Interviewing Mark Steyn About His New Book “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon”

It is impossible to be familiar with the work of Mark Steyn without him being one of your favorite writers. He combines an acute understanding of the issues with a dark humor that creates a style both compelling, funny and uniquely him.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News had an opportunity to intervene Steyn about his new book “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon” Here are some excerpts of that great interview:

• Mark Steyn on the most shocking statistic from his book.

Well I think the one that brings it all into focus for me is, I think, quoted on page two or three of the book, which is that by mid-decade, in four or five years time, the U.S. tax payer will be funding the entire cost, just in the interest payment on the debt, of the People’s Liberation Army of China. There is no real precedent in history for this. You can look at examples where Rome was besieged by the Barbarians and attempted to bribe various Barbarian kings to go away with sacks of gold and silver. But they didn’t as a matter of policy, require Roman tax payers to pick up the tab for the entire Visigoth military. I mean this is unique. This is unique to us.

• Mark Steyn on the importance of the Tea Party

The Republican Party was leaderless, and largely useless in Washington and all the Tea Party people moved the meter of public discourse. It’s still the case right now that in fact these people are – some more rooted in sanity that either political party in Washington is. The most important thing we can do is learn that lesson. It’s the Milton Friedman lesson I quote right at the end of the book, “Rather than elect the right people to do the right things create the broader political conditions whereby the wrong people are forced to do the right things.”

Every time some half-wit 12-year old speechwriter for Barrack Obama is obliged to load into the teleprompter a bit of boiler plate about how we need to learn to live within our means and control our deficit, we are in effect creating the conditions whereby the wrong person is at least forced to pretend that he wants to do the right thing. Let’s take it to the next stage and make sure the squishiest finger in the wind, poll tested, jelly spined politician is forced to do the right thing not because he wants to, but just because that’s the reality.

• Mark Steyn on whether people should flee America to get out before the economic collapse we appear to be headed towards.

I think, for example, if you look at what we were saying earlier about America being the reserve currency, at some point you have to figure that a combination of circumstances would result in the rug being pulled out from under the U.S. dollar. At that point, there is nothing holding us up and we could be dropping way down to, you know, Zimbabwe type levels. If you happen to be sitting on a savings account, if you happen to have a modest house on a small lot and you think your modest house and your savings account are enough to see you through to the end of your days, you’re in for a huge shock because you’ll find your house is worthless and your savings account is worthless. You’re going to have to load up the wheel barrel to buy the quart of milk. I understand people are thinking like that because I get a lot of mail like that saying where can I flee to? Do you recommend New Zealand or this kind of thing? I spend a lot of time in Bermuda because I happen to like it and if you had to pick somewhere to hole up, a small civilized British colony with a temperate climate, 1,000 miles from anything bad is a great place to go. I noticed Bermuda already has had a lot of wealthy Americans coming in and buying up old estates and things. But, there is not going to be any place to flee. In the end, they’ll come for Bermuda, in the end they’ll come for Monte Carlo, and in the end you’ll be in Switzerland and they’ll come for you there because America is the order maker on the planet and when America goes, eventually as agreeable as Bermuda is, it slides in, and it takes Bermuda down in its wake. So this is the hill to die on.

There is so much more to this interview I strongly recommend you click on the link below to link below and read the entire interview

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-mark-steyn-about-his-new-book-after-america-get-ready-for-armageddon/

Van Jones Is Creating the Milli Vanilli of Tea Parties

Truther, Self-described communist, and former Obama Green Jobs Czar Van Jones has a new mission, to start a progressive version of the Tea Party movement.  Just like the real tea party, the Van Jones creation is based on economics.  There are major differences though, being a progressive movement its basic premise is a lie, and instead of being a bottom up grass roots organization like the tea party, the Van Jones version is top down similar to the progressive philosophy that everything must be run by a central government.

The Van Jones "tea party" is called “The American Dream Movement.” Jones is says he is forming the movement because liberal activists expressed frustration that they lacked the political power or media focus given to the conservative tea-party movement. 

Does he really want the same media focus? That means his group will be known by some sort of sexual reference, slandered with untrue charges of racism or violence, and of course the official mainstream media attendance tally for any demonstration will equal one tenth of one percent of the real number.

A big theme of the Van Jones effort is Americans are being lied to, the federal government is not running out of money.

“We are being lied to,” Jones said. “We are not broke. We’re the richest country in the history of the world.”

The “Rebuild the Dream” website once echoed the same meme. “MoveOn Civic Action; The Other 98% teamed up to keep the message going: We Are Being Lied To,” read the movement’s mission statement on rebuildthedream.com. “The country isn’t broke and the last thing we should be doing is gutting workers’ rights and cutting vital services American families depend on.”

Just like the guy whose checking account is over drawn but denies it because he still has blank checks left.

“We think we can do what the tea party did,” Jones said in an interview with The Fix. “They stepped forward under a common banner, and everybody took them seriously. Polls suggest there are more people out there who have a different view of the economy, but who have not stepped forward yet under a common banner.”

“There's a lot of organizational muscle behind the initiative, and Van is one of the most inspiring figures in the progressive movement, so I'm looking forward to these efforts, and they certainly come at a time when Republican overreach has primed progressives to take action” said Markos Moulitas, the founder of the liberal blog network Daily Kos.

Jones launched his group last night with a one and a half hour long event live streamed from NY.  He called the the fact that the US has a major debt and deficit problem “a dangerous lie” and led the crowd in chants of “America is not broke!”

Somebody should tell that to the CBO, who reported this week that our long term debt is going to doom the economy.

Without providing any facts, Jones compared fiscal conservatives to al Qaeda,

“Paul Ryan’s budget would knock out more critical American infrastructure than our sworn enemies ever dreamed of knocking out.

Most of his speech was the same old progressive schpeil, the rich don't pay their fair share, unions built middle-class America, people do not make enough money, yada, yada, yada. He even used the SHMOTUS' line about paying taxes being patriotic.

Jones' project demonstrates how little the progressives learned from the tea party movement.  The tea party movement is all about empowering the individual, it would not have had the same passion and staying power if the organization and the message came down from a central organization.  To this day there is not one united tea party group and the national organizations that do exist are more bottom up than top down.

Part of the reason the tea party movement grew is that voters were sick and tired of being lied to by their representatives and other politicians. Starting with an obvious lie, that the US is not being strangled by its debt, will not win them many supporters.

Despite what Van Jones and the progressive movement believes, Americans are not stupid.  Sure The American Dream Movement may pick up some support at the beginning, but it wont take long to realize that the Van Jones-led group is to the tea party movement, what Milli Vanilli was to music. And in the end, Americans do not like fakers.

Interview With Ben Shapiro On His New Book Primetime Propaganda

My friend John Hawkins of  Right Wing News  interviewed Ben Shapiro about his new book, “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV.”

This was a fascinating interview because it covers a subject most conservatives are interested in and provides new information. Did you ever wonder how Hollywood went from being so patriotic and conservative in WW2 to the sad state it's in today? Well, you will wonder no more after reading this interview. Here are some excerpts from the interview.

Ben Shapiro talks about his own personal experience with the Hollywood blacklist for conservatives.

About three weeks later, he calls me back and he says, “I’m not sure we can represent you.” I said, “Oh really? Why is that?” He said, “Well, we started getting your stuff out to some people and we got a call back from a producer. The producer liked your stuff and he Googled you. When he Googled you, he found your political opinions online and he called us back and said I will never work with anybody of that political persuasion. I think it’s going to be very difficult for us to find you work in this town.” So, even if you get your toe in like I did, it will get chomped off by a liberal alligator. I have tapes to document this. There is no question that there is a vast liberal bias in the industry and that they will exclude you from the industry if you do not agree with their prevailing ideal.

Ben Shapiro on the demographics scam that helped turn Hollywood liberal.

In Hollywood, the only rating that really matters is the 18-49 demographic. The 18-49 demographic and really, the 18-34 demographic, is considered more valuable than older demographics. So you’ll see shows like Glee that actually make more ad dollars than shows like NCIS because the conservative shows appeal to older audiences.

So if you’re skewing young, you’re inherently skewing liberal. This is why MTV as a network skews liberal. The key to that is that it’s utterly false. The 18-49 crowd is worth more than people who are 50 and up — it’s just not true. In fact…

Right, there’s more money in the over 50 crowd.

Yeah, that’s exactly right. It’s unbelievable that this has worked for 40 years. If you think about it for half a second, you realize wait a second people who are 18 have no money, they’re living in their parent’s basement. They’re not spending a lot because they have no money. They have no savings, they have no job.  

Well I found out, this is the really fascinating part — (emphasizing the 18-34 demographic) was a concerted scam on the part of the TV industry. This was not something that happened by accident. It’s no coincidence that the shift to liberal television happened at exactly the same time that the shift in the demographic appeal happened. It used to be that in the 1960s, television was for the most part conservative. By the time you got to the late 1960s and 70′s, it turned massively liberal. That’s because there were three networks at the time; ABC, NBC, CBS. ABC only had affiliates in the big markets. It had no affiliates in any of the rural markets. CBS had affiliates everywhere. It had rural, it had urban — it was kicking the crap out of ABC on a daily basis. The top shows in the country were shows like Beverly Hillbillies,Green Acres, Petticoat Junction…. They were for what people in Hollywood derisively called “rural trash.”

What happened is that ABC saw that it was getting its ass kicked in the ratings so they have to make their case to advertisers somehow. So they hire a guy to do a study for them that says that the young, urban crowd is actually worth more than the older crowd. So even if CBS is drawing bigger numbers by far, our audience is more valuable than their audience to you. …So they go to the advertising agencies with that. The advertising agencies which are generally staffed by people who happen to be young and urban say, Well of course I’m worth more than the schmuck who lives on the farm in Alabama.”

So, what they do is they start buying into the ABC view of advertising. Pretty soon, CBS looks at ABC, which is starting to gain in terms of advertiser revenue, even though they’re getting their ass kicked in content, and they say okay we need to shift our orbit. We need to go totally liberal…so they bought into the whole thing. It was an enormous scam.

Note as many of you know I spent 16 years in the media buying industry, this is not exactly true. First of all the bias comes from the advertiser not from the agency or the network. Ben is right when he says there is a bias against rural America and older demographics and the reason is two-fold.

First when Ben says "Well of course I’m worth more than the schmuck who lives on the farm in Alabama," unfortunately he is telling the truth, and there is a reason for it.  People who live in City and Suburban settings make more on average and spend more than people in rural settings.  It is not politics nor is it "looking down on rural America" its a matter of fishing where the fish are.  I have worked on products such as Bayer Aspirin and Homelite chainsaws whose usage was more concentrated in rural areas and we targeted those areas with our advertising.

The other reason is simple,  older people and people in rural communities watch more TV and are over-represented in most TV audiences. Therefore any advertiser who does not target older and/or rural audiences have to go overboard the other way just to make thing even.  In other words, if a big part of your TV buy doesn't go toward younger urban audiences, your entire ad effort is going to be directed toward people who may not be as likely to buy your product. Thus in many cases where a brand's target audience is A18-49, they will purchase their TV based on 18-34 with the full knowledge that they will get the 35-49 audience anyway.

Understand also, that Ben comes at it from the creative side and I come at it from the business side.

There is much more to this interview, John has done a great job in getting Ben to talk about his experiences and perspective.  I recommend strongly that you click here and go to Right Wing News to read the rest of this interview.

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-ben-shapiro-on-his-new-book-primetime-propaganda-the-true-hollywood-story-of-how-the-left-took-over-your-tv/

Chris Christie: Obamacare is Killing the States

Widely reported in the blog world is the fact that the latest projections show that Obamacare will increase the federal deficit, not decrease it as progressives contend. What is not widely reported is that the mandates that accompany the government run-health care plan saddle the states with an oppressive financial burden.

CNS News spoke to conservatives favorite Governor Chris Christie who says that the problem is not only the financial burden but the fact that there is no flexibility in the way states are allowed to provide benefits:

“Listen, I think that there’s got to be a credible plan that’s put forward that deals with entitlements in a serious way," said Christie on the red carpet of MSNBC's White House Correspondents Dinner after-party. "And, you know, I think Congressman [Paul] Ryan’s got a good set of ideas there. Whether it’s the only way to go, we’ll wait and see.

"But I think as a governor what I’m most concerned about is getting us some more flexibility in Medicaid," said Christie. "It’s really kind of drowning the states. And so if his budget gives us more flexibility in Medicaid, I think that would be good. But you know I’m more concerned about what I have to do in New Jersey than I’m concerned about what they’re going to do nationally.”

Christie said the Medicaid mandates under the health care law are the largest concern for New Jersey.

“It’s Medicaid. It’s the biggest thing. I mean, our Medicaid program is $1.4 billion in deficit this year and because of Obamacare we can’t change the level of benefit that we offer because of the mandates that they’ve put on us. And, I think, you know, if we’re going to pay for 50 percent of it, we should have some control over it and the way this administration’s done it is they just want to control all of it. So, that’s the biggest problem for us,” he said.

Beginning in 2014, the health care law requires states to cover every individual under Medicaid whose income is equivalent to 133 percent of the poverty level or less.

 Typical progressive strategy, not only did they kick the "cost can" down the road with their funky accounting such as double counting the medicare cuts, but they also kicked it toward the states, who are stuck with half the cost, but no say in how it's spent.

An Email Debate With a Liberal/Progressive

Some of you may remember a post from a while back that laid out the reasons I thought it was preferable for someone of the Jewish Faith to be politically conservative. Last week I received a letter from a reader questioning my rationale, not based on religious law which is what my original post talked about, but  using the kind of arguments made famous by MSNBC and the NY Times. As it might be interesting for others to read this grass-roots political debate, I have posted his letter and my response below (editing out his name)

To the editor:

Jeff Dunetz writes: "It does not mean, as the liberals ascribe to, when it comes to talents, predilections, or natural abilities we are all equal. Nor does it mean we all should have the same big screen TV, wireless internet, or savings account balance."

Jeff may be pleased to know that liberals do not ascribe to these things and never have. Many of us do believe in providing as level a playing field as possible to give those with talent and ability a fair chance to make money and have that big screen TV. One way is a by a progressive form of taxation. Conservatives do not believe in progressive taxation, and Americans can judge for themselves whether a system in which the rich do not pay their fair share works well.

Jeff writes: "Liberalism takes away our personal choice, gives it to the government, retarding our spiritual development and most importantly the opportunity to get closer to our Maker."

Jeff does not explain how liberalism does this, nor how conservatism honors this idea by generally restricting gay couples from marrying, restricting a woman's right to choose, by being on the wrong side of most civil rights issues historically, and generally attempting to legislate morality whereas liberals generally leave personal choices to the people.

Moreover, while Judaism values personal action through Tzedakah, it certainly does not prohibit collective action through government. However, Jeff's article would explain why conservatives want to get rid of Medicare and turn it over to those fantastic recipients of bailout money, the insurance companies. Somehow, I have a feeling even most conservative Jews don't support that one.

Jeff writes: "A Liberal/Progressive government teaches citizens that the government will always bear the responsibility of protecting you; there is no individual responsibility, just the collective bailout."

Jeff appears to have forgotten that the bailout began under President Bush, was supported by most Republicans, and opposed by many liberals.

Jeff should remember that Judaism values education and facts, particularly in a time when 45 percent of Republicans are part of the "birther" movement.

My response follows:

Dear xxxxx

I cannot tell you how much it pleases me that you read the article and thought enough about it to write a letter. Disagreeing and debating important issues is very much part of the Jewish tradition.You obviously put much thought into your correspondence so allow me to address your points as best as I can.

One of your points is that Conservatives do not believe in progressive taxation, and Americans can judge for themselves whether a system in which the rich do not pay their fair share works well. That is not the case.

The IRS reported 2008 (the last time they released this data) the rich pays more than their fair share. The top 1% of earners pay 38.02% of all income taxes, after deductions and such their average tax rate is 23.27%. The top 5% pay 58.72% of all income taxes their average tax rate is 20.70%. The bottom 50% pays 2.7% of taxes and their average tax rate is 2.59%. There is no one in the mainstream conservative movement calling for our income taxes to lose their “progressiveness.”

You say that the liberal position is not that we all should have the same big screen TV, wireless internet, or savings account balance…but to give those with talent and ability a fair chance to make money and have that big screen TV. I would submit to you that the redistribution of income called for by the President and liberal leaders such as Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi is being executed for that purpose. In progressive/liberal orthodoxy there is no rich or poor, just a mediocre middle. A great example of how this works in the U.S. is Obamacare, which is partially funded with high taxes on “Cadillac” plans (health plans which the govt. has determined cover too much). The objective is for everybody to have the same health plan.

Another question was about conservative suppression of individual rights. You gave examples such as gay couples marrying, restriction of abortion, being on the wrong side of most civil rights issues historically and attempting to legislate morality as opposed to personal choices to the people etc?

The historical truth is that the liberal/progressives have been on the wrong side of the Civil Right issue. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican Party President; he had a fairly good civil rights position. Between the Civil war and World War I the military was integrated, but President Woodrow Wilson segregated the military (and fired most of the African Americans who had high positions in the federal government. Throughout the fifties and sixties it was the Democratic Party trying to delay civil rights. Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It was Democratic Party Governor George Wallace who stood on the steps of a Huntsville Alabama school trying to stop it from becoming integrated.

The Civil rights act of 1964 was filibustered by Democrats led by Richard Russell (D-GA) Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." That filibuster lasted 57 days, until the morning of June 10, 1964, when former KKK member, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

As far as “the restrictions on free choice” issues such as abortion or rights or gay marriage. Allow me to provide some facts, without sharing my opinion on the issues.

Being pro-life is not only a conservative position. A February 2011 Rasmussen poll reported that 53% of voters consider abortion morally wrong most of the time, while just 32% say it is morally acceptable most of the time. That is much larger than the conservative community (which is not necessarily homogeneous on that issue).

The Catholic community which tends to vote for liberal causes as much as Jewish voters is aggressively anti-abortion. And when you look at the 53-32% margin above, a fair-minded observer could claim that it is the pro-choice voters who are mandating their morals on the rest of the country.

Likewise the gay marriage issue has proponents and opponents on both sides. For example the “Defense of Marriage Act” was a Bill Clinton invention. The 2008 Prop 8 vote in California banning gay marriage was passed by liberals. According to pollsters the margin of defeat was provided by African Americans who came out in abnormally large numbers to vote for Barack Obama. These voters were liberal in every way except for religious-based issues such as Gay Marriage.

There are examples of liberal politicians legislating morality and lifestyle. The laws restricting soda in schools, or “happy meals” in fast food places takes decision making out of the hands of parents and into the government’s (as is the proposed San Francisco law to ban the circumcision of children). The legislation restricting the amount of salt a restaurant can put in food, restricts adult decision making.

Liberal politicians’ refusal to drill for oil, even though the last two Congressional Research Service studies show we have more oil than Saudi Arabia is another example. Those gas prices approaching $5.00 are a clear example of what the President said during the campaign (under my energy plan prices will necessarily skyrocket). He is trying to force America into a low fossil fuel lifestyle which may not be warranted by the climate change science or the technology. And for those who say that people must be forced to abandon fossil fuels because they really believe global warming is the truth; that may be so. But understand the liberal position that it’s OK to enforce their beliefs about man-made global warming are no different than a person who is pro-life trying to enforce their belief about when life begins.

As far as Medicare, I am assuming that you are talking about Paul Ryan’s plan I suggest you read the plan itself and not the headlines in the media or the political words of our President. It does not get rid of Medicare, nor does it change the plan at all for anyone with-in ten years of retirement. It gives the money directly into the hands of the patient and lets them pick their insurers. That in itself is the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in the basic good of people and their ability to make the best decisions for themselves. It does not give the money to banks, the auto-unions or anyone else who received government bailouts (by the way most conservatives were anti-bailout).

Ryan’s plan does not “bail out” or help insurance companies. The plan removes the restrictions preventing insurance companies to cross state lines increasing competition. In fact it puts them on their toes and will make them cut costs. Marketplace competition is a great regulator and competition improves service and product and pricing.

You are correct when you say that the recent banking bailout was supported by many Republicans (and Democrats). But my essay was about conservatives and they were vehemently anti-bailout. During the past primary season many liberal/progressive Republicans were not re-nominated specifically because of conservatives objection to their vote on the bailout (Senator Bennett from Utah for example).

And as far as the last point, I am too am proud that Judaism values education and facts. With that in mind I will share with you my disappointment that an April 26th poll by USA Today reported only 38% of all Americans believed that the President was born in the U.S. I have written often that the “birther” issue, which was invented by a Hillary Clinton operative named Philip Berg, was—well quite frankly an ignorant one and it takes away from the important issues we should be debating (an April 28th article I wrote for Big Government called birtherism and the search for his college records-stupid).

It is my hope that I addressed all of your concerns.

And once again, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful questions.

Warmest Regards



Jeff Dunetz