Trump Supporter Kid Rock Up in New Poll by +4 Over Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow

Send the Kid to the Senate to help Trump get something done. He’s decidedly not owned by ((them))) like politically correct liberal Democrat Debbie Stabenow.

Twitchy

He’s going to win:

New MI-Sen poll: Kid Rock 30%, Debbie Stabenow 26%, undecided 44%https://t.co/4AH9rcWrFM

— Taegan Goddard (@politicalwire) July 23, 2017
The poll was conducted by Delphi Analytica from July 14-18 of 668 Michigan residents:

Of respondents who stated a preference between Debbie Stabenow and Robert Ritchie, 54% stated they would vote for Ritchie while 46% said they would vote for Debbie Stabenow. These results could indicate that Ritchie is a popular figure in Michigan, Debbie Stabenow is unpopular, or some combination of concurrent trends. The relatively large, 44%, number of undecided respondents may be due to the early stages of the campaign.

Like Trump, the Kid has a past to contend with:

Politico

The renegade musician and prospective candidate for U.S. Senate is an opposition researcher’s dream come true: For more than two decades, Robert Ritchie—or Bobby, as he asks people to call him—has written and performed provocative records about, among other things, extravagant drug use, excessive drinking and sexual exploits with prostitutes, strippers and Hollywood starlets. These lyrics are far from hollow. Kid Rock’s hard-partying image is central to his popularity and has been exhaustively documented in media accounts over the years. Political opponents will be digging through more than just his albums, too: There’s the sex tape he starred in, the arrest following a Waffle House brawl, the no-contest plea to charges he assaulted a DJ at a Nashville strip club, the messy divorce from Pamela Anderson. If that weren’t enough, he has offered other forms of ammunition to potential foes in interviews over the years, such as when he told Rolling Stone of his distaste for Beyoncé (“I like skinny white chicks with big tits”) and gave the New Yorker his stance on same-sex marriage (“I don’t give a fuck if gay people get married. I don’t love anybody who acts like a fuckin’ faggot”).

Because of his manifest rebelliousness—the offensive language, the sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll lifestyle, the middle finger to polite company—Kid Rock’s tweet last week announcing that he is considering a campaign for U.S. Senate in Michigan was met with predictable contempt from the political class. How dare the foul-mouthed, long-haired, wifebeater-wearing, Jim Beam-swigging, self-described redneck suggest he belongs in the world’s greatest deliberative body?

“Presuming Kid Rock doesn’t get caught in bed with a little boy, or beat up a woman between now and August 2018, he’s going to win the nomination if he gets in,” says Dennis Lennox, a Republican political consultant in Michigan. “I think there’s no question about that. I think he’s the prohibitive favorite if he gets in.”

Ritchie would launch a campaign on the strength of his favorite-son status that cuts across socioeconomic boundaries and is particularly resonant with the president’s winning coalition of culturally conservative, populist-minded, blue-collar voters.

A few Kid Rock quotes from the Politico piece:

On drug policy: “I don’t smoke much weed, it makes me dumb. But they should legalize and tax everything: pot, cocaine, heroin.” – The Guardian, Jan. 3, 2015

On same-sex marriage: “I don’t give a fuck if gay people get married. I don’t love anybody who acts like a fucking faggot.” – The New Yorker, Nov. 19, 2012

On political correctness: “[Rap-rock] turned into a lot of bullshit and it turned out to be pretty gay… If someone says you can’t say ‘gay’ like that, you tell them to go fuck themselves. You’re not going to get anything politically correct out of me.” – The Guardian, Jan. 3, 2015

On Donald Trump: “Has that much fucking changed when anyone’s in office, whether it’s been a Republican or a Democrat in office, in our lifetime, anyway? I haven’t really seen this big, like, fucking change … let the motherfucking business guy run it like a fucking business. And his campaign has been entertaining as shit.” – Rolling Stone, Feb. 1, 2016

The Kid’s Republican primary opponent is Lena Epstein. In this commercial she shows quite a sense of humor. Less than one minute:

Lena was Trump’s campaign manager for Michigan. Since he won, I have to think she did a good job.

Economics Professor “Deirdre” McCloskey Writes A Diversion Away from Truth at Libertarian Reason Site

DONALD MCCLOSKEY BECAME DEIRDRE MCCLOSKY SOME DECADES AGO.

Deirdre McCloskey no longer has her dick.

Wikipedia

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (born September 11, 1942),[1] formerly known as Donald N. McCloskey, is the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). She is also adjunct professor of Philosophy and Classics there, and for five years was a visiting Professor of philosophy at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Since October 2007 she has received six honorary doctorates.[2] In 2013, she received the Julian L. Simon Memorial Award from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for her work examining factors in history that led to advancement in human achievement and prosperity.[3] Her main research interests include the origins of the modern world, the misuse of statistical significance in economics and other sciences, and the study of capitalism, among many others.

I’m not going to comment on gender fluidity, women with penises, or even on how highly honored economics professors get things wrong all the time.

Instead, let’s get the flavor of Dr. McCloskey’s argument and then fire back with some common sense. In this excerpt she focuses on the auto industry.

Excerpt from McCloskey writing at Reason

The Myth of Technological Unemployment

Otherwise sensible folk are, for some reason, terrified by robots. Yet the results of automation are good overall. Workers move from wretched assembly-line jobs to better ones standing in white coats monitoring the robots, at the higher wages made possible by the higher tech. Or, even better, they move to jobs outside the auto industry, earning pay that goes further because people can buy the radically cheaper stuff the robots now make.

If their new jobs are not higher paying, it’s probably because the auto union managed to extract monopoly profits from the company, and therefore from consumers. Robert Reich, a reliable source of sweetly leftish errors of facts and ethics, declares that “the decline in unionization [of private companies] directly correlates with the decline of the portion of income going to the middle class.” But paying selected workers on the assembly line more than they can earn elsewhere, at the expense of other, sometimes poorer, workers’ ability to buy cars, is hardly an ethical formula for raising up the working class.

When a Ford plant installed robots, Walter Reuther, a long-ago president of the United Auto Workers union, is said to have asked a manager: “How are you going to get them to buy Fords?” But Reuther’s argument is fallacious. Employees of car companies are a trivial share of the car-buying public. You can’t create prosperity merely by having workers purchase from their own employers.

Reich has accused the following things of driving down American wages: “Automation, followed by computers, software, robotics, computer-controlled machine tools and widespread digitization.” But such innovations have actually raised real wages, correctly measured, because a human supplied with a better tool can produce more outputs. And the point of an economy is production for consumption, not protection of existing jobs.

Consider the historical record: If the nightmare of technological unemployment were true, it would already have happened, repeatedly and massively. In 1800, four out of five Americans worked on farms. Now one in 50 do, but the advent of mechanical harvesting and hybrid corn did not disemploy the other 78 percent.

In 1910, one out of 20 of the American workforce was on the railways. In the late 1940s, 350,000 manual telephone operators worked for AT&T alone. In the 1950s, elevator operators by the hundreds of thousands lost their jobs to passengers pushing buttons. Typists have vanished from offices. But if blacksmiths unemployed by cars or TV repairmen unemployed by printed circuits never got another job, unemployment would not be 5 percent, or 10 percent in a bad year. It would be 50 percent and climbing.

No, Professor, after a great deal of personal anguish, “displaced workers” go to work as assistant managers at Burger King. If. they. are. lucky.

In my experience in academia most (not all) professors who rise up to national prominence are Jew stooges. McCloskey, identified with Milton Friedman’s Chicago School of Economics, is a smart guy … uh … lady. But a lot of his work, if not all of it, is designed to divert attention away from the (((tribe))) pushing the levers behind the curtain.

If you want truth in economics, regular readers know that I go to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, who observes that the American economy only produces low wage jobs. Unemployment may be low by official measures, but in reality because of dropouts in the labor force, it’s much higher than publicized.

When I first discovered Dr. Roberts, I stayed up all night reading every article archived on his site (see blogroll). I won’t be doing the same for McCloskey because he’s not willing to say anything truthful about race, white genocide, immigration, or the gutting of the white middle class. Dr. Roberts (and Pat Buchanan) are two “respectable” thought leaders willing to tell the truth, or at least a large part of it.

I conclude, sadly on my part, that Deirdre is a Jew stooge.

They Want to Put Nano-Chips into Currency So they can track every note

Big Brother is watching. His keen eyes and ears will have even more information about us if a plan to nanochip currency becomes reality.

I tentatively disagree with the premise of the article below. They are more interested in doing away with cash entirely than with putting nanochips in currency.

They are probably more interested in nanochipping us too, but it seems they can track almost everyone via a cell phone or vehicle tracking technology anyway.

Armstrong Economics

Believe it or not, Australia has a Black Economy Taskforce that hunts down citizens in every possible way. They look at where they send their kids to school and then inquire at the school who pays the bills and how. They are using technology to hack people’s phones of anyone suspected of hiding money to get all their messages and emails as well as where they call overseas. Their own website says:

The Black Economy Taskforce has been established to develop an innovative, forward-looking whole-of-government policy response to combat the black economy in Australia, recognising that these issues cannot be tackled by traditional tax enforcement measures alone.
The black economy refers to people who operate entirely outside the tax and regulatory system or who are known to the authorities but do not correctly report their tax obligations.

Michael Andrew, the head of this 1984 style Taskforce to spy on citizens, has proposed that the government should keep track of your $100 and $50 notes by implanting hi-tech nano-chips. He could simply scan your house to see where you are hiding money that the government can confiscate.

What I have been warning about is that government will not reform. Instead they will push us up against the wall and do everything against a free society to survive. This is simply how government responds every time throughout history. It is all about them paying their own pension at the expense of the citizen. They will always pretend the problem is the rich do not pay their fair share, but in reality, the crisis is the government will simply consume everything until it collapses.

So just recognize these bureaucrats are drunk with power for they look upon the people as stupid cattle to be slaughtered for their survival – them against us. Everything that was worth fighting for to preserve our way of life have been eliminated not by some foreign enemy, but by our rulers.

Inspirational Quote of the Day: One by Ayn Rand About Privacy

Alt-Right and Alt-Light in Conflict Over JEWS

LAURA LOOMER, ALT-LIGHT JEW PROVOCATEUR.

RICHARD SPENCER. THE ALT-RIGHT LEADER HAS ISSUES WITH THE ALT-LIGHT.

When Laura Loomer disrupted the Central Park Trump assassination play last week, it hit all the major news outlets. The message was that Trump supporters were no longer going to sit idly by while the left advocated murder.

White identitarian Richard Spencer, a former Trump supporter, objected to Loomer’s stunt, claiming that it was an antifa tactic that the alt-right should disavow.

As reported by WTOP, Washington, D.C. will witness two rallies by the right on Sunday. One will be hosted by Spencer. The other will be hosted by alt-light conservative and Infowars contributor Mike Cernovich and will feature Loomer.

Thus, the right in America has already been split by Jewish Loomer.

The question that should be on the minds of white nationalists, race realists, Trump supporters, conservatives, and libertarians is how to unite a movement that is fragmenting while the left sits back and gloats at our infighting.

The following piece details how the split developed, focusing on Loomer’s high profile guerrilla theater tactics and her relationship with the alt-light.

Haaretz

The Jewish Provocateur Caught in the Turf War as the ‘Alt-right’ Battles the ‘Alt-light’

A video of Laura Loomer went viral, showing her stopping a production of Julius Caesar to ‘protect Trump.’ Trump supporters cheered, but then the alt-right attacked

NEW YORK — Days after Republicans criticized a Shakespeare in The Park production of “Julius Caesar” for making its Caesar look like Donald Trump — and of course Caesar gets assassinated — one Trump supporter decided to take her indignation to the next level. On Friday, Laura Loomer rushed the stage in Central Park during a performance, live-streaming as she protested.

“Stop the normalization of political violence against the right!” she shouted on stage. “This is unacceptable! You cannot promote violence against Donald Trump!” One actress responded, “We’re not promoting it,” and Loomer shouted, “Yes you are, this is violence against Donald Trump.” The play was stopped and the crowd booed. “Shame on the New York Public Theater for doing this!” Loomer shouted. “You guys are ISIS!”

Loomer, a self-described “proud Jew,” was escorted from the stage by security, arrested and later released. She has been charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct. Many Trump supporters are celebrating her on social media with the trending Twitter hashtag #FreeLaura.

Conservative commentator Sean Hannity invited Loomer to his show on Fox News, where she called the production “assassination porn” and said she was protecting the president’s life. Hannity praised her for being courageous.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has also cheered Loomer on, supporting the Arizona native’s campaign to raise money to cover her legal fees. The Infowars website’s Alex Jones and other right-wing pundits like Mike Cernovich, Laura Ingraham and Cassandra Fairbanks also supported her action. The following day, Loomer’s protest was imitated by two members of the right-wing group Proud Boys, who also rushed the stage during a performance of “Julius Caesar.”

Continue reading

Inspirational Quote of the Day: One about Tax Slavery

When I was an economics professor, the libertarian faculty would sometimes bring up the name Nozick, as if he were a god.

Excerpt from Wikipedia

Robert Nozick (/ˈnoʊzɪk/; November 16, 1938 – January 23, 2002) was an American philosopher. He held the Joseph Pellegrino University Professorship at Harvard University, and was president of the American Philosophical Association. He is best known for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), a libertarian answer to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971). His other work involved decision theory and epistemology.

Nozick was born in Brooklyn. His mother was born Sophie Cohen, and his father was a Jew from the Russian shtetl who had been born with the name of Cohen and who ran a small business.

For Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) Nozick received a National Book Award in category Philosophy and Religion.[2] There, Nozick argues that only a minimal state “limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on” could be justified without violating people’s rights. For Nozick, a distribution of goods is just if brought about by free exchange among consenting adults from a just starting position, even if large inequalities subsequently emerge from the process. Nozick appealed to the Kantian idea that people should be treated as ends (what he termed ‘separateness of persons’), not merely as a means to some other end.

The Examined Life (1989), pitched to a broader public, explores love, death, faith, reality, and the meaning of life. According to Stephen Metcalf, Nozick expresses serious misgivings about capitalist libertarianism, going so far as to reject much of the foundations of the theory on the grounds that personal freedom can sometimes only be fully actualized via a collectivist politics and that wealth is at times justly redistributed via taxation to protect the freedom of the many from the potential tyranny of an overly selfish and powerful few.[12] Nozick suggests that citizens who are opposed to wealth redistribution which fund programs they object to, should be able to opt out by supporting alternative government approved charities with an added 5% surcharge.[13] However, Jeff Riggenbach has noted that “…in an interview conducted in July 2001, he stated that he had never stopped self-identifying as a libertarian. And Roderick Long reports that in his last book, Invariances, [Nozick] identified voluntary cooperation as the ‘core principle’ of ethics, maintaining that the duty not to interfere with another person’s ‘domain of choice’ is ‘[a]ll that any society should (coercively) demand’; higher levels of ethics, involving positive benevolence, represent instead a ‘personal ideal’ that should be left to ‘a person’s own individual choice and development.’ And that certainly sounds like an attempt to embrace libertarianism all over again. My own view is that Nozick’s thinking about these matters evolved over time and that what he wrote at any given time was an accurate reflection of what he was thinking at that time.”[14]

Inspirational Quote of the Day: One About a “Giant Conspiracy”

Excerpt from Jeffrey Tucker’s Wikipedia

Alleged role in Ron Paul Newsletters[edit]

In an interview with Reason, Timothy Virkkala, former managing editor of the libertarian magazine Liberty, alleged that Tucker played a role in the production of racially charged newsletters written on behalf of Ron Paul. By Virkkala’s account, he heard from Bill Bradford, then the editor of Liberty, that Tucker was an “assistant, [and] probably a writer” who assisted “editor and chief writer” Lew Rockwell in creating the newsletters.[9] Eric Dondero, who served as (election) campaign coordinator and senior aide to Ron Paul in the mid to late 1990s, told the American Spectator in an on-line reader comment that “Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker wrote the newsletters.”[23] According to a political blog by Economist, unnamed “numerous veterans” of the libertarian movement said it was an “open secret” throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s that Tucker and Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters.[24] In response to questions about his role with the newsletters from Reason, Tucker said, “I just really am not going to make a statement, I’m sorry. I’ll take all responsibility for being the editor of Mises.org, OK?”[9]