeds and donates money to much of the rest of the world’s nations to admit that there is a low quality of life –and often no life at all for dissenters — in these glorious “People’s Republics.” 

The United States was “born” by declaring that every person is born with equal rights to pursue human happiness and dignity… and that our rights come from God, not Rod… or Donald, Alexandria, Bernie, Joe, Elizabeth or Hillary. Far too many progressives and nearly all leftists believe that they and they alone are qualified to bestow rights upon others. They may disdain authority and the successful, yet they act as priest and pastor, judge, jury and executioner. They are the would-be arbiters of our freedoms, secret police waiting for us to carelessly use an incorrect pronoun to address someone in the “nanogender community” or declare that we aren’t convinced that climate change is entirely driven by human activity. They reject the idea of a higher power but are certain we — who could not ask to be created and cannot create ourselves — can choose our own sex.

Graphic credit: Pixabay