Isaac Newton's third law states, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Sir Isaac must have never been in government, because a little-known rule in the Environmental Protection Agency is having a ripple effect across the nation, and is likely to hit consumers in their pocketbook. The EPA must now act to save thousands of jobs across the country and billions in consumer costs.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a program requiring fuel sold in the U.S. to contain a minimum amount of renewable fuels, such as ethanol. The program was originated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. To track the renewable fuel mandate a renewable identification number (RIN) is assigned to each batch of biofuel. The RINs go towards the Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO), which are the targets for each refiner or importer ofpetroleum-based gasoline or diesel fuel.

The problem is the rules were written for refiners that have the capability to blend renewable fuels with regular fuel, like gas, diesel, and jet fuel. Every time a renewable fuel is mixed with nonrenewable, or fuel is imported already blended with renewables; the company gets a RINs credit from the government.

Unfortunately, many refiners do not have the capability to blend. These refiners must purchase separated RINs. Enter the Wall Street speculators.

The speculators are buying the RINs from the blending companies and driving up the price. In 2013, a 20-fold price increase in RINs was attributed to speculators stockpiling the phony currency. This was never the intent of the rule. The rule was designed to make sure renewable fuels were blended with nonrenewable fuels, but as usual Wall Street speculators started manipulating the market, after all, they did a great job with the housing market.

RINs have become a multibillion-dollar burden on refiners and a tax on U.S. consumers. The Oil and Gas Journal estimated U.S. refiners paid $2.2 billion for RIN credits in 2016.

The RINs scam has already forced the only refinery in Delaware to close its doors in 2009, sending hundreds of workers to the unemployment line. Jeff Warmann, president of Monroe Energy, warned his refinery might be next. Monroe Energy is an independent energy company with a refinery outside Philadelphia. His company spent more than $200 million last year on RINs, "That's more than we paid for the refinery," he says.

Another Pennsylvania refiner being slammed by the RINs scam is Philadelphia Energy Solutions. The company runs the largest refinery on the US Atlantic coast, refining 310,000 barrels per day. The company now spends more on RINs than its total payroll.

Contrary to popular belief, refineries operate on razor-thin margins. Many refiners are on the verge of bankruptcy and laying off hundreds of workers because of the simultaneous burden of the RINs scam and thin margins.

The fight has brought together strange bedfellows. Some of the most conservative Senators are on the same side as northeastern union workers and liberal politicians. If Governor John Carney of Delaware, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, the United Steel Workers President Leo Gerard, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) can all get on the same page about an issue, you know the problem is important.

The refineries are not fighting the biofuel mandate; they are fighting the way in which the program is administered. Changing the EPA regulations that require the big fuel blenders and global energy companies that create the credits are also responsible for using the credits is the right thing to do. The EPA established a competitive advantage for some while disadvantaging others. It is time for the EPA to rectify the situation for the sake of good paying blue collar jobs and the consumer's pocketbook.

Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government

Bad as the 18 corruption charges against New Jersey's Sen. Bob Menendez were, the original motive behind the Justice Department's prosecution against him was worse.  That's worth remembering as the news of his hung-jury trial probably amounts to an acquittal, given that most jurors (8-2) thought the charges of funds for favors were unproven, and prosecutors may be reluctant to retry against those odds.

According to the New York Daily News.

Prosecutors assembled a mountain of evidence that Menendez traded hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and campaign contributions from a scam-artist Florida ophthalmologist for official favors. No conviction.

The Washington Post summed up the charges thus.

Prosecutors said Menendez took gifts from Melgen, including a luxury hotel stay, private jet flights and campaign donations, in exchange for which he tried to help Melgen get U.S. visas for his girlfriends, intervened in the doctor's $8.9 million billing dispute with Medicare, and assisted with a port security contract of the doctor's in the Dominican Republic.

It sure sounds as if he was steeped well in a pay-for-play Washington swamp culture, for what it's worth.  Like so many others.

But as Andrew McCarthy, in an exceptionally astute analysis, points out, the telling point here is in the original reason for the charges at all: Menendez angered President Obama, and Obama, banana-republic style, went after him through the Justice Department as payback.

Policy-wise, Menendez wasn't that bad as Democrats go.  He was against Obama's Iran deal, something cooked up by Ben Rhodes and shoved down our throats with admitted lies to ensure that Obama left with some sort of legacy, even as the whole thing meant selling America down the river.  The deal's secret flights loaded with billions in cash, drug-dealer-style, for the mullahs' benefit, have only served to embolden the Iranians as the cash has since made its way to arms and mayhem.

Menendez also opposed Obama's sellout to Cuba, forking over good relations with the Castro brothers in late 2014 in exchange for nothing.  Since then, horrible repressive measures have been taken against dissidents, something Obama and the ever garrulous Rhodes have been silent about.

McCarthy, on PJ Media in 2015, wrote.

Obama's Justice Department, which features the first attorney general in American history to be held in contempt of Congress (for obstructing the House's investigation of the outrageous Fast & Furious scandal), is the most politicized in American history – practicing discriminatory law-enforcement that stays its hand against friends (see, e.g., its treatment of New Black Panther Party voter intimidation, Solyndra fraud, and the Obama 2008 campaign's large-scale campaign finance violations) while punishing critics, scapegoats, and others who dare to cross the president (see, e.g., treatment of Dinesh D'Souza's de minimis campaign finance violationof Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the anti-Muslim video the administration fraudulently blamed for the Benghazi massacre; and of Standard & Poor's, squeezed for a $1.37 billion settlement in a retaliatory suit Justice filed after S&P downgraded the U.S. credit-rating).

The telling point, he adds, is that Menendez's collaborator in his misdeeds, one former Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, never got charged despite his involvement in intervening on behalf of Menendez in his pay-for-play activity.

The fact that most of the jury believed Menendez when he said it was based on friendship, not payoffs, is understandable, even if concerning, given that practically any politician who ever did what Menendez did would be off the hook.  But the same argument could not be made for the unindicted Reid, who was nothing more than a political coeval of Menendez's, doing Menendez's dirty work for him in exchange for influence.  Yet Reid was never indicted – because he never crossed Obama.

The bigger problem here is that the Obama administration engaged in raw political payback, comparable to a Chicago ward pol, and that is something that merits judicial action much more than Menendez.

Progressivism's parade of horrors
From eugenics to climate change, there is grave danger in making law based on so-called settled science

On the flight out to the recent FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas, I read a horrifying book, Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas C. Leonard. It’s a bold attempt to restore our national memory, to explain how we strayed from our nation’s classical liberal founding heritage and embarked on building today’s welfare/warfare/regulatory state. Central to the story is the misuse of science. And it carries an important warning for us today.

Leonard meticulously researches and documents the march of the Eugenics movement, from its roots in the German Historical School of political economy during the Bismarck era to its near-universal embrace by American Progressive intellectuals at the end of the 19th century, to its re-importation into Germany, which culminated in the Nazi holocaust.

Eugenicists identified themselves as Progressives—an association their fellow Progressives didn’t deny. Their goal? To “improve” the human species through policies aimed at selecting out the “unfit.”

See where this is going?

You will find this book shocking, not just because so many prominent American scientists, economists, journalists, theologians, statesmen, activists, and trade organizations bought into this poisonous ideology, but by this having been expunged from our national memory, much like the Belgians have blanked out their memory of King Leopold. It’s a story well worth retelling.

The pivotal historical figure in this long and sordid tale is Princeton professor-turned-President Woodrow Wilson, who helped the burgeoning Progressive movement translate philosophy into action. Wilson’s publicly articulated vision for America was to scrap the intricate constitutional checks and balances that limited the power of the federal government and replace it with unbridled rule by technocratic elites.

These elites would be informed not by an ethos steeped in the American tradition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, manifested in a freewheeling laissez faire economy, but by “settled science” that economists, sociologists, and central planners would use to create an efficient utopia. And the settled science of Wilson’s day was … Eugenics.

Parade of Horrors

The parade of horrors unleashed by Eugenics is long. Forced sterilization of “imbeciles,” “cripples,” and the “morally unfit.” The “separate but equal” segregation enshrined by the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Labor regulations designed to force women out of the workplace. Immigration restrictions targeting Chinese, Southern Italians, Jews, Slavs, and other “undesirables.”

Minimum wage laws intended to push low-skill African-Americans, immigrants, and poor rural whites out of the labor market, making it harder for them to have children. Marriage license laws giving states the power to decide who can reproduce. Ethnically and racially targeted birth control campaigns that laid the groundwork for our modern abortion-on-demand regime.

I thank Jeffrey Tucker for turning me on to this book, which I read preparing to interview him for RealClear Radio Hour. You can listen to a podcast of our conversation here. Jeff has embraced the cause of resurrecting this history as a cautionary tale that needs telling to a generation raised on Progressive nostrums.

My point is not to castigate modern Progressives for the sins of their forebears. I’m sure they find the Eugenics movement just as horrifying. Rather, the point is to warn against letting government bureaucrats use coercion to engineer massive social change, justifying it with so-called settled science. Because science can be wrong, especially if, as a matter of policy, it is not allowed to self-correct.

Which brings us to the defining hysteria of today’s Progressive movement—global warming. Regardless of your own views, one fact is undisputed. If all the draconian changes to our energy production and consumption endorsed by global warming alarmists were enacted, it would have a negligible effect on future temperatures. Which should tell you that this is not a debate about climate, but about power—especially when that power is used to censor critics, prosecute climate change “deniers,” and demonize anyone who dares ask blasphemous questions.

That is not how science works. That is how tyrants work.

If freedom and open debate are things you care about, stop what you are doing and go buy this book.

Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is also an entrepreneur, venture capital investor, columnist and the host of RealClear Radio Hour. Mr. Frezza is currently serving as consigliere to a young CEO at Boston Microfluidics, a development-stage medical diagnostics company.

Could it be that both parties are doomed?
The best argument Republicans have is “we’re not Democrats,” and the best argument Democrats have is “we’re not Republicans."

For all the obvious reasons, the Republican party gets most of the attention these days. For starters, it controls the White House, the Senate, and the House, and the party in power always warrants more scrutiny, even when it’s operating smoothly.

Of course, that’s not happening.

The GOP is running as smoothly as a dry Slip ’N Slide made from sandpaper. That the party is as dysfunctional as the human-resources department at the Weinstein Company stems from a host of ideological, political, and structural problems that are only compounded by the fact that the president grabs the public’s attention like a spider monkey running through a church with a lit stick of dynamite.

The Democrat party, meanwhile, has gotten drunk on the spectacle. And as with many a drunk, it’s grown oblivious to its own decrepitude. Like a bitter lush sitting in his own filth amid a sea of empty bottles, moldering pizza boxes, and fried-chicken bones, it shouts at the TV and boasts how it could do better.

Democrat Dysfunction

Donna Brazile, the longtime high-ranking Democrat functionary, was made interim chair of the party shortly before the 2016 election in the wake of revelations that the previous chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, seemed to be playing favorites in the primaries, tilting the scales toward Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders. In an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Hacks, Brazile reports that Wasserman Schultz wasn’t simply partial toward Clinton. She was in fact Clinton’s vassal.

It’s widely known that Barack Obama left the Democrat party in shambles. On his watch, the party lost more than 1,000 elective offices at the federal, state, and local levels. One underreported reason for this is that Obama opted to create a parallel institution out of his 2012 campaign outfit, Organizing for America. The renamed Organizing for Action siphoned money and the president’s energies from the DNC.

Brazile reports that the party was so hollowed out with debt that Hillary Clinton essentially scooped it up in a distress sale. Wasserman Schultz cut a deal with the Clinton campaign in which Clinton would raise millions ostensibly for the party, particularly at the state level. But those funds were sluiced back into the Clinton campaign coffers in Brooklyn, and the campaign extracted de facto control of the party’s messaging and hiring. Team Clinton mocked Sanders as a paranoid dotard for claiming that the Democrat primary system was rigged against him. As it happens, his paranoia didn’t go far enough.

It seems axiomatic that any party weak enough to be taken over by Hillary Clinton is not in good health.

Party Principles

Today, the Democrat party’s sole unifying principle is opposition to Donald Trump. Given Trump’s standing in the polls, that may be good enough for the 2018 midterm elections. But when it comes to ideas about governing, all of the passion is reserved for two things.

First, there is Sanders’ idea of “socialism,” which is really an unworkable stew of banalities and nostrums stemming from a nostalgic idea of a “Scandinavian model” that no longer exists (if it ever did). It’s as if Fabian socialists created an Epcot Center exhibit of Sweden in the 1950s, and irascible tour guide Bernie rides by in a trolley, shouting: “This could be us!”

The second source of passion is the angry, sanctimony-besotted identity politics popular on college campuses and a handful of left-wing websites. The DNC’s data-services manager recently sent out an email soliciting applications for new hires in the IT department. She cautioned that she wasn’t looking for any “cisgender straight white males.”

If you want to know how Trump was elected, ask yourself how a laid-off, cisgender, straight, white, male coal miner who went back to community college to learn computers might react to that.

Punch-Drunk Politics

Again, you wouldn’t be crazy for thinking the GOP is like a runaway fire at a soiled-diaper-reclamation center. And I’m sure I’ll have opportunities in the near future to expand on that.

But the important point is that dysfunction isn’t zero-sum. Right now, the best argument Republicans have is “we’re not Democrats,” and the best argument Democrats have is “we’re not Republicans.” Like two punch-drunk pugilists leaning on each other in the twelfth round, if one falls, the other may well fall too.

Everywhere else in America today, disrupters – Uber, Amazon, etc. – are dismantling established institutions. Perhaps both political parties are the next institutions to crumble under creative destruction. Or maybe not. But if it happens, no one can say they didn’t have it coming.

Reprinted from the National Review.

Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he writes about political and cultural issues. He is concurrently a senior editor at National Review.

The ugly truth about sex 'reassignment' the transgender lobby keeps hidden
Individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery are about 20 times more likely than the general population to die by suicide.

Sex reassignment is as natural as being born, some in the media tell us. And many Americans are buying it.

But a growing chorus of dissenters made up of physicians, researchers, and even transgender individuals is beginning to paint a far different picture of the truth.

These dissenters are now coming forward to expose just how harmful gender transition and reassignment are—both medically and sociologically speaking.

First, consider recent revelations about how problematic sex reassignment surgery is as a therapy for gender dysphoria.

In an interview with The Telegraph, world-renowned genital reconstructive surgeon Miroslav Djordjevic said his clinics are experiencing an increase in “reversal” surgeries for those who want their genitalia back. These people express crippling levels of depression and, in some instances, suicidal thoughts.

In male-to-female reassignment surgery, doctors such as Djordjevic transform the man’s genitals into the shape of a vagina, removing the testicles and inverting the penis.

In female-to-male reassignment surgery, doctors remove the woman’s breasts, uterus, and ovaries, and extend the urethra so that the woman-turned-man can urinate from the standing position.

A recent Newsweek article takes note of Djordjevic’s concerns, illustrating their legitimacy by pointing to the case of Charles Kane, a man who underwent male-to-female reassignment surgery.

In a BBC interview, Kane explains that he decided to have the initial surgery immediately after having a nervous breakdown. But after having the surgery and identifying as a female named “Sam Hashimi,” Kane soon regretted the decision and went for reversal surgery.

“When I was in the psychiatric hospital,” Kane said, “there was a man on one side of me who thought he was King George and another guy on the other side who thought he was Jesus Christ. I decided I was [a girl named] Sam.”

Similarly, Claudia MacLean, a transgender woman, is quoted as saying her psychiatrist referred her to a sex reassignment surgeon after having only a 45-minute consultation. “In my opinion,” MacLean said, “what happened to me was all about money.”

Given that clinics charge up to $50,000 for reassignment surgeries, Djordjevic says he fears that doctors are stuffing their bank accounts without concern for the physical and psychological well-being of their patients.

Physical and psychological well-being should be a concern, given that 41 percent of transgender people will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, and people who have had sex reassignment surgery are approximately 20 times more likely than the general population to die by suicide.

In addition to the problems inherent to sex reassignment surgery, we should recognize the troublesome nature of giving hormonal “treatments” to gender dysphoric children to delay puberty.

In a recent paper, “Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender Dysphoria,” endocrinologist Paul Hruz, biostatistician Lawrence Mayer, and psychiatrist Paul McHugh challenge this practice.

They note that approximately 80 percent of gender dysphoric children grow comfortable in their bodies and no longer experience dysphoria, and conclude that there is “little evidence that puberty suppression is reversible, safe, or effective for treating gender dysphoria.”

Thus, scientific evidence suggests that hormone-induced puberty suppression is harmful and even abusive.

Bruce Ashford is provost and professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the co-author of "One Nation Under God: A Christian Hope for American Politics," and blogs at "Christianity for the Common Good.


This month’s issue of MIT Technology Review, my alma mater’s flagship magazine of technology fashion, is entirely devoted to Artificial Intelligence (AI), making the rounds for at least the third time in my career as both panacea and bogeyman. Sprinkled among the long form articles are colorful little one-page warnings with titles like “The Dangers of Tech-Bro AI” and “How to Root Out Hidden Biases in AI.” In addition to the timeless fear of losing our jobs to machines, these pieces argue that right-thinking people must be on the lookout for algorithms that generate unfairness, demanding instead that our AI behave ethically.

Grab the popcorn, this should be fun to watch.

Ethics Are Not, and Never Have Been, Absolute

History shows that people can be made to believe that all sorts of things are ethical, recoiling in horror over things that other people consider ethical. Our tribal nature renders us vulnerable to the will of the leader, or the mob, doing things in groups that we would never consider doing individually. We also have a proven track record of embracing logical contradictions, using post hoc rationalization to justify decisions as it suits us.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary identity politics movement. Here concepts like privilege and intersectionality collide with murky definitions of race and gender to create a moral morass so thick that only the brave or foolhardy dare wade in. Not that there is anything new about this. Philosophers, clerics, ethicists, legislators, jurors, and everyday people have spent eons arguing about right and wrong. A rich body of literature documents society’s ever-changing ethical consensus, or lack thereof.

So next time you hear an expert demand that we develop ethical AI, ask who will be the arbiter of what constitutes correct and incorrect ethics? And once they solve the ancient problem of who watches the watchmen (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?), exactly how do they plan to translate their demands for “fairness” into code? Sure, software is capable of dealing with uncertainty, incomplete knowledge, and complex conditional circumstances. It can even use fuzzy logic to solve certain classes of problems. But be careful what you ask for when you feed murky definitions into a computer while expecting it to embrace blatant contradictions.

Ambiguity Abounds

Let me give an example of a murky definition. Define race, ethnicity, and, these days, gender in a manner that a computer can use as the basis for making ethical decisions. How many races are there? How do we classify mixed-race people? What are the unambiguous determinants of ethnicity? Which are the privileged ones and which are the underprivileged ones? And while I used to believe there were only two genders and that these were biologically determined, I am now assured that I am wrong.

Most people skate by with Justice Potter Stewart “I know it when I see it” answers to vexing questions like these. And that may be fine for humans with wetware brains, imprecise use of language, and a practiced ability to duck hard problems. But that’s not so fine for software running on digital machines that literally can only do what they are told. In this particular example, solving the murky definition problem by declaring that computers accept whatever boxes people check on forms is not only a total cop out but surely invites unethical people to game the system seeking unfair advantage, as some infamous cases revealed.

Then there is the problem of embracing contradictions; that is, simultaneously believing that something can be A and not-A at the same time, and in all respects. Admit it: we do it all the time. It makes us human. Even doctrinaire Aristotelians like Ayn Rand fall into this trap. The dynamic tension generated by the contradictions swirling in our heads provides rich fodder for religion, humor, art, drama, and macroeconomics.

Imagining an “ethical” AI trying to please its human masters operating under these conditions brings up images of Captain Kirk outsmarting evil computers by forcing them to perseverate on some glaring contradiction at the root of their programming. The computers ended up smoking until they blew themselves up. Unlike the guy who tried to outsmart his fellow citizens by rubbing their noses in their contradictions. They made him drink hemlock.

Do I have an answer to how we can make AI unbiased? Of course not. And neither do the self-appointed experts demanding that we do. Long-haul truck drivers may well be at risk of losing their jobs to AI, but tendentious pundits and class-action lawyers will never be short of work.

Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is also an entrepreneur, venture capital investor, columnist and the host of RealClear Radio Hour. Mr. Frezza is currently serving as consigliere to a young CEO at Boston Microfluidics, a development-stage medical diagnostics company.

Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1958 to 1981. In Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) Justice Stewart, in his concurrence to the majority opinion, created the standard whereby all speech is protected except for "hard-core pornography". As for what, exactly, constitutes hard-core pornography, Stewart said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." The film in question was Louis Malle's The Lovers.

Sowing the seeds of destruction: Gunnar Myrdal’s assault on America
Originally published in 1996, this review of Myrdal's book seeks to discover the root of the modern court's view of blacks as requiring compensatory treatment.

An American Dilemma, written by the Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal, is unquestionably the most influential book ever written about race relations in America. Published in 1944, this 1,400-page treatment of “the Negro problem” went through 25 printings — an astonishing record for a heavily academic work — before it went into a second, “twentieth anniversary” edition in 1962. It influenced presidential commissions and Supreme Court decisions, and established rules for public discussion about race that endure to this day. More than any other book, it laid the groundwork for integration, affirmative action, and multi-racialism, and destroyed the legitimacy of white racial consciousness. [Emphasis mine — ed.]

Although the title is as famous as ever, virtually no one now reads An American Dilemma. Partly this is because its exhaustive statistics are out of date, and the legal segregation it set out to eradicate has been gone for 30 years. Another reason is that by today’s standards the book is grossly “insensitive,” not only to Southern whites whom Myrdal obviously despised, but even to blacks whose cause he championed.

Yet another reason no one reads this book may be that it is a gold mine for anyone interested in the ideas that have paved the way for an increasingly Third-World America. Every anti-white cliché is here, as is every excuse for black failure. What is more, Myrdal pronounces them in the starkest, most unsubtle terms. Liberal race policies had not yet been tried. Myrdal had not witnessed their failure and therefore did not temper his language as liberals do today. The result is the clearest possible statement of the calamitous ideas that have shaped the last 40 years.

For Myrdal, “the Negro problem” has only one cause. Today he would have called it “racism” or “bigotry” but those words were not yet part of the liberal vocabulary. He writes instead of “prejudice” and “discrimination,” and this is perhaps his key passage:

White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners, and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice. White prejudice and Negro standards thus mutually ‘cause’ each other.

In other words, whites degrade blacks and then point to their degradation as justification for degrading them. Myrdal saw several ways out of this vicious cycle. If whites could be cured of prejudice, they would not oppress blacks so much, blacks would improve themselves, and their example would further cure whites of prejudice. Alternatively, the government could take measures to improve the circumstances of blacks, which would reduce white prejudice, which would permit blacks to improve themselves still further. Myrdal devotes an entire appendix to this “principle of cumulation,” whereby even the smallest improvement will constantly magnify itself.

For this to work, though, blacks must be, aside from their oppression, no different from whites. Although anthropologists had been promoting this egalitarian view since the 1930s, Myrdal was the first prominent economist to write that discrimination rather than low intelligence caused black poverty. Myrdal knew this claim was central to his argument and repeated it throughout the book.

“Social research,” he says, is “constantly disproving inherent differences and explaining apparent ones in cultural and social terms.” He cites the assertions of Franz Boas and his disciples (but offers no data) to discredit conventional views about racial differences in intelligence and temperament: “[T]he popular race dogma is being victoriously pursued into every corner and effectively exposed as fallacious or at least unsubstantiated.” As a result, “the undermining of the basis of certitude for popular beliefs has been accomplished.” Myrdal was sure that science was on his side, and voices a complaint that is, ironically, echoed in the pages of AR — that there is a “wide gap between scientific thought and popular belief.”

The difficulty, he says, is that unlike biological differences, the cultural explanation is just too much for rubes: “It requires difficult and complicated thinking about a multitude of mutually dependent variables, thinking which does not easily break into the lazy formalism of unintellectual people.” We can be optimistic, though, because “white prejudice can change … as a result of an increased general knowledge about biology, eradicating some of the false beliefs among whites concerning Negro racial inferiority.”

Already in 1944, Myrdal sensed the demise of theories about racial differences: “Most of them never reach the printing press or the microphone any more, as they are no longer intellectually respectable. The educated classes of whites are gradually coming to regard those who believe in the Negro’s biological inferiority as narrow-minded and backward.”

[From the biased Wikipedia entry]: Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist and white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist magazine. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance's parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank. He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.


The horrible act in New York on Tuesday reminds us once again we are in a war.  A war with radical Islam.  A war that our prior President and most of his party has tried to lose through their juvenile, silly version of Neville Chamberlain politics.

They prevented anyone in their administration from using the term “radical Islam,” hoping that would make radical Muslims less angry.  Sure, that’ll work.  They asked our media to follow.  And for the most part, they did.  Bleating all the way.

They dismantled surveillance on the centers of Jihadism.  They gutted many of the concrete methods we had to deal with this threat.

They chided those who wanted to fight this ideology as Islamophobes, and racists.

I hope everyone remembers where they were on 9/11.  I sure do.  I remember the Towers coming down, I remember being shocked at the lack of air traffic for a week, the stalling of business, the fear of the country as we regrouped, the rallying around the president as we responded.

I went on with my life vowing to be unafraid as a gesture in the face of these terror merchants.  And I did.  It was a conscious decision most Americans took.

Pamela Geller did that as well.  I gather she did a lot more than that.  While we were going on with our lives, she found a mission for hers.  9/11 wasn’t just an event for her to pick herself up from.  It was a seminal call for her to address a dark time and an evil in the world.

She saw this ideology wasn’t going away.  She saw the hate that filled this ideology and pointed it out.  She saw its narrow-minded side and spoke about it.  She saw its destructiveness and warned us all.  She began a blog and publicized these things.  She worked with Robert Spencer in trying to wake America and the world up.  She works at it daily.


Escape the moral matrix with the red pill of intellectual diversity
Intellectual diversity can free us from our moral blinders and foster creativity and innovation.

Back in 2012, before the ascendance of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency and before neologisms such as “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions, and “safe spaces” became part of regular college campus discourse, New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt published a groundbreaking book titled The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

As a bibliophile who reads extensively on a wide array of subject matters, I can declare without hesitation that Haidt’s book is by far the most fascinating and important work on social science that I've read within the last five years. It is a book that I have given away to a dozen of my friends working in the political realm or who are regular politicos, and one that I’ve recently reread given the profound insights of its central thesis. Today, America’s political polarization is deeper than ever. But there is hope and a way forward.

Intuitions Come First and Reasoning Second

Haidt’s tireless efforts through his book and other writings provide a promising path towards understanding the psychological causes behind our tribal politics. Drawing upon his background in social psychology and twenty-five years of original research on moral psychology, Haidt shows how evolution is responsible for shaping people’s morality that both binds and divides and how politics and religion create conflicting communities of shared morality.

Most profoundly, moral attitudes and judgments originate from intuition, not calculated logic. In his 1739 magnum opus A Treatise of Human Nature, the philosopher David Hume mused that, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” According to Haidt, the findings of modern social psychology research have largely vindicated Hume.

To illustrate his point, Haidt uses the metaphor of a rider and an elephant. The rider represents the conscious mind with its rational functions and controlled processes. But the domineering elephant is everything else outside the rider’s control: automatic processes that include emotions and intuitions. Although the rider can do “several useful things” such as planning for the future and learning new skills, ultimately “the rider’s job is the serve the elephant.” As a result of this one-sided relationship, the rider mostly “fabricat[es] post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant has done, and it is good at finding reasons to justify whatever the elephant wants to do next.” In short, “conscious reasoning functions like a lawyer or press secretary.”

What does this mean for political discourse? If people are asked to believe something that conflicts with their intuitions, you can almost certainly expect them to reflexively find an escape route – any reason to doubt the argument or conclusion they’re confronted with – and they’ll usually succeed. Haidt takes pains to emphasize that:

Moral judgment is not a purely cerebral affair in which we weigh concerns about harm, rights, and justice. It’s a kind of rapid, automatic process more akin to the judgments animals make as they move through the world, feeling themselves drawn toward or away from various things. Moral judgment is mostly done by the elephant.

Thus, if you’re trying to change someone’s mind, especially when it concerns a moral or political issue, you have to “talk to the elephant first.” [Dale Carnegie's 1936 classic, How to Win Friends and Influence People is a good pairing with Haidt’s book and is referenced in the latter’s work. It contains many psychological insights that remain relevant today and in fact, are reinforced by modern findings.]

Moral Foundations Theory

Through his interdisciplinary research, Haidt and his colleagues uncovered six moral foundations that are shared across human cultures:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.

Most intriguingly, Haidt found that left-liberals and progressives recognize primarily the first two moral foundations, Care/harm and Fairness/cheating. For the political Left, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, are perceived not as proper morals at all but base human traits responsible for patriarchy, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other forms of oppression. However, this stance is an outlier compared to most other parts of the world.

Aaron Tao is an entrepreneur and young professional working in Austin, TX. He holds an M.S. from the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin and a B.A. from Case Western Reserve University. Follow him on Twitter here:


Execution has been and still is a tried and true method of silencing critics.

Consider the case of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the gadfly of the Roman senate.  A remarkably gifted rhetorician, his agile and biting tongue was silenced by an affronted Marc Anthony, who had the eloquent orator beheaded.  As the Roman historian Appian later related:

Cicero's head and hand were fastened for a long time to the rostra in the forum, where he had previously played the popular leader, and more came to see the sight than had listened to him. It is said that Anthony had the head placed before the table at his meals, until he was sated with looking at the vile object.

Leaders of modern democracies and republics, most of which have been and are still committed to some freedom of speech, have generally refrained from beheading outspoken critics outright.

But there are ways of silencing people that, though subtler than execution, are almost as effective as death by beheading.

One way to silence critics is to change the very concept of reality so that old paradigms of truth become irrelevant or even vanish.

A 1985 video features ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who outlines the ways believers in ideologies can distort reality and create a new one.  Bezmenov outlines four steps of subversion.  The first is to change the perception of reality so no one is able to come to sensible conclusions about himself, his family, or his community.  The process is also known as brainwashing.

The object of brainwashing experiences demoralization so profound that exposure to truth doesn't even matter anymore.  As Bezmenov points out, an utterly demoralized Soviet citizen could actually know about or even see concentration camps and still not believe reality, so completely changed was his way of thinking.  Facts did not matter, as the brain had been completely disabled and then reprogrammed.

The brainwashing tactics used by leftist ideologues in America today – they are often ensconced in America's premier academic institutions – involve an undermining of reality by changing language.  Once the way of speaking and writing is completely overhauled, opposing voices, including those from the past, are rendered unable to speak meaningfully at all.  To put it another way, the idea is to make former interpretive paradigms describing reality absolutely incomprehensible by scrambling language.

For instance, feminist and genderist theologians sought to rid the Trinity of patriarchal references such as Father and Son, substituting gender-neutral terms like Life-Giver, Sustainer, and Holy Parent.  The idea is that the currently desired social order of the religious left should be reflected in a new permutation of language designed to change the old and hidebound terminology for God orthodox Christianity has utilized with some effectiveness and for good reasons for the last 2,000 years.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where she was awarded the Charles Hodge Prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and other online publications. She may be reached at


Wow, if we have learned anything about spending other people’s money in the last 20 [100+] years, it would be that Democrats love to spend our money.

Wow, if we have learned anything about spending other people’s money in the last 20 [50+] years, it would be that Republicans love to spend our money.

How many more decades must go by before we quit falling for Washington’s promise of “future” cuts in spending? Well, it’s happening again, folks.

In the past few weeks both the House and Senate have passed some convoluted budget packages that set the stage for major tax reform and promises of spending cuts. The Associated Press reports: “But Republicans are not actually planning to impose any of those cuts with follow-up legislation that would be required under Washington’s Byzantine budget rules. Instead, those GOP proposals for spending cuts are limited to nonbinding promises, and even a token 10-year, $200 billion spending cut package demanded by tea party House Republicans appears likely to be scrapped in upcoming talks with the Senate.”

Sound familiar? Let’s do this now and we’ll cut spending later. Are we really going to fall for that again? Here’s a novel idea — Make the spending cuts first so they would know how much they can cut taxes! But no, they want to cut taxes first and sell us yet again another pig-in-a-poke promise they will make the cuts later.

I would like to say this is business as usual in Washington, and it is, but it’s like everyone in Congress decided all at once to play musical chairs, stood up and aimlessly walked in circles around the chambers and suddenly sat down on opposite sides of the aisle. The Republicans, who forever have been screaming about unsustainable debt and deficits, voted nearly along party lines in the Senate to increase the debt by $1.5 trillion!

Even budget hawk Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, who has been the debt and deficit fighter for years, said, “We’re Republicans. We’re sensitive to the deficit.” Sensitive? Is that what the Republicans have become “sensitive” to the deficit? What happened to their outrage, their promises to balance the budget and restore some sort of fiscal sanity to government?

When will Washington learn, that governing strictly along party lines is not working for the American people? Why can’t they put forth a sensible bipartisan fiscal blueprint for our country? When you have people from both parties saying this budget process is flawed, why won’t they work together?

Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee and a member of the Budget Committee, told reporters, “This is the biggest hoax hatched upon the American people ever, that this budget process even exists. The only thing about this that matters is preparation for tax reform.”

Meanwhile, Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says, “With the deficit as large and growing as quickly as it is, Republicans pursuing a reckless plan that would blow a huge hole in the deficit and put Medicare and Medicaid at risk is the height of irresponsibility.”

Are you as confused as I am? Democrats are saying the debt is too large and Republicans are voting to add $1.5 trillion to the nation’s debt? It is clear Washington is leaderless and has lost its way. Year after year we allow Washington party politics to continue to fuel what amounts to fiscal insubordination. Year after year we continue to re-elect these people incapable of balancing the nation’s checkbook. Year after year we allow them to pile more debt, $666 billion more this year alone, onto our children.


The scandalous truth about Obamacare is laid bare
A government program that is ruined by permitting more choice is not sustainable.

It’s not just that Obamacare is financially unsustainable. More seriously, it is intellectually unsustainable, even though this truth has been slow to emerge. This has come to an end with President Trump’s executive order.

What does it do? It cuts subsidies to failing providers, yes. It also redefines the meaning of “short term” policies from one year to 90 days. But more importantly–and this is what has the pundit class in total meltdown–it liberalizes the rules for providers to serve health-coverage consumers.

In the words of USA Today: The executive order permits a greater range of choice “by allowing more consumers to buy health insurance through association health plans across state lines.”

Why would this be a problem? Because allowing choice defeats the core feature of Obamacare, which is about forcing risk pools to exist that the market would otherwise never have chosen. If you were to summarize the change in a phrase it is this: it allows more freedom.

The tenor of the critics’ comments on this move is that it is some sort of despotic act. But let’s be clear: no one is coerced by this executive order. It is exactly the reverse: it removes one source of coercion. It liberalizes, just slightly, the market for insurance carriers.

Here’s a good principle: a government program that is ruined by permitting more choice is not sustainable.

The New York Times predicts:

Employers that remain in the A.C.A. small-group market will offer plans that are more expensive than average, and they will see premiums increase. Only the sickest groups would remain in the A.C.A. regulated risk pool after several enrollment cycles.

Vox puts it this way:

The individuals likely to flee the Obamacare markets for association plans would probably be younger and healthier, leaving behind an older, sicker pool for the remaining ACA market. That has the makings of a death spiral, with ever-increasing premiums and insurers deciding to leave the market altogether.

The Atlantic makes the same point:

Both short-term and associated plans would likely be less costly than the more robust plans sold on Obamacare’s state-based insurance exchanges. But the concern, among critics, is that the plans would cherry-pick the healthiest customers out of the individual market, leaving those with serious health conditions stuck on the Obamacare exchanges. There, prices would rise, because the pool of people on the exchanges would be sicker. Small businesses who keep the more robust plans—perhaps because they have employees with serious health conditions—would also likely face higher costs.


In the aftermath of President Trump's Twitter assault on NFL players who knelt during our national anthem, one commentator wrote that NFL fans were outraged by the players' action "because they feel you are disrespecting the American flag, the very flag that gives you your liberties. They feel you are spitting on the blood of servicemen who died...protecting your freedom." Though I fully understand and share the anger many people are feeling, I found this formulation inadequate, even misleading.

The respect we Americans show for our flag, or during the performance of our national anthem, is not like the applause we give to the people who prepared the decorations for the prom in high school, or the standing ovation we offer a singer or band after their rendition of a song we love. As the congressionally adopted language of the Pledge of Allegiance says of our flag, it's an expression of loyalty "to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The liberty and justice we Americans are supposed to enjoy has been handed down for generations. It is, therefore, a gift, first transmitted by the generation that initially asserted the existence of our nation, on terms that required a form of government that would secure right and rights, including liberty, for all. But before justice and liberty can be secured, they must be asserted. And before they can be asserted, they must be understood.

But the understanding that made securing right and rights, including liberty, the defining purpose of just government did not say that justice and right are the gift of any flag or anthem. In the Declaration of Independence, when representatives of the first citizens of the United States of America first asserted their existence as a nation, they stated unequivocally that justice derived its meaning from "the laws of nature and of Nature's God" and that rights, including liberty, are endowed by our Creator. They are, therefore, not the gift of any flag or anthem. They are the gift of God, whose enactment of Creation is the source of justice, rights, and laws for humanity and all Creation.

Dr. Keyes holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory.
His basic philosophy can best be described as "Declarationism" – since he relies on the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence to define the premises on which our country was founded, and to which it must remain committed if it is to survive. To Dr. Keyes, the Constitution itself cannot be faithfully interpreted, understood, or applied apart from the divinely-premised principles of the Declaration.
When Keyes ran against Obama for the Senate in 2004, he did so because he was incensed that the Democrat "community organizer" refused to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois on several occasions – a measure approved not long afterward by the U.S. Senate, 100 to 0.
Dr. Keyes blogs at, and writes commentary for WorldNetDaily,, and Daily Caller.


CNN resurrected the old-school hatchet-job template for nullification articles this week.

Andrew Kaczynski and Chris Massie breathlessly reported Alabama Republican congressional candidate Roy Moore “signed onto a resolution in 2010 affirming the right of states to nullify, or void, federal law.”

While the goal was to attack Moore, the tool they used to do so was nullification. We haven’t seen an anti-nullification story following this script in quite a while. But Kaczynski and Massie checked off all the boxes.

Inference that nullification supporters are a bunch of racists – check

John C. Calhoun reference – check

Marginalizing nullification supporters as “extremists” – check

Obligatory quote from an ignorant law professor – check (They doubled down with two!)

Secession reference – check

Civil War reference – check

Of course, Kaczynski and Massie leave out any discussion of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. You know, the guys who first formalized the principles of nullification. No – it wasn’t Calhoun. (They do bring up Jefferson in reference to secession though.)

Our intrepid reporters claim nullification was “never upheld in federal court,” but fail to mention the anti-commandeering doctrine – the legal principle based on four major Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 that supports modern nullification efforts.

Kaczynski and Massie dutifully reminded us that segregationists appealed to nullification during the civil rights era, but conveniently forget to mention northern states successfully nullified the fugitive slave acts in the years leading up to the Civil War.

They report, “Some state legislatures have passed non-binding resolutions asserting their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment,” but never get around to talking about recent nullification successes such as marijuana legalization and Right to Try laws. Even hard-core progressives have jumped on the nullification bandwagon with so-called sanctuary cities. That’s apparently not on Kaczynski and Massie’s radar.

Ah. Good times. It takes me all the way back to 2010.

In fact, 2010 appears to be when Kaczynski and Massie started and ended their research on this story. It really is quite a time capsule. This was typical of nullification stories back then – before it became widely acknowledged, even within the mainstream media, that states could indeed refuse to cooperate with the enforcement of federal laws and the implementation of federal programs. (See the above-mentioned anti-commandeering doctrine.)

The CNN story revolves around a “Tenth Amendment Summit,” an event the TAC helped organize in 2010. The report references the Tenth Amendment Center and links to our website. Funny though – Kaczynski and Massie never contacted us for the story. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just couldn’t find our contact information. Except there’s Google. And the fact they linked our website IN THE STORY.

I went to journalism school. I learned you should make every effort to get input from anybody you name in the story. I learned you should do thorough research – like actually reading some of the content on the website you link – so you understand every side of an issue. I learned bias can slip through in what you leave out of a story as well as in what you put in. I learned putting these basic journalistic principles into practice helps keep you from writing stories that make you look like an ignorant boob.

That’s Journalism 101.

Maybe Kaczynski and Massie didn’t take that class. Or maybe they don’t actually care about journalism.

Pictured below are two bulldogs persuing denizens of the Washington Swamp. They are slowly winning in courts to get them into handcuffs where they belong.

The following is quoted verbatim from a Judicial Watch Special Report dated September, 2017 and titled Exposing the Deep State. Since the actions of Judicial Watch represent one of the few organizations in persuit of the truth via the court system, your editor sincerely hopes that you will exercise the link above to download your own copy of this document (pdf). We are closer than we may think to losing our freedom to socialism.

(Executive Summary) [p.3]
“They pride themselves on operating below the radar – and above the law” We face a crisis of the Deep State – “Alt-government,” I sometimes call it. The actions of the Deep State constitute a direct challenge to our republican form of government. Working primarily through the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, the Deep State is actively engaged in subversive measures designed to delegitimize Donald Trump, cause the American people to lose faith in their president, destroy the Trump presidency and eventually impeach him or put him in jail.
— Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton

This Judicial Watch Special Report analyzes the Deep State, which comprises legions of political appointees, career civil servants and powerful private contractors who run the government no matter who sits in the Oval Office. No matter which political party controls Congress. And, no matter what is the will of the American people. No matter who’s in power, they exert control. Oftentimes, the liberal media effectively operates as the propaganda arm of the Deep State.

The shadowy world in which Deep State actors maneuver is characterized by three disturbing proclivities: Secrecy, surveillance and subterfuge.

The operatives manning and manipulating the Deep State demand an activist, interventionist government, both domestically and internationally. Importantly, their worldview often rejects the beliefs and values of a majority of patriotic Americans.

As time goes on, the disparity between the values and beliefs of the people and those of the Deep State becomes cumulative, and no matter whom the people elect to public office, the Deep State takes the nation in a direction that increasingly diverges from where the people desire to go.

Sometimes, as it has with the Trump presidency, the Deep State rises to the surface in rebellion, taking aggressive, seditious measures against a president whose election it opposed and who it perceives to be a threat to its own agenda and, perhaps, its very survival. As already is clear with the Trump presidency, the Deep State can turn on any president that threatens its interests and survival. And left unchecked, it may illegally destroy him.

This Special Report explores the workings of the Deep State through four case studies, in each of which Judicial Watch is involved in investigative action and litigation:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), involving three JW Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits. One lawsuit focuses on the efforts by agency political offcials and civil servants to hide their communications and circumvent the Federal Records and Freedom of Information Acts. The second lawsuit demands to see documents surrounding the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of [p.4] the Clean Power Plan, which Judicial Watch suspects to be “fake science” used to justify the Obama EPA’s health claims in the Clean Power Plan, a scheme to end coal energy under the guise of combatting alleged global warming. The third lawsuit is aimed at EPA’s efforts to propagandize the American People illegally to promote its power grab over a clean water rule it was attempting to promulgate at the time.

  • The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), involving four JW FOIA lawsuits focusing on the political targeting of President Barack Obama’s political enemies, including conservative non-profit organizations and individuals, and the unlawful collusion among the IRS and other agencies of government, such as the Justice Department, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, to spy on innocent American citizens, propagandize them and bring criminal charges against political enemies of the Obama administration and/or the Deep State.

  • United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Soros Open Society Foundations, involving two JW FOIA lawsuits focusing on the Soros Open Society Foundations’ use of U.S. taxpayer money channeled through USAID to destabilize and overthrow the democratically- elected governments of Macedonia and Albania.

  • The Intelligence/Law-Enforcement Community, involving six JW FOIA lawsuits, an additional FOIA request and an advisory/demand letter, all focused on the surveillance, unmasking and illegal targeting of President Trump and his associates during the government’s investigation of purported Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election and alleged collusion with the Russians by Trump and his team. The Special Report examines the flood of leaks and innuendos coming out of the government surrounding Trump and his associates, including the Gen. Michael Flynn episode; the Obama administration’s misuse of the NSA database of surveillance intercepts to target and unmask the identities of Americans; the Trump Dossier and the FBI’s involvement in it; along with James Comey’s purloined memoranda and the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump and his associates, including unsubstantiated accusations of obstruction of justice by the president when he allegedly ask Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation. The Report assembles the evidence at hand and finds it supports the conclusion that the Deep State, working primarily through the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, is actively engaged in subversive measures (a “soft coup”) designed to delegitimize Donald Trump, cause the American people to lose faith in their president, destroy the Trump presidency and eventually impeach him or put him in jail.
  • The only way to observe and evaluate the workings of the Deep State is to penetrate the veil of Deep State secrecy that shields the actions of political appointees, career civil servants, private contractors and their relationship with the media and outside agents of influence that comprise the Deep State.


    …it is time to tear down the wall of secrecy surrounding the Deep State. President Trump should order federal agencies to stop the stalling and start obeying the nation’s open-records laws. Until they do, the dangerously malignant Deep State will continue to grow and undermine American democracy.

    While the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 US election, President Donald Trump has urged the body to look into American media to see why “so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!”

    “Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!” Trump tweeted Thursday morning, the day after the Senate Intelligence Committee updated reporters about its months-long investigation into Russia’s alleged interference in the US election.

    Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2017

    Some news outlets will be left “with egg on their face” over their reporting on the Russia investigation, committee chairman Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) told CNN when asked about Trump’s statement.

    “If, in fact, we find that news organizations have not covered it factually, I think that you’ll see that in our report,” Burr said, after the committee announced that they have yet to come up with any “findings” in their Russia probe.

    Burr, however, clarified that the Senate committee is not investigating news outlets. Instead, the panel will be “holding them accountable for what they say with no sources to substantiate the facts,” he said, without elaborating on specific outlets.

    READ MORE: US media dilute facts with false ‘Russian hacking’ stories – top state election official

    The US president has long complained about major US media outlets being against him during and after the election. He labeled a number of them, including the Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN, “fake news.”

    On Wednesday, Trump blasted NBC for its “fake news” reporting that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson supposedly called Trump a “moron” and threatened to resign, only to be talked out of it by Vice President Mike Pence.

    The @NBCNews story has just been totally refuted by Sec. Tillerson and @VP Pence. It is #FakeNews. They should issue an apology to AMERICA!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 4, 2017

    Tillerson told reporters he had “never considered leaving” his post and described the story as “erroneous” and “petty nonsense.”

    The vice president likewise denied the claims in the NBC story.

    "At no time did he and the secretary ever discuss the prospect of the secretary's resignation from the administration. Any reporting to the contrary is categorically false," said Jarrod Agen, Pence's spokesman.

    In late September, the Washington Post was forced to retract its claim that former President Barack Obama had told the head of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, to tackle the alleged Russian meddling in the election. The retraction came after Facebook denied that such a conversation took place.

    WaPo "updated" significant info to digital version of story that removed “Russia” from headline, while print version included it — Nick Short (@PoliticalShort) September 27, 2017

    The Post was previously forced to walk back one of its major stories shortly after the election when it reported that Russia hacked into the Vermont power grid. Authorities later confirmed that it never happened.

    While the Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to come up with any “findings” on Russia’s alleged meddling in the US presidential election, congressional investigators are now focused on “the Russians’ use of social media platforms,” – committee chairman Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) and its ranking member, Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia), told reporters.

    “The Russia hoax continues, now it’s ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?” Trump tweeted on September 22, after the social media giant said it found 3,000 ads on “divisive” social issues which were “likely” run from Russia.

    The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 22, 2017

    “The greatest influence over our election was the Fake News Media ‘screaming’ for Crooked Hillary Clinton,” Trump added.

    Moscow has repeatedly denied interfering in the US election.

    The deputy chairman of the Russian parliament’s committee on information technologies and communications, Andrey Svintsov, said Thursday that the US media are making up “scare stories” about Russia to undermine President Trump.

    “This hysteria and the spreading of pretty dirty smears against their own president, who fairly and squarely won the election, shows that trust in democracy is unfortunately undermined,” Svintsov said in reaction to Trump’s latest statement.

    Proudly hosted by