Newsweek Wonders Why There Is A Patriotism Gap

Perhaps because Democrats love America so much that they constantly complain about the nation and want to change everything about the nation?

Why is There a Patriotism Gap?

President Donald Trump’s announcement at the National Archives earlier this month of a forthcoming “1776 Commission” aimed at promoting “patriotic education” set off fireworks—and not in a good way.

“A nightmare,” pronounced Slate. “Part of an ongoing effort to downplay and minimize the role of slavery,” deplored the 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones. “I thought I was listening to Mao Zedong running Communist China,” scolded Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s former national security adviser. “Proof America is spiraling toward fascism,” quivered The Guardian. Representing the ivory tower, the American Historical Association issued a florid one-pager all its own, co-signed by 30-plus groups, “deploring the tendentious use of history and history education to stoke politically motivated culture wars.”

But of course they’re going to position being positive about the nation as a Bad Thing, as opposed to what they teach now, namely that America is evil and racist and should be destroyed.

Such partisan hyperbole about the 1776 Commission might be expected so close to an election. But its critics should have stopped to ask what, exactly, might have inspired such a project in the first place. The answer is a grim reality that deserves bipartisan attention, and has for a long time now: America suffers from a patriotism gap. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to profess patriotism. Older people are much more likely than younger ones to be patriotic, too.

For once, the answer cannot be “because of Trump.” Since at least 2001, according to regular tracking by Gallup, Republicans have been more likely than Democrats to profess themselves “extremely proud to be American”—and by wide margins. In both 2007 and 2009, for example, the patriotism deficit between Republicans and Democrats was a yawning 33 points (79-46; 78-45). In no year since 2003 has the gap been less than 14 points.

Pace the leader of the 1619 Project, and no matter where you stand in the culture wars, patriotism does matter, for at least two reasons.

First are the exigencies of domestic politics—not least for the left. Democrats and progressives hope to capitalize on the diffuse anti-authority stances of Millennials and Gen Z at the ballot box. But the patriotism gap presents an obstacle for them. It is one thing for disaffected cohorts to turn out for protests and riots in the streets. It is another to expect them to produce identification, fill out forms, stand in a polling booth and otherwise put themselves out for a country toward which many are diffident, and some outright hostile. Motivation counts. Liberals and progressives ignore the patriotism gap at their own peril.

But, Democrats are the party of governmental authority. They’ve managed to teach young mushy heads that gov’t authority and control is great but that it really isn’t authority when it is.

So since patriotism does matter, the question remains: what is smothering it among Democrats and younger Americans? This brings us to the elephant in the common room.

What, after all, do Democrats and younger Americans share that other Americans do not? Both are more likely to be found in institutions of higher learning. And as no one will contest, America’s elite colleges have been, and remain, overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. According to Inside Higher Ed, the most thorough examination of political bias in academe—a survey of 1,417 full-time professors conducted in 2007—found that the number who identified as “conservative” was less than 10 percent.

Sadly, Mary Eberstadt doesn’t really get to the reasons why the Democrats aren’t patriotic, which boils down to “they hate America and all it stands for.” They hate the classical liberal foundings of freedom and liberty. Only by tearing the nation down can they get the Progressive (nice Fascism) government they really want, and too many people are too stupid to understand that they will give up freedom, liberty, choice, and money to this. And that all these free things and the utopia they’re promised has some serious dark ramifications. It won’t be unicorns and lollipops. Look at China, Russia, and Venezuela, among others.

Read: Newsweek Wonders Why There Is A Patriotism Gap »

Biden: No More Coal And Oil, Doesn’t Support Green New Deal

Climate cultists should be happy, as the climate change (scam) came up during the debate in what was a free for all (and the people who won were those who didn’t watch)

Trump, Biden spar over climate change at debate

President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden sparred over climate change and their respective records on the issue during Tuesday night’s presidential debate.

Moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump during one segment of the debate whether he believed that human greenhouse gas emissions contribute to warming of the planet.

“I think a lot of things do but I think to an extent yes,” the president said, later adding in reference to current wildfires blazing in the West that “we have to do better management of our forests.” (snip)

Meanwhile, Biden defended his own energy policies, saying they would create jobs.

The candidates became heated when Biden began to criticize Trump administration moves that roll back the regulations of methane emissions and weaken fuel economy standards.

Trump interjected, invoking the Green New Deal, a group of policies advocated by progressives that are aimed at mobilizing the economy to fight climate change.

Biden’s campaign has called the Green New Deal a “crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face” but has refused to explicitly endorse it.

Since Trump repeatedly attempted to link Joe the super expensive, big government plan, Joe specifically went on to say he doesn’t endorse the GND

Ed Markey, the Senate sponsor of the GND, who also voted “present” on it, had to do a little damage control

“I support the Green New Deal and I’m voting for Vice President Joe Biden,” Sen. Ed Markey — who wrote the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and has made it central to his re-election campaign — said in a statement after the debate Tuesday night,

“Donald Trump is wrong,” the Massachusetts senator added. “The progressive left is with Joe Biden, and we will pass a Green New Deal.”

Perhaps Ed could ask the House sponsor, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, why the Progressive House has not only not passed it, but, hasn’t even bothered with it in committee

Ocasio-Cortez similarly dismissed an attempt Tuesday night to incite intra-party squabbles by former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway

“This isn’t news, Kellyanne,” the New York Democrat tweeted, noting that her “differences” with Biden were “exactly” why she joined — and led — a unity task force with former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to help shape the Biden campaign’s climate plan.

On the bright side, AOC is more about talking and taking cutesy videos and apoplexy than actually doing the hard work to get legislation passed (or even discussed in committee).

Anyhow, Warmists should be happy that it was discussed

Joe Biden: No More Coal or Oil Plants in America

Former Vice President Joe Biden said during the presidential debate on Tuesday night that, under his administration, the country will not build any more coal or oil plants in America.

“Nobody’s going to build another coal-fired plant in America. No one’s going to build another oil-fired power plant in America. They’re going to move to renewable energy,” Biden said.

Biden’s promise that the country will not create a new coal or oil plant under his administration would significantly impact America’s coal mining industries.

Realistically, it is time to move away from coal, as it is polluting, and I’m not referring to CO2, but, real environmental issues, but, Biden wants all those coal workers to learn to code. But, what of natural gas? Joe’s climate plan (written by climate extremists, of course), bans new permitting for gas and oil on federal lands. And work to disallow all gas and oil production from Arctic area.

Anyhow, you happy, Warmists? Your cult got some discussion. You know that they will demand more for the next debate.

Read: Biden: No More Coal And Oil, Doesn’t Support Green New Deal »

Surprise: Team Hillary Had Plans To Accuse Trump Of Being Russian Assett

Guess who knew all about this?

BREAKING: Russia Believed Clinton Was Planning Anti-Trump Collusion Campaign In 2016, And U.S. Officials Knew It

Not only were Russian officials aware of Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to accuse Donald Trump of being a Russian asset, top U.S. intelligence authorities knew of Russia’s knowledge of Clinton’s plans, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe disclosed to congressional officials on Tuesday. Before they launched an investigation into whether Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia, intelligence agencies learned that Russia knew of Clinton’s plans to tarnish Trump with the collusion smear.

At one point, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials that Russia assessed Hillary Clinton had approved a plan on July 26, 2016, “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services,” according to Brennan’s handwritten notes.

Fired former FBI Director James Comey and fired former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok were even sent an investigative referral on September 7, 2016, regarding Russia’s alleged knowledge of Clinton’s plans to smear Trump as a treasonous Russian agent, Ratcliffe wrote. Rather than investigate at the time whether Russian intelligence had infiltrated the Clinton operation’s anti-Trump campaign and sowed Russian disinformation within it, the FBI instead used unverified gossip from a suspected Russian agent to obtain federal warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

There is no evidence the FBI ever investigated the Clinton campaign’s documented use of Russian agents and intelligence assets to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, raising questions of whether the top federal law enforcement agency may have itself interfered in the election by using its powers to arbitrarily target the campaign of the outgoing administration’s political enemy.

That’s a hell of a thing, eh? Puts the entire Russia Russia Russia “scandal” into context, does it not?

Brennan personally briefed President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials about Clinton’s campaign plan and Russian knowledge of it. Just five days after the date on which the Russians believed Clinton had personally authorized the collusion smear against Trump, the FBI formally opened its anti-Trump collusion investigation, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane.”

That investigation relied heavily on a dossier of anti-Trump allegations compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, a Democrat opposition research firm that had been hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to manufacture and spread claims that Trump was secretly working on behalf of Putin.

People have wondered “what did Obama know and when did he know it?” along with “if he knew all about Russian interference why didn’t he do anything?” Yes, Russia interfered, just like they’ve done with other nations and just like we’ve done with other countries, including Russia, Israel, and the UK (Brexit) while Obama was president (and we’ve done it with plenty of other presidents). But, Obama took very little action to deal with it. This looks like a darned good reason why.

Read: Surprise: Team Hillary Had Plans To Accuse Trump Of Being Russian Assett »

Bummer: Tonight’s Debate Won’t Include Any Climate Crisis (scam) Questions

If the Washington Post is so darned concerned why haven’t they given up their own use of fossil fuels to gather and disseminate the new, and made their operations carbon neutral?

The Energy 202: Climate change left off debate list even though polls show it’s a growing concern among voters

Polls show many voters say they care about climate change. But they probably won’t be hearing much about it during the first presidential debate, moderated by a Fox News host.

Chris Wallace, who will be questioning President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden, has declined to make the rise in global temperatures a topic of discussion Tuesday evening, despite surveys showing it is a growing concern for those going to the polls on Nov. 3 — at least among Democratic voters.

Instead the Fox News host has indicated he will ask the candidates about the Supreme Court, the coronavirus pandemic, the economy, election integrity, and “race and violence in our cities.”

The decision has agitated left-leaning activists who worry about a repeat of the 2016 election, when no moderator asked either Trump or then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about climate change over three nights of debate.

At the end of the day, people care about ‘climate change’ in theory, but, when stacked up against actual real issues, it drops to the bottom of the pack in Realityland.

“Young people across the board are resoundingly freaked out about the climate crisis,” said Evan Weber, a co-founder of the youth-led Sunrise Movement. “The only question that matters to young people for the president of the United States is: What is your plan to deal with this crisis?”

Those same young people also tend to fail to show up to vote, but, if they really care

Read: Bummer: Tonight’s Debate Won’t Include Any Climate Crisis (scam) Questions »

If All You See…

…is a world killing canine, you might just be a Warmist

View post on imgur.com

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on the local press running interference on voter fraud in Minnesota.

That’s Sarah Fowler from Season 29 of the Amazing Race.

Read: If All You See… »

Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill

As they say, the devil is in the details

Pelosi, Democrats unveiling new $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid bill

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Monday that Democratic lawmakers unveiled a new, $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, which she said was a compromise measure that reduces the costs of the economic aid.

In a letter to Democratic lawmakers released by Pelosi’s office, she said the legislation “includes new funding needed to avert catastrophe for schools, small businesses, restaurants, performance spaces, airline workers and others.”

“Democrats are making good on our promise to compromise with this updated bill,” she said. “We have been able to make critical additions and reduce the cost of the bill by shortening the time covered for now.”

Pelosi and Schumer initially sought a $3.4 trillion relief package, then said some time ago they were willing to scale that back by at least a trillion dollars. But it was not clear whether the White House would consider the $2.2 trillion sum proposed in the new legislation. Meadows has said that Trump would be willing to sign a $1.3 trillion relief package.

Pelosi also faces pressure from moderate House Democrats who say they want to see bipartisan aid proposals that have a chance of becoming law.

The new proposal included $436 billion for state and local governments, as well as money for education, testing, airline industry workers and for a small business loan program known as the Paycheck Protection Program, a statement from House Democrats said.

It would also provide a new round of direct payments to Americans of $1,200 per taxpayer and restore federal unemployment benefits of $600 a week through January.

The question is, what’s actually in it? Does it include all the poison pills that were in the others, like propping up all the Democrat states who lost billions in tax revenue during lockdown, vote by mail, and so many more liberal priorities that often have nothing to do with Coronavirus relief? Poison pills that were mostly meant to make sure it wouldn’t pass the GOP led Senate, in order to play politics rather than provide relief.

And that’s what this one most likely is: a way to play politics, rather than attempt to help anyone. Don’t forget how many times Democrats in the Senate have blocked Coronavirus relief bills by refusing to allow debate and a final vote using the 60 vote threshold.

If you think about it, that’s $6,666 per U.S. citizen, but, there will reportedly be two rounds of $1,200 checks, plus $500 per dependent, so $643.7 billion. Where’s the other roughly $1.4 billion going? We have the aforementioned $436 billion, $10 billion for the Save Our Stages, $25 billion for airlines, $34 billion for transit (including $2.4 billion to prop up Amtrak), $120 billion for restaurants, but

The International Franchise Association was less jubilant. Blumenauer’s bill would help restaurants with fewer than 20 locations but not franchised chain restaurants, the trade group argued. While the bill contains much the IFA supports, it would provide “funds for corporately-owned, high-end restaurants while barring independently-owned franchise restaurants from the same relief,” Matt Haller, the trade group’s top lobbyist, said in a statement. “To add insult to injury, the House bill creates a caviar carveout for these ‘Top Chef’ restaurants by allowing them a second helping of PPP funds on top of this new celebrity chef bailout. Restaurants of all types need help — regardless of the name on the door.”

Again, what are the poison pills? No one has said yet.

Read: Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill »

Surprise: Minneapolis City Council Regrets Making Pledge To Defund The Police

You know that the progressive nutters in Minneapolis will start freaking out over this

REPORT: Minneapolis Plan To Defund The Police Collapses, City Council Members ‘Regret’ Making Pledge

Minneapolis, Minnesota’s plan to defund and then disband their local police force has “collapsed” according to a New York Times report from over the weekend. Some of the Minneapolis City Council members who pledged to abolish the city’s law enforcement — including the City Council president — now say they regret making that promise.

The Times headline blares that the “pledge to dismantle the police department has collapsed,” and notes that “a majority of City Council members promised to ‘end policing as we know it’” after George Floyd died while in the custody of the Minneapolis police department. Instead, though “they became a case study in how idealistic calls for structural change can falter.”

Back in June, the Minneapolis City Council was clear that the Minneapolis Police Department was on borrowed time. The City Council president, Lisa Bender — a self-described progressive — told residents that she had a vision of a “transformative new model of public safety” and now-famously added that anyone worried that a lack of law enforcement would result in a spike in crime was speaking from a place of “privilege.”

At the time, Bender even challenged her fellow councilmembers to stick with the plan to dismantle the MPD, lest they be complicit in “white supremacy.”

“If you are a comfortable white person asking to dismantle the police I invite you to reflect: are you willing to stick with it? Will you be calling in three months to ask about garage break-ins? Are you willing to dismantle white supremacy in all systems, including a new system?” she mused.

She got the timeline nearly right — for herself. Bender is now among those who say abolishing the police is not the right approach.

They might be starting to realize that there would be no police to protect themselves and their property and that this would lead massive crime in the city. Might be a little too late as police officers resign en-masse, moving on to other city forces where they having backing, rather than being blamed for the actions of a few

Over the last month, Minneapolis officials have moved to “formalize a retreat that has quietly played out in Minneapolis in the months since George Floyd was killed by the police and the ensuing national uproar over the treatment of Black Americans by law enforcement and the country at large. After a summer that challenged society’s commitment to racial equality and raised the prospect of sweeping political change, a cool autumn reality is settling in,” the NY Times reports.

When the real world butts up to your dogmatic, idiotic, virtue signaling beliefs.

(The Hill) This follows reports of Minneapolis residents lamenting the lack of police presence within their communities as a rash of crime reports in the city over the course of 2020.

Send in the social workers!

Read: Surprise: Minneapolis City Council Regrets Making Pledge To Defund The Police »

EPA Hilariously Warns Warmist Gavin Newsome That His Electric Car Mandate Might Be Illegal

You know, I will say that it is a close call whether California can mandate no more sales of fossil fueled vehicles in 2035, and that all vehicles sold must be EVs. Is this a case of State’s Rights, the 10th Amendment, or the Constitutional power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, since the vehicles are mostly made in other states? I’d lean on the prior, but, get this: Democrats mostly laid out the rules and regs that could stop this #irony

EPA Warns California’s 2035 Ban on Gas-Powered Cars Is Possibly Illegal

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler on Monday warned in a letter sent to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) that his executive order banning gas-powered vehicles may be unlawful, Reuters reports.

Wheeler wrote that Newsom’s plan “raises serious questions regarding its legality and practicality” and argued that it may cause further issues problems plaguing the state’s electrical grid.

“California’s record of rolling blackouts – unprecedented in size and scope – coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today,” the Trump official stated.

Newsom has yet to reply to the EPA.

From that Reuters article based on the letter

The EPA in 2019 issued rules barring California from requiring the sale of electric vehicles; a court challenge is pending.

Newsom said last week the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would write binding regulations to implement the 2035 goal. Wheeler wrote those regulations “may require California to request a waiver to U.S. EPA.”

The Climate Cultists in the Democratic Party took over the EPA long ago and wrote the rules and regs that put the EPA in charge in such a Progressive (nice Fascist) manner, they can’t complain about it now.

Read: EPA Hilariously Warns Warmist Gavin Newsome That His Electric Car Mandate Might Be Illegal »

Democrats Are Totally Not Anti-Catholic Bigots For Questioning ACB Or Something

Liberals totally have a right to question someone’s religion, says Excitable Jill Filipovic in a British news site

Democrats aren’t anti-Catholic bigots for questioning Amy Coney Barrett
The Republican party has cannily repackaged valid scrutiny as religious bigotry. But liberals are right to ask hard questions of Trump’s pick

See? It’s not bigoted. I think they should do it. How many viewers will agree with Jill’s assessment?

The latest Republican talking point: that Democrats are anti-Catholic bigots for opposing Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the US supreme court. Liberals have raised questions about Barrett’s membership in a conservative organization that dictates traditional gender roles (men as leaders, women as their helpmeets), and her many conservative rulings which seem to suggest that she brings her conservative religiosity onto the bench when deciding matters of law. The Republican party has cannily repackaged that as religious bigotry.

Barrett’s faith isn’t the issue. Her conservative, anti-equality views are.

It’s hard to make the case that liberals are hostile to Catholics when the Democratic nominee for the presidency is himself a Catholic, and when more current US supreme court justices are Catholic than are adherents to any other faith. It’s also hard to argue that Barrett’s conservative views are required by her faith, and therefore opposing them is tantamount to religious discrimination.

If they think this attempt to attack her religion will look good, well, good luck with that. The only people who’ll cheer will be the “let’s make Government the religion” folks

Catholics, like people of every faith in the world, pick and choose which tenets of the faith to adhere to; the faith itself also shifts and changes (for example: abortion, now an animating issue for many church leaders, has not been a top priority for the church for most of its history, nor considered murder). This is one reason why Catholic Americans are just as likely as Americans generally to use contraception and have abortions, even though both are formally prohibited by the faith. It’s why a great many Catholic women do not in fact submit to their husbands. It’s why some Catholics identify as LGBT, and are not chaste as the church demands. It’s why the overwhelming majority of Catholics have sex before marriage.

Who had “this is really all about abortion on demand” on their scorecard? That’s what it always comes down to with Democrats

It’s easy to argue that we should separate Amy Coney Barrett’s personal religious views from her professional work. But she doesn’t do that, and the Catholic Church demands that its own members carry their faith outside of church and often into their work. Many Catholic bishops, for example, refuse to give communion to Catholic politicians if those politicians are pro-choice. That’s not a position that happens only on the fringes; it’s exactly what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger demanded before he became pope.

If you believe in murdering the unborn because you were too lazy to have proper protected sex, then, yes, you are going against the Bible.

Liberals generally want a robust separation of church and state, where people are free to practice their own religions without interference or discrimination, but are not free to impose their religion on anyone else, or use their religious views as a pretext to violate the law or harm others. Many conservatives insist that the United States is a Christian country (or, in the more updated jargon, a “Judeo-Christian” country), that Christianity should in fact dictate political and legal decisions, and that religious freedom means the freedom to discriminate and violate generally applicable laws as long as you have a religious justification.

Well, that’s interesting, because Liberals pretty much want to impose their Beliefs on every citizen, mostly be force, especially force of law.

Amy Coney Barrett has made clear that she believes abortion is morally wrong. When she has ruled on abortion-related cases, she has ruled to restrict abortion access. She has made clear that she does not adhere to a basic ethos of gender equality, that men and women should have equal rights, opportunities, authority, and power; she instead is a voluntarily member of an organization that formally opposes gender equality, and has signaled her view that men and women are “complementary” – men in charge as leaders, women submitting to their authority.

And back to abortion. How did a political party become so defensive of killing the unborn? How did it become their #1 belief? The thing they must defend at all costs? If they were given a choice between implementing some basic restrictions (parental notification, no late term, treating abortion facilities like medical facilities, inspecting them, 48 hour waiting period, a few more) that did not end abortion on demand in exchange for winning the White House, they would give up winning the White House.

Read: Democrats Are Totally Not Anti-Catholic Bigots For Questioning ACB Or Something »

Climate Crisis (scam) Cold And Wet To Make Coronavirus Bad Or Something

See, because you took a long shower with natural gas heated water, drank non-fair trade non-GMO coffee, had bacon on your breakfast sandwich, and drove a fossil fueled vehicle to work, you increased the greenhouse gases and are making it colder and wetter…per the climalunatics at CNN, who use vast amounts of fossil fuels and energy to gather and disseminate their version of the news

How environmental conditions like cold and wet weather can affect pandemics, and what that means for COVID-19

Numerous scientists have studied how the 1918 flu spread to become the deadliest pandemic in history and which interventions worked, research that is becoming increasingly relevant during the current coronavirus crisis.

But little research has been done on how environmental conditions affected the 1918 pandemic — until now.

The 1918 flu coincided with the final years of the World War I, and it’s been well documented that heavy rain and cold temperatures impacted many battles. Now, a new study reveals that the cold, rainy weather was part of a once-in-a-century climate anomaly that occurred from 1914 to 1919 and added to the severity of the 1918 pandemic.

The worst ever was the Black Death, which killed somewhere between 75 million and 200 million as the Roman Warm Period ended and the Dark Ages started, the latter being a cooling period. But, see, cold and wet

The research on 1918 has eerie similarities to the current crisis, as many parts of the world appear to be entering a second wave of Covid-19, or remain in a prolonged first wave of the virus.

Not only are many parts of the Northern Hemisphere starting to see less warm and sunny weather in the transition to fall, but climate change continues to have adverse effects across the globe. For example, the Atlantic is experiencing one of its busiest hurricane seasons on record.

“It is really the convergence of our two major crises — man-made climate change and infectious disease,” More said. “Absolutely, climate is going to affect the likelihood of infectious disease outbreaks. It has in the past and it will in the future.”

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Cold And Wet To Make Coronavirus Bad Or Something »

Pirate's Cove