Herbs that Lower Cholesterol. What are Statins Used For? Non Statin Cholesterol Medicine LDL Normal Total Cholesterol Level Best Way to Lower Cholesterol.

A classic. The post What does Timothy Leary’s expression “Turn on, tune in, drop out” mean? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Kamala Harris admits that many of her voters are stupid, but later denies it in a hilarious lie caught on tape. #Shorts #YouTubeShort ⚠️ Order your shirts here: https://www.markdice.shop ? Order my new book from Amazon here: https://amzn.to/40vEC9U ⚡️ Join my exclusive Locals community here: https://markdice.locals.com/support ? Sponsor me through Patreon here: https://Patreon.com/MarkDice Order my book "Hollywood Propaganda: How TV, Movies, and Music Shape Our Culture" from Amazon: https://amzn.to/30xPFl5 or download the e-book from Kindle, iBooks, Google Play, or Nook. ? Order my book, "The True Story of Fake News" ➡️ https://amzn.to/2Zb1Vps ? Order my book "The Liberal Media Industrial Complex" here: https://amzn.to/2X5oGKx Mark Dice is an independent media analyst and bestselling author of "Hollywood Propaganda: How TV, Movies, and Music Shape Our Culture.” He has a bachelor's degree in Communication from California State University and was the first conservative YouTuber to reach 1 million subscribers (in 2017). He has been featured on Fox News, Newsmax, the History Channel, E! Entertainment, the Drudge Report, and news outlets around the world. This video description and the pinned comment contains Amazon and/or other affiliate links, which means if you click them and purchase the product(s), Mark will receive a small commission. Copyright © 2024 by Mark Dice. All Rights Reserved.

Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me: Debunking the False Narratives Defining America’s School Curricula By Wilfred Reilly (Broadside Books, 272 pages, $25) Ronald Reagan once quipped, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” This observation from the fortieth president finds resonance in political scientist Wilfred Reilly’s book Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me: Debunking the False Narratives Defining America’s School Curricula. The title is a less-than-subtle spoof of James Loewen’s 1995 book, Lies My Teacher Told Me, which critiqued mainstream conceptions of American history as overly Eurocentric and pro-American. Lies My Teacher Told Me was joined in that genre by others, including Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and, more recently, the New York Times’ 1619 Project. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. What might have once been the raising of some valid quibbles has become a cure worse than the disease. Today, it is the Left that is pushing scholastic fictions into the cultural mainstream while larping as revolutionaries.  Don’t underestimate the impact of this. Even Americans who are apolitical or disinterested in history have imbibed a great deal of false premises via cultural osmosis. For example, the 1619 Project and A People’s History of the United States are often assigned to American students.  This article is taken from The American Spectator’s fall 2024 print magazine. Subscribe to receive the entire magazine. The leftist vision of history constitutes a sort of cultural hypochondria in which every past action by the West that fails to measure up to current standards needs to be agonized over, even as such violations by others are steadfastly ignored. “If the old myth,” Reilly writes, “was that American and the West could do no wrong, the new hotness is that every wrong is uniquely Western and American.”  Reilly tackles some, but certainly not all, of the most common misconceptions about American and world history propagated by the Left. He methodologically and banally documents how the West was far from alone in its sins of imperialism, wars of conquest, and brutal slavery. Contrary to the notion that nonwhites were noble savages living in a proverbial Garden of Eden, they were just as willing to engage in the same enormities as their white counterparts. The Mongol and Ottoman Empires, for instance, were not misnamed — they were built through conquest and violence. Reading the progressive histories, you’d get the idea that the choice for native peoples was between the British Empire and Wakanda, which makes for a fairly simple moral calculation. The choices more typically on offer in the real world — such as between the British Empire, the Sokoto Caliphate, or the Mughal Empire — were a good deal more complicated. “History sucked, for almost everyone,” Reilly writes optimistically. That is not a positive, but it does provide much-needed context and perspective. If anything, what makes the West stand out is its sense of shame and moral obligation, which drove its efforts to curb and eventually abolish slavery and empire. American history, too, is rife with misconceptions, and Reilly does not spare them. Did racist “white flight” ruin American cities? Not really; most of it can be explained via the improved transportation networks and increased wealth that made suburban life economically viable. Was the Red Scare a moral panic? Perhaps, but there was no shortage of real communist agents to be worried about. Did Republicans employ racism and channel backlash to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to flip the formerly blue South? If that were the case, it’s curious that the South embraced liberal favorite sons Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and that it did not become a true Republican bastion until the 2000s. Was it wrong, and possibly even racist, to drop the nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of the Second World War? Without even mentioning the exhaustive Japanese atrocities throughout the Asia–Pacific Theater, the fact remains that the bomb persuaded Emperor Hirohito to break the deadlock in his cabinet and surrender. The human cost of a potential invasion and occupation of Japan — on both sides — would have been immense, meaning that the bombs saved far more lives than they took. Perhaps the most obscene liberal lie is the notion that the United States made an indefensible decision to count African Americans as three-fifths of a person for purposes of congressional apportionment. Setting aside that free blacks were counted as full people, it must not be forgotten that the ideal outcome for the pro-slavery forces would have been for slaves to count as full people. Accordingly, “the ideal outcome for anti-racists,” Reilly writes, “would have been a decision to treat all Black slaves as zero-fifths of a person — reducing the legal population of the South as much as possible.” While obviously imperfect, the alternatives to the three-fifths compromise were a vastly more powerful slave-owning South with increased representation due to its enslaved population, or potentially no America at all.  Myths about the past are troubling enough on their own, but they also have the alarming tendency to feed into myths about the present. Reilly asserts that modern liberal notions such as “cultural appropriation” and “microaggressions” perpetuate what he describes as the “Continuing Oppression Narrative,” the idea that there is ongoing oppression and systemic racism in modern society.  Reilly shows the omnipresence of the “Continuing Oppression Narrative” via a study in which over half of “very liberal” respondents said that over one thousand unarmed black men were killed by police officers in 2019. In reality, only twelve such men were killed by police that year. Reilly argues that sustaining the notion of systemic racism — in which group disparities are exclusively attributed to discrimination — is difficult because it runs up against the fact that racism can only be identified when race is the single factor causing unequal treatment. Reality, Reilly concludes, “remains complex, multivariate, and fascinating.” Conservatives have much to say, but none of it will be heard unless they challenge the underlying historical assumptions that so many of our countrymen, countrywomen, and country-gender-non-conforming-persons hold to. On that score, Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me is a necessary, digestible, and timely corrective. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine. The post Wilfred Reilly Exposes Liberal Historical Myths appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

If you thought Paul Krugman was a bad economic analyst, wait until you see how he does as a political analyst. Lately he has devoted several articles in the New York Times to accusing Trump of being a liar, but he trips up over and over again. I can’t tell whether it’s on his grammar or his argumentative logic, but he always ends up falling down the black hole of his extremism. His main contribution to the Democratic campaign was an empirical demonstration that Kamala Harris is not a communist. This demonstration consisted of one line in his Times article: “Now, Harris obviously isn’t a communist.” In the previous sentence of his article, he had accused Elon Musk of not knowing what “literally” means for having said that Harris is “literally a communist.” Does Krugman know what “obviously” means?  Krugman, who is now also a philologist, announced in his article last Monday “the second in an occasional series about Donald Trump’s statements and language and what’s at stake in the election.” The author says that Trump offered on Thursday before the Detroit Economic Club “a speech of a rambling, at times incoherent speech.” However, Trump’s speech was quite clear and not incoherent at all, although perhaps Krugman doesn’t like a candidate to really know what he is saying when he talks about the economy. In that respect, he liked Biden, who never knew what he was talking about, better. Kamala has already been told by her advisers that whenever it comes to talking about the economy, just open your mouth wide and yell “Hahahahahahaha!”  I suspect the Nobel economist didn’t like that Trump was so clear in proclaiming an irrefutable fact: “Four years ago when I left office, we had no inflation. We had virtually, just think of it, we had virtually no inflation for the entire four years. When people made money, that was really their money.” The former president also made a point of telling the people of Detroit things that really matter to them: “I’m here today to talk about a subject that has always been very dear to my heart, saving the US auto industry.” After praising the U.S. auto industry and beautiful machines like the Mustang, the Corvette, the Pontiac GTO, he said, “It was part of the American dream, but after decades and decades of Michigan auto workers giving our nation their very best, our leaders in Washington did their very worst for them.” He added, “They were terrible. You lost nearly 4 million manufacturing jobs after globalist politicians gave us the twin disasters of NAFTA, which I terminated and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.” Trump’s speech touched on many other issues, but all with the kind of crispness that overwhelms Krugman.  On Oct. 3, the New York Times’ economist-in-waiting, in the midst of his series of anti-Trump articles, asserted that “[A]t this point, Trump’s campaign rests heavily on made-up stuff. And he clearly seems to believe that he needs new material, because the old material seems to be losing some of its effectiveness.” However, in his hate-to-Trump piece this Monday, there was a miracle of contortionism that makes him almost ready for victory in the next Olympics: “As many observers have noted” (observers from the New, the York, and the Times, I suppose), “Trump routinely peddles a grim picture of America that has little to do with reality.” The author continues, “What I haven’t seen noted as much is that his imaginary dystopia seems to be, in large part, a pastiche assembled from past episodes of dysfunction. These episodes apparently became lodged in his brain, and perhaps because he’s someone who is not known for being interested in the details and who lives in a bubble of wealth and privilege, they never left.” Then, on Oct. 3, he said that Trump needs new material “because the old material seems to be losing some of its effectiveness,” and on Oct. 14, he claimed that Trump only cares about things from the past because he “has Become Unmoored in Time.”  Sometimes I suspect that my dear Paul Krugman would do well to read his own articles once in a while. The post Krugman Tries to Denigrate Trump, Stumbles, and Flips Out appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The United States is at a crossroads. You may have heard that Social Security is politically impossible to reform. But that belief will be hard to sustain. In a few years, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted. When that happens, Social Security benefits will be cut across the board by 21 percent — that is, unless Congress changes the law. Either way, changes are coming. The question that remains is which change we will go for. That choice will have long-lasting consequences. But first, let’s review how we got where we are. Social Security is facing a permanent cash-flow deficit that started in 2010. Every year since, the payroll tax revenue has not been enough to cover all the benefits paid to current retirees. To make up this difference, the program has been relying on trust-fund assets that once accumulated as a surplus. Between the Social Security reform of the 1980s and 2010, the payroll tax collected more revenue than necessary to pay for benefits. That extra revenue, the surplus mentioned above, was handed out to the Department of Treasury to pay for bridges, wars and other things in exchange for IOUs, or a legal promise to repay Social Security when payroll tax revenue no longer covers all the program costs. In 2033, there will be no more trust-fund assets left for the program to use. At that time, Social Security benefits must, by law, revert to being paid only with revenue earmarked for Social Security. That means current payroll taxes and other dedicated revenue sources like the tax on Social Security benefits. Now that we understand why benefits will get cut, let’s look at the options we have. Democrats would like to keep all the benefits and raise taxes on higher-income people quite dramatically. This is a ridiculous idea. The damage caused by jacking up the payroll tax to the level required to restore solvency isn’t worth the benefit. There is an alternative that makes far more sense. Today, seniors are generally wealthier than younger workers and are overrepresented in the top income quintile. Keeping every dime of your Social Security whether you are rich or poor means the program effectively redistributes money from younger and poorer people to richer people. That’s not right. We should have a system that redistributes money only to those who need it the most. Enter Andrew Biggs and Kristin Shapiro. In their new paper, “A Simple Plan to Address Social Security Insolvency,” they note that if the scheduled 21 percent cut is implemented on “an equal percentage basis for every retiree,” it would “double the elderly poverty rate and reduce total income for the median senior household by 14 percent.” Instead, they suggest that when a program becomes insolvent, “the executive branch in fact possesses considerable discretion to allocate those limited funds in a reasonable manner.” The idea is that the president at the time of the trust-fund exhaustion would pay full Social Security benefits to those in greatest need first. Specifically, starting in 2033, if Congress hasn’t reformed Social Security, cap monthly benefits to $2,050. That would cover full benefits for about 50 percent percent of retirees, arguably those who depend the most on Social Security. The benefits for the other half of retirees, the higher-income ones, would be distributed on a progressive basis. The higher one’s income, the larger the necessary cut would be. I understand that voters, seniors, politicians, and just about everyone else would prefer those benefits not be cut at all. This is not happening. Maintaining all the benefits and paying for the gap with borrowed funds requires $40 trillion over 30 years. If you add the $75 trillion shortfall for Medicare, this option exposes us to dramatic consequences like inflation. The bottom line is that Social Security is getting reformed no matter what politicians are telling us. The program, which was designed at a time when not working was almost synonymous with poverty for seniors, needs to be updated for the 21st century. And, while benefits need to be cut one way or another, it can be done relatively fairly. We should all be grateful that capital markets and the stability of American institutions make so many seniors so well off and so well prepared for retirement today. The way forward is to take care of those seniors who truly need help, using the tax revenue we are already raising. There are no better and more politically feasible ideas on the table. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post We Can’t ‘Leave Social Security Alone,’ But We Can Protect People Who Need It appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Arcadia Economics: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from The Jimmy Dore Show: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Cristina Laila, The Gateway Pundit: Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk obtained January 6 ‘star witness’ Cassidy Hutchinson’s Signal messages which revealed she was directly communicating with J6 Vice Chair Liz Cheney in 2022. Liz Cheney was communicating with Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge – knowing this is unethical. “In the […]