After missing the true nexus of recent events in Russia, it should not be surprising that the media have embraced the “good” side of the 1917 Communist takeover.

Having spent a fair amount of time in Communist countries, I didn’t see much of this good side of Communism, which is one, if not, the most evil political philosophy in the history of the human race.

Communist subjugated people, stripped them of their dignity, and killed millions.

Nevertheless, the media have found many positive aspects of this criminal culture in analyses of the 100 years since Lenin and his cronies took control.

Not surprisingly, DaTimes is the most egregious purveyor of fiction about the Russian revolution in its series called “The Red Century.”

Here is an excerpt from one story about how women in Communist countries had better sex.

Some might remember that Eastern bloc women enjoyed many rights and privileges unknown in liberal democracies at the time, including major state investments in their education and training, their full incorporation into the labor force, generous maternity leave allowances, and guaranteed free child care. But there’s one advantage that has received little attention: Women under Communism enjoyed more sexual pleasure.

Can DaTimes seriously argue that Communist dictators were responsible for major improvements for women, including education, training, child care, and working environment? I suggest that DaTimes assign only one of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn books to its reporters and columnists.

It should be noted that DaTimes still hasn’t returned the 1932 Pulitzer won by Walter Duranty, the newspaper’s hack in the Soviet Union. He insisted the stories of a Ukrainian famine that killed millions were false.

DaTimes also describes New York City’s salad days as a hotbed of Communism in the United States. The New Republic put its criticism of the series well:

…when you read about how American Communists and fellow-travelers had the best of intentions and were on the right side of history, bear in mind that these people were at best noble dupes and useful idiots for an evil empire.


At least Bret Stephens, who seems to have lost his way since joining DaTimes, doesn’t follow the lockstep approach of his news organization.

Although he didn’t point the finger directly at his employer, Stephens wrote last week:

An ideology that at one point enslaved and immiserated roughly a third of the world collapsed without a fight and was exposed for all to see. Yet we still have trouble condemning it as we do equivalent evils. And we treat its sympathizers as romantics and idealists, rather than as the fools, fanatics or cynics they really were and are.

But DaTimes is not alone in its quest to resurrect the good life of Communism. DaPost tries to erase from the map a variety of current Communist countries, such as China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba because they no longer practice “true Communism.” Only North Korea still does.

It would seem that the progeny of the useful idiots who participated in supporting Communism during the Cold War have taken up residence at some of the nation’s news organizations to rewrite history.

I suggest we toss Communism ideology on the scrap heap where it rightly belongs and only remember the evil it did.


The number of police officers killed or injured in the line of duty soared last year, the FBI reported.

Not surprisingly, the findings, which were announced last week, got little coverage in the media.

Sixty-six officers died from “felonious” assaults, an increase from 45 in 2015 and the second-highest total in the past decade.

Additionally, 57,180 officers were assaulted in the line of duty, with nearly 30 percent of those officers being injured in the incidents. There were 50,212 assaults against law enforcement listed in the 2015 FBI report.

Of the 66 officers who were killed in criminal incidents:

  • The average age was 40 years old, with an average of 13 years of law enforcement experience.
  • Sixty-four of the officers feloniously killed were men, and two were women.
  • Nearly all of the officers were killed by firearms—62 out of 66. Of the 62 officers killed by firearms, 51 were wearing body armor at the time they were killed.
  • Four officers were killed intentionally with vehicles.
  • The most common categories of circumstance surrounding officers’ line-of-duty deaths were ambushes (17), followed by answering disturbance calls (13), and investigating suspicious people or circumstances (nine). (For more information on these incidents, see the summaries section of the report.)

The largest number of fatalities occurred in the South with 30, including the highest number in Georgia, which recorded seven.

Unfortunately, the trend seems to be continuing this year. See

Some researchers have disputed the Ferguson effect—the argument that police officers are less inclined to fight crime because of the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. I disagree with that analysis given the overall increase in crime in the past two years.

Nevertheless, it appears that another impact of Ferguson needs investigation. Given the increase in attacks against police, it is possible that people have become more emboldened in confronting cops violently as a result of Ferguson.

The news media tend to focus on the deaths of civilians rather than police officers. The Washington Post, for example, has been tracking such deaths but doesn’t include any mention of cops killed in the line of duty.

 It’s worth noting that 17 African-Americans, who were “unarmed,” were killed in confrontations with police in 2016, according to DaPost’s calculations and definition of unarmed.

When you dig into the facts of the cases, “unarmed” seems rather poorly applied:

–Dyzhawn L. Perkins, an unarmed 19-year-old black man, was shot on Feb. 13, 2016, in a house in Arvonia, Virginia. Buckingham County sheriff’s deputies were investigating reports of an assault. Perkins crashed through a window and attempted to attack the deputies.

–Vernell Bing, an unarmed 22-year-old black man, was shot on May 22, 2016, on a street in Jacksonville, Florida. Bing led a police officer on a pursuit and then crashed into the officer’s patrol car. Police said that Bing ignored commands to stay inside the vehicle.

Any loss of life is tragic, but it appears that the news media are more concerned with so-called “unarmed individuals” than police officers.

Every year I wait for a call from the MacArthur Foundation telling me I was going to receive more than half a million bucks. Alas, I didn’t get one of the so-called “genius grants” again this year.

What I came to realize many years ago was that the foundation is simply funding a band of social justice warriors, numbering nearly 1,000 since the grants started in 1981.

Let’s look at some of the recipients announced earlier this month:

–Cristina Jimenez Moreta founded United We Dream in 2008 to secure the rights of immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

–Rami Nashabi is a community leader who focuses on poverty in Chicago’s Muslim communities.

–Nikole Hannah-Jones writes about “urban segregation” in education.

Critic Martin Morse Wooster made the point about leftist bias in “The MacArthur Foundation: A donor without a cause spawns a foundation with an agenda.”

“What do the Federation of American Scientists, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Arms Control Association, the League of Women Voters, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, and the National Commission on Energy Policy have in common — aside from solid leftist credentials? Each receives funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.” MacArthur is everywhere on the left, openly supporting the progressive policy agenda, including the “climate change agenda — which is often a cover for more nefarious, radical economic change.”

In December 2015, MacArthur Foundation President Julia Stasch co-authored an opinion piece in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, calling upon “fellow grant makers, advocates, business leaders, government officials, and citizens” to make climate change a priority. In doing so, Stasch used her influence to lead other organizations into a complicated web of progressive foundations, pushing radical economic change.

Some “genius grants” have been known to go awry. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, was a 2003 recipient who created fictitious documents to discredit a conservative group that attacked climate change. See

The MacArthur Foundation also has a geographical bias that favors leftists, with New York and California leading the pack in getting “genius” grants. Apparently, the foundation has yet to find a “genius” in Wyoming, my family’s home state, and not many in flyover country, where I spent most of my formative years. See

The foundation was set up as a tax dodge by John D. MacArthur, an insurance magnate who often played fast and loose with other people’s money. Maybe the IRS should look at the foundation’s books—as the Obama Administration did with conservative groups. See

Whatever happens, I probably won’t get a call again next year. But Colin Kaepernick, members of Black Lives Matter, and other social justice warriors will likely become so-called “geniuses” some day soon.

The National Congress of the Communist Part of China, which sets the course of the nation’s leadership and policies every five years, opens next week during one of the most critical times in the relations with the United States.

President Xi Jinping, [pronounced she] who will be elected to a second, five-year term, faces some interesting problems, including the probable retirement of some top leaders, the ongoing North Korea nuclear program, and relations with President Trump.

It has been customary for leaders to retire at the age of 68. That would include five of the seven most powerful leaders in China, including Wang Qishan, Xi’s right-hand man and anti-corruption campaign leader.

SupChina, a great source for anyone who wants to follow developments in China, provides as excellent backgrounder at

As SupChina notes: “Contrary to many who have posited that Wang is too important to Xi’s agenda to be sidelined, the Macro Polo initiative at the University of Chicago has come down firmly on the position that retirement norms will be followed this year. The initiative’s experts assigned only a small chance to the ‘norm-wrecking’ scenario that keeps Wang in his position, saying that ‘even with a very strong Xi Jinping, [this] would face significant criticism and pushback at every level of the CCP.’”

Xi is likely to opt for a selection of loyalists that both accelerates the ascension of some people leading to more attention “devoted to focusing on executing the many economic reforms that have stalled or taken a backseat to politics.”

On North Korea, China has initiated steps to implement the latest United Nations sanctions. That doesn’t mean that China and the United States are on the same page, but the relationship is better than most legacy media types would have us believe. An exception is a recent Reuters story at

Only a few weeks after the China meeting, President Trump will visit Asia, where he will travel to five countries from November 3 to 14, attending summits held by both the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Expectations for a shift in U.S.-China relations are high, according to the influential South China Morning Post.

POLITICO also reports that the Trump Administration is conducting an extensive review of policy toward China. See

During the past three years I have spent visiting China, I found that the Chinese, particularly business people, see Trump as someone they can deal with. It may not be a perfect marriage, but neither is it as vitriolic as it was under President Obama. Moreover, U.S.-China relations would have been disastrous under Hillary Clinton. Simply put, China was rather curious and somewhat relieved when Trump became president.

The FBI annual report that violent crime, including homicides, rose significantly for the second consecutive year rated only a few passing references in the news.

Violent crimes increased nationally last year by more than 4 percent and homicides rose by nearly 9 percent, one year after violence rose nearly 4 percent and homicides jumped by nearly 11 percent. A total of 17,250 people were murdered in 2016, the FBI said, an increase of about 20 percent over the past two years alone.

“This is ominous,” said Mark Kleiman, a criminologist at New York University’s Marron Institute of Urban Management. “What you worry about is that the trend is broken, and the numbers are going to go back up. A 20 percent increase in homicides over the past two years is not trivial. We’ve got what looks like a serious problem here.”

In 2016, Chicago again led the nation in murders with 765–more than double the 335 people killed in New York, which has more than 5.8 million more people than Chicago.

Large cities–those controlled by Democrats and with populations of more than a million people–saw homicides rise by 20.3 percent, and all violent crime increase by 7.2 percent in 2016. The trend toward greater violence was felt in cities and towns of all sizes. In towns with populations of fewer than 10,000 people, for instance, murders rose by 8.4 percent, according to the FBI.

Crime is lower than it was in the 1980s and 1990s, but that gives little solace to victims and their families.

Here are a few more pertinent facts:

–Murder victims, as well as those arrested on murder charges, were disproportionately young, African-American, and male.

–The demographic group where a significantly higher rate of violence occurs–those between 18 and 34–is getting smaller. So the percentage of crimes committed by that age group should be getting smaller, but it’s not. It’s way up.

–More than three-quarters of U.S. law enforcement officers say they are reluctant to use force when necessary, and nearly as many–72 percent–say they or their colleagues are more reluctant to stop and question people who seem suspicious as a result of increased scrutiny of police, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.

–The number of police officers and their starting salaries have declined since the mid-1990s.

Many theories exist about why violent crime is up. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has a good analysis: “People worry more about crime when they feel that the authorities don’t have their backs. When they feel confident that the government will make all reasonable efforts to keep them safe, that’s one thing. When they think that the political class has other priorities–or even sees them as expendable in the service of ‘social justice’ goals–they get their backs up. I think it’s also a recognition that things can go from good to bad pretty fast.”

What’s clear is that violent crime is getting worse, and it could go from bad to much worse if we don’t do something about it.

Update DTG;  I think Christopher’s piece is one of the most important stories that nobody is talking about.  It will remain pinned to the top for at least the next two days.  If you only share one post from our site this week, make it this one.

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '[' in /home/content/46/7099446/html/wp-content/plugins/embedpress/EmbedPress/AMP/EmbedHandler.php on line 38