Lenny Dykstra to Sue Ron Darling

Len Dykstra (L), Ron Darling (R)
.
.

.
It appears that Lenny "Nails" Dykstra is making good on his promise to sue Ron Darling for slander. (https://www.nj.com/…/lenny-dykstra-sues-former-mets-pitcher…)

In Dykstra's favor is that Darling has written about the alleged racial incident before, but in glowing terms; “He (Dykstra) was relentless, fearless, tasteless, running his mouth every which way,” Darling wrote. “I’d never seen anything like it — really, it was remarkable.”

Worse still, while no one has come out to back Ron Darling's account, many have come out to back Dykstra, including, Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, Kevin Mitchell and most recently, Wally Backman, the NY Met batter in the On Deck circle, in Backman's words, "Within spitting distance of Dykstra," (https://nypost.com/…/ex-met-who-would-know-defends-lenny-d…/) and Sally Backman claims he heard no such a verbal attack from Len Dykstra.

Even Boston Red Sox pitcher Dennis "Oil Can" Boyd admitted in an on-air interview that he never heard the alleged racist tirade alleged to have been directed at him, on the pitcher's mound, from the Batter's Box a mere 60' 6" away!

The bar for libel/slander is high. The statement must not only be untrue, but malice must also be established.

If this, statement by Ron Darling IS established to be untrue, then the malicious nature (aside from "pedarist," there's no other charge as defamatory as "racist") should be self evident.

Dykstra MUST sue Darling, because now that the charge is out there in print; (1) others may tend to believe it, if it goes unchallenged and (2) others quoting that article, can use that as a source to perpetually assail Dykstra.

It appears a malicious smear because, (1) Ron Darling had written about the incident before, but in a positive way, (2) Dykstra's ongoing legal woes have made him an easy target and (3) while, to date, no one has backed Ron Darling's account, numerous teammates have backed Len Dykstra. Those all look like big problems for Ron Darling.

Candace Owens Humiliates Gerald Nadler and Ted Lieu...

.

.
GREAT clip!

Candace Owens says, "Mr. Lieu must think black people are stupid."

Gerald Nadler interrupts her, warning her over "disparaging members of the Committee," adding, "You called Rep. Lieu stupid," which, of course...she DID NOT.

Candace Owens is an educated Nationalist.

She understands perfectly well that WWII was fought and won by NATIONALIST England, France and the U.S. AGAINST imperialist/Globalist Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Ms. Owens is right that BOTH Nationalism and Globalism are deliberately mis-defined today. Global trade, an orderly process for the free movement of people, goods and services is vital, but that's NOT "Globalism." In fact, those things, especially interNATIONAL trade, are more in line with Nationalism.

Today, "Globalism" is used as a euphemism for Imperialism, specifically for "Anglo-American Imperialism," which has the goal of remaking the world over in modern America's and England's image.

Nationalism respects the natural diversity of mankind and the importance of culture, language, heritage and borders, because differing viewpoints give different groups varying perspectives, increasing the chances of finding solutions to problems that may stymie the rest of the world.

Ms. Owens is honest because she CAN be honest, as the facts are on her side.

Gerald Nadler and Ted Lieu CAN'T be honest because the facts are NOT on theirs.

This is a VERY telling exchange...

THIS is Why The Multiculturalists Are YOUR Enemies...

.

.
BOTH here in the U.S. and in the EU's England, Germany and France multiculturalism has morphed into vehement anti white racism. (https://youtu.be/Vh9jjW05h08)

THAT is the etiology of the resurgent Euro Nationalism. This isn't about people, or races against each other, it's about the global financial elite against all the people.

The diversity of mankind is vital. Mankind's various languages, cultures, ethnicities have different people seeing things from different perspectives, valuing different things and seeing problems from different outlooks, giving mankind a better chance to solve major problems because of all these unique perspectives.

That's why the Nationalism that respects this innate human diversity is vital and Globalism/One Worldism that would meld all people and dissolve all existing culturesis...a tragically wrong path.

There's no way forward for One Worldism's multiculturalism. The Dalai Lama is right that, just as Tibet must remain ethnically and culturally Tibetan, Germany, as with the rest of Europe, must remain ethnically and culturally German and European.

For the EU officials and America's Globalist/One World champions, it only gets worse from here.
https://youtu.be/Vh9jjW05h08

Deinstitutionalization DID NOT Begin Under Ronald Reagan...As Our Media Claims

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

Between 1955 and 1994, roughly 487,000 mentally ill patients were discharged from state hospitals. That lowered the number of institutionalized Americans to 72,000 patients.

Most states closed the majority of their mental hospitals. That permanently reduced the availability of long-term, in-patient care facilities. By 2010, there were just 43,000 psychiatric beds available in the country. This equates to appx 14 beds per 100,000 people. According to the Treatment Advocacy’s Center’s report, “Deinstitutionalization: A Failed History,” this was the same ratio as in 1850.

As a result, 2.2 million of the severely mentally ill do not receive any psychiatric treatment at all.

About 200,000 of those who suffer from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are homeless. That's one-third of the total homeless population.

Ten percent are veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or other war-related injuries.

More than 300,000 are in jails and prisons. Sixteen percent of all inmates are severely mentally ill. There were about 100,000 psychiatric beds in both public and private hospitals. There are more than three times as many seriously mentally ill people in jails and prisons than in hospitals.

Three major societal and scientific changes occurred that caused deinstitutionalization to take hold.

First, the development of psychiatric drugs treated many of the symptoms of mental illness. These included chlorpromazine (Thorazine) and later clozapine.

Second, society accepted that the mentally ill needed to be treated instead of locked away. This change of heart began in the 1960s.

Third, federal funding to both Medicaid and Medicare went toward community mental health centers instead of mental hospitals.

Who's to blame?

There's a whole host of people we could blame. You could blame Thomas Szasz and his "The Myth of Mental Illness." You could blame Ken Keysey and his anti institutionalization epic, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," but mostly it was US! Public opinion, born of good intentions is what pushed our mass deinstitutionalization.

It DID NOT start in the 1980s. It began in the early 1960s, gained momentum through the 1970s...its IMPACT was first felt in the 1980s.

This dishonest, disreputable national media of ours would like you to believe that, "We too, are confused. We just saw the effects and assumed it began in the 1980s under Reagan."

No...that's utter nonsense. It takes anyone less than 8 minutes to look all this up.

Sorry, this national media despised Reagan...and blamed him. Nothing "mistaken" about that. They don't make "mistakes,." They aren't merely "partisan." They are a propaganda dispersal unit, geared to misrepresenting reality in virtually every way.

It's a tragedy when you can't trust a single thing your own national media says...but that's the case in America today.

Beyond that, the failure of deinstitutionalization is a failure of good intentions and as such, is a cautionary tale.

Today, we're seeing the same thing with the push by a number of naive, misguided people blaming a nonexistent "Capitalism," for all the economic ills of the industrialized world.

America was the last Western nation to abandon Free Market Capitalism, which it did on December 23rd, 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, which forged a partnership between the U.S. government and 12 private, independent and international member banks.

What we have is a market-based Corporatism, the same as France, Germany, England and the Scandinavian countries. The differences between such countries are few. They all have generous welfare states, they all have varying degrees of public health programs, they all have relatively high tax rates for working/middle class people.

Socialism's Command Economy has NEVER worked anywhere in the world. It failed in the former USSR and Russia's economy has rebounded with a market-based system, including a 13% flat tax.

The Command Economy failed in Mao's China, which has also flourishes under a market-based system today.

It is STILL failing in Cuba, Haiti, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

ALL of these Marxist/Collectivist experiments were forged in good intentions. Naive, impractical, unworkable good intentions...much like DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION. (https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/…/deinstitutionalizati…/amp/)

The Anti Science Left...Exhibits 291 A & B

Wind Farm
.
.

.

"Trump Says Wind Turbine Noise Causes Cancer (It Does Not)"
(https://nymag-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/04/trump-says-wind-turbine-noise-causes-cancer-it-does-not.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2019%2F04%2Ftrump-says-wind-turbine-noise-causes-cancer-it-does-not.html)

"We Fact-Checked President Trump’s Dubious Claims on the Perils of Wind Power"
(https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/climate/fact-check-trump-windmills.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F04%2F03%2Fclimate%2Ffact-check-trump-windmills.html)

I hate doing this (OK, actually, I don't), but pointing out the Western Left's Science Illiteracy has become a bit of an obsession with me. The reason for that, is that our media is predominantly Leftist reliably feeds into that anti science mentality, because our media is overwhelmingly comprised of people who neither like nor understand much science and less math.

That said, Trump's wind turbine noise/cancer claims are speculative, at best...but they're actually LESS unscientific then those of his critics, who claim they are patently false.

The truth is, WE DON'T KNOW the impact of noise on cancer, BUT it's being studied.

A 2017 study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, titled, "Environmental noise and breast cancer risk" states, "The causes of breast cancer have been explored during many decades, and especially sex hormones play a pivotal role in the most established risk factors such as early menarche, late menopause, nulliparity, late first pregnancy, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy. Overall, however, these and other established risk factors for breast cancer explain only a minor fraction of the diseases. Non-hormonal avenues of potential risk factors for breast cancer have also been pursued. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified shiftwork that involves circadian disruption (DISRUPTED SLEEP PATTERNS) as a probable cause for human breast cancer, and the evidence for this association is mounting. Further, even exposure to ill-timed light-at-night beyond night work, ie, social jetlag and living in highly lit urban areas, may be associated with breast cancer. (PROBABLY ALSO DUE TO THEIR EFFECT ON SLEEP PATTERNS)

"It has recently been suggested that exposure to AMBIENT NOISE may also be involved in breast cancer risk. Noise is defined as unwanted and unpleasant sounds, and apparently evolution has programmed humans and animals to be aware of high sounds as possible sources of danger. Thus, TRAFFIC NOISE from AIRCRAFTS, CARS, RAILWAYS and TRAINS are relatively NEW ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS, which have expanded after World War II and are now widespread especially in urban areas and around airports. It is well documented that loud noise can cause hearing loss. IT IS ALSO WELL KNOWN THAT NOCTURNAL NOISE DISTURBS BOTH THE LENGTH AND QUALITY OF SLEEP..." (EMPHASIS mine)
(http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=3681)

According to another 2013 study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/), 2013 study, these are some adverse effects associated with wind turbines: “People who live or work in close proximity to IWTs have experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, SLEEP DISTURBANCE, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction. Some have also felt anger, grief, or a sense of injustice,” says the study. It says also that these effects may be caused by “turbine noise, infrasound, dirty electricity, ground current, and shadow flicker.” But there is no evidence to support cancer risk coming from wind turbines." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/#__sec2title)

The actual scientific literature claims disrupted sleep patterns and "ambient noise" (ie. traffic noise from aircrafts, cars, railways and trains are relatively new environmental pollutants, etc.) may well be related to cancer.

So, the noise issue is NOT the means to "scientifically" attack Trump's claim here, as that's still being studied.

What is undeniable is that there appear to be much higher cancer risks from burning coal, the use of traditional fossil fuels.

THAT much is undeniable.

This mocking hysteria over Trump's oversimplified speculation amounts to the weaponizing of science by those who don't understand it.

There is an irony in that the predominantly English Lit, History and Social Studies majors in our media, generally people who did everything they could to avoid taking math and science in College, are the ones now trying to weaponize a field of study they don't understand.

Even MORE ironic, is that their attempts to weaponize science, puts them in the SAME boat as Donald Trump, who also oversimplifies things to make personal points.

That's why this ongoing debunking and undermining of our national media is so vital. Their consistently anti science stance is dangerous.
.

The Naivete of Modern Marxism...

Milton Friedman
.
.
I came across THIS the other day and it's utter lack of thought intrigued me; 

"We need to bring trillionaires/billionaires to the guillotines because it is THEY who should be paying the panhandlers." (Marcy H.)
.
.
Marcy, the wealthy don't create poverty, any more than fit people create obesity.

Most people don't understand economics, nor how systems work.

For instance, Jeff Bezos hasn't, "Taken too much wealth, depriving others of their fair share," in fact, Jeff Bezos HASN'T taken ANY wealth out of the system at all. In reality, he's created 50X, or more wealth than he himself is worth.

I say that, despite strongly disliking and vehemently disagreeing with Jeff Bezos Leftist political views, as mouthpieced by the Washington Post.

In truth, it's the panhandlers and healthy, "poor" people who, absent the ability to invent new products and start new businesses, don't throw themselves into WORK...in mines, or trucking, or any of the many other arduous tasks that constantly need new workers after using up the youth of the current crop, that are the "takers." They..."the poor," OWE.

They owe the machinery of industrialization their youth, their health their lives....we all do. It comes with being a willing participant in modern society.

I've long supported the "Binary Choice" Plan...WORK, or INSTITUTION (prison). Those unemployed, living in low employment areas, like NY, CA, NJ, etc would be assigned work, wherever they're needed. A poor person from New York might be assigned a job in a mine in rural Nevada. It'd be like getting drafted into Military Service, if you refuse, you're sent to prison, under such conditions, as to incentivize your taking the job you're assigned.

Freedom is a good thing, perhaps the greatest thing, but in the modern welfare state, it is too often abused.

What is needed, is a means to...incentivizing work and punishing sloth. A means to guiding people to the right and productive choice.
.
.
.
The response from Marcy H was, "They do. You're brainwashed and suffer from Stockholm Syndrome at the very least. You're not alone, so there is company in this abject ignorance of how things work."
.
.
Generally I DON'T suffer fools gladly, but today, with so many people having been miseducated, well, it's worth trying to reach out and light that candle to light the darkness.

So, I responded, "Innovators and entrepreneurs are the ONLY force that creates wealth.

"Government plays NO PART in wealth creation, NOR jobs creation. Government action is a wealth destroyer, or SPENDER.

"Appx. 18% of Americans work for local, state or federal government. They work in POSITIONS, not JOBS.

"A public school teacher, or Municipal salary is ENTIRELY a COST to taxpayers.

"A JOB, creates marketable goods and services. Private enterprise and the COMMERCE it generates creates all the JOBS in this country and tax revenues from those JOBS and enterprises fuel all our government spending, including the salaries, pensions and benefits for all those POSITIONS, as well as all other government spending.

"All of that is just basic economics.

"Western Marxists are generally extremely well off and out of touch with economic reality. They tend to be corpulent (that's fat) people, who tend to be lazy thinkers, as well.

"The GOOD NEWS is, it's never too late to get fit, mentally AND physically.

"Economics is a very accessible topic.

"One of the very best at imparting economic sense is the late, Milton Friedman. Here's Part 1 of his 10 Part Series "Free to Choose" (https://youtu.be/D3N2sNnGwa4)

"WARNING: Nazis, Marxists and other anti freedom types are often triggered by these ideas."
.

Why This Raging Obsession With Trump?

Donald J. Trump

.

.
At first glance, the outrage over the recent release of William Barr's summary of the Mueller report is puzzling.

After all AG Barr did quote a critical portion of that report that was very clear about their finding no evidence of Russian Collusion with the Trump team. He also quoted a portion that made no determination on obstruction, leaving that up to William Barr, who said he didn't find enough evidence of that charge either.

There is STILL a hysterical hope among some that, "When the entire report is released, we'll see that William Barr was wrong. There is STILL a determined belief among some that, "We WILL get him (Trump)."

WHY?

Why do so many refuse to accept the results of this report?

It's NOT ideological. It's NOT based in an opposition to bad policies. The economy is booming and there's no substantial support for, even a more open border policy. If there was, the same people would've been outraged by the very strident, anti illegal immigration comments Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama and others have made over the past decade. There was no such outrage then, so it would seem to indicate the current "outrage" is not genuine.

So, it seems to be a personal dislike of Trump's contentious personality, fueled by the "team sports" political environment that exists today, but there's more...something fanciful, but insidious.

There seems a hope among Democrats and "Progressives" that impeaching Trump would end what they see as "America's Nationalist nightmare."

No chance.

9/11 infused a large segment of the American people with a renewed sense of patriotism and national pride. In most, that passion has NOT diminished.

Worse still, two protracted and costly wars that continued into even costlier and bloody rebuilding efforts, attempting to remake some Middle Eastern countries over in our image, eroded the faith of many Americans in the priorities of their establishment leadership.

Add to that, a government created sub-Prime mortgage crisis, in which BOTH political Parties got behind an effort to loosen traditional lending criteria by banks that required government guaranteeing those sub-Prime loans. The result was a massive mortgage meltdown and subsequent global financial crisis.

The result of this was a complete loss of faith in America's establishment. That's been borne out by the fact that not a single establishment politician has won the Presidency since 2004.

In 2008, an unknown, inexperienced Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama, who won a U.S. Senate seat via scandal, came out of nowhere to overtake establishment Democrat, Hillary Clinton, to go on to beat a hapless John McCain. President Obama held that office for two consecutive terms and in 2016, the early expectations were for a Jeb/Hillary showdown.

What happened?

First, the GOP base put 4 outsiders, Trump, Carson, Fiorina and Cruz ahead of every GOP establishment (GOPe) candidate.

The DNC then rigged their Primaries to make sure Hillary Clinton was corronated. That worked. Unfortunately for them, Hillary Clinton never had a cause, nor even a reason why she should've been elected President, EXCEPT "It's my turn."

2016 was supposed to have been "a return to normalcy," a return to establishment rule and an end to the Nationalism that was ascendant across the globe. After all, we'd just spent a decade and a half and trillions of dollars trying to put down the Nationalism that arose in the Arab-Muslim world in the form of its return to strict, Sharia-based Islam.

The next target was supposed to be the Euro Nationalism that had blossomed across that continent. Had Hillary been elected  the EU would've been bolstered and the hope was that Euro Nationalism would be put down.

Instead, Steve Bannon has been working with European leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orban, Austria's Sebastian Kurz and Poland's Andrzej Duda. In Brazil, a Leftist government failed and, as a result, the very Nationalist, pro free market Jair Bolsonaro has been elected there.

The hope among American Liberals and "Progressives" that "ending Trump should end this American Nationalism," is a false one.

It doesn't end. The same people who helped fund Trump here will continue providing financial and material support to Bolsonaro and the Euro Nationalists and there's nothing we can do about that.

I'd suggest "Abandoning all hope" of any "return" to America's once highly touted Anglo-American Globalism/One Worldism.

There's no turning back from the extreme and growing polarization gripping this country, so long as the Left insists on trying to revive a dead Globalism/One Worldism.