Anthony Galli

There’s a viral video going around of a woman who approached Post Malone’s car. Here's the video + Kanye losing his cool + my analysis.

Popular #trending song on YouTube, which has recently been used by Apple for their new iPhone commercial highlights the descent of American culture.

Politics should be focused on policy. But we live in a democracy with a massive low-information electorate and so if conservatives want our policies to prevail we sometimes have to speak at a level most voters will understand. We need to gossip...

The left sometimes asks the right, “What vision do you offer for the future?” I empathize with the question because after all, conservatives aren’t promising “free” healthcare, housing, university, etc. in the name of “compassion” or “equality.” Conservatives tend to focus on why “free” is bad and suggest “tax cuts and deregulation” are better, which isn’t particularly persuasive to people who don’t pay taxes nor own much. We need to offer our own concrete conservative vision for the future that young people can grasp onto and fight for. So what do we offer? We offer the future!

Exploring the implications of UFOs.

Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate. Sometimes described as the "father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy. He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books. He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll. Chomsky spoke at the University of Minnesota on April 15, 1997. 0:00 Noam Chomsky on Balancing the Budget 10:48 Military Spending Isn't the Primary Driver of Innovation 11:31 Both Parties Support Welfare Spending on the Poor 12:31 Both Parties Support Welfare Spending on the Rich 13:16 Socialism for All vs. Capitalism for All 16:28 Balancing the Budget is Sensible Noam Chomsky’s correct that Republicans want to increase defense spending, which it’s interesting he didn’t argue against it as many leftists typically do because he credits the Pentagon for much of our modern innovation. Swish! Republicans? With that said, his evidence is EXTREMELY weak for such a bold endorsement of military-driven innovation because otherwise North Korea and the Soviet Union would be one of the most innovative countries on Earth. Defense spending can incentivize private investment to help achieve certain national goals(to the Mooooooon!), but overall there’s a lot of evidence that the military-industrial complex crowds out privately financed R&D and drains the private sector of much of its top researchers. Chomsky’s main complaint, therefore, is that Republicansonly care about balancing the budget when it pertains to welfare spending on the poor. He’s factually wrong though. Republicans have continuously supported welfare spending on the poor. In the last 40 years, Republican politicians have consistently voted for federal budgets that increase welfare spending. In addition, Republican presidents have signed into law such anti-poverty legislation as:XYZ On the state level, Republican politicians have also supported welfare spending on the poor. And on an individual level, many Republican voters are on food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. If Chomsky’s claim was accurate then in 2016 when Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency they would’ve cut welfare spending on the poor, but in fact, they increased it. Overall, the U.S. spends about 20% of its GDP on social welfare spending, which is more than Australia, Canada, and Switzerland. This is a MASSIVE amount too when you consider the U.S. has the largest GDP in human history. Generally, Republicans support less welfare spending than Democrats, but it’s dishonest populist pandering leftist straw-manning to suggest they don’t support it at all. Both parties support welfare spending on the rich. Unfortunately, Chomsky’s correct here that both parties support corporate welfare. As Noam Chomsky points out, “The extent to which corporations rely on the nanny state is often not realized.” Since the 1980s, Big Business started lobbying for more regulations and government spending. Famous recent examples are the 2008 bailouts, Obamacare, Walmart/Amazon lobbying for a higher minimum wage, and Big Tech endorsing aGlobal Minimum Corporate Tax. This isn’t a bug in the system, but an INEVITABLE consequence of any big centralized government hence why any socialist vision that doesn’t acknowledge this reality is fundamentally utopian. The only way to reduce cronyism & corruption in D.C. is to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Chomsky proposes:we need to downsize D.C! Socialism for All (vs.) Free Market for All. Chomsky wants to give the ruling 1% even more power/control over your life. Want to choose your own doctor? Nope. Want to choose your own teacher? Nope. Want to start your own business? Nope. Chomsky wants politicians/bureaucrats/academics to dictate virtually everything about your life,“for your own good,”of course. And although there are many socialists who come to power with good intentions,absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the ruling elite inevitably put their own self-interest over the collective interest because humans are naturally self-interested. Anyone who promises you something for nothing should be treated as a scammer no matter if they’re speaking from an Ivory Tower, the halls of Congress, or a Nigerian “palace.” Read FULL Essay @ www.AnthonyGalli.com

What if Trump made a religion? Does anyone doubt there wouldn’t at least be a few thousand people willing to convert? And then once the Church of Trump becomes an established religion with thousands of followers, a temple, and its own holy book with Trump as the Last Last True Prophet then based on the “Terms of Service” of social media companies no one would be allowed to criticize Trump and his followers ever again in our digital townhalls! Because you’ll be labeled“Trumphobic!” Banned. End of rational discussion. “You may not promote violence against ordirectly attackor threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” You see, it wouldn’t matter if Trump became apedophileby consummating apolygamousmarriage with a 9-year-old girl, owned sexslaves, robbed caravans, killed enemies, advocated for the death penalty ofapostates/gays/adulterers, encouraged beating “arrogant” wives, cursedhair extensions/alcohol/tattoos/music, proclaimed a woman’s opinion one-half a man’s infinancial transactions, wedded his daughter to hisfirst cousin,promised 72 “transparent” virgins and “beautiful” young boys for martyrdom, or made countless verifiably false statements aboutscience, if you criticize the perfect human then you could be labeled Trumphobic and therefore be banned. After all, there are over 50 verses in Trumpology’s Holy Book telling us to take the Last Last True Prophet as a role model. God says, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example to follow.” — Chapter 33, Verse 21 47: 33 Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and do not let your deeds go to waste. 58: 20 Those who oppose Allah and His Messenger are among the lowliest. A follower must either basically endorse everything the most perfect human did because after all who are you to sham the Last Last True Prophet or you acknowledge he wasn’t perfect and therefore, in my opinion, you're no longer be a true follower of the faith. We should have the courage to live by our convictions or the courage to acknowledge they were wrong. In a rational world, we’d rebuke anyone who believed such a human was the closest thing to perfection. Read Full Article @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/

A high corporate tax rate forces multinational corporations to move their headquarters overseas in order to stay price competitive with other multinational corporations, i.e. a“race to the bottom.” The U.S. had the highest corporate tax rate in the world until President Trump reduced it to a more competitive level. Biden has proposed increasing the corporate tax rate again, but his policymakers must be aware that unless the U.S. can force independent nations to get on board with raising their’s too then effectively Biden would be incentivizing the offshoring of even more of America’s economic capacity. Introducing: TheGlobal Minimum Tax. The G-7 recently endorsed a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called it a return to multilateralism and a sign that countries can tighten the tax net on profitable firms. Tech companies, in particular, pay relatively little in taxes where they operate.Does this mean Big Tech is against a Global Minimum Tax? No. Nick Clegg, Facebook’s Vice President of Global Affairs, said the deal is a“step toward certainty for businesses”when it comes to taxes. An Amazon spokesperson called the agreement"a welcome step forward,”and a Google spokesperson said,"We strongly support the work being done to update international tax rules. We hope countries continue to work together to ensure a balanced and durable agreement will be finalized soon.” When Big Tech supports a government action meant to curb its power then let that serve as a massive red flag. Objectively, there are several reasons why a Global Minimum Tax Rate is a terrible economic policy… For one, corporate taxeshurt workers. Studies show that for every $1 generated for the government, 65¢ is taken from workers’ wallets. “High corporate taxes divert capital away from the U.S. corporate sector and toward noncorporate uses and other countries. They therefore limit investments that would raise the productivity of American workers and would increase real wages. This is the cruel logic of a corporate tax in a global economy—that its burden falls most heavily on workers.” Secondly, to get the few small nations like Ireland who are beneath the 15% Global Minimum Tax to agree to the hike then the G-7 would have to threaten Ireland with penalties and tariffs to force her compliance. Imperialistic, eh? Third, if a Global Minimum Tax was implemented, which would take years, and then assuming every nation on Earth agrees to it, thenwhat is stopping nations from giving subsidies and tax exemptions to offset the rise of their corporate tax rate?If China gets on board with a GMT then you know this proposal is largely smoke-and-mirrors because their tech companies are effectively state-owned and heavily subsidized. To enforce the GMT somewhat fairlywould require more global oversight and regulations, which big tech companies would be the best situated to take advantage of. If a GMT was implemented then I think Big Tech would become even more subsidized by taxpayers around the globe.In other words, corruption will rise! But let’s put all that aside and assume the GMT would be implemented everywhere without any loopholes… I’d still argue it’d be a step in the wrong direction. It’s already easy enough for governments to take money from their citizens and businesses. We shouldn’t be building a global economic system around top-down force, but bottom-up freedom. Don’t compel obedience, but attract investment!The CEO of Microsoft has already warned us that we could live in 1984 world by… 2024. A GMT would be just one more step toward global authoritarianism. You’ve been warned. With that said, taxes are necessary to any civilized society and I agree that the megarich should pay more so what is a better alternative than a Global Minimum Corporate Tax? Introducing:A National Minimum Tariff This is the exact sort of policy the megarich and the influence-industrial-complex hate, but it helped build the American Middle Class. I’m not suggesting we go back up to the 30% - 50% import tariff we saw during the height of the Industrial Revolution, but what about to 5% or 10%? And then fornations that suppress free speech, which threatens us all in our global economy, what if we tack on an additional 5% to 10%? READ FULL ARTICLE @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/

President Biden asked other wealthy democracies to sign a strongly worded letter condemning China’s use of forced labor. Kudos Biden! Despite Biden being weak on China in the run-up to the 2020 election whereby Democrats dishonestly sought to minimize America’s greatest foreign policy threat, they are now starting to acknowledge that Trump was right. Democrats undeniably put their political self-interest over national interest by downplaying China’s human rights abuses, military aggression, intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, economic colonization, and responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic. The latter of which we should’ve been strategically calling the “China virus,” but Democrats called that hate speech and so therefore what would’ve been a useful way to highlight China’s culpability was tossed aside in the interest of making Trump look xenophobic. If we as Americans embraced the reality that not only did the virus come from China, but more importantly, that this pandemic was largely created by the CCP’s suppression of whistle-blowers, then the G-7 would’ve been beyond fussing over wording and instead implementing economic sanctions. Anthony“In Fauci We Trust”Fauci still doesn’t know if the virus was made in a lab! You’d think getting to the bottom of this would be a top international priority so it doesn’t happen again. Americans should be outraged at China right now, but Democrats have been so successful in downplaying China’s responsibility for COVID-19 that the only political capital the G-7 had was to include this short paragraph in their 27-page communique whereby they ask China to be nicer. Pretty please? “Calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang and those rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.” I suppose it’s better than nothing. At least the Biden family isn’t trying to continue to profit off the presidency’s prestige by selling access to the largest Chinese buyer. But hopefully, the G-7 will eventually be tougher on China because otherwise, we’ll get more and moreJohn Cena’s apologizing in Chinese You also know the West is in a perilous situation when “China Joe” is pushing the hardest to condemn China. “Biden had pushed to include stronger language on China’s forced labor practices, especially in the agricultural, solar and garment sectors. The leaders of Germany, Japan, and the European Commission, because of their economic ties to China, were reluctant to be so explicit.” The clocking is ticking because with each passing moment Europe will continue to fall more and more under the iron grip of another ethnocentric state. “Germany, which exports millions of cars to China annually, is among allies skeptical of a hard stance against China that could backfire. Japan, a close neighbor and trading partner of China, has also been wary. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga told Biden as much when they met at the White House in April. And Italy signed a 2019 memorandum of understanding with China to join its “Belt and Road Initiative,” the sprawling infrastructure development project that the G-7 is now attempting to blunt.” Germany, Italy, and Japan seem to be a bit too indifferent of genocide again. History history… history. China Response: "No Speak English" Read FULL Article @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/g-7-politely-asks-china-to-respect

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a border security plan that includes enforcing the law, building more wall, and activating EMAC. "We’re going to start making arrests—sending a message to anyone thinking about coming here—you’re not getting a free pass. You’re getting a straight pass to a jail cell." EMAC is an interstate compact that seeks financial & human support from other states during an emergency situation such as hurricanes, storms, floods, wildfires, and most recently COVID-19. Both Governor Abbott and Arizona Governor Ducey have activated EMAC to seek from other states additional law enforcement officers, drones, and helicopters to help with the surge in illegal crossings. In a statement, Abbott acknowledged that the Biden administration’s policies have created a humanitarian crisis at the southern border with record levels of illegal immigrants, drugs, and weapons pouring into Texas. "While securing the border is the federal government’s responsibility, Texas will not sit idly by as this crisis grows. The state is working collaboratively with communities impacted by the crisis to arrest and detain individuals coming into Texas illegally. Our efforts will only be effective if we work together to secure the border, make criminal arrests, protect landowners, rid our communities of dangerous drugs, and provide Texans with the support they need and deserve. This is an unprecedented crisis, and Texas is responding with the most robust and comprehensive border plan the nation has ever seen." Unfortunately, the Biden administration has put identity politics over protecting the American people, but hey, at least Biden isn’t tweeting mean things right? Vice President Harris, who Biden tasked with overseeing the border, seems to think the humanitarian crisis is funny. Some speculate she refuses to go to the southern border because it would make for a bad “photo-op.” The Biden Administration blocked reporters from taking photos of “kids in cages” by using COVID-19 as a pretext. Even liberal media outlets condemn them for this abuse of power because it corrodes trust in “trust the science” when they use a global pandemic to hide their own hypocrisy. The truth is that the Democratic Party has been the party of “kids in cages” because of their reluctance to stop or deport illegal immigrants, which is why the Obama administration built those cages in the first place. If American schools had succeeded in teaching critical thinking then most Democrats would acknowledge that border walls work and that Trump’s threat to “make Mexico pay for it” was actually effective in reducing illegal crossings. "Mexican officials say Mr. López Obrador feels he has no choice. Last year, Mr. Trump threatened to impose escalating tariffs on Mexico’s exports to the U.S. unless the country did more to stop migrants from reaching the U.S. Such a move would have devastated the Mexican economy, which relies heavily on manufactured exports to the U.S." In all honesty, it really isn’t that difficult for the richest and most powerful country in human history to stop hundreds of thousands of people from illegally crossing the border, but we choose not to. Stopping illegal immigration isn’t about American capability, but political will! Ask yourself: what political party benefits more from America turning into Mexico, Honduras, or Guatemala? If that’s what you want then you know how to vote. For the record, I’m not making a racial point, which my friends on the left are quick to judge people by, but a socio-economic point. Democrats get more votes from the low-income demographic hence why it benefits them to increase the demographic’s size. Anyway, this video isn’t directed at border wall skeptics because if at this point you don’t see the evidence of its effectiveness then I’d effectively be speaking to a wall. This video is directed at fellow patriots and freethinkers. Governor Abbott’s leadership on this humanitarian issue highlights the fact that we don’t need the federal government to fund more wall, drones, and enforcement on the southern border. All we need is Republicans’ putting America First. All 27 Republican Governors could assist Texas and the other border states under EMAC to help “finish the wall” and better fund our border security. But there are three central criticisms of this interstate approach: Retiring a Winning Issue: The problem with solving any political issue is the people who got elected to solve it will no longer have that issue to win on again. The rise in illegal border crossings is a problem that unites and energizes much of the Republican Party. There aren’t many issues that do that, which is why Trump made it the central issue of his 2016 campaign. #BorderWall #BorderEmergency #BorderAuthority Read FULL Article @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/texas-to-build-its-own-border-wall

I’m impressed by Kevin Paffrath’s energy, work ethic, and intelligence. I’d expect a gubernatorial candidate to at least have some elected office experience before running for governor of the largest state in the union, but at this point, anyone would be better than Gavin Newsom. In fact, one of Kevin’s largest assets is his limited record because he can brand himself as a forward-thinking, socially liberal, fed up with the establishment, young Democrat to appeal to California’s massive low-information Democratic base while substantively running on an extremely conservative platform. Do you think that’s an unfair characterization of California Democrats?California has the lowest literacy rate in the country and nearly half of California students can’t read at grade level, which is below our already low national average. Sad! Low-information voters tend to be Democrat. The best predictor of knowledge is not diplomas, but wealth. We also saw this gap in 2016. Reps are increasingly the party of the American Middle Class. Or do you think it’s incorrect to characterize Kevin’s platform as “conservative”? Well, let’s take a look at histop three policy proposalsin the order in which he placed them onhis website… 1. No State Income Tax on the first $250,000 of Income. As you can see Kevin Paffrath’s #1 policy priority is to eliminate state income taxes for people making between $100,000 - $250,000. And then to implement a flat tax for those making over $250,000. --- Meet Kevin Governor Plan REACTION --- If any Republican ran on such a platform in the 2016 presidential primary they would’ve been in my opinion the most conservative candidate on the stage since none of them were suggesting eliminating income taxes for those making over $100K. Kevin justifies his position by saying that if California doesn’t cut taxes for the rich then they will continue to leave the state. True, but the same logic applies to when federal taxes are too high and the rich move their money and businesses overseas, which is a fact many of the left actively ignore or suppress when dreaming up their utopian visions built on the back of taking over 50%, 70%, or even 90% of Americans income. Kevin inadvertently hit on one of the key reasons why communism only works in theory because unless you endorse a government that will severely restrict the free movement of money,people, and goods then money will always flow from more command economies to more capitalist ones. --- Meet Kevin Governor Plan REACTION --- 2. The Homeless Emergency. • Housing for All Homeless within 60 Days via Emergency Powers. • Medical & Substance, Mental Health, and Educational Support Immediately Available. • 3 meals per day and centralized support for all homeless immediately. • No one lives on the streets in our state anymore within 60 days. • The National Guard will be tasked with compassionately serving our homeless community until our Future Facilities are built. Kevin is very effective at branding his policies, but let’s consider what he’s really saying here… The National Guard will “compassionately” force the homeless into camps. He glosses over this fact, but the reality is that many if not most homeless people will not just choose to relocate themselves into camps no matter how many meals or how much mental health treatment they’d be given there. The only way to ensure“no one lives on the streets in our state anymore within 60 days”is tocriminalize homelessnessby fining/jailing people who are squatting, soliciting, and then forcibly relocating them off the streets by either putting them in camps or buying them a one-way bus ticket back from which they came. Kevin’s position here is therefore extremely conservative because he lives in a state where Democrats are already indoctrinated against law enforcement and deporting/detaining illegal immigrants let alone using law enforcement to detain American citizens. 3. Future Schools. • At 14, students have a choice to attend a Future School. Another fantastic conservative proposal. Conservatives support school choice whether it be in the form of vouchers, trade schools, charter schools, or “future” schools.Empowering students is the key to saving America! #MeetKevin #MeetConservative --- Meet Kevin Governor Plan REACTION --- Full Article @ www.AnthonyGalli.com

The President of Microsoft recently said in a BBC interview… "I’m constantly reminded of George Orwell’s lessons in his book 1984. You know the fundamental story…was about a government who could see everything that everyone did and hear everything that everyone said all the time. Well, that didn’t come to pass in 1984, but if we’re not careful that could come to pass in 2024." I want you to really sit and PAUSE with that quote for a second. The President of Microsoft, which is one of the largest tech companies in the world said that we could live in a 1984 world. Not this one… But this one… And he isn’t saying we could live in this type of world in 100 years or 50 years but in less than 4 years. Brad Smith isn’t the first tech billionaire to sound the alarm either. Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO and former Chair of the US National Security Commission, said,“We're in a geo-political strategic conflict with China. The way to win is to marshal our resources together to have national and global strategies for democracies to win in AI.” Elon Musk said, "China, Russia, soon all countries w strong computer science. Competition for AI superiority at national level most likely cause of WW3 imo." And Putin said the nation that leads in AI ‘will be the ruler of the world." I also sounded the alarm when I said in 2017… So what can we as individuals do about this geopolitical and existential crisis? For one,get the word out!When you’re in a heated political conversation about some recent emotional anecdote our media overlords told us to care about then why not occasionally shift the conversation to the big picture? Another way to get the word out is by consuming and sharing content like this. If people start disproportionally clicking on A.I.-related stories then the news would have no choice, but to cover them more. Ideologue drives the news, but so does money. And two,use your money wisely!Buy less from China and invest more in American companies that do A.I. research. Such an investment will not only help democracy & capitalism win the A.I. arms race, but it’ll likely make you money. What is best for the common good is often best for our own good. Read FULL Article @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/microsoft-president-orwells-1984

Before we go forward let’s go back… The Kingdom of Israel was established around 1000 BC predating Christianity and Islam. We could therefore think of Jews as the region’s indigenous population. The region was eventually conquered by Muslims and then Christians and then Muslims and then finally Christians again. “Make Israel Native Again!” Now, I don’t personally find genetic land claims persuasive. I don’t love the idea of passing down massive wealth from father to son let alone to draw a broad line from a millennia ago to the present. I recognize, however, that I may be in the minority here because there are many of my fellow Americans who believe that the federal government should give special privileges, reparations, and land to people simply on the basis of their genetic makeup. Anyway, after many Jews were expelled from their ancient homeland, they were forced to live under Christian and Muslim governments who fluctuated between tolerance and genocide. This is known as the Jewish Diaspora. Naturally, Jews became frustrated by being raped, killed, robbed, and scapegoated for centuries so they requested the League of Nations give them back a piece of their ancient homeland, which since then had basically passed from one colonial power’s hands to the next. The bottom line is Zionist Jews recognized that the best way to defend themselves from antisemitism and preserve themselves from cultural disintegration was to have a state of their own. And then after the most horrific genocide in history where basically the world sat by as Jewish men, women, and children were gassed to death, the British/United Nations offered to split the colonized land into two states: one for Jews and one for Arabs. This should have been hailed as a triumphant victory for the region! The first time it would rule itself since perhaps the Kingdom of Israel, but do you know how the Arab League responded to this gracious offer? War. Genocide against Kurds? Nothing. Genocide against Christians? Nothing. Jews want to establish their own democratic state in a small piece of their ancient homeland where they make up a majority of the population after the most horrific genocide in human history? Arab nations unite in moral indignation to declare war! They didn’t declare war because all of a sudden these theocratic governments developed a deep love for democracy, self-rule, and human rights. It was about maintaining Arab Islamic power. The goal of the Arab League wasn’t a two-state solution or one-state where everyone would be “equal,” i.e. name a Muslim-majority country where Jews are treated as equals or where a single Jew holds elected office? The motive was as many Arab Leaders actively proclaimed to, “drive the Jews into the sea” or as the Secretary-General of the Arab League had threatened, “a war of extermination.” And when I look at some of the quotes of the Quran and Hadas I’m not particularly surprised by the well-documented antisemitic sentiment in the Muslim world. After all, your beliefs affect your behavior. What are Muslim beliefs about Jews? Put yourself in the mindset of somebody who genuinely believes Mohammed was the “last true prophet,” i.e. the “perfect human” or some less generous Muslims consider “the closest a human can ever possibly get to perfection.” Mohammed did what Hamas is trying to do, i.e. after Muhammad felt the Jewish tribes betrayed him, they were almost all exiled, executed, or enslaved. Medina was predominately a Jewish city until Mohammed forced them out. Isn’t it therefore logical for Muslims to want to follow in the footsteps of their prophet by doing to the Jews in their third holiest city (Jerusalem) as Mohammed did to them in their second holiest city (Medina)? Also in the Quran, Jews were turned into “apes and pigs.” Moderate Muslims defend this passage by saying that only the Jews that broke Sabbath were animalized. Oh, okay. And just as we could find quotes from Jewish leaders that strongly condemn Islam there are many quotes from Muslim leaders that interpret the Quran perhaps more literally. Read FULL Article @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/the-future-of-israel-how-the-israel-a95

Nuclear power is an extremely powerful tool. It ended WW2. It accelerated the end of the Cold War because the Soviet Union had to spend a ton of money on its nuclear defense. And nuclear power may AGAIN decide the world’s next global leader, but I don’t think it will be in the form of a bomb, but in the form of a plant - power plant. I believe technological gains in solar energy and battery storage will be enough to solve much of America’s present energy needs, but I worry it won’t be enough to compete with other nations like China who have fully embraced nuclear technology where every 2 - 3 months China builds a new nuclear reactor. And so for America to fall behind the CCP in energy production presents a grave threat to global freedom and human rights because China will undoubtedly rule the world with a robotic fist. It’s hard to imagine a nation with say a million times more energy at their disposable falling behind anyone else. It would be as if in the 20th century a bunch of environmentalists took power in the United States and stopped oil production. The U.S. would never have went through the Industrial Revolution then. This wouldn’t have prevented the world from embracing oil, it would have just prevented the U.S. from leading the world. In our Atomic Age, Nuclear Energy therefore isn’t so much an “energy alternative,” as much as it’s a national security necessity.We need to lead in nuclear power again because whether we like it or not, much like whether we liked nuclear weapons or not, the safest place for America to be is ahead.And so nuclear power is the future. The only question is will we lead it? With that said, I could be wrong about the existence of this brewing nuclear power race. I haven’t heard anyone frame it in these terms, but I think it’s just a natural extension of current trends. Are there serious concerns around nuclear energy production?Sure. I won’t pretend to be a nuclear physicist so I’ll leave the designing and maintaining of nuclear power plants to them, but here are the facts: radiation from 3 Mile Island and Fukishima reportedly killed NO ONE and the areas where the meltdowns occurred statistically stayed within normal radiation levels. And the simple fact is if we use statistics instead of emotional anecdotes to guide public policy then we’d acknowledge that nuclear energy is far, far, far safer than natural gas, oil, and coal. And so if for some reason you needed another clue that mainstream media and Democrat politicians are extremely dishonest just ask them if they support nuclear energy or raising the federal gas tax for that matter? These two policies would do the most to curb carbon emissions in our so-called climate crisis, but instead they prefer to virtue signal by signing toothless international agreements or handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to their favorite green energy political donors. You see, when politicians ACTUALLY think we're in a crisis they respond via innovation deregulation, i.e. Operation Warpspeed. Imagine if decades ago we applied a Warpspeed program to nuclear power then today at least 75% of America's power would come from nuclear. Historically, the speediest drop of greenhouse gas emissions occurred in France when it transitioned to nuclear and today they have about 75% of their power coming from nuclear and that's despite the fact they're by-and-large a less innovative country. And another concern people have about nuclear energy is its waste, but if we took all the nuclear waste of all America’s reactors for the last 60 years it would fit inside a Walmartand so anyone who brings up nuclear waste to try and stop the development of nuclear power honestly has zero credibility on this topic because they either haven’t done their research or their job depends on ignoring it. And so I will conclude by saying to my climate change alarmist friends, Will you join the right by choosing to be onthe right side of historyon one of the most consequential issue of our times or will you put your ego/identity/party above the truth/rationality/America? Because it's clear the future is nuclear.

You can be a Reality TV star. You can be divorced. You can be transgender. You can be a lesbian and have a 46 year age gap with your girlfriend. You can kill someone. You can have 0 elective office experience. And yet… Conservatives would still vote for you! tHe HYpOcRisY?!!! No. High-information voters don’t vote in general elections so much based on “personality” or even “character" as much as we vote based on philosophy. This isn't Miss America. We rather vote for an immoral person who at least shares many of our values(even if they don’t always live up to them because no one's perfect) than a supposedly moral person(as deemed by corporate media)who in all their morality will impose their anti-conservative values on us all by supporting such things as… Taxpayer-funded abortions well past the 8th week when there are signs of brain function and heart beat as well as taxpayer-funded contraception and so-called sex education; Incentivizing childhood poverty & adolescent depression; Demonizing American history & Christianity; Taking away more of our freedom to choose our own doctors/teachers/products; Forcing more of us into college/home/medical debt by centralizing power via a byzantine regulatory state; And confiscating more our hard-earned money to give to people who will likely just feel angrily entitled to more. In the end,a politician is a job. Ideally, we’d want our plumber to be an honest, kind, family man, but who wouldn’t feel forced to hire him if the only alternative is the plumber who makes his money by breaking more pipes than he fixes so he can create more work for himself? For conservatives it basically boils down to:of the two major party candidates running which one will take less of our money and freedom? This is because, in the end, we trust ourselves with our money and freedom more than we do the compassionate bureaucrat.

It’s not surprising young people are socialist when we don’t own anything. We don’t own our homes, cars, labor, subscribers, or much of our income as it’s taken to pay off college debt. If conservatives want young people to be more capitalist than preaching to them about its virtues will only go so far as nature and the system intended humans to be more low-information short-term focused. Therefore to make young people more capitalist we need to make capitalism align more with the youth’s short-term self-interest! We need to Make America Own Again! We need to be a nation of homeowners, business owners, content owners, crypto-owners, and stockholders! Once the average young American has a greater stake in the economy then they’ll care more about its overall health and freedom since it’ll affect their own wallet. There are numerous ways to increase American ownership, but what will have the greatest positive impact is deregulating the banks. I know that’s an unpopular and uncommon opinion precisely because despite what we’ve been taught by the influence-industrial complex it would hurt, not help the 1%! "It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking." In simple terms, the federal government protects big banks from risk in order to encourage lending. Ostensibly, politicians want to make lending easier because they’re so CARING AND COMPASSIONATE! People who couldn’t get a loan in the 80s can now take out a MASSIVE loan to go to college, get a medical treatment, start/invest in a business, buy a home, car, or even a TV. The political pressure to make lending easier is strong in the swamp. Corporations lobby for easy lending so they can make more “investments,” i.e. often stock-buy backs to further drive up their stock price, and so that their customers will also be able to afford more of their products. And the general public likes easy lending too because then they can get that thing they were told they needed NOW and therefore in-debt themselves further into the future. And what inevitably happens with easy lending? Prices go up and up and UP! A buyer is no longer limited by his bank account, but by his appetite for debt! We were taught to blame the big banks for the 2008 financial crash, in part, because academia is one of the greatest beneficiaries of easy lending. But the truth is that the 2008 crash occurred because in the 90s politicians effectively forced big banks to give home mortgages to people who couldn’t afford it. Short-term this meant more poor people could buy their “own” home, i.e. the American Dream. But long-term it caused a massive housing bubble that the banks knew would eventually pop. If the housing market was a genuine free market then housing prices would have course-corrected much sooner as it would have been in the banks financial interest to give less loans to high-risk borrowers, but because the banks could pass much of the risk onto the government via Fannie May and Freddie Mac the banks effectively had no choice but to continue to provide those loans! And in the end, the banks won BIG by doing what the federal government forced them to do and now they’re bigger than ever before not because of a lack of “banking regulation” as is a leftwing fairytale I hear regurgitated to ad nauseam, but BECAUSE of regulations! Fun fact: corporations generally lobby for MORE regulations. To therefore Make America Own Again our bigger-than-ever-before federal government should STOP protecting banks from risk. Just as your friend Joe wouldn’t lend you $300,000 over 30 years so won’t the big banks once the federal government stops being their mafia enforcer. Buyers would therefore be more limited by the money in their pocket again. And then guess what would happen?! The market would readjust itself. And prices would go down and down and DOWN! The price of housing, medicine, cars, and college would drop to a more purchasable level. In addition, even more affordable options would BOOM as businesses would have to craft their products more around what money consumers actually have in their pockets. Instead of just building luxury homes as is the current housing construction trend, one of the great trends I expect to see over the next 30 years is more and more homes being built off-site and easily-detachable from the land you place it on in case you want to move or sell it. Technology is getting to the point where entire skyscrapers could be mobile! Imagine entire cities on automated electric vehicle wheels! Once the rich are more financially incentivized to start building tiny homes then I suspect much of the red tape we see today will miraculously disappear. {CHARACTER LIMIT REACHED} READ FULL POST @ www.AnthonyGalli.com

Hi, I'm Anthony Galli and I find Democrats more often say, “Why do you have to make everything so political?! I don’t want to talk about politics!” But the truth is EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. And the more you want to control MY life then the more I have to care about and influence the choices YOU make. You see, overall, I’m a nonjudgmental person. You do you! But I’ve found that in recent years the left isn’t letting me do me. The influence-industrial complex says, “BE YOURSELF! LIVE YOUR TRUTH! YOU CAN BE WHATEVER YOU SET YOUR MIND TO” that is so long as you’re not conservative or for that matter — rational. Now, it's my belief that you don’t have to look under the hood and think deeply about WHY you like what you like or dislike what you dislike, but if you want to vote, especially if you want to vote for politicians who promise to use force to take more of my money and freedom then I’m going to force you as much as I can to confront your bad beliefs and behaviors because you are making them increasingly negatively affect me! Let’s take obesity. Overeating and a sedentary lifestyle will lead to obesity, which somewhere down the road I’ll be expected to help pay for your high medical bills. It’s therefore my business what you decide to do with your body. And so am I being “mean” if I say, “Hey stranger! Put that burger down. I think you ate enough today!” When I’m no longer effectively paying for that burger then I’ll shut my mouth, but so long as it’s my money then I have a say in what you put in your mouth. Or let's take the overconsumption of TV and video games, which are closely associated with higher rates of depression, loneliness, and poverty. Down the road, I’ll be expected to help pay for your pursuit of instant gratification. Is it mean if I jump into a kid’s TikTok dance where I shake, shimmy, and shout, “Pick up a d*mn book!” Or lastly, if I’m trying to enjoy a nice meal and your kid starts screaming then would it be odd if I whisper, “No more screaming or there will be no dessert for you.” After all, the American taxpayer is increasingly responsible for raising your child from child tax credits, public schooling, public housing, Medicaid, food stamps, college grants, subsidizing Hollywood, etc. The greater the percent your child is being financially supported by the taxpayer then shouldn’t the taxpayer get a greater say in how your child is raised? So anyway, let’s imagine for a second if conservatives returned to being more scathingly conservative, i.e. publicly scolding bad behavior. For one, there’d be more street fights and bar room brawls, but overall we’d see less bad behaviors because humans are social creatures and the youth feel social pressure more. Conservatives used to be more socially critical, but lefty elites have pummeled the average middle-class American into submission. You see, the left is allowed to be critical of conservative behaviors whereas the right has become more censored in our ability to criticize non-conservative behaviors. If individuals were allowed to be more openly critical again of obesity, stupidity, obnoxiousness, rudeness, unprofessional attire, sexualizing youth, overconsumption, divorce, laziness, etc. then we’d actually get less of those behaviors and therefore the country would move more toward the right again where we’d place a higher premium on virtue rather than views. For the record, I don’t agree with scolding strangers for what they wear, such as had happened during this TV News Report from the 1950s... But one has to ask themselves where do they draw the line? What if she was naked? What if she was having s*x? At what point does someone else’s business become your business, especially if they’re a relative or friend? You may cloak your opinion in “whatever the law permits,” but ultimately even the law is an opinion shaped by how conservative a society is... {CHARACTER LIMIT REACHED} READ FULL ARTICLE + MORE @ www.AnthonyGalli.com

This video explores BLM Logic about over-policing and applying it to other areas such as SNAP, i.e. food stamps. What should be defunded and abolished? BLM looks at the fact black communities have a disproportionate police presence to argue they’re“over-policed.” I’d argue, however, that in communities where if you call 9-11 you can be put on “hold” for hours or where a disproportionate amount of crime goes unsolved or where police are forced to work double or even triple shifts then I think such communities are actually under-policed! But it’s interesting to me how BLM doesn’t use their same line of logic about other areas where the black community gets a disproportionate amount of taxpayer funding. Defund food stamps? But seriously, why don’t they? Both security and food are part of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs so I suppose if you can do with less of one you could do with less of the other? And obesity is particularly rampant in poor black neighborhoods therefore killing way more black Americans than police brutality. There ISan argument you could make for defunding the police and food stamps by saying they mask deeper social problems and therefore so long as the bandaid stays on then perhaps the black community will never feel sufficiently forced to address their core problems. In other words, if you’re going to learn how to swim you have to eventually take off the floaties. If poor black communities are going to become more self-sufficient then perhaps they should throw off their federal assistance? Sink or swim! But there are TWO MAIN problems with this. Number #1, a lot of people will die. In cities where police funding was cut we saw an uptick in murders. The truth is if we abolished the police or food stamps then a lot of people will die before things ever potentially got better in those neighborhoods. Second, BLM isn’t so much interested in fixing the core problems of the black community. Thomas Sowell believes the black community’s problems primarily stem from increased single-motherhood and the government monopolization of virtually everything in their communities from education, housing, food, etc. BLM would exacerbate these problems by taking even more power away from black individuals to give to the white-marbled federal government. BLM also wants more Americans to primarily identify with their race, therefore, increasing racial tensions and divisions. Using history as our guide, it just doesn’t seem like more racism and more socialism is what the black community needs. Democrat politicians have been running these inner-cities for 50 years with their so-calledWar on Povertywhere they're basically transitioning black neighborhoods into impoverished Indian Reserves. If the definition of insanity is“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result“then it must be suicidal to want to do more of a failing strategy and expect a better result. With that said, I agree with BLM's desire to shift taxpayer funds, but rather than shifting funds out of police departments. Let’s shift them out of failing public schools andintovouchers, charter schools, job training programs, a national test-taking website, and public parks. According to the U.S. Department of Education, national per-pupil spending for white students was roughly $10,800 and for black students it was $11,400. But even if for argument’s sake we flipped those numbers, the U.S. still spends more on education per pupil than virtually any other country on Earth and at any other point in our history! And so if BLM wants to abolish something then I think they should abolish the Teachers Union for trapping a growing number of black youth in a perpetual state of poverty and victimhood. And instead of chanting“DEFUND the police,”BLM should chant,DEREGULATE education, DEREGULATE housing, DEREGULATE banking, DEREGULATE healthcare, and DEREGULATE business. Because the evidence is clear that the most innovative parts of our economy are the least regulated. Cheap is better than free!When we reduce red tape and useless “certifications” then we’ll see a boom in opportunity and quality. For example, when Uber deregulated taxi services we saw a massive boom in opportunity and quality in the transportation sector, which disproportionally benefited low-income Americans. The future should belong to entrepreneurs, not corporatists. Traditionally, black Americans just wanted their freedom. It’s about time America provided it.Freedom is better than “free!” Read More @ www.AnthonyGalli.com

Vehicle Mileage Traveled Tax EXPLAINED | Pros & Cons If the U.S. Department of Transportation was run by somebody with decades of administrative transportation experience then one could make an argument for giving the department even more power, but instead, it’s run by Pete Buttigieg. A small-town mayor who made a national name for himself by running a failed presidential campaign. He clearly wasn’t chosen to lead our trillion-dollar transportation sector because of his experience. Anyway, during one of his many TV interviews, Pete suggested the federal government should consider implementing aVehicle Miles Traveled Tax, which is a “policy of charging motorists based on how many miles they have traveled.” But first, as a matter of principle, the largest government in human history shouldn’t be implementing new taxes, programs, or regulations that haveNEVER BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BEFORE! There should be a long track record of success on a multi-state and/or multi-national level before moving forward with any new policy proposal no matter how wonderful it may sound on paper. In the United States, a VMT fee currently exists as part of a limited program for 5,000 volunteers in Oregon and for trucks in Illinois. These are just “pilot programs” though. And internationally, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Belgium, Russia, and Switzerland have implemented various forms of commercial truck VMT fees,but they HAVEN'T done so for passenger cars! With that said, there ARE three main reasons why one would support a VMT Tax… First, as Pete pointed out the federal government is receiving billions of dollars less in gas tax revenue each year due to more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles. Second, Democrats tend to dislike flat taxes hence why they call any of them a “regressive tax,” i.e.“a tax applied uniformly, therefore taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners.” And lastly, often public policies become law because some corporate lobbyist is pushing for it behind-the-scenes, i.e.The Affordable Care Actwas pushed by Big Pharma and Big Insurance hence why they have bigger profits now more than ever before. And so a VMT tax would reduce the economic incentive to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles therefore the tax may actually“increase purchases of less fuel-efficient vehicles.” This leads me to why, for the time being, a federal VMT Tax is a terrible policy proposal… First is it'd lead to more air pollution. You see, if you really want to gauge if a politician believes we're in a climate emergency then look into if they support raising the federal gas tax. I understand it’s regressive, but it’soffset by the fact the U.S. has the most progressive tax code in the world!The top 10% pay 71% of federal income taxes. With that said, I support raising taxes on the 1% in order to bring down the national debt, but my point here is Democrat politicians shouldn’t dishonestly feign horror over a “climate emergency” if they’re only willing to hold people accountable whose vote they don’t depend on. Economists, environmentalists, and Elon Musk are CLEAR that raising the gas tax is the single best thing the federal government could do to curb carbon emissions. Economics 101: you should have to pay for your negative externalities! Second, a VMT Tax would decrease your privacy, i.e. Big Brother would be watching when and where you go at all times in order to tax your movement. No thanks. With that said, VMT Tax proponents have proposed a variety of theories that could help protect some of a driver’s data, but personally I'd prefer not to be a guinea pig. And finally, A VMT tax would increase the complexity of our already overcomplicated federal government. You see, in order to reduce some of the downsides I previously mentioned, a VMT tax could charge drivers different rates depending on your income, your vehicle weight/efficiency/speed, the roads you're driving on, the state you're in, the device or payment method you chose, etc. This information would then have to be shared on a multi-department and multi-state level. So you can therefore see how this system applied to over 286 million registered vehicles could get complicated real fast, especially for a small-town mayor who has a busy media schedule. If you thought the rollout of Obamacare was a car crash then just wait until this gets the green light! READ ESSAY @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/

Should Irish Americans receive reparations? Should black Americans receive reparations? Should ANYONE receive reparations for oppression that they themselves did not experience from over 150 years ago? The obvious common sense answer lies inside, but unfortunately due to racialist misinformation many of you might find SHOCKING! Hopefully, this video will serve as an ultimate guide on reparations to finally put this topic to rest. Cheers! You can read the essay @ www.anthonygalli.com. Hi, I’m Anthony Galli and my Great Great Great Grandfather was forced to leave his country... He wasn’t forced by a physical pain on his back, but by a physical pain in his stomach. The Potato Famine reduced Ireland’s population by 20% - 25% due to mortality and emigration. What primarily caused this famine was that the British confiscated Irish property and made the Irish work the land for virtually nothing, i.e. what we might call in America, “slavery.” To highlight their cruelty just consider that during the potato famine, Ireland was a net-exporter of food. In other words, while the Irish were starving, their lords were taking food out of their mouths. “It would be impossible to adequately describe the privations which they [the Irish labourer and his family] habitually and silently endure ... in many districts their only food is the potato, their only beverage water ... their cabins are seldom a protection against the weather ... a bed or a blanket is a rare luxury ... and nearly in all their pig and a manure heap constitute their only property.” My Great Great Great Grandfather came to America by boat. In 1847, 19% of the Irish emigrants died on their way to the U.S. or shortly after arriving. By comparison, the average mortality rate on British slave ships of the period was 9%. After he arrived to Ellis Island, he was forced by his hunger to then work in a coal mine. It was work or watch he and his family starve to death. There was no choice! Some argue that these early Irish Immigrants working conditions were worse than your average slave plantation. Jason Riley, Wall Street Journal editor wrote… The peasants fleeing Ireland had a shorter life expectancy than slaves in the U.S., many of whom enjoyed healthier diets and better living quarters. Most slaves slept on mattresses, while most poor Irish peasants slept on piles of straw. The black scholar W.E.B. Du Bois wrote that freed slaves were poor by American standards,“but not as poor as the Irish peasants.” Slavery didn’t end because of some “progressive awakening,” but because cheap laborers worked harder and cost less money than slave laborers. This is Economics 101.If my Great Great Great Grandfather got sick or died then there were a 1000 other Irish Immigrants happy to take his job. This incentivized him to work harder and for the businessman to pay him just enough to keep him; whereas it’s in a slave master’s self-interest to take more of an interest in his slave’s well-being if he’s going to maximize his profit. In other words, a dead Irishman cost virtually nothing to replace whereas a slave could cost a lot. In addition, there were Irish who were kidnapped by the British and forced aboard ships to serve as “indentured servants.” There are leftist “academic” articles“debunking the myth of Irish slavery”by comparing it to black American slavery and saying,“See! The Irish weren’t slaves because their servitude wasn’t hereditary! They largely entered into these servitude contracts by “choice!” The worst part is these “academics” claim that the motivation to equate Irish peasant indentured servitude to black American slavery is a racist white supremacy attempt to rewrite history. If you can’t argue the facts then use ad hominem attacks! It amazes me how irrational people can be in the pursuit of a partisan agenda because the VERY SAME PEOPLE who say that there were no Irish slaves are the same people who say there are millions of people living in slavery today. Isn’t it amazing how the definition of “slavery” can miraculously change based on the left’s agenda? In one context, it can ONLY refer to black American slaves(to imply anything else is racist!). In another context, it can refer to “forced work.” And then in another context, it can refer to virtually all wage "All official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery.” ― Vladimir Lenin "A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer. — Noam Chomsky "Experience demonstrates that there may be wages of slavery only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other. — Fredrick Douglas CHARACTER LIMIT REACHED. You can read on my website if you'd like.

Alec Baldwin asked Congresswoman Katie Porter [D] about campaign finance reform… Katie Porter: No corporate PAC money is a huge part of [campaign finance reform]… reversing Citizens United…. Until we clean up some of the corruption it’s going to be really hard to… Alec Baldwin: {interjects to “mansplain”} It’s the source of all the problems in this country. Katie Porter: It’s the source of all of the problems. Before I dive into the substance of my answer let’s define socialism because otherwise, people will comment “THAT’S NOT SOCIALISM!” Socialism is “voluntary co-ops,” or “government monopolies,” or “any social spending that I like,” or that “warm fuzzy feeling I feel inside when Grandma bakes me cookies.” I think it’s helpful to think of socialism and capitalism existing on an economic spectrum where virtually every country is some form of a Mixed-Economy. I’d therefore define an American socialist as someone who wants our federal government to take over all (or most) of healthcare, housing, education, food, employment, and/or income by advocating for such policies as the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-All, Jobs for All, $15 Federal Minimum Wage, and “Free” College. But one of the interesting things about socialists is they’re usually the first to complain the federal government is corrupt & incompetent.For example, if we just look at the heads of all the various Federal Departments from Education to Banking to Health & Human Services they are usually run by former lobbyists, CEOs, and Party Insiders. It’s therefore hard to reason that we should give them even more power when they clearly aren’t going to operate with the average American’s best interest front of mind. Medicare-for-All is a federal monopoly over American healthcare. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services was a doctor and spent decades as a Public Health Administrator then that’s one thing, but instead, the previous Secretary was a former pharmaceutical lobbyist, and the current one is a Democrat politician with virtually no healthcare experience. Do you really think it's wise to have these guys dictating prices, procedures, medical professional qualifications, hospital facilities, and overall treatment for the most complicated healthcare system in human history? American medical innovation is responsible for saving BILLIONS of lives! Imagine what innovation would be rendered IMPOSSIBLE due to the tight grip of a former pharmaceutical lobbyist or a Democrat politician whose afraid to look at the science as it pertains to a whole host of controversial issues or where creative destruction may hurt the bottom line of a big political donor. So I ask my socialist friends — if you know there’s so much corruption & incompetence in D.C. then why would you want to give D.C. even more power?! To which they reason like Alec Baldwin and Katie Porter… “Big money in politics is the source of all our problems! If we just got money out of politics then there wouldn’t be as much corruption and therefore all our big beautiful top-down social policies would work more for the average American!” Nonsense! If you’ve read my answers then you’ve probably heard me make this argument before, but in politics, especially if you’re conservative, you often have to repeat yourself OVER AND OVER again so the people in the way back can hear you loud and clear since Big Tech, Big Media, Big Business, Big Education, and Big Government are doing their darnedest to keep the populace ignorant about basic civics. So let me be LOUD AND CLEAR: Money has never been nor ever will be out of politics! Period. Socialist philosophy is built upon an impossibility. In a perfect Katie Porter Universe where she could come to The People’s House dressed as a naughty batgirl to impeach Trump every day and where Super-PACs and big-dollar donations were banned then what do you think will happen? This is where you have to use your critical thinking skills. Do you REALLY think the rich would just shrug and say, “Gosh darn it! We can’t influence politicians anymore so we might as well pack up our bags and go home!” Come on, man! It sounds nice at the most superficial level to get big money out of politics, but big business will NEVER stop trying to influence big government. Period. There is way too much money at stake. It used to be you could donate an UNLIMITED amount of money to political candidates, but then that was limited because of “well-intentioned” campaign finance laws, therefore more political spending just went to Parties/PACs, which means politicians couldn’t be as independent. If we added more campaign finance restrictions on candidates/Parties/PACs then that money would just go to publications, influencers, channels, studios, networks, apps, or whatever else you can think of that due to our 1st Amendment the federal government wouldn’t and you agree shouldn’t be able to limit. Let me let you in on a little secret: everything is political!

The United States is 30 trillion dollars in debt! We have more debt relative to our GDP than at any other point in our history! And so we need to fix this sinking ship or else America will go down under the weight of her debt obligations! One tool that will help us reduce our debt addiction is a Balanced Budget Amendment… “Research shows that balanced budget amendments lead to greater fiscal discipline.” 46 out of 50 states have some form of a Balanced Budget Requirement (BBR) and many countries have one too such as Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland. Regardless of your political affiliation, I believe we should all support a Balanced Budget Amendment, but the more difficult question is…what’s the best type of balanced budget amendment?Not all balanced budget amendments are created equal! Balanced Budget Amendments exist on a spectrum fromlenient to strict so let’s explore the multitude of factors that go into making a Balanced Budget Amendment so we can design the best one for ‘Merica… First, should our Balanced Budget Amendment be a constitutional amendment or should it just be a statutory provision?A statutory provision could easily be overridden by a simple majority vote therefore to increase the constraining power of our balanced budget requirement it should be a constitutional amendment. Virtually every state has their BBR as a BBA. Second, should our Balanced Budget Amendment force the budget to be balanced on a yearly or a cyclical basis?A few nations in Europe have a cyclical BBR. The advantage of a cyclical BBR is it’s easier to predict government revenue over a business cycle rather than over the course of a year, but the problem is it’s also easier to game because of its increased complexity. For example, in 2005 the UK Treasury revised its national account data, which shifted their previous business cycle’s start from 1999 to 1997. Every state in the US has there BBR on a yearly basis and so in the name of simplicity and Americana I believe our federal government’s should be yearly too. Third, should our Balanced Budget Amendment include the whole budget or should certain programs be exempt?The 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment lost by just two votes in the Senate because it didn’t exempt Social Security. Ideally, though, no program should be exempt because politicians could move funds to get around the requirement like a mobster washing his money through the laundromat. If a program is worthy, which I believe Social Security is, then it should be worthy enough to be accounted for. With that said, we shouldn’t let purity stop progress. Let’s not die again on this hill! After all, on the state-level,“capital and pension funds are usually exempt from BBR limitations.” And since 1995, our Social Security trust fund has almost been depleted anyway so it’s not like there’s much money to withdraw; Plus, any politician that would suggest doing so would quickly find themselves living off of Social Security as they’d be put in permanent political retirement. Fourth, should our BBA only require that a balanced budget be proposed or does one also have to be signed? And does it merely have to be planned at the start of the year or does it have to also be balanced by the end of the year?In some states, the legislature merely has to propose a balanced budget, but in the end, the governor could sign one that’s unbalanced. In order to reduce gaming and discourage overestimating revenues & underestimating expenditures, our federal budget should not only be balanced at the beginning, but also in the end. 38 states require both. Fifth, how big of a supermajority should legislators need to override the balanced budget requirement: three-fifths (60%), two-thirds (66.67...%), or three-quarters (75%)?The 1995 BBA would have required a three-fifths supermajority, which is a good compromise between not being too lenient or too strict. A super strict BBR could make recessions worse by forcing governments to make cuts or increase taxes at a time when money is already tight. The goal of a BBR isn’t to make deficit spending impossible, but to make it harder. A BBR serves as a North Star so that when our Ship of State veers off to avoid a storm we can ultimately get back on course. Sixth, should there be exceptions to the 60% override in the case of war, recession, or a national emergency?No. Opportunistic politicians could too easily declare war on some small country or even on an abstract cause like “terrorism” or “climate change.” They could also declare a recession at the slightest downturn or based on a single economic indicator and they could declare a“national emergency”on basically any issue their base cares about from a border emergency to an inequality emergency!

Chapters: 0:00 Intro 0:53 Dennis First Video (Clip) 4:20 Dennis Second Video (Clip) 11:07 Critique #1: Nuclear 11:48 Critique #2: "Troll" 13:45 Critique #3: Cancel Culture 14:51 Critique #4: Free Speech Dennis (Channel Name: Driving Me Crazy) First Video: https://youtu.be/Rtr4BjCRRkg Dennis (Channel Name: Driving Me Crazy) Second Video: https://youtu.be/eelNxH9GiBM First, let me start by saying I have a lot of respect for Dennis. I’m a long-time fan of his channel. We’re both New Yorkers trying to make a little name for ourselves on YouTube. And I like how he gives his honest opinion on a variety of topics in a friendly next door neighbor type of way, and although he’s way more liberal than me, I appreciate his perspective as a middle-class family man. With that said, I think he f***** up on a recent video and after spending a fair amount of time writing a comment on it I thought it’d be a more productive use of my time to turn it into an video because by being a video I could educate more people on what I believe is a very important issue at stake here: free speech. Plus, are you even a YouTuber if you don’t get into a little YouTube beef now and then? So, anyway, this saga begins like most: a Facebook post: Where a gentleman then crudely commented: Now Dennis understandably got upset over Mikey’s comments, but rather than just dislike or disagree, Dennis contacted Mickey's employer to file a formal complaint! Here's how Dennis explained it... Unsurprisingly, Dennis’s video got a lot of pushback with the highest dislike-to-like ratio I’ve ever seen on his channel, but rather than retreat he doubled-down with a follow-up video where he proceeded to stand guard against the Nazis… I will not be the good man that does nothing either. He said let’s talk so let’s talk! First, he’s straw-manning! I, for one, don't think he must do nothing. He could have disliked, replied, private messaged, or made a video explaining why he thought Mickey was wrong, but rather than that Dennis dismissed Mikey as a “troll” and then escalated things to a very personal level. It’s as if, during the Korean War, which helped prevent communist domination of South Korea, President Truman decided to go through with nuking North Korea. Thank God he didn’t because he could have pulled the globe into a full-scale nuclear war. No matter how justified Dennis felt he was, by calling the man’s employer he just did the internet equivalent of going nuclear! And I don’t think Mikey was a “troll.” I think he was genuinely attempting to warn pregnant women not to trust the experts, albeit in a crude fashion. Ultimately, I think Dennis perhaps undervalues how much his snitching was driven by his political opinion. Had Mikey said, "Get a vaccine or your baby will die," then I think Dennis would have been much more forgiving of his tone because he would have been more on the side of the liberal scientific "experts" who such people as Dr. Fauci have already openly admitted to lying to the American people "for our own good." Maybe they are misrepresenting the evidence again for our own good? Maybe. In which case, if it's found out that there were ANY SIGNS THAT THE FAST-TRACKED VACCINE DID CAUSE SOME BIRTH DEFECTS OR MISCARRIAGES, which is why pregnant women have traditionally been exempt from medical trials, then I think Dennis would owe that man a profound apology by trying to strip him of his ability to provide for his family during a global pandemic. Overall, I find liberals tend to be less aware of their own bias because they are the mainstream. Everyone knows FoxNews is biased because the 99% of “news” and entertainment controlled by the left will happily point it out. Unlike Dennis, I believe all opinions are allowed at the table so that we can then decide which opinions are best by consensus and experimentation rather than silence and extermination! And as I mentioned in a comment on his first video, which he didn’t respond to: "I know you think you are punishing him for what he said, but you’re really punishing him for being open about his identity. Your actions here will not change his thoughts, but in fact, by trying to silence him you'll radicalize him more so as he'd go deeper underground.” Dennis also dismisses cancel culture as, “a made-up label that is used by people who are being held accountable for unacceptable opinions.” But it’s interesting to me how he calls it a made-up label. I wonder if he’s willing to say that about the 1000’s of terms the academic left makes up to justify confiscating billions of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate our youth in their safe spaces, i.e. we’re told we need a degree in the liberal arts to truly understand the meaning of “gender fluidity,” “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” and “defund.” 5000 CHARACTER LIMIT REACHED. You can read my essays @ medium.com/@anthonygalli

If you’ve seen, which I don’t recommend, Netflix’s 4-part documentary series,Crime Scene: The Vanishing At Cecil Hotel then you would’ve seen the manipulative power of withholding facts… In episode one, the elevator security footage shows Elisa Lam hiding from “some(one).” Overall, the episode leads us to believe she was kidnapped by ghosts or a homeless person on Skid Row. In episode two,we are led to believe she was kidnapped by a heavy metal musician named “Morbid” who stayed at the Cecil Hotel one time, but it turns out he wasn’t even in the country at the time of her disappearance. In episode three, it’s revealed Elisa Lam’s body was found inside the roof water tank where the hatch was closed. We are then led to believe the Cecil staff, or the U.S. government or some secret international government agency was behind her death and possibly working in collusion with each other to purposely use her as a tuberculous host to spread the virus to the homeless population as some sort of population control strategy. It’s interesting to note the TB test is called, “ELISA-LAM,” which such eery coincidences are likely to be found when there are thousands of people on the internet with a little too much time on their hands trying to crack a case! In episode four, it’s revealed her erratic behavior in the elevator was actually quite normal for her when she didn’t take her four anti-depressant medications, which the toxicology report showed she hadn’t taken. And before arriving in L.A., she had expressed a lot of nihilistic/melancholic thoughts indicating she wasn’t in a good mental place. Previously mentioned facts were also given more airtime such as there being no evidence of foul-play done to her body and that the water tank hatch was actually found open, which makes it possible for her to have fallen into it. This episode leaves the rational viewer who understands the inexplicableness of irrationality with virtually no doubt she died at her own hands. A sad story, but despite a few anomalies and mishaps is all too common in our modern world. The reason I want to highlight this documentaryis because big tech, big media, and big education are controlled by Democrats, which I call the influence-industrial complex. How about that for a plot twist?! But please don’t close the elevator door on me yet… Ask yourself:How might the influence-industrial complex be withholding facts on[insert political issue]to advance their agenda? The Netflix Documentary positioned facts in order tokeep the viewer watching longerbecause had they put “episode four” first then you wouldn’t have felt the need to listen to the crazed conspiracy theories; whereas the influence-industrial-complexwithholds pertinent facts to drive a narrative that increases their own power!We are taught and told that the SOLUTION TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS is to GIVE MORE POWER AND CONTROL to THE 1%, i.e. big government, big education, big tech, big business, big insurance, big banks! ✂️ Unfortunately, people are too often intellectually lazy. When you hear an opinion how often do you go out of your way to get the other side’s opinion on the matter? A smart person does the latter because a smart person knows certain facts were intentionally and unintentionally withheld in the original telling. A smart person also sees aRED FLAGwhen after hearing one side of the story they’re supposed to believe one side is totally innocent whereas the other side is 100% crazy, stupid, or evil… A smart person also questions why we are even spending time on 1 story relative to the other million stories we could be talking about on any given day? Crime Scene: The Vanishing At Cecil Hotelwas largely a non-political documentary, but of course, Netflix couldn’t help inject some of its political bias. Elisa Lam’s accidental death wasn’t attributed to her upbringing or her own agency, but to a lack of mental health funding. I’m not necessarily against increasing mental health funding, but for me, the problem with rising depression, mental illness, and suicide isn’t so much a lack of prescription drugs, but a lack of personal agency and social connectivity. Our sense of less agency is both real and cultural. I’m more in the camp that we are better offacting likewe have personal power/responsibility/agency/purpose/choice even if in many situations we don’t, i.e.“focus on what you can control,”and then go out and work to give power back to the individual rather than giving up more and more of our power to a small “well-intentioned” elite in Silicon Valley and Washington D.C.

There are a ton of earmarks passed each year, i.e. line-items tucked into bills to increase spending on a politician’s favorite pet project. Here are some famous examples… The Big Dig: $22 billion to reroute a highway inside Boston. The Bridge to Nowhere: $233 million to build a bridge to an Alaskan island with a permanent population of 50. Turtle Tunnel: $3.4 million to construct a tunnel under a Highway north of Tallahassee so wildlife can safely cross. 1 Fish, 2 Fish: $2.5 million to count the number of amberjack fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Drunk Mice: $15,000 to study how alcohol affects a mouse's motor function. Now both the left and the right dislike pork because it’s arguably a form of corruption and because it enables politicians to be more incompetent by shifting attention away from their broken promises to Look! A turtle! And the further right you are on the political spectrum then the more pork you see in our federal budget. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." "The Federal Government should be the last resort, not the first. Ask if a potential program is truly a federal responsibility or whether it can better be handled privately, by voluntary organizations, or by local or state governments." As a conservative federalist, I believe the federal government should only fund those things that state governments cannot do more effectively themselves. After all, our poorest state has a bigger GDP than most countries so it only makes sense that our states fund their own dang projects... ... roads, museums, schools, relief, studios, businesses, firms, hospitals, organizations, charities, police, local governments, etc. And it's so important to reduce the complexity of the federal government not just to reduce wasteful spending, but to also reduce wasteful focus. The American people can only focus on so many things before we become scattered brain. I rather our distant federal Capital be great at 100 things than incompetent at 100,000 things. How can we cut the pork out of these bills? A recurring bipartisan policy suggestion is the line-item veto. The line-item veto is “is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package.” At least 14 presidents from both parties have called for the authority to address individual spending items wrapped into larger bills. And 44 U.S. states currently give their governors some form of line-item veto power. If you consider that our U.S. constitution is modeled after state constitutions and vice versa then it isn’t hard to see why a U.S. President should have the same power too, especially because fiscal discipline has traditionally been harder at the federal level due to our federal government’s ability to just print money to avoid hard choices. In fact, for a brief time, the president of the United States did have line-item veto power. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Line Item Veto Act, which specifically granted the president the power to line-item veto budget bills. But the act was quickly ruled unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York based on the Presentment Clause and the fact that under the Line Item Veto Act the President would sign a bill and then unilaterally strike out a duly enacted law… “The Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional because it permits the President to unilaterally cancel provisions in a duly enacted statute.” —Justice Stevens, majority opinion Justice Scalia — America’s most famous conservative originalist textualist Justice — dissented arguing that the line-item veto was constitutional because Presidents have long had the de facto power to make unilateral decisions on spending… “There’s no difference between authorizing the President to cancel a spending item and allowing the President discretionary spending.” — Justice Scalia, dissenting opinion Unfortunately, since the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act, the number of earmarks has increased significantly.