Yet another reference of the violent nature of black shirt fascist/Marxist thugs. Now that is a least 35 references.

On the Media’s Collusion with Antifa

Note in a previous blog, Jake Tapper noted numerous incidents, (that is more than one or two) of main stream media being attacked.

The Dems on displayThe Top 20 candidates speak up
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (July 3, 2019) Of all the news this past week, the most intriguing may be the two “debates” featuring the Top 20 Democratic candidates for president. It’s interesting to take a look at these politicians as a group.

OverviewThe Top 20 candidates for the Democrat nomination for president showed their coalescence around a list of positions which favor a gargantuan increase in the power of the federal government. Generally, they advocate government takeover of health care, education, personal finances, seashore housing (in the name of climate control), and energy, in addition to increased government regulation of big business. No matter what the problem, they propose that the federal government has the obligation to solve it. Even to “fixing” the economies of Central American countries, although it is hard to understand what they mean by that short of US invasion as in Panama – which no one seems to advocate.
This list of their political positions arises from their ability to see victims wherever they look. “75% of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck.” “The majority of Americans don’t make a living wage.” “22 million Americans have no access to health care.” “America is a racist society, which is also biased against women, gay people, immigrants, all minorities (except maybe Asians), poor people, and homeless people – to name a few.”
Justice for this country of victims can be found in the pristine wisdom of the federal government. All we have to do is authorize that government to raise taxes – for some that means up to 70% + of income for federal taxes – on top of state and local taxes, for a total of 80-90% of income. Then the blessed feds will design and enforce programs to bring justice to all the victims in America – plus everyone else in the world who succeeds in coming across our borders. We won’t be crowded; after all the federal government already owns more than a third of US landmass so they can just open the parks, deserts and mountains to development.

Message The world view of this crowd comes across as “other-worldly”. It reminds me of the midnight discussions we had in college about how to change the world. We were too young to understand how to translate our idealistic prescriptions into reality. We didn’t know what we didn’t know about how the world really works. So we engaged in flights of fantasy about how to things should look. We hadn’t yet learned that certain questions have to be answered before any plan is adopted: “How does the present system work?” “What is wrong and why?” “Compared to what?” What are the obstacles?” and always, “What is the cost, how will we pay for it, and can we afford it?”
Our excuse was that we were young and inexperienced. The “Top 20” have no such excuse. They are presenting themselves as candidates for the most powerful position in the world. They should not expect us to accept their claims based on dreams. “How?” is just as important as “What?” and “Why?” For example, a great deal of attention was given to the immigration issues. Nearly all the Top 20 shed token tears for the people invading our borders. BUT THEY HAVE STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! IN FACT, AS A PARTY THEY HAVE INSISTED THAT THERE IS NO EMERGENCY, AND THEY HAVE BLOCKED ANY ATTEMPT TO GET RESOURCES TO ALLEVIATE THE SITUATION – until last week (just in time for the debates).

It takes a certain kind of arrogance to do this kind of thing. It has become the habit of the Left to take for granted their moral superiority to the “deplorable” Republicans. That arrogance has fed the visceral and illogical hatred for Donald J. Trump. There are many examples of this moral opacity. Not least is the angry indignation with which they accuse the President for setting himself “above the law” when in fact their last president ruled “with my pen and my telephone” and attempted to place a refugee from charges of treason in the White House , and then manufactured a coup d’ etat in the deep state to defeat the legally elected president of the United States – all this lawlessness was perpetrated by their own party, not the opposition. Motivation It is fashionable in conservative circles to assert that the Left is rife with people who realize that their ideas are not practical – for example, spending an additional $50 Trillion (estimated cost of their current pet projects) on top of a $22 Trillion national debt is simply impossible. After all, there are some very bright people over there. Why make such promises? The opposition’s answer is that this is a cynical strategy to gain power. If it works, then it is easy to blame the Republicans for the inevitable failure of these policies – the victorious Dems then go from hero to martyr.
I am not of this persuasion. Yes, I can

believe in the power-hungry explanation for some of the Dems, especially among politicians. But I think that many are true believers in the Democrat dogmas. Much of their belief is based on the very biased news and commentary they get from the press. My view is that it is a good thing to listen to your adversaries. They may have some good ideas. I never expect that I can change a true believer’s mind. I would like to be accorded the same courtesy, although my views are often met with scorn and insult. Nevertheless, I cling to my opinion that the opponents are indeed worth hearing.

A case in point is the “income inequality” mentioned so often in the debates. The Left has been complaining about this for some time , so I decided to look into it. What I found was a truly dangerous situation. The facts are indisputable, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which shows a transfer of 80% of America’s wealth from the majority of Americans to 1% of the population over the past 48 years. The critical event was the elimination of the gold standard for American currency by Richard Nixon in 1971.
I have written extensively about this issue (see www.DrLarryOnline.com). Briefly stated: 68% of our GDP is consumer dependent. If the middle class does not have enough money to keep up with the retail economy, the country will eventually go into decline. The wealth of the nation must be spread more equitably to include the working class. 
How to do that? 
Socialism is the path to disaster, so we must find a capitalist solution. Fortunately, there a fast-growing movement based on a radical updating of capitalism. It is called “Conscious Capitalism” and it already has a committed following of 116 companies, employing 3 million workers. (See www.ConsciousCapitalism.org) It encompasses a vision of employee roles and compensation, mostly based on shared responsibility and profits. The organization itself is studiously non-partisan.

Summary the Top 20 Democrat candidates for the presidential nomination are not very impressive as a group. Their reliance on a huge expansion of government and their lack of any practical solutions to the problems they focus on, along with their angry, victim-oriented presentations represent a major barrier to electability. 

However, it is very early in the election cycle. A strong leader from within or outside the current group may yet emerge. For now, one question to be determined is: Do a majority of American voters consider themselves victims looking to Big Government to punish their “enemies”? Or, do they prefer that the government get out of their way while they seek a better world for themselves and their families through hard work and cheerful optimism? The next sixteen months will be interesting.   © 2019 Richfield Press. All rights reserved.

Former NYPD Commissioner Calls on the FBI to Classify Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization

The Democratic War on Freedom

The Left Stalinist tactics were on full display when Loretta Lynch confirmed in the summer of 2016 she was referring complaints to the Justice Department against oil companies for potential criminal prosecution. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a leading Democratic climate alarmist, had one goal to jail oil company executives who disagree with his theories on how humans are destroying mankind and bankrupt the fossil fuel companies. As Power Line’s John Hinderaker noted, “The Obama Administration’s idea of a crime is not, apparently, violating federal laws and regulations and State Department procedures in a manner that exposes thousands of classified documents to our enemies. No, that isn’t the sort of conduct that is likely to draw an indictment from Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice. Obama’s DOJ is more interested in trying to jail scientists who point out the rather obvious flaws in the government’s desperate effort to convince Americans that global warming is our greatest threat.”14

The Obama administration and Democratic Senators were not just politicizing science but they were enforcing their scientific worldview. They looked to the justice department and government bureaucracies to destroy fossil fuels and criminalize scientific difference. As John Hinderaker observed:
“The Soviets did that, in order to shore up the hopeless but government-favored theories of Lysenko. Until now, such conduct would have been unthinkable in an American administration. But Barack Obama, to his everlasting shame, is willing to emulate Josef Stalin by threatening criminal prosecution of those who disagree with the equally hopeless theories of Michael Mann et al. American history has come to a very sad pass.”15
While many view Donald Trump being a fascist, just remember which political party had used legal action against opponents, including using the IRS to go after conservative groups; having local Democrat prosecutors use Gestapo tactics to go after Scott Walker’s supporters in Wisconsin, and, now, threatening to use racketeering laws against climate realists who don’t agree with the conventional wisdom that human activities is the key reason for climate change. So who are the fascists, the Stalinists?
Meanwhile, the skeptics’ worldview keeps being proven correct. I need to remind the reader that scientists whether they are skeptics or alarmist, there is a general consensus that climate is changing. The skeptic worldview notes the historical record that climate change has been occurring since the planet was formed and there are skeptics who don’t discount human involvement but tempers it with the effects of nature and that human activity may not all that damaging. Some scientists are crediting the rise of carbon dioxide levels with enhancing plant life and aiding in increased agricultural output. The alarmists view humans as the cause of

14 John Hinderaker, “The Obama Administration’s Idea of a Crime…” Power Line, March 10, 2016. 15 Hinderaker, “The Obama Administration’s Idea of a Crime…”
modern day climate change and don’t even acknowledge or consider that natural events play a role.

The alarmists attempt to manipulate science is being challenged and in a Trump’s administration, climate skeptics and climate realists will get the hearing they earned. The government announcement last year that they have proven the pause in climate temperature since 1998 didn’t exist was deflated by another study that proved what climate realists have stated all along; we are in the midst of pause in climate temperature change. From Nature, “But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact DO YOU MEAN ARTIFACT? which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected…Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real…“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeler at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it16.” It should be pointed out that many of these researchers were considered climate alarmists and it showed that science is not settled which makes the efforts of Senator Whitehouse and others even more alarming since their own science is under siege.

The government is going after fossil fuel companies while the EPA is doing its best to destroy the coal industry and those high paying jobs that go with them. Power Line’s John Hinderaker wrote:
“Actually, the oil companies have mostly been bystanders in the climate debate. But the Democrats are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that their global warming theory is crumbling in the face of the facts. The oil companies make convenient scapegoats…. What is outrageous about this is not the debate–no matter however flimsy, dishonest and self-interested the government-funded alarmists may be–but rather the Democrats’ attempt to shut the debate off by trying to imprison those who won’t toe their line. This is the most blatant violation of the First Amendment that we have seen in a very long time.”17

The Democratic Party has become the enemy of scientific research and free speech, as they are attempting to stop the exchange of ideas and ensure that their ideas are what triumph.

Recently the New York Times detailed a whole story on Trump’s media attack. While much of the criticism in the article is valid including Trump’s own veiled threat against press freedom of speech, the New York Times has been missing in action when similar attacks by the left on political free speech and the tactics that have been used to silence Trump and others.
In California, there were legislators attempting to criminalize anyone who disagree with the notion that humans are the root cause of present climate change. Senate Bill 1161 or the

16 Jeff Tolleson, “Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Debate Flares Up Again,” Nature, February 24, 2016. 17 John Hinderaker, “The Great Free Speech Issue of Our Time,” Power Line, March 3, 2016.
California Climate Science Truth Accountability Act of 2016, would have allowed prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies and think tanks who by their estimate, “deceived or misled the public on the risk of climate change.”18 The bill never made it out of committee, and was not considered by the California Senate.

This is part of a broader effort to punish fossil fuels companies and think tanks to ensure uniform opinion on climate change and brook no dissent. It is as if the left seems to ignore the First Amendment or even understand the scientific process where the truth can be elusive. For every answer, sometimes more questions are raised. The left over the years has used the government including the IRS to attack conservative groups with the goal of intimidation.

It has been recognized that we have seen a hiatus in temperature rise over the past two decades but some climate alarmists extremists are now using their usual cherry picking of data to prove the hiatus never happened and could be eliminated by looking at the data in a new way. The problem is that climate alarmist in Britain have stated that climate realists are right, the hiatus is real. So the “settled science” is not really settled as alarmists can’t even agree on what is going on with their own computer models.
There have been a thousand studies over the past three years alone challenging the climate alarmists’ worldview, and showing that the science of climate change is far from being fully understood. This may explain why many alarmists and their allies in Congress and the media wants the debate shut down.
A report from Insurance Journal noted that dealing with global warming is over a $1.5 trillion a year global business. In 2011, money spent fighting global warming—consulting, renewables, green buildings, hybrid vehicles– increased 15% after a decade of solid growth. That doesn’t include the billions of government research dollars directed to researchers, many of whom allied themselves with alarmists. .
The companies owned by the Koch brothers have revenues that are a tenth of that spent on green technology. To keep those government contracts going, green technology companies have been major contributors to the Democratic Party. It’s far from clear that these grants are helpful or do much more than subsidize activists.

Some climate scientists have called for federal funds to be cut off because the field is too ideological. MIT scientist Richard Lindzen noted, “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science… They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up, Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

18 Ben Boychuk, “State to Climate Change Skeptics: Shut Up, Already,” Sacramento Bee, July 9, 2016.

Twenty scientists, led by Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University signed a petition to have the government prosecute “climate skeptics and deniers” with the RICO act. The petition was withdrawn, but Shukla continues to be investigated as to how he could run a green research institute part-time while simultaneously being a full-time professor at George Mason, a possible violation of Virginia state law that prohibits professors from moonlighting on the job19.
The witch-hunt led by environmentalists is part of the larger witch-hunt by the left in their effort to silence or intimidate conservatives. Consider the case of Donald Trump’s rallies, where the goal of rioters was to stop Trump from speaking and to intimidate his supporters with the threat of violence. The rioters’ view since Trump was a fascist, it was okay to break the law and threaten his supporters. While Trump was my 17th favorite candidate out of the 17th that ran in 2016, but he has as much right to speak without intimidation as you or I. The left is already stifling free speech whether it is keeping conservative speakers from speaking at college campuses including the threat of violence using the IRS to target conservative groups, using goon squads to intimidate Republican candidate supporters or threatening those they disagree with jail time. .

The left’s interference with Trump rallies during the 2016 primary season resulted in violence in San Jose. After the San Jose riot, the Democratic mayor failed to blame the rioters, but instead blamed the Trump campaign. Nor has this been the first violence at a Trump rally. A week earlier, 18 people were injured and 35 people arrested at a San Diego rally and in another violent incident in Costa Mesa two months before that, crowds smashed the windows of a police car and tried to flip it over. During the Illinois primary, hooligans shut down a Trump rally. Democratic activists Robert Creamer and Scott Foval admitted that they trained operatives to cause incite violence at Trump’s rallies and there is solid evidence that members of the Democratic National Committee not only knew this was occurring but supported it. These efforts were part of an effort to intimidate Republican and conservatives voters repeated over the previous eight years.
In Wisconsin, the left’s efforts to silence the right resulted in a partisan witch-hunt against supporters of Republican Gov. Scott Walker. While supposedly enforcing campaign regulations, Milwaukee County Democratic prosecutor John Chisholm s used campaign finance laws in a cynical war against conservative organizations in the state. Local law enforcement used flood lights in their victims’ front yards, and armed officers seized documents, computers, cell phones and other devices.
Chisholm was conducting a “John Doe investigation” and which the targets of the investigation were barred from talking about it. Eric O’ Keefe, director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, violated the gag order and openly spoke out against the war waged against him by the Democrats and decided he would stand in his way of the Democratic manipulation of Wisconsin campaign laws. Judge Rudolph Randa, hearing O’ Keefe’s horror stories, halted the Democratic

19 Maxim Lott, “Climate Spin: Behind-The-Scenes Emails Show Profs Evading Questions,” Fox News, June 1, 2016.
corruption. In 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Chisholm had no case and O’ Keefe and other conservatives were innocent.
Just read how Judge Rudolph Randa described the “John Doe investigation”, “Early in the morning of October 3, 2013, armed officers raided the homes of R.J. Johnson, WCFG (Wisconsin Club for Growth) advisor Deborah Jordahl, and several other targets across the state. ECF No. 5-15, O‘Keefe Declaration, ¶ 46. Sheriff Deputy Vehicles used bright floodlights to illuminate the targets’ homes. Deputies executed the search warrants, seizing business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys. Among the materials seized were many of the Club‘s records that were in the possession of Ms. Jordahl and Mr. Johnson. The warrants indicate that they were executed at the request of GAB investigator Dean Nickel.
On the same day, the Club‘s accountants and directors, including O‘Keefe, received subpoenas demanding that they turn over more or less all of the Club‘s records from March 1, 2009 to the present. The subpoenas indicated that their recipients were subject to a Secrecy Order, and that their contents and existence could not be disclosed other than to counsel, under penalty of perjury. The subpoenas’ list of advocacy groups indicates that all or nearly all right-of-center groups and individuals in Wisconsin who engaged in issue advocacy from 2010 to the present are targets of the investigation…The defendants are pursuing criminal charges through a secret John Doe investigation against the plaintiffs for exercising issue advocacy speech rights that on their face are not subject to the regulations or statutes the defendants seek to enforce. This legitimate exercise of O‘Keefe‘s rights as an individual, and WCFG‘s rights as a 501(c)(4) corporation, to speak on the issues has been characterized by the defendants as political activity covered by Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes, rendering the plaintiffs a subcommittee of the Friends of Scott Walker and requiring that money spent on such speech be reported as an in-kind campaign contribution. This interpretation is simply wrong.” 20
This was a blatant attempt by Democrats to shut down conservative organizations in Wisconsin. It is yet another example of the left war against free speech.

20 John Hinderaker, “The Latest Scott Walker Smear, Debunked,” Power Line, June 19, 2014

‘1.Antifa’ radicals aren’t good because they fight Nazis

Jonah Goldberg Aug. 20, 2017 Update https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Antifa-radicals-aren-t-good-because-they-11882595.php

2.Antifa Has Backed Its Message With Violence for Decades in Europe

Homegrown or foreign, Antifa is a major challenge to the liberty we cherish.

Antifa At Large in Portland

Andy NgoBrian C. AndersonOctober 17, 2018 Public safetyCitiesPolitics and law

3.Andy Ngo joins City Journal editor Brian Anderson to discuss the recent outbreak of violence in Portland between far-left activists, commonly referred to as Antifa, and right-wing groups that gathered to oppose them.

4.

Antifa attacks journalist. Should we ban wearing masks during protests?

Conservative journalist Andy Ngo was attacked during marches in Portland on June 29.

STEPHEN JOHNSON02 July, 2019
editor note: Andy Ngo is center to left not conservative!

5.

Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement

By Sara Ganim and Chris Welch, CNN

Updated 9:46 AM ET, Fri May 3, 2019

6.

Antifa and the Alt-Right, Growing in Opposition to One Another

ByBEN SHAPIRO

• August 15, 2017 8:00 AMl

7.

Antifa Assaults Progressive Protester for Carrying American Flag

Paul Crookston – AUGUST 20, 2018 9:13 PM

8.

Antifa Members Smash Windows of Marine Corps Recruiting Office in Berkeleyeffrey Cimmino – AUGUST 6, 2018 12:21 PM

9

Andy Ngo’s antifa attackers might have violated a federal anti-Klan law

by Tom Rogan | July 01, 2019 03:21 PM

10. Stop Calling Antifa ‘Fascists’ — They’re Something Else Evil

MATTHEW BOOSEFREELANCE WRITERSeptember 05, 2017

11. This List Of Attacks Against Conservatives Is Mind Blowing

DAVE BROOKSDEPUTY EDITORJune 16, 2017

12.FBI Investigating Antifa For Plotting To Buy Guns From Cartel For ‘Armed Rebellion

RACHEL STOLTZFOOSSTAFF REPORTERApril 29, 2019

13.Here Are All Of The Times Antifa Got Violent This Weekend

AMBER ATHEYWHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTAugust 13, 2018

14.KERNS: Antifa Has Shown Why It Should Be Designated A Domestic Terror Group

JEN KERNSCONTRIBUTORJuly 01, 201 9

14.KERNS: Antifa Has Shown Why It Should Be Designated A Domestic Terror Group

15.

The Washington Post Starts To Tell The Truth About #Antifa

DIARY / DANA PICO // Posted at 11:02 am on August 28, 2017 by Dana Pico

16.

Feds Deem Antifa’s Activities Terrorist

Posted at 1:00 pm on September 2, 2017 by Dan Spencer

17.

Antifa Attacks And Maces Group Of Marines

Posted at 8:24 pm on November 29, 2018 by Alex Parker

18.

FBI Investigating Plot By Antifa To Buy Guns & Stage Armed Rebellion At Border

Posted at 1:33 pm on April 30, 2019 by Sarah Lee

19.

Tolerance: Antifa Ghouls Arrested For Allegedly Shoving And Throwing Urine On Pro-Lifers At Boston March For Life

Posted at 3:00 pm on June 5, 2019 by Sister Toldjah

20.

Tolerance: Antifa Ghouls Arrested For Allegedly Shoving And Throwing Urine On Pro-Lifers At Boston March For Life

Posted at 3:00 pm on June 5, 2019 by Sister Toldjah

21.

WATCH: Portland Antifa Commits Violence, Blocks Route To Hospital, Police Do Nothing

Posted at 6:30 pm on May 2, 2019 by Brandon Morse

22. Why Steve Scalise Should Stop Pretending The Right Is Currently As Violent As The Left

By Mark OverstreetSEPTEMBER 21, 2018

23. Berkeley’s Antifa Takeover Shows There Is Evil On Both Sides

By Robert TracinskiAUGUST 30, 2017

24. Antifa Is Not Fighting For Freedom, But For Communist Revolution .

 Joseph D’HippolitoNOVEMBER 1, 2017

25.

It’s Not Your Imagination: The Journalists Writing About Antifa Are Often Their Cheerleaders

written by Eoin Lenihan

26.

Antifa’s Brutal Assault on Andy Ngo Is a Wake-Up Call—for Authorities and Journalists Alike

written by Quillette Magazine

27.

CNN journalists criticize antifa protester for attacking NBC reporter at Charlottesville rally

by Josh Siegel | August 12, 2018 04:12 PM

28.

Jake Tapper‏Verified account @jaketapperFollowingFollowing @jaketapperMore

Jake Tapper Retweeted Jim Ryan

Antifa regularly attacks journalists; it’s reprehensible https://twitter.com/calnbc/status/1028454081684234240?s=21 … https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1028764017542746112?s=21 … https://twitter.com/dejuanabc11/status/1028679231180550144?s=21 …

Jake Tapper added,

0:29Jim Ryan

29.

DeJuan Hoggard‏Verified account @DeJuanABC11FollowFollow @DeJuanABC11More

Protestors didn’t want to be filmed and cut my photographer’s audio cable cord. from Jake Tapper reference

30.

CNN’s Tapper: People Need to Know That Antifa Has Assaulted a Number of Journalists

Guy Benson

31.

1. Detail Jake Tapper report on antifa attacking media. PS Unlike someone on my show detailing Tapper as GOP, he is listed as independent but worked with left wing media and groups. So much for being some bias right winger1 reply0 retweets0 likesReply 1 Retweet  Like  View Tweet activity
2. The Donelson Files‏ @Donelsonfiles 2h2 hours agoMoreThe Donelson Files Retweeted DeJuan HoggardFrom Jake Tapper https://mobile.twitter.com/calnbc/status/1028454081684234240?s=21 … https://mobile.twitter.com/timkmak/status/1028764017542746112?s=21 …The Donelson Files added,DeJuan HoggardVerified account @DeJuanABC11Protestors didn’t want to be filmed and cut my photographer’s audio cable cord. 1 reply0 retweets0 likesReply 1 Retweet  Like  View Tweet activity

The Donelson Files‏ @DonelsonfilesMore

The Donelson Files Retweeted Jake Tapper

https://mobile.twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1145104063362674688 … Note how many lefties defend fascist black shirts thugs. and that is at least 5 reporters that Tapper showed been attacked.

32

CNN journalists criticize antifa protester for attacking NBC reporter at Charlottesville rally

by Josh Siegel | August 12, 2018 04:12 PM

https://spectator.us/portland-antifa-fascists/

https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Oil-Supply-to-Swamp-Demand-in-2020-and-Squeeze-13997450.php?cmpid=ffoil Sarah Palin was right, dig, baby

A Fascist Attack in Portland

France’s new ‘hottest recorded temperature ever’ is in question – guess where it was measured?

There are many issues in which Not Trump voters agree with Trump voters in large enough numbers for the GOP to make the case that they are the party of change and opportunity and build a winning coalition. As the Democratic Party moves left, the GOP has a chance to entice enough Not Trump voters to join their coalition even with their personal dislike of Trump. On abortion, the majority of voters are pro-life and support restrictions on abortion, the only question is where to begin the restrictions. On trade, at least a third of Not Trump voters see the merit of Trump trade strategy. On economic growth, Trump and Not Trump voters view increasing debts, deficits or even spending as hurting the economic showing the rejection of Keynesian economics.

From 47% to 52%, voters overall approve of Trump handling of trade issues, immigration, economy and foreign affairs even if they don’t particularly care for him on a personal level. On Health care, most voters prefer choices in their health care, they want to keep their plans if they like them or keep their doctor and here the GOP can win if they chose to promote a health care plan that offers those things. The Democrat’s leading candidates will either be billionaires like Michael Bloomberg or Tom Steyer or they will go to younger more leftist candidates such as California Senator Kamala Harris, so likeability issue may not be factor as it wasn’t in 2016 when the Democrats nominated one of the most unlikeable candidates ever in Hillary Clinton. Ted Cruz survived a tough Senate race in 2018 despite being unlikable and outspent two to one, so being likable could be overlooked if the alternative is worse and the plan that Trump promoted in 2016 is working. For many Republican candidates, there is a discomfort with having Trump on top of the ticket.

Many GOP voters though like Trump more than their candidates for U.S. House and Senate so Republicans need to run on a positive message that they will be the party of reform and the Middle Class. Even with the recent gains by Democrats, the Democrat Party is still a Party of the two coasts and no longer the party of Middle America or the South. Much of Middle America and the South still remains Republican so the key issue for the GOP is whether they can get enough of the Democratic base to build a new coalition in key Midwest States just as Michigan or Wisconsin plus make inroads in Western states just as Colorado and Nevada. In Florida, school choice prompted 18% of black women to vote for Ron DeSantis and this alone would have propelled DeSantis to victory. In Tennessee, Martha Blackburn cleaned up in the suburbs, exceeded national average among blacks and Hispanics (gaining 45% of Hispanic voters in her state). In Missouri, Josh Hawley had similar success in both the Suburbs and with minorities plus turnout among black voters cratered for Claire McCaskill and Hawley did very similar among Hispanics than Blackburn. De Santis, Hawley and Blackburn received over 50% of suburban votes while on a national average the GOP only received 49%, the same as Democrats.

The lesson for GOP is to study these candidacies. Rick Scott did well among Hispanics and that even includes Puerto Rican voters and like De Santis, expanded his reach into the Suburbs. These candidates expanded upon the Trump coalition of 2016 and won as a result. The key for Republicans is to fight on issues and expanding the theme on fair opportunity to succeed. In 2020 and as long as the economy holds, the 2020 election will be a values election with values meaning more than just traditional social issues but more broad value battle including should voters chose their health care plan and their doctors or should the government do it for them? On the abortion issue, the battle will be on the value of when is life worth protecting or does the unborn allowed no rights to life? On economy, which values is more important, the right to a job and opportunity or do we engage in the politics of envy at the expense of opportunity. The GOP won’t have an easy time with Trump on the top of the ticket due to his personality but his ideas are more popular than his opponent’s will be and that is the battleground that needs to be fought, the battleground of ideas.

Click to access Family_and_Poverty_Election_Implications.pdf

Below is excerpts from this study done by the Foundation.

Thirty-five percent of Black families headed by single parents live in poverty compared to 7% of Black families and 38% of Hispanics single female head of house hold live in poverty compared to 12% of married Hispanic couples. Living in a single parent home increases the chances of children living in poverty and receiving government assistance, thus more likely to support big government programs and income transfers. But those programs have done nothing to help women and children rise out of poverty. Marriage is a significant factor in poverty and as Heritage Foundation Researcher Robert Rector noted, “Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty, and welfare dependence will increase. Children and parents will suffer as result.” Family structure plays a factor in combating poverty and the evidence shows decline in family formation plays a role in the number of minorities in poverty.

In 1930, only 6.3% children were born out of wedlock but today that number has risen to 40%. 36% of single parents live in poverty compared to 6.3% of married couple. Only one out of four families with children are poor when contrasted to nearly 71% of families headed by single parents, showing that family formation is a significant factor in poverty. While many blame teen pregnancy for increase single parents, three out of five unwed children are born to women 20 -29.

Education plays a significant role in unwed mothers as the least educated women are more likely to have children out of wedlock. 67% of Women without high school degree have children without marriage whereas mothers with college degrees or higher have 8.3% chance of children out of wedlock. Education is a factor in whether a woman will have a child out of wedlock but regardless of education, married women are less likely to live in poverty. Only 15% of women who are married and without a high school diploma live in poverty whereas 47% of single female head of household dropouts live in poverty. 31% of Single female head of households with high school diploma live in poverty compared to only 5% of married families and 24% of single female head of households with some college degree live in poverty compared to only 3.2% married women live in poverty. Nearly 9% of women with college degrees or higher live in poverty compared to 1.5% of married families with college degree or higher.

Are fathers obsolete?

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (June 15, 2019)

After a generation of “free love”, unlimited abortions, increases in divorce, single mothers, unwed mothers, single sex parents, and fatherless children, it may be a good idea to re-visit the concept of fatherhood. For those who are unfamiliar with the term: a father is first of all a man, not a woman. A father is a man who is committed to his wife and who is willing to proclaim publicly and legally that commitment through a marriage ceremony. A father is a man who also has publicly and legally committed to support for any children who may be born of that union. Finally, a father is a man who has undertaken to maintain these commitments for life, through good times and hard times, “until death do us part.”

There is also another definition of “father”, which is taken in a biological sense, as the donor of the sperm which results in a birth, whether in or outside the marriage bond or any other level of commitment. Law and custom have attempted to enforce a commitment to various levels of support for the mothers and/or the children of such unions, but increasingly without success. After all, why bother when an abortion can eliminate the claim, and the refusal to abort can be interpreted as a relinquishment of all such claims? In our current world, therefore, “biological father” is almost useless as a definition of “father”.
That leaves the traditional meaning of the term as described above. It also leaves that definition as increasingly rare in our experience, or so the movies and news would have it. The popular culture has elevated the roles and rights of women at the expense of men in general, and fathers in particular. But what difference does it make? 
Who needs fathers?

Before we answer that question, it is instructive to think about why such a question should arise in the first place? The answer has to do with the “sexual revolution” of the 1960’s. That is when oral contraceptives came into common use in the Western world. This development coincided with the recognition that children were no longer the economic bonus in urban America as they had been in rural America. A large farm family had a financial advantage as the children grew up because of lower labor costs. A large family of city-dwellers has higher costs of housing, food, health care, and education with no corresponding increase in income. The ability to limit pregnancies easily was thus a simple, straightforward answer to this dilemma.

But along with these family planning conveniences came another result: the increased opportunities for promiscuity. Until the introduction of oral contraceptives, the customary and intuitive role of women had been as guardians against out-of-wedlock liaisons. Suddenly all restrictions became unnecessary if the female contraceptives were employed. Sexual activities came to be viewed as a form of entertainment. Adverse results in the form of pregnancies were easily prevented by prescriptions or eliminated by legal abortions.

In this more promiscuous environment, other social movements caught fire. Women began to realize that their social roles were no longer restricted for the family-rearing years by unwanted pregnancies. Women’s rights to independence and careers outside the home had accelerated during WWII when women began during jobs previously reserved for men (remember “Rosie the Riveter”). These trends took on a new life and evolved into a major economic factor as an extension of the available workforce. 
Another consequence was a massive re-thinking of the role of men in society. The first responses in many cases were nearly grotesque, men taking every advantage of the sudden lifting of female safeguards against illicit sex. Divorce rates soared, marriage rates began to decline, as did pregnancies and birth rates.

As the sexual revolution matured, women demanded an expanded role for men in marriage, e.g. sharing housekeeping and baby care, as well as less control over family matters (since they were often major financial contributors). There were no rules. Traditional rules didn’t really apply and there was little consensus regarding new rules. In the meantime, women re-discovered the joys of motherhood, but increasingly without fathers present.

Who needs fathers? Not today’s modern women, say the feminists.

What are the results of this change in the winds of family life? For one thing, a lot of fatherless children. And a lot of over-stressed and overworked women. And a lot of lonely and distressed men. This new system doesn’t seem to be working.

One place to start rebuilding a healthy family life would be with men. Perpetual adolescence may be fun and exciting, but it is no way to live your whole life. Men need children as much as women do. Men need to have someone to care for, to live for, and, if necessary, to die for. Fathers are not like the bachelor stallions who live on the periphery of the herd waiting for the chance to mate with a wayward mare. We all need our own little band, our family. If circumstances – physical or otherwise – make fathering our own family impossible, some substitute should be found. Whatever its form, that fathering nevertheless has its own requirements.

A father must be a good husband – that means willing to support his wife emotionally as well as financially – to the best of his ability, as long as they both shall live. Some men duck out of marriage at the worst possible times, the times of greatest loss, whether sickness, finances or even death. No family can build a successful life on such a shaky foundation.
A father must be a good father – patient with his children, willing to sacrifice for them, to love them, and to help them face their own lives as they encounter each test along the way.

Who needs a father?Your son needs a father to show him how to live, how to love, how to have fun, and how to die. Your daughter needs to know that there are good men in the world. Men make up half the world’s population. Your daughter needs to know how to tell the good ones from the bad ones. All her life she will compare the men she knows with the father who raised her.

You are that father. She needs you.