Charles Barkley tells the truth, ESPN host nearly has a breakdown on air

Watch the video, and pay attention to Dan Le Batard’s face. He is angry because Barkley is not singing along with the narrative

You can actually see the disdain Le Batard has for Barkley. All Barkley is saying is that a LOT responsibility for these situations lies with the “community”. Which is true. What hypocrites ESPN seems to give microphones to. Athletes are supposed to be “activists” and speak up, but ONLY if they follow the narrative to the letter. It is OK for athletes to completely ignore the Black on Black homicide rate, and to ignore the violent crime rates among young Black men. But Barkley does the unforgivable here. He places blame on Black criminals, he praises cops and says the Black neighborhoods need cops, again BECAUSE of the disproportionate violent crime rate among Black men. Hell, Barkley even dares to suggest that we should let all the facts come out BEFORE reaching any conclusion. How dare he!

This video shows just how the Left, and ESPN is dripping in Leftism frankly, is hypocritical in their call for an open dialogue. That is not what they want. They want a bunch of mindless talking heads to spout the same tired talking points. Racism, police brutality, gun violence, etc. 

Hey, Trumpians, Stop Saying That Cruz STOLE Colorado – And Cruzites, Stop Celebrating An Establishment Victory

It’s ridiculous to assert that Ted Cruz has stolen delegates in Colorado. All the candidates knew that the Colorado GOP had blocked average people from participating in that state’s caucus system many months ago. Indeed, it’s not the Cruz camp I have a problem with when it comes to the Colorado scenario, it’s the Republican party elite with whom I’ve a bone to pick. You see, by choosing to turn the state’s delegate allocation over to the will of establishment insiders and political hacks instead of the will of the voter base, party leaders are sending a clear message to millions of primary election voters nationwide that it doesn’t matter who you campaign for, organize for, or even cast your ballots for – when we allow it – because in the end WE are going to decide who gets the nomination. My only question is: why is anyone still pretending that the deck wasn’t stacked in the house’s favor from the start?

Tell me, could there be a more glaring example of contempt for democratic processes than this? Sure, the GOP is a private institution and its leaders are free to make up any rules they want to whenever they feel like it. Nobody with an above-room-temperature IQ is disputing that fact. What one needs to ask oneself is this: of all the ways the party big-wigs could have chosen to run their nomination process, why did they pick this incoherent mishmosh of primary/caucus/neither systems that dole out delegates in such variable and often confusing ways? I mean, even among states which allow for direct primary voting, there’s widely differing rules with respect to delegate allocation. Some states are winner-take-all, while others are winner-might-take-all if he or she wins up to a certain percentage of the vote. Other states are purely proportional in their delegate disbursements, while still others don’t seem to follow any rational course at all. Where’s the homogeneity here? …the consistency?

And why have party bosses waited until so late in the primary season to consider changes to the rules by which the convention will be run? Shouldn’t they have made those decisions before the primaries even started, if only for the purpose of appearing fair and equitable to the voting public? What possible excuse could they have for waltzing in after most of the primary votes have been cast and diddling with this process, other than they desire to further burden the frontrunner with obstacles that did not exist before the race started?

I have long complained that primary elections are largely rigged affairs, but rarely do I have the opportunity to point to such clear illustrations of said rigging as I do today. It may well please many of my fellow Cruzites to learn that our favored candidate has just been handed the entirety of Colorado’s delegates for no discernable reason whatsoever, but it doesn’t put a smile on my face. I only consider myself a winner when I’ve actually faced someone in competition and beaten them fair and square. I don’t accept participation trophies, nor do I feel like breaking into a victory dance merely for showing up on time.

If it hasn’t become painfully obvious to you people by now that this entire primary election season is turning into one gigantic sham, then I feel sorry for you. Yes, fellow Cruzites and Cruzoids, don’t delude yourselves into thinking that just because the party’s insiders seem to be leaning in Cruz’s direction for the time being, that they won’t turn on him like a pack of rabid weasels in Cleveland this summer. You see, once you’ve cast your lot with the likes of Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan and all the other unprincipled assclowns currently running the GOP, you don’t get to complain when they stab you in the back further on down the road. That’s the nature of “party rules”, and they have nothing to do with the concepts of right and wrong.

Edward L. Daley

.

.

*PODCAST* The Andrew Klavan Show

BEWARE THE TWITTER GESTAPO


……………………………Click on image above for podcast

MORE:

WHY WOMEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE

TRUMP/SATAN 2016

WAS SCALIA MURDERED?

HILLARY TO BLACKS: BACK TO THE PLANTATION


.

*PODCAST* The Andrew Klavan Show

HOW A PORN STAR RUINED MY POLITICAL CAREER


……………………………Click on image above for podcast

MORE:

THE LEFT WILL UNLEASH HELL TO WIN THE COURT

SEX, SEX, SEX – IT’S VALENTINE’S DAY

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUCKS

YOUNG PEOPLE, STOP BEING SOCIALIST IDIOTS


.

*PODCAST* The Ben Shapiro Show

WHY AMERICANS LOVE TRUMP: BALLS



MORE:

CONSERVATIVES, THE BATTLE IS ON – GET IN THE GAME

HILLARY: PLEASE BLACK PEOPLE VOTE FOR ME

WHY TRUMP AND SANDERS WON: WE LOVE TYRANTS

SAYING PUSSY DOESN’T MAKE YOU CONSERVATIVE – NEITHER DO CREASED PANTS


.

If The Republican-Controlled Senate Confirms Obama’s Next USSC Nominee, The GOP Is Finished


…………….

.
The Republican party has been attempting to commit suicide for as long as I can remember, yet, despite its best efforts, it has somehow managed to avoid shooting itself in the head. However, if its leaders decide to confirm Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee, the GOP will bleed out all over the floor, and there’s nobody anywhere who will be able to stop the hemorrhaging.

Simply put, allowing the most corrupt and incompetent president in the history of the republic to replace the recently-departed Antonin Scalia with another Sonia Sotomayor would be criminally negligent on the part of Mitch McConnell and his crew, and even the moderate, Republican rump-swabs at Fox News know it.

The time has come for these go-along-to-get-along asshats to finally take a stand in defense of liberty, justice and the U.S. Contitution, and if they should fail to do so, they will prove once and for all that they never really did give half a shit about their country.

So, do the high mucky-mucks of the GOP have a death wish? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

.

.

*PODCAST* The Andrew Klavan Show

BERNIE SANDERS TO AMERICA: STICK ‘EM UP!


……………………………Click on image above for podcast

MORE:

WHAT THE GOP COULD LEARN FROM CREED

WHAT DO THE NEWS MEDIA AND COYOTES IN HEAT HAVE IN COMMON?

OBAMA’S SOTU: ‘THANK ME FOR YOUR DESTRUCTION’

HILLARY, SEX AND THE CHARACTER ISSUE


.

*VIDEOS* Prager University: Curriculum – Left Vs. Right


HOW BIG SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE?


.
DOES IT FEEL GOOD OR DOES IT DO GOOD?

.
HOW DO YOU JUDGE AMERICA?

.
HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH PAINFUL TRUTHS?

.
HOW DO YOU MAKE SOCIETY BETTER?

.

.

Watching Jeb Bush Flop Best Possible Christmas Gift (Howie Carr)

Watching Jeb Bush Flop Best Possible Christmas Gift – Howie Carr

.

.
All I want for Christmas is Jeb Bush to not drop out of the race.

It’s been so much fun watching the spoiled little rich kid stumbling around the country, gut shot, spending record sums of money to drop further and further behind in every poll in every state, whining about this or that and all the “really cool things” he could be doing if he just didn’t have to run for president.

Juan Ellis Bush makes everybody feel good about themselves. If your last name is Hearst and you own Ch. 9 in Manchester – how much has he squandered so far on your TV station, $10 million, $12 million? And the primary is still almost seven weeks away!

For every million bucks the Bush super PAC spends, he drops another 1 percent in the polls. It’s like clockwork. Juan’s political action committee is called “Right to Rise.” It should be renamed, “Free to Fall.”

But TV stations aren’t the only businesses padding their bottom lines with Richie Rich’s billionaire bucks. If you own a restaurant in New Hampshire – the Bush people tell you they’ll need a buffet for 200 people, but you know you only have to lay out food for 20, or maybe only 5 if Donald Trump is anywhere within two counties.

If you’re feeling sorry for yourself, just watch one of Jeb’s 30-second spots. He’s got the support of “27 admirals and generals.” Wow! Now he’s walking the factory floor wearing his white coat, barking out orders and looking important – who hasn’t run into Daddy’s Little Boy pretending to be a big shot, yelling at the hired hands?

And now this Daddy’s Little Boy is getting his comeuppance.

One of last month’s campaign slogans was “Jeb Can Fix It.” Remember that one? It lasted about a week. Fix it? Fix what exactly? Apparently that was another old saying Juan Ellis Bush forgot: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Plus, should anyone named Bush ever use the word “fix?” Do you really want to remind everyone of the perception that the Bush family once “fixed” an election, in Florida?

Now he calls Donald Trump a “jerk.” Huh? Again, he’s breaking more basic rules of politics – first, never mention your opponent by name unless he attacks you. And second, never get into a you-know-what match with a skunk, because it doesn’t matter who started it, the only thing the viewers at home will remember is two you-know-whats yelling at each other.

Then there was the time he said you have to lose the primaries to win the general election. It made no sense. So now he says he “hated” being the front-runner.

“I feel so much better back here,” Bush said, from way back in fifth, or sixth, or seventh place, depending on which state you’re talking about.

Last weekend, Juan vowed to stay in the fight to New Hampshire and beyond.

“I want to show who I am,” he said on CBS.

Don’t worry, Juan, you already have. But remember, you have to lose the primaries first. And we’ll be there for you. We share your ambition. We want you to lose.

.

.

*PODCAST* The Andrew Klavan Show

GOOD NEWS! IT’S WORLD WAR III


……………………………Click on image above for podcast

MORE:

GOING MEDIEVAL
JESUS CHRIST AND PANTIES
THIS PRESIDENT IS A DICK!
SEX! SEX! SEX! – AND CONSEQUENCES!


.

Lying Down With Dogs (Edward L. Daley)


.
This morning, leftist propaganda rags and conservative news blogs alike pounced on a story about Donald Trump’s ‘Plan For A Muslim Database‘ in America. I won’t even bother going into the specifics of the issue here, since several right-wing talk radio hosts have already completely dismantled the story. In essence, it was a load of shit, and anyone who believed the Jurassic media’s “reporting” on the matter, without bothering to independently confirm that it was actually true before jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon, is a waste of fucking space.

Look, I get that there are a lot of people out there who don’t like Donald Trump. The guy isn’t at the top of my candidates’ list either, but that doesn’t excuse anyone from spreading provably false rumors about the man. Hell, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of legitimate reasons to disapprove of The Donald. I’ve named several of them myself in previous articles, yet I’ve also attempted to impress upon my readers that as bad as Trump may be in certain respects, he’s the next Ronald Reagan when compared to ANY Democrat candidate you could name, and if given the choice between siding with him or throwing in with the likes of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times or The Washington Post, the contest is over before it begins. I’ll stand by Trump every single day and twice on Sundays.

Need I remind you that this same sort of phony, left-wing journalism reared its ugly head just two weeks ago? At that time it was Ben Carson who was targeted with accusations that he lied about being offered a scholarship to West Point during his ROTC days, and many in the so-called conservative press regurgitated the words of the Democrat-controlled MSM without hesitation. Of course, it didn’t take long for people who don’t have their heads crammed firmly up their own asses to destroy the credibility of the leftist pricks who’d made the story up out of whole cloth.

Before long they’ll be going after some other top-tier GOP candidate like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, and certain right-leaning news outlets with political axes to grind will copy and paste these leftists’ headlines onto their websites, thus affording the swine a legitimacy they’ve never earned while effectively undermining the entire Republican primary field in the process. Apparently, several of my fellow conservative bloggers have forgotten the age-old adage: when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Suffice it to say that for every leftist-inspired, journalistic hit-job you embrace, you take one step closer to becoming one of the very neo-socialist media whores you claim to hate. Take it from someone who has made similar mistakes in the past and has lived to regret them, that road ends in shame. Yes, I too have re-posted articles on this very blog that turned out to be totally unfounded, for the simple reason that I WANTED TO BELIEVE THEY WERE TRUE. Granted, those few stories originated from hacks on the right side of the blogosphere, but that fact doesn’t make my actions any more righteous or admirable. I bought into the bullshit because I thought it served my political interests, but I was dead wrong!

Spreading false information in the name of an agenda is beneath me, just as it is beneath anyone out there who calls himself a conservative. It’s the truth we should be concerned with above all else, because if we can’t at least hold the high ground in that respect, how exactly are we any better than Hillary Clinton?

By Edward L. Daley

.

*AUDIO* Mark Levin: Ben Carson And The Leftist News Media


.

.

.

Sheriff David Clarke: Barack Obama Is A “Heartless, Soulless Bastard” Who Sides With “Goons” Over Cops

Obama A Heartless, Soulless Bastard… Sheriff David Clarke On Empathy For Criminals, Silence To Violence Against Cops – Universal Free Press

.

.
In this week’s broadcast of his weekly program on TheBlaze radio network, Sheriff David Clarke had a few choice words for the occupier of the White House and his conduct in the orchestration of and response to violence against police officers in America.

Clarke points out that instead of investigating the human rights abuse of black on black crime, the Department of Justice is going after police, making the targeting of them “job one.”

He addresses the murder of officer Randolph Holder in New York, with 96 officers killed last year and another 48,518 assaulted in the line of duty, saying, “That’s the brutality. Many of those suspects were black, in the commission of crimes, threatening a law enforcement officer or failing to abide by their lawful commands, resisting arrest. How about black criminal abuse, black criminal brutality?”

Clarke doesn’t put much value in the apology of Judge Patricia Nunez, the one who released the inmate who would later murder Officer Holder, calling her a criminal coddling, criminal advocating, empathy for the criminal, despicable human being.

He notes, “By the way we still have not heard from ‘president’ Obama, that heartless, soulless bastard, who wastes no time taking to the microphone to stick up for a criminal creep like Mike Brown, like Eric Garner, like Freddie Gray, like Trayvon Martin, in communicating empathy for those goons and yet he has to be prodded, he has to be prodded to say something when a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty.”

Click HERE to listen to audio clip.

.

.

*VIDEOS* Your Daley Gator Prager University Edufication O’ The Month


ALEX EPSTEIN: CAN WE RELY ON WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY?


.
RAYMOND IBRAHIM: RADICAL ISLAM – THE MOST DANGEROUS IDEOLOGY

.
GREG GUTFELD: WHY THE RIGHT IS RIGHT

.
WALTER E. WILLIAMS: IS CAPITALISM MORAL?

.
ROBERT GEORGE: WHY WE’RE LOSING LIBERTY

.
GREG LUKIANOFF: DOES FREE SPEECH OFFEND YOU?

.

.

64 Legal Scholars To All Public Officeholders: Reject USSC Same-Sex Marriage Opinion As Binding Precedent

Legal Scholars Urge Officeholders: Refuse To Accept Same-Sex Marriage Opinion As Binding Precedent – CNS

.
…………….

.
Editor’s Note: A group of more than 60 legal scholars released a statement last week calling on all federal and state officeholders not to accept the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision – declaring a national right to same-same sex marriage – as binding precedent.

One of the signers and authors of the statement was Robert. P. George, the founder of the American Principles Project and McCormack Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton.

“We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is,” said George. “We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.”

Below is the text of the statement in its entirety.

————————————————————————————————–

We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.

The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional – and sound – methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity – one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.

Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative… power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Justice Thomas says the opinion “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority” as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action.

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the “liberty” guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights “that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and that it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.” He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to “the happiness of persons who choose to marry.” He warns it will be used to “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy” and is yet another example of the “Court’s abuse of its authority.”

Chief Justice Roberts says “the Constitution leaves no doubt” that the majority’s “pretentious” opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to “sully those on the other side of the debate” in an “entirely gratuitous” manner.

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out:

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care.

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union – the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman – will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.” If a decision “had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.” If, however, a decision is “wanting in all these claims to the public confidence,” it is “not factious” to resist it.

Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States.

Therefore:

We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.

We call on all federal and state officeholders:

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as “settled” and “the law of the land” the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do.

Signatories

(Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only)

Bradley C. S. Watson, Philip M. McKenna Chair in American and Western Political Thought and Professor of Politics, Saint Vincent College

John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University

George W. Dent, Jr., Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, Founder of American Principles Project

Matthew J. Franck, Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center for Religion and the Constitution, Witherspoon Institute

Daniel J. Mahoney, Augustine Chair in Distinguished Scholarship, Assumption College

Stephen H. Balch, Director, Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, Texas Tech University

Mickey G. Craig, William & Berniece Grewcock Professor of Politics, Hillsdale College

Paul Moreno, William and Berniece Chair in US Constitutional History, Hillsdale College

Lucas E. Morel, Class of 1960 Professor of Ethics and Politics, Washington and Lee University

Joseph M. Knippenberg, Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University

Susan Hanssen, Associate Professor of History, University of Dallas

Wm. Barclay Allen, Dean Emeritus, Michigan State University

Daniel C. Palm, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Azusa Pacific University

Lynn D. Wardle, Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

Scott FitzGibbon, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School

Stephen Casey, Casey Law Office, P.C.

James C. Phillips, J.D.

Joshua W. Schulz, Associate Professor of Philosophy, DeSales University

John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Law, Louisiana State University Law Center

Ralph A. Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College

Walter Schumm, Professor of Family Studies, Kansas State University

Anne Hendershott, Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Michael D. Breidenbach, Assistant Professor of History, Ave Maria University

Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

Stephen M. Krason, Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, Franciscan University of Steubenville; President, Society of Catholic Social Scientists

Micah J. Watson, William-Spoelhof Teacher-Chair in Political Science, Calvin College

Daniel Robinson, Fellow, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford

David Novak, J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies and Professor of Religion and Philosophy, University of Toronto

Adam J. MacLeod, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Robert Lowry Clinton, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Colleen Sheehan, Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Peter W. Wood, President, National Association of Scholars

Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University

John Agresto, Former president of St. John’s College, Santa Fe, and the American University of Iraq

Mark T. Mitchell, Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College

Carol M. Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University

Nathan Schlueter, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hillsdale College

J. Daryl Charles, Affiliated Scholar, John Jay Institute

Ted McAllister, Edward L. Gaylord Chair and Associate Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

David R. Upham, Associate Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Thomas D’Andrea, Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge; Director, Institute for the Study of Philosophy, Politics, and Religion

Daniel Mark, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Hadley P. Arkes, Edward N. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus, Amherst College; Director, James Wilson Institute on Naturals Right and the American Founding

Philip Bess, Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame

Jeffery J. Ventrella, Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of Student Training and Development, Alliance Defending Freedom

Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Jay Bergman, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Robert L. McFarland, Associate Dean of External Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Carson Holloway, Associate Professor Political Science, University of Nebraska, Omaha

Gary D. Glenn, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus, Northern Illinois University

Paul A. Rahe, Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage, Hillsdale College

Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus, Boston University

Bradley P. Jacob, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Raymond B. Marcin, Professor of Law Emeritus, The Catholic University of America

Matthew Spalding, Associate Vice President and Dean, Allen P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Hillsdale College

James A. Davids, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Ken Masugi, Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute

Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino

James W. (Jim) Richardson, Board of Directors, Christian Legal Society

Robert F. Sasseen, President and Professor of Politics Emeritus, University of Dallas

Lynne Marie Kohm, John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law and Associate Dean of Faculty Development and External Affairs, Regent University School of Law

.

.

*AUDIO* Ann Coulter: RINO Speaker Candidates And Illegal Aliens

.

.

*VIDEO* Andrew Klavan: Ban Facts

.

.

California’s Drought: Not An Environmental Problem. An Environmentalist Problem. (Steven Greenhut)

California’s Drought: Not An Environmental Problem. An Environmentalist Problem. – Steven Greenhut

.

.
I was walking through downtown Sacramento recently when raindrops started falling. People on the street stopped dead in their tracks, looked up at the sky, and began acting giddy. “What’s that?” I asked a man. “I think it’s something called rain,” he responded. Such is the gallows humor in a state that hasn’t seen substantial rainfall in years.

The obvious lack of rain is the seemingly obvious reason for the state’s lack of sufficient water. Water levels in state reservoirs are falling, officials are cracking down on “excess” water use (lawn-watering, etc.), and voters passed a water bond on the 2014 ballot to help fund more storage. The Capitol crowd is obsessed with the water issue, while local planners use the crisis to clamp down on building permits.

State officials say California’s drought is “one of the most severe droughts on record,” and they warn that even an El Niño rainy season is unlikely to fix the situation. In fact, nothing seems to fix the situation. Californians have slashed their water use by 31 percent during July – well above the 25-percent reduction targeted by the governor. And there’s still not enough water.

But as this series will show, California’s drought is largely a man-made crisis. It is caused by a series of policies – some from the past, many ongoing – which has prioritized environmental demands above the basic provision of water resources to the public. More than half of the state’s water resources simply flow out the San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean.

Even now, in the Sierra foothills, state officials empty reservoirs to protect “unimpeded” river flows to benefit small numbers of non-endangered hatchery fish. The California Coastal Commission, the powerful agency with control of development along the shoreline, is holding up a privately planned desalination plant over concerns about its impact on plankton. The environment-friendly commission want to force the developers to build a pumping system that destroys the economics of the plant.

Meanwhile, slow-growth activists see opportunity in the drought. Their goal is to stop new developments despite California’s growing population, so a lack of water is a useful tool in their arsenal. A state law forces developers to prove sufficient water resources for decades into the future – before being able to get a permit to build developments. This slow-growth lobby sees no reason to come up with water-storage solutions.

Even the federal government is in on the action. In the far northern part of the state, along the Klamath River, federal environment officials want to remove four dams that provide water storage near the Oregon border. Their goal is to help preserve the habitat of non-native salmon. The “destroy the dams” movement had gained so much steam in recent years that San Franciscans were asked in a 2012 advisory vote to destroy the O’Shaughnessy dam in Yosemite National Park and drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir – the main source of water for the state’s third-largest city. Even that city’s notoriously lefty voters said “no” to shutting their main water spigot.

If one takes a map of the state of California and turns it on its side, with the Pacific boundary at the bottom, it’s easy to better understand the state’s water geology. Water flows from the Sierra Nevada Mountains through rivers that head toward San Francisco Bay. It all ends up in a place called the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the West Coast’s largest estuary. That’s near the lowest point in your sideways map. Then it heads to the bay and, then, the ocean.

When you hear Californians argue about the Delta, that’s what they are talking about. It’s a 1,100-square-mile area with 1,000 miles of rivers filled with historic towns, orchards, swamps, islands, and marinas. That estuary serves as a giant water filter. Primarily, the mighty Sacramento River meanders through the delta, kept within its banks by a series of aged dirt levees. A pumping station at the south end near Tracy sends water along a system of canals to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley – and also to the Southern metropolises.

During wet years, the estuary is filled with fresh water. During droughts, the salinity levels are high as water from the Pacific migrates eastward. That region remains Ground Zero for the state’s water fights. The fate of a tiny baitfish called the Delta Smelt is central here. Occasionally, a few dead smelt are found at the fish screens in Tracy, which causes administrators to shut down water supplies from the Delta toward the south. Water supplies are also stopped during drought years.

In 1982, our past and current governor, Jerry Brown, wanted to build a peripheral canal that would bypass the crumbling levees and take Sacramento River water around the Delta – before heading to the farm and urban water users. The state’s voters rejected that measure. Southern Californians were mostly indifferent to the idea, but Northern Californians resented having more of “their” water sent away.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s latest plan is to build twin tunnels under the Delta to provide a more consistent water supply southward. The planned cost: $25 billion for the total project, with a separate portion geared toward environmental restoration. Northern Californians are still mostly against it, as they claim it’s a water grab by Los Angeles-based users. (To understand the emotions, watch “Chinatown,” the 1974 movie about the deceptive way Owens Valley water was diverted to the Southland to spur the growth of Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley).

Looking deeply into the plan, this much is clear: The newly renamed “California Water Fix” doesn’t even promise more water to southern cities. It simply promises a more consistent water supply. The twin tunnels are designed to change the flow of the rivers and protect the Delta Smelt. With the smelt protected, there will be fewer reasons to shut the pumps. In other words, this is a costly engineering solution to a political problem.

And therein lies California’s main water problem. No one here denies the importance of the environment or that some portion of the state’s scarce water resources needs to be used to protect wetlands and river habitats. But the balance of power has shifted from those who believe that people come first to those who seem to view the population as a scourge.

In April, I reported on a contentious meeting at the Oakdale Irrigation District east of Modesto. Farmers and local residents were aghast. The state and federal officials insisted on releasing massive amounts of water from the large New Melones Reservoir and Lake Tulloch, a small lake downstream from New Melones surrounded by homes. As the governor was threatening fines for people who take long showers, his State Water Resources Control Board was going to empty reservoirs to save about a dozen fish.

The local farmers and residents were asking for a temporary reprieve. I remember the words of one of the district officials, who was calling for “off ramps” during times of severe drought. That’s jargon for temporarily putting aside some of the more aggressive environmental demands at a time when farms and people are out of water. Bad publicity delayed the “pulse flows,” but by September water officials began insisting on new releases.

Recent reports showed that farmers use 80 percent of California’s water resources. It’s true that farmers are an important interest group. And because of the state’s old and quirky system of water rights, we see infuriating misuses of resources – e.g., farmers growing water-intensive hay in one of the driest regions on Earth, the southern Imperial Valley.

But that 80 percent number was deceptive because it completely omitted environmental uses of water, which constitute more than 50 percent of the state’s flows. Farmers, businesses, and residents fight over what remains. What we’re seeing – water releases to benefit a small number of common fish, removing dams along major rivers, delays of desalination plants, failure to build adequate water storage – is not an anomaly. It is the cumulative effect of water policies dominated by environmental interests.

It wasn’t always this way. In earlier days, California’s water policies had more in common (and with some admittedly ill environmental effect) with the ideas of capitalist defender Ayn Rand than John Muir, the famed naturalist whose environmental legacy dominates California discussions. California leaders were proud of taming the wilderness and building massive infrastructure projects – especially water projects – that allowed the state’s phenomenal growth.

In 1961, when Jerry Brown’s dad, Pat Brown, was governor, the State Water Project was begun. “The project includes 34 storage facilities, reservoirs and lakes; 20 pumping plants; four pumping-generating plants; five hydroelectric power plants; and about 701 miles of open canals and pipelines,” according to a state description. “The project provides supplemental water to approximately 25 million Californians and about 750,000 acres of irrigated farmland.”

I’ve toured a lot of the facilities and even was on an official tour of the Colorado River project, following the water as it flowed from reservoirs behind New Deal-era dams at the Arizona border down to the treatment facility in the Los Angeles. It was quite a feat to build these projects. As I argued in my Orange County Register column at the time, it could never be replicated today in a world of Environmental Impact Statements, greenmail lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a political system dominated by officials more interested in quashing human development than providing the means for humans to thrive in this arid climate.

Sure, it would help if it rained – but the lack of rain is the least of California’s drought problems.

.

.

The ‘Affordable Housing’ Fraud (Thomas Sowell)

The ‘Affordable Housing’ Fraud – Thomas Sowell

.

.
Nowhere has there been so much hand-wringing over a lack of “affordable housing,” as among politicians and others in coastal California. And nobody has done more to make housing unaffordable than those same politicians and their supporters.

A recent survey showed that the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco was just over $3,500. Some people are paying $1,800 a month just to rent a bunk bed in a San Francisco apartment.

It is not just in San Francisco that putting a roof over your head can take a big chunk out of your pay check. The whole Bay Area is like that. Thirty miles away, Palo Alto home prices are similarly unbelievable.

One house in Palo Alto, built more than 70 years ago, and just over one thousand square feet in size, was offered for sale at $1.5 million. And most asking prices are bid up further in such places.

Another city in the Bay Area with astronomical housing prices, San Mateo, recently held a public meeting and appointed a task force to look into the issue of “affordable housing.”

Public meetings, task forces, and political hand-wringing about a need for “affordable housing” occur all up and down the San Francisco peninsula, because this is supposed to be such a “complex” issue.

Someone once told President Ronald Reagan that a solution to some controversial issue was “complex.” President Reagan replied that the issue was in fact simple, “but it is not easy.”

Is the solution to unaffordable housing prices in parts of California simple? Yes. It is as simple as supply and demand. What gets complicated is evading the obvious, because it is politically painful.

One of the first things taught in an introductory economics course is supply and demand. When a growing population creates a growing demand for housing, and the government blocks housing from being built, the price of existing housing goes up.

This is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge. Economists have understood supply and demand for centuries – and so have many other people who never studied economics.

Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But, beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed to three or four times the national average.

Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is called preserving “open space,” and “open space” has become almost a cult obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are sufficiently affluent that they don’t have to worry about housing prices.

Some others have bought the argument that there is just very little land left in coastal California, on which to build homes. But anyone who drives down Highway 280 for thirty miles or so from San Francisco to Palo Alto, will see mile after mile of vast areas of land with not a building or a house in sight.

How “complex” is it to figure out that letting people build homes in some of that vast expanse of “open space” would keep housing from becoming “unaffordable”?

Was it just a big coincidence that housing prices in coastal California began skyrocketing in the 1970s, when building bans spread like wildfire under the banner of “open space,” “saving farmland,” or whatever other slogans would impress the gullible?

When more than half the land in San Mateo County is legally off-limits to building, how surprised should we be that housing prices in the city of San Mateo are now so high that politically appointed task forces have to be formed to solve the “complex” question of how things got to be the way they are and what to do about it?

However simple the answer, it will not be easy to go against the organized, self-righteous activists for whom “open space” is a sacred cause, automatically overriding the interests of everybody else.

Was it just a coincidence that some other parts of the country saw skyrocketing housing prices when similar severe restrictions on building went into effect? Or that similar policies in other countries have had the same effect? How “complex” is that?

.

.