Open post

Larry Schweikart: How the 24-Hour News Cycle is Leading the Loss of the English Language

Guest Piece by America’s History Teacher, Larry Schweikart

Plenty of commentators have dealt with the lunacy that affects the English language today, from banning certain words as “racist,” “sexist,” or “something-ist.” Certainly that’s obvious to all. But there is another, more subtle change going on, even among the “friendly” or “reliable news pages.

It began when the 24-hour news cycle started to run out of, well, news. (Sidebar: How many of you want to throw a shoe at the television every time you hear that Fox News “BONG” breaking news alert—which was breaking news a week ago? And it doesn’t help that it’s oddly similar to the “Law and Order “BONG”). It took more than a decade for this development to settle in. At first, the networks filled the void with simply more talking heads, guests, and “analysts” telling you what the news was.

More recently however—I started really noticing it during the Mueller investigation—a host of non-news words began to creep into news stories. We began to see mush phrases such as

“Mueller mulling demand that Trump testify,” or “Mueller considering charging Don, Jr.” These kinds of hourly non-news stories utterly took over, for reporters weren’t supposed to know what was happening in the first place (the investigation after all—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—was to be secret. Since the Mueller team was leaking like the Titanic however, so-called journalists could not produce actual documents to prove anything. As it turned out, in fact, they had nothing to prove anything with. Instead, reporters reverted to the post-1980 favorite journalistic trick, the “unnamed source.” Realize it was not all that long ago that no reputable newspaper would ever run a piece with a single “anonymous source.” Indeed, according to a Chicago Tribune  reporter I interviewed during a foreword I wrote for Professor Jim Kuypers’ book, Partisan Journalism (2013), every major fact in a story was to be doubly sourced with public sources.

In case you didn’t notice, “mulling,” “considering,” “poised to,” “about to,” “prepared to,” “intends,” and other such mush words are utterly unprovable. “Yeah, Schweikart, Mueller intended to indict Don, Jr., but changed his mind.” Lacking any paper trail or actual documents, of course, such logic is irrefutable and every bit as meaningless or useless. After all, I intende to win both a Pulitzer and an Academy Award.

So consider a stroll through these headlines from July 26, 2020:

*(Politico) “Bass: Supporters will rally to Biden despite ‘94 Crime bill.”  (“will is future tense, and de facto can have no actual evidence. “The Dallas Cowboys will win the Super Bowl.” Um hum.)

*(www.thelibertydaily.com) “WATCH: Black man drops the mic on BLM movement.” (As interesting as this is, it is one man talking on a video on social media. He has no office, no official power to do anything.

*(Washington Free Beacon) “Illinois GOP Slams Press Corps for Failure to Press Democratic Governor on Corruption of Top Ally.” So the GOP said nasty things about the press? Maybe we should have a statue erected. Wait, those are being torn down . . . .

*(Twitchy) “I am appalled: Fromer Reagan Admin Official Mark Levin Calls out WaPo/Reagan Foundation story as ‘Publicity Stunt’. Once again, one person saying something about other people. Color me shocked.

*(Daily Political Newswire) “Eric Trump Mocks Joe Biden: ‘How Daring He is to Come Out of His Basement.’ One person mocks another. That’s hard hitting news fer ya!

*(BPR Business & Politics) “Lou Dobbs: ‘Mitch McConnell is doing a Paul Ryan. He’s about to lose the Senate.’” Again, Back to the Future.

*(New York Daily News, from October 28, 2017) “The Likely Targets in the Trump Camp of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Indictment” Hint: No one actually “in” the Trump camp was indicted. The closest was Gen. Michael Flynn, an Obama appointee.

*(Washington Post, November 14, 2017) “Sessions Considering Second Sepcial Counsel to Investigate Republican Concerns, Letter Shows.” Once again, people consider all sorts of things. I am “considering” moving to Bermuda, recording a drum solo album, and starting a major ant farm.

*(U.S. News July 22, 2020), “Democratic Group Looks to Close Trump-Biden Enthusiasm Gap.” Now, let that sink in, by the way. We have been told that Joe Biden has a massive lead in the polls. Five, ten, no make it fifteen points in Alabama!!! Why would the Democrats be worried about “closing a gap” that doesn’t exist? Unless, of course, it does and they know their guys is deader than a Thanksgiving Turkey. But the operative phrase is “looks to.” I look to lose 15 pounds and up my chess game.

*Finally, here is one via the New Hampshire Gazette via the AP from May 1, 2018: “Attorney: Mueller Team Weighing Subpoena for Trump.” I’m sure you “weigh” buying a new car vs. a trip to Vegas. This mush language is pure speculation about future events that might or might not happen.

All of these and many, many more (open Drudge or www.thelibertydaily.com for example) increasingly constitute “news,” because there is no news—at least, not nearly enough to fill up a 24/7 news cycle with thousands of internet “news” sites.  Eliminating “mush” language such as “considering,” “mulling,” “hoping to,” “planning,” ‘looking to,” “anticipating,” and so on is essential to the restoration of real news. Every story should be sourced with actual names, and two named sources required for every significant fact or claim. Finally, it wouldn’t hurt for editors to immediately bounce any story that isn’t describing something that has already happened instead of future events along a “12 Monkeys” timeline.

 

Larry Schweikart is the co-author with Michael Allen of the New York Times #1 bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States and the author of Reagan: The American President. He is also the founder of the Wild World of History website with history curricula for teachers and homeschoolers (www.wildworldofhistory.com).

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Kanye 2020: A Win/Win/Win For Kanye, Trump, and the USA

Guest Piece From America’s History Teacher, Larry Schweikart

In the fall of 2018 I was on a speaking trip to New Mexico. On Brandon Vogt’s radio show, I was asked who I thought would be the successor to Donald Trump, assuming he won reelection in 2020.  Vogt nearly fell out of the chair when I said “Kanye West.”

But my conclusion he would be (by 2024) the natural, perhaps ideal, candidate wasn’t just  an off-the-cuff capricious answer. I had given this a lot of thought. First, it can be argued that Barack Obama was the first “celebrity” president. True, he was a “traditional” politician, coming up through the ranks of the crooked Illinois system, then being whisked into the national spotlight with a speech. By the time he ran for president, however, it was all about the show. He was the “first black presidential candidate” (as the Hoax News media conveniently forgot Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes, to name two). Obama and his team treated his candidacy as a celebrity event, dwarfing the hapless and corrupt John McCain on social media. Obama’s nomination acceptance speech was nothing but show-biz, with Greek columns and the “Voice of God” reverberation. Almost none of his younger and/or black supporters knew anything he stood for or anything he claimed to believe. He was a “young,” “hip,” black guy so he was the natural choice.

But as much as Obama—or Zero, as I nickname him for his utter lack of achievements—tried to be a celebrity president, he still had too much of the Chicago School in him. And I don’t mean the one renowned for Milton Friedman! In most ways Zero was a typical politician, except he didn’t work nearly as hard as most other presidents. Thank God.

Enter Donald John Trump in 2015. Here was a true non-politician celebrity. He was better known by many voters as the “guy on the Apprentice” than as the successful real-estate developer that he was. Certainly he carried his well-earned playboy reputation from the New York dating scene. He had help found a football league, and in a giant splash signed star running back Herschel Walker (now, by the way, a supporter of him as president). Trump was the first true celebrity president. With no political background whatsoever, he wasn’t corrupted by K Street the way most were, and he didn’t come with baggage of compromises as a senator, governor, or congressman. His very entrance down the Trump Tower elevator was show biz.

Trump has in many ways continued to govern like a non-politician celebrity. He has not changed his language or communication one iota, speaking in everyday common words and phrases rather than the stultified and phony “Washingtonese.” In pure Page Six style, he doesn’t hesitate to duke it out on Twitter with attackers. His flair for the “show” was evident in his campaign when Steve Bannon convinced him to roll out four of the Clinton women who had been maltreated by the Slickmeister. During his presidency, the Celebrate America military parade and events at the monuments was the essential Hollywood production.

The key to the new presidency is name recognition. American education has so destroyed reading, cognitive, and critical skills that traditional advertising just won’t work. Nor is there a willingness to explore platforms or issues. Rather, a name people recognize will be the single most important factor behind voter registration in deciding a vote. We saw this in 2018 in the Ohio Senate race, where Jim Renacci as an unknown spent his entire campaign trying to generate name recognition to compete with Democrat Sherrod Brown. Renacci lost by a whopping 6 points, despite a less-than-popular Mike DeWine winning the governor’s race by more than three points. That is largely a ten-point swing based solely on name recognition of a less than stellar Brown.

Based on these factors, I theorized that only someone with massive name recognition could even consider running for president in 2024, and that for the Republicans, that someone would have to be a solid Christian. Again, without the ability to filter through platforms, the view voters have of a candidate will be based on statements and attitudes they have seen before the campaign.

For that reason, Kanye was distinctly appealing. A rapper who has become a vocal and highly public born-again Christian, a businessman who has branched out into clothing lines and restaurants, and an entertainer who produces and performs large public Christian events, Kanye checked many of the boxes. Moreover, given Trump’s steady and, now, undeniable appeal into the black community (getting between 15% and 28% black approval in most polls for over four years), there is a new segment of blacks who perhaps are unwilling to commit to being a “Republican” but who would vote for Trump in much greater numbers than in 2016. Kanye would almost certainly appeal to a share of that segment. (Not all because many are more mainstream conservative in their attitudes, if not their previous voting history).

To me, Kanye was the only celebrity who could be called “conservative” in his public statements who would have such appeal. I not only expected him to plan to run—as per many of his comments prior to yesterday—but to plan to win. Kanye West will not be on the ballot to “make a point.” But then I was taken by surprise by Kanye’s announcement of running for president in 2020. Certainly he knows he won’t beat Trump. As an independent, certainly he knows he won’t even carry a single state.

So why is he running?

Upon reflection it makes perfect sense. Kanye, despite obvious strengths, has several significant weaknesses to be appealing in 2024. As mentioned, he lacks any political experience at all. Getting on ballots, mounting some sort of campaign based on issues, organizing a campaign team, learning the discipline of multiple public appearances a day—these are all things Kanye has never done before. While he has had his share of music critics, political critics are different in that they question your very right to exist as a challenger to a Democrat.

A 2020 run will prepare West in ways no apprenticeship for four years ever could. Moreover, by running now to get experience, he will (when he loses) have a natural lowered expectations that won’t be there in 2024—the real deal. My guess is (though he is mercurial) that he will keep his criticism of Trump quite muted and focus on “unity” and “Christian principles” so that in 2024 he can gain Trump’s endorsement for the Republican nomination.

IF he’s serious. I think he is. I believe he believes God has chosen him to run.

Many of the criticisms of Kanye from Republicans/conservatives are valid. Many can be addressed by a competent political campaign. Two of the biggest are his history as a rapper (whose marriage began with a pornographic web video) and his battle with mental illness. To the first concern, Trump has already flattened or reduced many of those barriers, while at the same time showing what a commitment to Christ can do to change a life. (Maybe not every aspect of life, but the ones that matter most). Kanye will have four years to demonstrate this.

The bigger issue, and one not to be taken lightly, is his history of bi-polar disorder. But again, two factors are working to minimize this.

First, we are continually learning about previously concealed medical or psychological deficiencies of previous presidents. Today, for example, most people know Abraham Lincoln was a manic depressive; that James Buchanan was likely a homosexual; that Grover Cleveland was absent from the office entirely during a secret cancer surgery; that John Kennedy was on amphetamines and had Addison’s (a fatal) disease. Bi-polar disorder, if medicated, would seem to be no worse than some of these afflictions.

Second, over the past 40 years mental illness of all types has become normalized. It is seen as near-bigotry to claim that someone is incapable of doing a job because he has Autism, depression, or any other number of mental health issues. Our normalization works in Kanye’s favor.

For 2020, though, many are asking, “What will be the impact?” How will a run by Kanye as an independent play in the race? The reaction from Democrats tells you all you need to know: they are terrified. Already Joe Biden (Demented Perv Biteme) was only pulling 74% black support in polls. That is a 50-year low, and Hillary lost with 88% black support. Biden was likely to see an erosion of actual black vote combined with black stay-at-home of somewhere between 15-17% this time around, which is a death sentence for a Democrat candidate.

Now with Kanye? I would not be surprised to see Biden’s share of the black vote fall to under 50%; to see Trump increase to 11-13% black vote (combining actual votes for Trump and stay-at-homes as a “half vote”); and see Kanye get 30% or more.

In short, for Trump, Kanye, and the USA this is a win/win/win.

 

Larry Schweikart is the co-author of the NYTimes #1 bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen; author of Reagan: The American President; and founder of the Wild World of History historical website with full high school history curriculum in US and World history (www.wildworldofhistory.com).

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Larry Schweikart: An Alternative Theory of the Riots

Guest Piece by Larry Schweikart

Some of you may know that I’m a historian of American banking and finance—that was my original research area and I probably wrote 4-5 books on the subject. What makes that all the more remarkable is that I never took a formal course in banking, finance, or even economics in my life. It was all “on the job training.”

So in a recent chat with a former co-author, Professor Charles Calormiris of Columbia University, on an article that came to be the most-cited piece I’ve ever written (“The Panic of 1857,” Journal of Economic History), our conversation naturally turned to banking. He began discussing research from his 2015 book “Fragile By Design” with Stephen Haber. He mentioned that something they found in that book now seemed all the clearer in light of recent riots.

In the 1990s through the early 2000s, there was a merger wave occurring among banks and financial firms. Many of you will remember your local, hometown banks began to disappear, replaced by J. P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wachovia, and Bank of America. It turns out that in the late 1990s, in order to gain congressional approval for these pending mergers, the banks needed to get certain legislators on their side. Legislators who were, shall we say, highly persuaded by minority communities. More to the point, the big banks needed leading black organizations and leaders to support their mergers.

Now, you ask, what possibly could be the benefit to minorities of having giants like Citibank or Chase take over more local banks? Under normal circumstances, nothing. But shakedown artists like Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton always know where to find a buck. In this case it was “community reinvestment.” Banks, they figured, could be “encouraged” to make massive loans in minority neighborhoods. Gee, someone might have to, er, “direct” such lending, wouldn’t they?

Absolutely. May I introduce NCRC, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Bank loans to the “minority community” were funneled through the NCRC—no doubt with the reverends taking a reasonable fee for their services—and in return, the black community wrote letters and gave testimony supporting the mergers. Just how much money are we talking about here? Two trillion dollars.

That money began to run out in 2015. The loans were usually either 10- or 15-year loan programs. “What’s the big deal? Just go back and shake them down again,” you say. Not so fast: the mergers are already complete. The banks don’t need the black community anymore. Just where were the bulk of these loans made? Oh, my friends, you know the answer to that. Calomiris and Haber found the usual suspects: Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago—virtually anywhere there has been a riot recently.

It’s abundantly clear that one (perhaps only one, but perhaps the most important) of the factors that kept the streets quiet was the “walkin’ around money” spread by the banks seeking mergers. While the “Black Lives Matter” corporate coercion may produce relative dabs of cash, the leaders of these movements cannot hope to make up a $2 trillion shortfall. There may be much more to these riots than just “police brutality.” The gravy train has run out, and for now, even the ransom payments from corporate America won’t come close to replacing it.

Larry Schweikart is a historian, the co-author of A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen, author of Reagan: The American President, and is “America’s History Teacher” with a full US and World History curriculum for homeschoolers and other educators at www.wildworldofhistory.com.

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Larry Schweikart: Phones, Devices and Addiction – Managing, not Eliminating

Guest Piece by Larry Schweikart

I knew there was a problem when on Christmas Eve a family sat down next to us in church and before the choir even started singing, the man in the group pulled out his cell phone and began watching golf.

Yep. In church, on Christmas Eve.

Note to self: if you need to pull out your phone in church to do anything but read a Bible verse, you have a phone problem. If you spend more than two hours a day texting (this is the average texting time daily for teens!), you have a phone problem. If you miss meals and bathing because you are gaming on the internet, you are an addict. And if you or your kids are seeing psychologists for “anxiety” due to social media, you all have a phone and device problem.

The following is taken from my new book, All Thumbs: How Our Obsession with Phones and Devices is Damaging Our Children and Restructuring Our Lives, available only as a gift when you sign up for an annual VIP subscription at www.wildworldofhistory.com. While the field is still relatively new—remember, the “smart phone” only came out in 2007, the iPad in 2010—the vast, vast majority of research is suggesting that we as a society have phone and device problems. Simply put, the more you’re on the devices, the more likely you are to have anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts; for girls, the behaviors also include self-harm and cutting. What I propose is certainly not prohibition, which would be impossible in today’s society in the first place, but as one would with medicine, alcohol or fast cars, management and control.

The cell phone spread to one-quarter of the U.S. population faster than any product in history except for its companion, the internet (13 years vs. 7 years). Merely finding out how much people are on phones is a challenge, because some studies double count, such as when a child is watching an iPad while simultaneously playing a video game on a hand-held device or texting. According to Pew, 92% of teens go online daily and half go online multiple times a day. Women have more extensive use of cell phones than men do, especially when it comes to text messaging; men are more likely to use a phone while driving. (More on that in a moment).

Here comes the scary stuff. Some 40% of teens hide their online behavior from their parents, including more than half of those 14-16 years old. Some kids—14%—hide their passwords from their parents and 10% regularly delete their browsing history. Yet parents think they know what’s going on: 70% of parents are unaware of their kids online/phone activities.

The devices are just the beginning. The websites and activities are the real issues here. Heavy Facebook/Instagram use has infected youth with massive levels of anxiety. One-third of eighth graders spent large amounts of time online just reading what other kids were saying about them. One pediatrician cited in the book who only five years ago saw one patient a week for anxiety now reports three to four a day, virtually all of them young people. Merely leaving a conversation without saying “goodbye” (called “ghosting”) can cause remarkable unease. In a single year, 2017-2018, emergency room visits for suicidal ideatoin and/or self-directed harm rose by more than 25%. And this phenomena is reported worldwide, not just in America. (I can’t even begin to get into “cyberbullying” and human trafficking via the internet in such a short column).

I found hundreds of studies on changes in the brain caused by phones and/or devices. If you want a quick source, look for anything by UCLA’s Dr. Gary Small, one of the first to study the stimulation of the brain by a computer (and remember, that’s what a smartphone is). Scans of brain activity on internet surfers, gamers, even girls looking at their Facebook posts, show significant effects on brain activity, few of them good. The reliable Journal of the American Medical Association says “children who have more screen time have lower structural integrity of white matter tracks . . . that support language and other emergent literacy skills.” Still other studies found that reading on pads or screens changes the very way we read and radically diminishes understanding and retention.

As for devices being addictive, the science shies away from flatly stating this. Usually the phrases are “shows strong correlation with” or “is strongly associated with.” The reason for such mush phrases is that controlling for phone/device use that would allow for absolute “causation” statements would require massive long-term “double-blind” studies that likely could not be conducted given the restrictions on kids that would be required.

Yet when I asked the authors of these studies, as well as pastors, psychologists, therapists and others whether they thought the devices were addictive, with only one exception, they all said “yes.” Steve Jobs was so convinced the smartphone was a bad thing he wouldn’t let his own kids have one. Research has shown that devices cause the “dopamine tickle,” a phrase that refers to a release of the pleasure transmitter dopamine into the brain. Typical video game dopamine release are at the level of 100%, or about the same as sex (eating chocolate is rated at 50%, cocaine, 350%). Game-related addictions have even cause a new disorder to be named: “Internet Addiction Disorder,” or IAD. But it’s not just games: it turns out that releasing information on the web (“Do you know who I saw her with??”) also causes the “dopamine tickle.” Wait! It gets better (worse?): 55% of technicians monitoring heart bypass machines reported talking on their cell phones during surgery!

For our kids, it may be worse. Some 46% of all Americans said they could not live without their cell phones. A 2020 very large study of 21,000 high schoolers found the three most mentioned “feelings” they experienced were “tired, stressed, and bored,” with tired the most popular response. Why? Would it be because studies link phones to sleep deprivation? And keep in mind that a mere two hours a day on devices reduces language and thinking skills. At seven hours a day, research shows clear premature thinning of the cortex, a development that usually happns much later in a person’s aging process. How much time total do kids actually spend on phones and/or devices? Dr. Eimitri Christakis puts the number at 4.5 hours a day just on phones. Even kids admit they are spending too much time on phones, with 60% saying it is a “major problem’ in their life.

There is much more, including the dangers of texting and driving. But this is enough for now for you to ask, “So what do we do?

Here are three quick suggestions:

1) The first thing you and your kids need to do is to have an honest assessment of how much time you and they are on devices. This is time you are not interacting with another live person. So, carve out specific people time. That means, especially for parents with kids, car time and dinner time. No phones at dinner. No phones for anyone in the car unless it’s a GPS for around town. For longer trips, have the first half-hour out and the last half-hour back as no phone time.

2) Never allow children to sleep with their phones. If they (or you!) use a phone for an alarm, get a clock. Phones interrupt sleep in many different ways, as discussed in the book.

3) Most important, as you develop non-phone time and phone rules, parents remember it’s your phone. You pay for it, and therefore you get to set the rules.

These and many other suggestions, along with many sources and references for help, are in All Thumbs, and I’ve only scratched the surface. Start today learning to live better with your phone or your device!

Larry Schweikart is the co-author of the New York Times #1 bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen and the author of Reagan: The American President. He also has an instructional history site, www.wildworldofhistory.com where this and full history curricula can be purchased.

Open post

Larry Schweikart: How Trump has Re-Shaped the American Electorate

[Note: Larry Schweikart, America’s History Teacher and author/co-author of several best selling books, is a frequent contributor here at The Campaign Update. This morning he posted a terrific thread on Twitter containing an array of insights on current events and the 2020 election dynamics, which I am reproducing here with his permisssion.]

3) How do you know Trump has largely won on both issues? They ain’t in the news.

4) When was the last time you heard about the Wall? DemoKKKrats know they cannot stop it now. They’ve given up even trying. Trump pulled off a master move in funding it through the Pentagon.

5) On trade/outsourcing, Trump proved that, yes, he did have a magic wand and yes some of the jobs did come back & were coming back steadily before China retaliated with the China Virus.

6) But DemoKKKrats know in any kind of “normal” economy, MANY of those jobs will come back.

7) I am convinced this is partly the reason for the heightened Kushner attacks last week. DemoKKKrats are still (unsuccessfully) trying to drive a wedge between the jobs/trade side of MAGA and the immigration side.

8) BTW, where is Menopausal Ann [Coulter] on this? Where is DACA?

9) DemoKKKrats have totally dropped DACA cuz they lost.

10) What is the significance of the illegal slowdown? Of the DACA loss?

11) It has spurred the DemoKKKrats even more to try to find other voters to replace them.

12) DemoKKKrats’ black support is slowly eroding.

13) Just like whites, you will see a MAGA black side (most still will out of safety concerns not say this openly) and a (yes, much larger) BLM side.

14) On the MAGA side will be business owners, middle and aspiring middle class blacks, & blue collar workers.

15) Not surprisingly, while the percentages will be different, the black community will (finally) come to resemble the white community in that you’ll have snowflake BLM/college educated blacks robotized by “higher ed” & you’ll have “practical blacks” who’ve seen the Ds do nothing.

16) There is plenty of poll support for this second group of MAGA blacks to be anywhere from 15-25% of the black electorate, but there is good reason to think there is another skeptical layer that will always just stay home rather than keep voting for liars.

17) As @helloitsthao  [Thao Nguyen] points out, this is creating a “donut” where elements of inner cities & outer ring/rural whites vote MAGA and the inner suburb snowflake Karens vote Whackadoodle Lib.

18) However, in the bigger picture, Trump has totally destroyed the DemoKKKrats’ next 50 years of voter base with sharply curtailing illegals & by attracting “practical black” votes.

19) The DemoKKKrats had to go somewhere.

20) Enter the Snowflake Karens.

21) The dual edged sword of China Virus fear porn & the shaming-on-steroids BLM hate movement have thus far succeeded with that inner ring. Most urban-dwelling college educated now hate Trump (rural do not). This is largely out of fear-shaming by SJWs now joined by the corporates.

22) Oh, here are two Larry Schweikart prophecies: First, the NFL WILL sport some sort of BLM logo on helmets & uniforms this fall. (Your response: “Well, I’ll just watch college football.”) Not so fast. VERY SOON, maybe this year you’ll also see the colleges go full BLM in their sports.

22) contd. Second, the 15% movement, where bidnesses are shamed into saying they will purchase/use suppliers who are black owned by the rate of 15%? Soon BLM will demand 30%. Then 60%. Then 100%. NO. NUMBER. WILL. EVER. BE. ENOUGH.

23) Allow me to quote from “A Patriot’s History of the United States” by Schweikart and Michael Allen: [1960’s radical] Jerry Rubin explainedSatisfy our demands & we go twelve more… All we want from these meetings are demands that are never ‘reasonable’. When the demands reached the point that no rational university administrator [OR, I WOULD ADD TODAY, CITY OR BUSINESS LEADER] or public official could possibly comply with them,’ Rubin noted, “Then we scream, righteously angry . . . . Goals are irrelevant. The tactics, the actions are critical.”

24) Of course, Rubin wasn’t entirely honest. No leftists are. He meant that short-term goals were irrelevant, but the destabilization of society as a long-term objective was entirely relevant.

25) The last people to figure this out are liberals. That’s why in communist society they are the first ones shot and imprisoned. They are sheep, baffled by the fact that the “movement” has turned on them. Conservatives & advocates of freedom fought, ran, or hid for far longer.

26) In conclusion, the NFL, the NBA, the City of Seattle, the City of New York, the City of Chicago et al. are all on borrowed time. There will be “twelve more demands.”

[End]

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Larry Schweikart: Antifa’s Deadly Beauty

Guest Piece by America’s History Teacher, Larry Schweikart

About six months ago I suddenly realized that we had not heard from the fascist so-called “antifa” in a long time. I actually thought perhaps we had broken them, that their ineffectiveness previously had caused the movement to dissipate.

Boy was I wrong. Something quite different had been occurring. The fascist “antifa” had been mobilizing and sitting in their little commie-type sleeper cells awaiting a call for activation. No one, including George Soros—who either personally or through channels sent the “go” order—knew exactly what that instigating event would be. The point is, the fascist “antifa” was ready. They were trained to be in the streets within 24 hours, in multiple cities, en masse. There was a deadly beauty to the organizational skill involved in the “call up” of these quasi-military forces. And no doubt, more than a few of the snowflakes were sufficiently intimidated by the China Virus and obediently took to their masks as they sheltered in place.

But after a week, it is clear that there are two basic groups involved in these riots. The first are blacks who took the opportunity of George Floyd’s death to protest, loot, and burn. No one on the right—not one single person so far that I’ve seen—has called Floyd’s death anything less than a murder. No one has suggested anything be done with the killer cop than perpetual jail. (Proving premeditation would be nearly impossible here and hence there will not be a death penalty on the table, no matter what some of the whackos call for. In other words, the right is united that this was a case of police brutality.

In the case of Minneapolis, however, it appears that this policeman in particular has been given repeated passes on his over-the-top violence. And in 2017, Mohamed Noor, a Somalil cop in Minneapolis, shot and killed Justine Damond. Naturally, instead of endorsing the jail sentence for a murderer, the civil rights crowd complained Noor was treated differently from other officers who killed civilians. Noor shot the unarmed Damond as she approached the car. Minneapolis, in other words, has had a track record of excessive police force. Various photos show as many as three police on top of George Floyd with Derek Chauvin kneeling on the handcuffed Floyd’s neck as he lay face down. Whether Chauvin actually choked off Floyd’s air supply or merely contributed to his heart giving out will be a matter of debate by medical specialists.

What’s equally troubling is that one other person was filming the whole event; at least two other officers were helping Chauvin; and another officer was standing nearby. None intervened to simply place the man in the back of the police car. Such an incident should provoke a massive reaction, including a complete overhaul of the Minneapolis Police Department. What it should not have provoked were mobs burning and looting stores and taking over a MPD precinct station. In all cases, both the MPD and the mayor—and the snowflake governor who essentially encouraged the looters—the police should have immediately moved in to stop illegal activity.

But here comes the kicker: when they started arresting people, the police found out that some 40% of them were out-of-towners. Who could that possibly be? Fascist so-called antifa mobs. Video surfaced today of a white antifa goon instructing “protestors” where to go and what targets to hit.

We won’t even get into the reality that many of these (mostly) black-owned businesses that were looted or burned were still under the snowflake governor’s lockdown policies and were dying on the vine.

Make no mistake: this was a Soros-backed, fascist so-called “antifa”-led series of national mob riots with no connection whatsoever to George Floyd. Most of the mob rioters probably thought Floyd’s first name was “Pink.” This was a well-planned, orchestrated evil designed in the pit of George Soros’s hell to destabilize not just the USA, but also England and Canada (where “protest” of more Pink Floyd fans joined the rioting. Like some snakes, this operation was beautiful in its design and deadly in its venom.

Today President Donald Trump announced he would officially designate the fascist so-called “antifa” group a terrorist organization. Among other things, that means that not only the Department of Justice will now (we hope) prosecute it, but the Treasury and IRS can now become involved in tracking the terrorists’ finances that almost certainly lead to George Soros. This is a big deal. But . . .

How big depends entirely on the vigor with which Attorney General William Barr actually follows through. More important, it will require a significant buy-in from the leftist-leaning bureaucracies in the FBI, Treasury, and IRS. Whether an actual prosecution of the fascists called antifa is possible remains to be seen. Ironically, however, Trump’s designation of antifa as a terrorist organization means that so far Barack Obama has been largely responsible for the creation of two terrorist groups, ISIS and antifa. Now, if we can only get Black Lives Matter to be so designated . . . .

Larry Schweikart is the co-author of the #1 New York Times bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen and the author of Reagan: The American President. His website is the Wild World of History www.wildworldofhistory.com

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Larry Schweikart: Democrats Push the Panic-Porn Button

Guest Contribution by America’s History Teacher, Larry Schweikart

As the Democrat governors lose the narrative of the China Virus—and also lose control of their states, they have ratcheted up the panic-porn to new levels. Hoax News reporters harangue President Donald Trump about not wearing a mask, then about taking hydroxychloroquine, then about whether he would shut down the country if the China Virus numbers suddenly rise again.

His answers? “No, I won’t wear a mask,” “I’ve been taking hydroxycholoroquine for two weeks,” and “No, I won’t shut the country down again.”

Bravo.

It’s clear none of this has anything whatsoever to do with a flu and everything to do with damaging the U.S. economy enough to keep Trump from getting massively reelected. After all, they did it once before . . . sort of. In early October, 2016, as Joel Pollak and I revealed in our book How Trump Won, the Trump team was circulating internal polls that were shockingly good for The Donald. How good? They had him within the margin of error in Illinois, Rhode Island, and Oregon. They had him even in Minnesota (which, as it turned out, was the case).

I am convinced that Hillary Clinton’s team was reading the same tea leaves, and had to do anything to stop the momentum. I believe that is why they rolled out the “Access Hollywood” tape so early. It did have a damaging, but quite temporary, effect on the Trump team. But by election day, the impact had faded, and while Trump did not carry Oregon, or Rhode Island, or Illinois, he did shock the pundits by winning perennial teaser states for the GOP like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and came reasonably close to winning Virginia and within a hair of winning New Hampshire. This suggests that early internal polling had some merit.

The point is, “Access Hollywood” was a last-minute, desperate brake on Trump’s momentum. While the Democrats didn’t introduce the China Virus to the U.S.—China did—they reveled in an opportunity to again put a brake on Trumpmentum. One can look at polls from the same Hoax Pollsters who gave us a Hillary landslide in 2016, or who missed Wisconsin by an average of six points, or who missed the Ron DeSantis/Rick Scott/Josh Hawley/Mike Braun elections in 2018. Those same Hoax Pollsters say that Joe (I’m hidin’) Biden, who hasn’t appeared in public at a live event in nearly two months, is somehow leading President Trump.

If you buy that, then you likely have the Las Vegas Raiders winning the Super Bowl this year, too.
What the draconian lockdowns by the blue-state governors, particularly Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, J. B. Pritzker in Illinois, Gavin Newsom in California, and Andrew Cuomo in New York have done is to finally . . . finally . . . chip away at the remaining Democrat base. Already—and the Democrats, deep in their evil hovels of voter analysis know this—Trump has been eroding the black vote and has been actually building quite a bit of Hispanic support. Most polls put Trump’s black approval at between 16% and 22%.

Blacks, and even black conservatives, are quick to insist that Trump won’t get that much of the actual black vote, and they are right. He doesn’t need to. He’ll get between 12-13% actual vote, but add to that another 3-5% of black voters who will stay home. That is a death sentence for the Democrats. That alone would put Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina in Trump’s column. But when you add that to his up to 47% (in some polls) Hispanic support, and combine that with the outrage in the suburban areas of Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, and other states enduring a lockdown, Trump’s electoral college numbers are poised to soar.

These last two weeks we had two good tests of the public mood on the lockdowns. A Republican held the WI7 seat largely on the basis of winning mail-in ballots, and not just absentees! In California, Mike Garcia flipped the seat previously held by Katie (The Fuller Brush Girl) Hill, who had resigned. Garcia won by nine, and most surprising of all, continued to break even in the days after the election when Democrat “vote harvesting” often produces surprises. Then, in Staughton, Virginia, Republicans flipped three out of three city assembly seats in a district that went for Barack Obama twice. The issues? Guns and the lockdown.

When you add to this the fact that Governor Cuomo literally sentenced old people to death by sending China-Virus-infected old people back to nursing homes, I think you’ll start to see a serious boil here by election time. The last hope was to somehow perpetuate the panic through the virtue-signaling wearing of masks (of dubious effectiveness, as admitted even by St. Fauci). It ain’t happenin’. The red states that opened, such as Georgia and Florida, have lower rates of the China Virus now. Remarkable what sunlight and herd immunity will do to the flu.

As for Trump? He will be the beneficiary of not only creating one, but two great economies by election time, while simultaneously overcoming the China Virus. The Democrats couldn’t help themselves. They pushed the Panic Porn Button too soon.

Larry Schweikart is the co-author with Michael Allen of A Patriot’s History of the United States, with Joel Pollak of How Trump Won, and the sole author of Reagan: The American President. His history website features full history curricula for homeschoolers and educators, grades 8-12 at www.wildworldofhistory.com.

 

 

 

 

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

The China Virus’s Side Effects: The 2020 Election

The China Virus’s Side Effects: The 2020 Election

Guest Contribution by Larry Schweikart, America’s History Teacher

In September 2019 I wrote that the suicide of the House was complete when it began pursuing a meaningless and infantile impeachment of President Donald Trump. This suicide was, I argued, largely due to the fact that throughout the Bush and Obama years, the House had yielded much of its constitutional authority over it’s greatest stipulated power: the budget. Once that was gone, its very purpose for existing was called into question. When Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat hatchet gang spent the entire first year in power in a game of “get Trump”—while Trump continued to issue executive order after executive order and/or make end runs through the court system he had largely packed by then, the House’s historic role was pretty much finished.

I argued that the wave of Republicans resigning or not running for reelection was a sign that even though they may have held out hopes of winning, it would be meaningless. The House could no longer really do much. It had become the American version of the House of Lords, while, inversely, the US Senate—with its confirmation powers—had become the true place where “it’s happening.”

Now we approach the 2020 elections in the midst of the Corona Virus, better known as the China Virus or Wuhan Flu. Even in the wake of the Democrat House meltdown, not a great deal has changed. Republicans can point to evening the generic ballot, and even leading in some surveys—which in normal times would mean a landslide House victory. And there have been solid candidates recruited for many of the races that flipped in 2018, including both TX seats, OK5, the NJ seats, and the NM seat. Collectively (by my math) these races with candidates who stand to win amount to at most 10 seats.

That would leave the Republicans about eight short of flipping. One piece of extremely encouraging news comes from the CA38 race, where a Republican will win and flip that California state house seat, thanks to that state’s “jungle primary” where the top two vote getters run off in the general. In this case, the Democrats bungled it and allowed the GOP to place 1-2. In November, up to five of the CA US House seats look flippable.

But there are broad headwinds against the GOP. The lesser of these, fundraising, is lagging because of two factors. First is the fact that in most races, candidates aren’t decided yet, and fundraising for a primary is usually harder than against a Democrat. But the second involves the China Virus.

By pushing back so many primaries—as occurred in Virginia this week—Republicans won’t get those candidates until still later in 2020. But the China Virus also slams fundraising. Who can give to House candidates if you are unemployed, concerned about the mortgage, etc.?

On a broader scale, however, the Republicans have a bigger problem. How do you campaign against a House that has done nothing? In “normal” times, that might be an easy task. But in impeachment/China Virus times? It becomes difficult for candidates to say what they would have done differently. Of course, not vote for impeachment. But what else? Since there have been no major issues on which to take a stand (as contrasted with 1994 when the House Bank, term limits, and bringing items to the floor for a vote were key voting issues), it becomes almost impossible to define a candidate differently than the incumbent. Will “I wouldn’t have voted to impeach President Trump” be enough? Probably not.

How do you campaign for a seat that has been rendered nearly meaningless by Pelosi? This is why dog-catcher races are won with totals in the hundreds—because the position is in the overall big picture so insignificant that only family and friends vote. Over a one and a half year period—again, working from a foundation already handed her by the Republicans in the Obama era—Pelosi has made voting for a House seat less meaningful than ever.

There is a little light at the end of the tunnel. Most Democrat incumbents in the “flipped” seats are underwater in their polling. In the Senate races, John James in Michigan is polling better than his opponent. But all incumbents will fare better in this shutdown as their opponents are pre-empted from campaigning at all. For Martha McSally and Cory Gardner, that is good news. The GOP should keep the Senate, and it is entirely possible now that the balance will not change even if both McSally and Gardner lose due to flips from Alabama and Michigan.

It is, ironically, also good news for President Trump. Joe Biden is in lockup—although it is unclear if he is hurt by being in front of people or not—and his approval ratings in handling the crisis are, so far, extremely good. Last week, he went up in every major poll ranging from a whopping 54% approval in the best to 46% in the worse, for an average of over 47%. (He was elected in 2016 with a 46% approval.) Campaigning against Trump’s handling of the China Virus policies is tricky, and Biden already has seen how difficult it is to claim Trump should be doing something different.

Which brings us to “a” likely scenario for 2020: Trump will win convincingly, if not with an outright landslide (probably in the neighborhood of 320-340 electoral votes, adding Minnesota and New Hampshire to his 2016 list). The Republicans will hold the Senate at close to the present margin. But it is entirely possible the Democrats will narrowly hang on to the House. If that happens, they will be incapable of restraining themselves from once again seeking to impeach President Trump on baseless charges. It’s all they know. And they cannot present any true legislation that would in any way advance the nation’s interests because that would rebound to Trump.

Look for two more years of stonewalling from a House seeing its influence and power eroding; more confirmations from the Senate for Trump judges (because, without the House, that’s all the Senate will have); and Trump continuing to work through executive orders and the judiciary with a split House/Senate incapable of stopping him. It is absolutely not what our Founders wanted. But when one branch of government completely abdicates its role, it’s what we get.

Larry Schweikart is a retired professor of history, the co-author with Michael Allen of the New York Times #1 bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States, and the president of the Wild World of History, a history curriculum site for homeschoolers and educators (www.wildworldofhistory.com)

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Why Kanye West will be Trump’s Successor in the White House

Guest piece from America’s History Teacher, Larry Schweikart

I know. I get outright laughter when I say this (which I first did in 2018 on Brandon Voght’s radio show in New Mexico when asked who would be the GOP nominee in 2024 assuming Trump wins in 2020. (First, there is no doubt in my mind that Trump not only will win in 2020, but will do so even far more convincingly than in 2016—perhaps between 320 and 340 electoral votes and win the popular vote. But it could be even better for Trump depending on who the Democrat nominee is).

Anyway, back to Kanye. “This is ridiculous. A rapper in the White House?” No, he likely would not have the electoral expertise of a Ronald Reagan, who had eight years as California governor to keep him from being “just an actor.” Nor does he have Trump’s decades of experience in physical construction, though he began his career as a music producer for Roc-a-Fella Records by producing stars such as Jay-Z, Ludacris, and Alicia Keys. But he also has been a fashion designer with his “Yeezy” collaboration with Adidas, founded the creative content company DONDA, founded the record label (in 2004) called GOOD Music (“Getting Out Our Dreams”).

In some ways, West has surpassed Reagan’s “second life” achievements. As an actor, Reagan never achieved greatness—in large part because he never really wanted to. As I showed in my recent biography, Reagan: The American President, he never put in the time of “method actors,” or immersed himself in a role to the extent that it changed his body (the way Matthew McConaughey or Christian Bale have), not to mention changing his mental stability as Heath Ledger did with the “Joker” role. Reagan said of himself, “You know that guy that grabs the phone and says, ‘Hold on! Have I got a story for you?’ That’s me!” He would not play a villain, finally agreeing to in his very last film, The Killers.

While Trump’s achievements dot the skyline, West’s dot the annals of pop culture. He has sold over 100 million records, won 21 Grammy Awards, and had three albums make the Rolling Stone top 500 albums of all time list. Twice Time magazine has called him one of the 500 most influential people in the world.

Probably most people know about West more through his controversies than through his music. In 2016 he was convinced to admit himself into UCLA Medical Center for depression, paranoia, and other undiagnosed issues. Many think he is bipolar, which he confirmed on David Letterman’s show in 2019. One thing is certain: anyone looking at photos of Kanye prior to his conversion to Christianity and since can only notice the change from angry and isolated to a man  happy and full of life.

Daniel Boorstein, over 50 years ago, predicted that the future of American politics would be celebrity. In a study of the modern age, Olivia Laing noted that Andy Warhol perhaps embodied the shift from sexual desire as the most animating force to the desire for attention. “Keeping up With the Kardashians” was merely the inevitable outcome of that movement.

In politics, name recognition is no small thing. Take the 2018 Senate elections in Ohio or Michigan, for example: both Republican challengers (Jim Renaicci and John James) spent the vast bulk of their campaign trying to raise name awareness. Yesterday, Tom Steyer dropped out of the Democrat primary campaign because, despite spending over $200 million (!) in ads, the first word most people uttered when they watched a Steyer ad was “Who?” The collapse of political awareness (or historical knowledge for that matter) among modern young people exacerbates this. Any Jesse Watters’ man-on-the-street video in which he questions college students shows that the vast majority of them can’t name a single Supreme Court Justice, say what job Nancy Pelosi holds, or identify Mike Pence. But you can get they know Kanye. Does anyone seriously wish to argue that this situation will improve in the next 4.5 years? By 2024, celebrity will be a requirement for public office if only because it is the only way to get uneducated/ill-informed voters to the polls.

Reagan found that his celebrity Hollywood status still worked against him in 1980, making it hard for some people to take “an actor” seriously. But in the Greta Thunberg age, where children are viewed as deep-thinking saviors of the world, Reagan’s concern no longer exists. Quite the contrary, it is now a requirement.

Barack Obama dabbled at being the first celebrity president, leveraging a single national speech into the presidency (along with the trademarked “first African-American president”). But he never quite pulled it off. Obama did not dare put himself in the midst of too many celebrities who were bigger than he was, otherwise he would vanish. But Trump?

Trump thrives on celebrity. It’s his oxygen. Who needs press conferences when Trump can do his own? Need a photo-op? Just bring up the most beautiful first lady in history. If Trump needs to get his message out, it’s only a Tweet away. And if it’s a bigger message than Twitter can handle, he schedules an American pride celebration on the Mall complete with tanks and the Blue Angels. He is the celebrity president.

This will be the norm from now on, and explains in part why existing Democrat candidates are having difficulty getting traction against him (besides the fact that their policies are flat-out insane). Anyone who thinks Mike Pence, as good as he is, can capture this lightning in a bottle is sorely mistaken.

Oh, and did I mention Kanye said he would be president? He told the British tabloid the Sun he would be president, and later said “when I am president.” West has shown he can accomplish incredible things. His rehab and conversion to Christianity is a major step, as suddenly he has gone from the object of evangelicals’ ire to a redemption story like none other.

His ascent as a major GOP candidate (which seems his likely party of choice, given his friendship with President Trump) means that the only Democrat who could possibly defeat him would have to similarly be a celebrity. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson hasn’t announced his political leanings, but he is one of the few who could match Kanye’s omnipresence in culture.  As strange as it may sound in 2020, the phrase “President West” may not seem nearly as odd in four years.

 

Larry Schweikart is the author of Reagan: The American President and the co-author of the New York Times #1 bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States. He currently runs the Wild World of History (www.wildworldofhistory.com) history curriculum business.

 

 

 

 

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Posts navigation

1 2
Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: