The Cost of Bidenomics A new study on Biden’s tax, health-care, energy and regulation proposals predicts $6,500 less in median household income by 2030.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cost-of-bidenomics-11603055037?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Joe Biden has shrewdly kept the campaign focus on Covid-19 and President Trump, which has helped him avoid having to talk much about his own policies. That’s especially true of his economic proposals, which a new study out Sunday from the Hoover Institution shows will have a damaging impact on growth, job creation and household income.

Mr. Biden often cites Moody’s, the credit-rating service, for saying his economic plan will yield faster growth and more jobs. “Wall Street,” he likes to say when he mentions Moody’s, as if that’s a conservative stamp of approval, even as he claims Mr. Trump is a captive of Wall Street.

But everyone knows most economists at today’s big financial institutions have a Keynesian bias that posits consumer demand and government spending as the main drivers of growth. That’s certainly true at Moody’s, whose chief economist is Mark Zandi, who in our view underestimates the impact of higher tax rates and regulation in his economic calculations. This isn’t a personal criticism, but a factual statement about his economic model.

We are also not predicting a “depression,” as Mr. Trump does, if Mr. Biden wins the election. On dire economic predictions, Mr. Trump is the mirror image of Paul Krugman on the left. The data show that the U.S. economy is recovering from the pandemic shutdowns faster than most economists predicted. Democrats may attempt to portray the economy as a disaster that requires trillions of dollars in new spending, but Mr. Biden would inherit an economy with strong growth momentum.

5 Other Things We’ll Learn About Biden After The Election

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/10/19/5-other-things-well-learn-about-biden-after-the-election/

For weeks, Joe Biden has played coy about whether he’d pack the Supreme Court with liberals should he win the White House and Democrats take control of the Senate. The media has largely ignored the issue, as they have anything that might harm Biden’s chances.

So what else isn’t Biden, or the press, telling us? What else will voters learn after they’ve cast their ballots? We can think of five things that, had voters known about them before Nov. 3, would have no doubt sapped support for Biden.

1. Biden is a far-left liberal with a big agenda. In his one debate with President Donald Trump, Biden seemed to distance himself from his party’s far left. He said he wasn’t in favor of the Green New Deal, and didn’t support Medicare for All. His entire campaign is built around saying nothing about what he’d do as president, other than be a nice guy.

Biden’s succeeded because on the few occasions where he’s answered questions from the media, they lob him softballs. But make no mistake, Biden is fully on board with his party’s far-left agenda, something we’ve been pointing out in these pages for months.

The Green New Deal that Biden says he opposes, for example, is contradicted by his own campaign website: “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”

Biden wants to eliminate carbon emissions from power plants by 2035, which is only five years later than the socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. He plans to reach net-zero carbon emissions for the entire country by 2050, which is the same deadline as the GND.

On Medicare for All, Biden has simply sidestepped the issue with his proposal to create a “public option” for everyone. Moderate Democrats rejected the public option in 2010 because they knew that it would quickly lead to the elimination of private insurance. Biden’s plan will reach the same destination as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All.

Biden’s tax-and-spend plans are just as ambitious, and on social issues, Biden is as leftist as they get.

Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now My interview with scholar, activist, author, and “heretic” Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Jason D. Hill

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/ayaan-hirsi-ali-interview-jason-d-hill/

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somalian-born, Dutch-American scholar, former politician, author and activist, is also one of the world’s leading public intellectuals. She is known for her critiques of Islam, and her intransigent devotion to freedom of speech. She is the author of numerous books. Her latest is Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.

Hirsi Ali is also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and the founder of the AHA Foundation which is a non-profit organization for the defense of women’s rights. The organization fights against female genital mutilation and forced marriages.

Hirsi Ali’s life is proof that grit, tenacity and an exalted vision for one’s life can result in the achievement of greatness. Born in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1969 and raised as a devout Muslim before later leaving the religion, Hirsi Ali spent her childhood among her birthplace, Saudi Arabia and Kenya where she learned English. She fled Kenya for Germany pending an arranged marriage she had no choice in formulating. Alone, but armed with a heroic spirit and a belief in life’s better possibilities, she quietly boarded a train from Bonn to Amsterdam. There, she ended up in a refugee camp, was granted asylum, and worked for a while cleaning factories. Hirsi Ali learned and mastered Dutch from scratch within a year. She eventually earned a university degree in political science and, at age 33, was elected to the Dutch parliament.

She fled Holland after receiving death threats for working on the film Submission with Theo Van Gogh, who was shot eight times and murdered by a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan Islamist terrorist.

In Heretic, Hirsi Ali makes several uncompromising statements about Islam. She writes that violence is inherent in Islam, and that Islam is not a religion of peace. She submits that this does not mean that Islamic belief makes Muslims naturally violent. Rather, the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Hirsi Ali argues that this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by a number of offenses including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and threats to the honor of family and Islam itself.

A dignified human being with a rarefied mind, and possessed of an almost preternatural calmness, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, while preparing for the publication of her new book Prey, granted me the pleasure of this interview.

The Despair of Feminism By David Solway

https://pjmedia.com/columns/david-solway-2/2020/10/17/the-despair-of-feminism-n1066231

“The relationship between men and women,” writes Megan Fox in her recent book Believe Evidence: The Death of Due Process from Salome to #MeToo, “is a mysterious and beautiful thing. When each is acting within their boundaries, there is no end to the joy that comes from male and female love, familial or romantic.” The weakening of men and the empowerment of women, as “women claw their way to ever increasing power and fix men (especially young, white men), in their crosshairs,” destroy the sexual, romantic and institutional bond between the sexes. Similarly, the common preachment that men should jettison their manhood and become more like women is to distort the gender relationship and introduce a schism into the culture that can lead only to turmoil and unhappiness for both men and women. Male feminist Michael Kimmel ludicrously claims in Angry White Men that “abandoning that sense of masculine entitlement actually enables us to live happier lives.” On the contrary, the upshot is social misery.

“Radical androgyny,” writes Stephen Baskerville in The New Politics of Sex, is the consequence of the effort to control and punish men for their natural sexuality and to deny that “relationships between men and women should be regulated by social conventions that recognize the differences between men and women.” When nature is violated, domestic anarchy becomes the rule, not the exception, the feature, not the bug. This may partly explain why marriage is in decline and the MGTOW movement (Men Going Their Own Way) is gathering momentum.

Feminists have sold their birthright for a messy cottage, and will come increasingly to suffer for it in the coin of regret, loneliness and despair. In The Sickness unto Death, Danish philosopher and master ironist Soren Kierkegaard discussed the source of feminine despair, which he sensed gradually taking hold of the feminine psyche. Women, he felt, were being encouraged to file, so to speak, for self-divorce, to violate their own essential nature, which he understood as the capacity for devotion. “In devotion she loses herself, and only then is happy, only then is she herself…Take this devotion away, then her self is also gone.” “Devotedness” is her essential nature. Kierkegaard, a devout Christian, clearly had Matthew 16:26 in mind: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? The word “man,” of course, is intended generically. 

Belarus: More Human Rights Violations by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16623/belarus-human-rights

Belarusians want an end to Lukashenko’s 26-year long rule of Soviet-style authoritarianism with unfree elections, a censored media and widespread repression of political dissent. Both the US and the EU have described the recent election as neither free nor fair.

Lukashenko, however, clinging onto power, has framed the protests as “foreign interference”. The claim serves both as an excuse to crack down on the protests and to ensure the support of Russia.

Since the election [on August 9], more than 10,000 people have been detained and at least 244 people have been implicated in criminal cases on various charges related to the protests, according to Viasna human rights center leader Ales Bialiatski.

Now that Lukashenko is being pressured both internationally and at home, he is completely beholden to Putin, who is likely to take full advantage of this position by conditioning his help and support on Lukashenko’s acceptance of further “integration” with Russia. Ultimately, this could lead to a “soft” power grab by Putin – no need for military invasions — in which Putin could finally bring about the close “integration” from Belarus — “coming closer together” socially and economically — that Putin has previously sought.

For two months, Belarusians have turned out in force every Sunday, drawing up to 200,000 protesters against the August 9 presidential election, which gave President Alexander Lukashenko, a crushing if highly dubious victory.

Belarusians want an end to Lukashenko’s 26-year long rule of Soviet-style authoritarianism with unfree elections, a censored media and widespread repression of political dissent. Both the US and the EU have described the recent election as neither free nor fair.

Lukashenko’s main challenger, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who received nearly 10% of the vote, was detained after contesting the election results and fled to Lithuania, She had said that she was ready to serve as a temporary “national leader” and hold new free and fair elections. For that purpose, she and other members of the opposition formed an opposition council, a move that prompted prosecutors to open a criminal case against the council with the claim that it had been set up as an illegal attempt to seize power. Since the council’s creation in mid-August, most of its leaders have been detained, several of them abducted and then expelled from the country. One of the last free members of the council, Maxim Znak, was dragged out of his office by masked men on September 9, detained and charged with “incitement to undermine national security”.

Who Is Responsible for the ‘Crisis’ in Islam? by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16660/islam-crisis

Other Arabs said that Muslims have only themselves to blame for the “crisis” in their religion. They are referring to the use of Islam, by many Muslims, to carry out terrorist attacks and other atrocities against Muslims and non-Muslims.

The message these Arabs and Muslims are sending is: We created the crisis in our religion by allowing terrorists and extremists to use Islam as a pretext for their crimes.

The views expressed by these Arabs and Muslims are reminiscent of those by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi. In 2014, he called for a “religious revolution” in Islam and appealed to leading Muslim groups to “confront the misleading ideologies harming Islam and Muslims worldwide.”

“The fact is that the biggest conspirators against Islam are the Muslims themselves, specifically those who reproduce the discourse of closed-mindedness and hatred. In this context, there is no difference between those who create, finance or carry out terrorism and those who are silent about it or justify it.” — Mohammad Maghouti, Moroccan writer, Hespress, October 13, 2020.

“[W]e have to call on France to place the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations.” — Nervana Mahmoud, prominent Egyptian commentator and blogger, Al Hurrah, October 11, 2020.

“The crisis that Islam is suffering from was made by Muslims with their own hands when they allowed a handful of them to adopt violence as a language for dialogue with the other. Macron was right in everything he said. His message should be considered a wake-up call. Muslims have greatly offended Islam when they showed it to be a religion that incites violence and spreads chaos in stable societies that received them as refugees and provided them with protection. Muslims made a mistake when they used their religion as a justification for attacking others. This does not give us the right to condemn others and accuse them of being hostile to Islam. Islam is in crisis because it has been distorted, mutilated, and destroyed from within. We should have said thank you to Macron rather than curse him.” — Farouk Yousef, Egyptian writer, Middle East Online, October 13, 2020.

The Unapologetic Bias of the American Left by Victor Davis Hanson *****

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/18/the-unapologetic-bias-of-the-american-left/

Today’s Left sees their efforts bending in a preordained historical arc that ends with ultimate progressive justice—and retributions.

Some yearn for the ancient monopolistic days of network news, the adolescent years of public radio and TV, and the still reputable New York Times—when once upon a time the Left at least tried to mask their progressivism in sober and judicious liberal façades. 

An avuncular Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Jim Lehrer, or Abe Rosenthal at least went through the motions of reporting news that was awkward or even embarrassing to the Left. Their agenda was 1960s-vintage Great Society liberalism, seen as the natural evolution from the New Deal and post-war internationalism. Edward R. Murrow, the ACLU of old, and Free Speech Movement at Berkeley—these were their liberal referents. Those days are gone.

Yet even during the Obama years, when studies showed the president had received the most slanted media honeymoon in news history, overt media bias was, at least, as hotly denied as it intensified. There were still a few ossified, quarter-hearted efforts now and then to mention the IRS scandal, the surveillance of Associated Press reporters, the various scandals embroiling the Veterans Administration, General Service Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Secret Service. But even that thin pretense is over now, too.

Racism, Cancel Culture, and Hypocrisy At Harvard Witnessing the ruthless dismantling of free thought.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/racism-cancel-culture-and-hypocrisy-harvard-richard-l-cravatts/

As racism continues to engulf campuses in paroxysms of aggrievement and perceived oppression by black students, Harvard University has become another in the growing list of universities where professors found themselves victims of the cancel culture. At UCLA, University of Chicago, Cornell, and Skidmore, faculty members were maligned and threatened with termination for purportedly critiquing Black Lives Matter, defending the police against attacks for perceived racist brutality, and even questioning the extent and reality of anti-black racism at their respective institutions and outside the campus walls.

At Harvard one of the current faculty targets is David Kane, Preceptor in Statistical Methods and Mathematics in the university’s Department of Government, who first made the apparently unforgivable error of inviting Charles Murray to speak to his Gov 50 class. Murray, of course, is a political scientist, libertarian, and the author of the still-controversial 1994 book, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, in which the authors demonstrate, in the most inflammatory section, genetic differences in intelligence between whites and blacks. Although Murray was going to discuss his new book, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class in Kane’s class, it was Murray’s reputation as an alleged racist white supremacist that was on students’ minds when they learned of the upcoming speech.

To make matters worse for Kane, some of his assiduous students uncovered racist posts he had allegedly written on his website EphBlog. over the course of several years under the pseudonym “David Dudley Field ’25.”

China is Using Companies like Twitter to Interfere in the Election Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter’s businesses are tethered to the Communist regime. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/china-using-companies-twitter-interfere-election-daniel-greenfield/

Last year, Amazon was forced to shut down its marketplace business in the People’s Republic of China. Amazon’s defeat followed that of a long line of Big Tech players who had tried to make a go of it in China and failed miserably. China’s economy is built to boost domestic businesses and foreign exports, with some needed imports, by companies linked to the Communist Party.

And no matter how politically correct Amazon may try to be, it can never join that club.

But Amazon’s business in China isn’t done. To a large degree, Amazon’s business is China. Behind the smiling logo, the massive array of businesses covering everything from running the CIA’s cloud to spending $500 million to make a Lord of the Rings streaming series, are a bunch of grim offices, apartments, and warehouses in Chinese cities that make up its real business.

Three years ago, third-party sellers topped Amazon’s own sales. They now make up 58%. Who are they? If, like most Americans, you shop at the giant dot com retail monopoly, you’ve already waded through a stream of random shop names, fake misspelled reviews, and counterfeit products while searching for just about anything. What happened? China happened.

Between 40% to 48% of top third-party sellers on Amazon are operating out of China. The massive growth in Chinese third-party sellers has been fairly recent and transformative.

Muslim Beheads Man on French Street, and Here We Go Again Once again we get the same mind-numbing denial and willful ignorance we always see after jihad attacks. Robert Spencer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/muslim-beheads-man-french-street-and-here-we-go-robert-spencer/

It happened again on Friday: a Muslim migrant from Chechnya, screaming “Allahu akbar,” beheaded a schoolteacher, Samuel Paty, on a street in a Paris suburb for the crime of showing cartoons of Muhammad to his students. The response to this gruesome jihad murder has been as predictable, and dreary, and drearily predictable, as one might expect.

In response to the murder, French President Emmanuel Macron said: “This battle is ours and it is existential. They will not pass. Obscurantism and the violence that goes with it will not win. They will not divide us. That’s what they seek and we must stand together.”

This sounds great on the first hearing. That’s the idea. But in reality, “They will not divide us” is a statement that is designed to reassure Muslims in France. Macron is saying that he will do nothing to “divide” the supposedly happily united French people. What would “divide” them? Well, something like scrutinizing the Islamic death penalty for blasphemy and challenging Muslim leaders in France to repudiate it explicitly and declare their support for the freedom of speech, and to demonstrate their sincerity by instituting programs in mosques and Islamic schools in France to teach against Sharia blasphemy laws and emphasize the importance of the freedom of speech. That would “divide us.” Macron is saying it won’t happen, as expected.