Democrats
ESA
Fixing Government
Hollywood
Judiciary
ImmigrationIslam
Republicans
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
If This Is Unity
The best news for Republicans is that Democrats are in such worse shape.
Ross Kaminsky February 27, 2017
Tales of supposed political unity abound in recent days, following the election of former Obama administration Secretary of Labor Tom Perez to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee and following President Donald Trump’s address at this year’s CPAC convention, the first time a president has addressed CPAC in his first year in office since Ronald Reagan 36 years ago.
Perez, supported by the Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic establishment, won a second-ballot victory over the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren-backed socialist Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), a man who would have been an even better choice than Perez, though not by much, if the Democrats’ goal were to make themselves a party with even narrower appeal than it has now.
President Trump trolled Perez in a Saturday afternoon tweet: “Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!” Trump added, perhaps aiming to widen the fissure between the more radical progressives and the slightly less radical progressives – the only two groups with any current influence in the Democratic Party – that Ellison was the victim of the same shenanigans that killed Bernie Sanders’ presidential hopes: “The race for DNC Chairman was, of course, totally ‘rigged.’ Bernie’s guy, like Bernie himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!”..........his first act as chairman was to offer a motion, which passed by acclamation, to name Ellison deputy chairman of the party, and present him to the room with a hug. ..............To Read More....
Ross Kaminsky February 27, 2017
Tales of supposed political unity abound in recent days, following the election of former Obama administration Secretary of Labor Tom Perez to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee and following President Donald Trump’s address at this year’s CPAC convention, the first time a president has addressed CPAC in his first year in office since Ronald Reagan 36 years ago.
Perez, supported by the Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic establishment, won a second-ballot victory over the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren-backed socialist Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), a man who would have been an even better choice than Perez, though not by much, if the Democrats’ goal were to make themselves a party with even narrower appeal than it has now.
President Trump trolled Perez in a Saturday afternoon tweet: “Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!” Trump added, perhaps aiming to widen the fissure between the more radical progressives and the slightly less radical progressives – the only two groups with any current influence in the Democratic Party – that Ellison was the victim of the same shenanigans that killed Bernie Sanders’ presidential hopes: “The race for DNC Chairman was, of course, totally ‘rigged.’ Bernie’s guy, like Bernie himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!”..........his first act as chairman was to offer a motion, which passed by acclamation, to name Ellison deputy chairman of the party, and present him to the room with a hug. ..............To Read More....
Conservatives Fight to Defend Internet Freedom
By John Livingston February 27, 2017
As of June 2016, there appeared to be nothing but storm clouds gathering over the issue of Internet liberty. Then, in January, out of nowhere, came a ray of hope… Whenever you hear the word “neutrality” thrown around by politicians and “experts,” especially when talking about the need for new regulations, you should automatically think “is a myth.” Conversations about net neutrality can become complex. Writers throw around technical terms, like “traffic shaping” and “over-provisioning.”.............Pareto’s law: 20% of Comcast’s users were consuming 80% of the available bandwidth. The other 80% of its Internet users were probably only consuming 20% of its bandwidth.
The FCC didn’t like this. They censured Comcast. The Republicans on the commission at the time dissented. They disagreed with the FCC’s invasion into Comcast’s business practices.............The heart of the whole matter comes down to this: private property, and whether the Federal government has the right to interfere with how people use it. If so, when?............To Read More.....
My Take - Once again we see the left "framing" another issue with phrases that mean something entirely different than the intent. George Orwell called it Newspeak or Doublethink with the goal of using words to give one impression when the goal is diametrically different. A deliberate attempt to disguise and distort the truth and hide real the intentions of those pomoting it.
The goal is:
As of June 2016, there appeared to be nothing but storm clouds gathering over the issue of Internet liberty. Then, in January, out of nowhere, came a ray of hope… Whenever you hear the word “neutrality” thrown around by politicians and “experts,” especially when talking about the need for new regulations, you should automatically think “is a myth.” Conversations about net neutrality can become complex. Writers throw around technical terms, like “traffic shaping” and “over-provisioning.”.............Pareto’s law: 20% of Comcast’s users were consuming 80% of the available bandwidth. The other 80% of its Internet users were probably only consuming 20% of its bandwidth.
The FCC didn’t like this. They censured Comcast. The Republicans on the commission at the time dissented. They disagreed with the FCC’s invasion into Comcast’s business practices.............The heart of the whole matter comes down to this: private property, and whether the Federal government has the right to interfere with how people use it. If so, when?............To Read More.....
My Take - Once again we see the left "framing" another issue with phrases that mean something entirely different than the intent. George Orwell called it Newspeak or Doublethink with the goal of using words to give one impression when the goal is diametrically different. A deliberate attempt to disguise and distort the truth and hide real the intentions of those pomoting it.
The goal is:
"to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."Then we have Doublespeak, which isn't in the book, but it's next line in logic. Doublespeak:
"is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language."
A Federal Judge is Calling Out Justice Ginsburg for being Too Political
Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal this weekend, criticizing his former colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg for inappropriate interventions in political questions........His criticism is trained primarily on remarks Ginsburg made during last year’s general election, when she referred to President Donald Trump as a “faker” and mused about moving to New Zealand should he prevail. As of this writing, Justice Ginsburg is still in Washington. “Her comments were as openly political as any justice has been in my memory — perhaps ever,” he wrote........To Read More....
My Take - The truth of the matter - or at least this is the way it seems to me is - she's losing it. Me too.....I'm 70 and I'm noticing I've developed memory problems. People who know me are generally amazed at my memory, so they laugh when I say that. But I can tell I'm having problems and I can also tell it's getting worse. Compared to most at my age, I'm not doing badly, but it's clear to me it's happening. Ginsberg should never have been appointed in the first place. As a former ACLU attorney she's consistently been "political" in her decisions, she was able to hide it. But she's getting old and old people get stupid. Perhaps stupid isn't the right word to describe what I think is happening. When we get old we really don't care all that much for what others think. When that happens our judgment gets side tracked.....then we get stupid. It would appear she's going to be just like Thurgood Marshall who was almost drooling at the end.
Quote of the Day
Some people are surprised at how many young people look favorably on socialism. But socialism is a wonderful-sounding idea. Those who have lived through the era of its disasters in the 20th century, or learned about them from history, are likely to see through the appearances to the reality. A young age prevents the former and our dumbed-down education prevents the latter. Thomas Sowell
The Reality of Islam
By Rich Kozlovich
As I watch excusers of Islamic thought and violence being interviewed I find one thing that is consistent in their comments - they never answer the questions they're asked. They obfuscate, change the subject, accuse those asking the questions of being insulting - but they never answer the question. In short - they lie by any means possible, meaning they're deliberately trying to get the public to believe things that aren't true, including claiming Islamic violence is a direct result of the west killing "millions" of innocent Muslim civilians and the west's constant interference in the Muslim world.
First, it was Islam that invaded Christian lands and all the Crusades were a direct result of Muslim aggression and "interfering" in the lives of Christians and the western world. Secondly, where does this number of "millions" of innocent "civilians" come from?
Below is a list of articles appearing that brings home what Islam is all about, and it's not a religion. Islam is a criminal political organization masquerading as a religion. The fact they've done so for 1400 years is immaterial. But they, like the Mafia and other organized criminal organizations, do so through the persuasion of fear and violence, not they persuasion of thought or intellect.
Don't Worry about 'Islamophobia' Law, Says Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Canadian Spokesman
Pamela Geller February 25, 2017
As the Canadian Parliament prepares to adopt a motion condemning "Islamophobia," the Canadian media have shifted into high-gear propaganda mode to smear all opposition to this anti-free speech measure as hysterical.
Leading the charge in the Toronto Star is Faisal Kutty, who teaches law at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana and Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto and has numerous ties to groups linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Kutty leads off by scapegoating me as the "lunatic fringe" opposing this thought-crushing measure...........Kutty also tries to lull Canadians into complacency when he falsely claims: "There is no monolithic understanding of the Sharia. Like any world view it can be used and abused by people with varying agendas. Developed over 1,424 years in diverse societies, it has manifested itself in a range of views. In fact, the inherent diversity and pluralism of the Sharia may be the best tool we have to counter the violent and antimodern narratives of extremists."
This is downright false: if there is any system that is not characterized by "diversity and pluralism," it is sharia. Look around the world: everywhere sharia is fully implemented, it looks the same, with stonings, amputations, oppression of women and non-Muslims, and denial of the freedom of speech. "Diversity and pluralism"? In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan? If sharia is so diverse, why do those countries look so drearily similar to one another in their societal mores and legal structures?............
Man Charged with Blasphemy for Burning Quran
By Michael Ware
Pre-School Teacher Suspended for Tweeting “Kill Some Jews.”
By Michael Ware
Islam, Not Trump, Is The Elephant In The Room, Threatening Jewish Survival
By Ilana Mercer
Anti-Semite Keith Ellison calls Donald Trump an Anti-Semite
By Philip Hodges
It doesn’t matter what President Trump says or does – even if it’s something that liberals agree with deep down – it’s never good enough. Right after he won the election, he was called on to denounce violence [allegedly] done in his name. He denounced it. He looked into the camera and told those committing violence to “stop it.” But that wasn’t good enough.........
US Mosque Honors Muslim Assassin Who Murdered Pakistani Governor: “He Was Not A Terrorist”
By Tim Brown
As I reported earlier, the town of Sterling Height bowed to government tyranny and Islamic supremacism in approving the building of a mega-mosque in the middle of a community of Christians who fled Iraq to escape genocide. This story is just one of many in which mosques are promoting the very ideology of Muhammad and jihad![]()
. A Maryland mosque has been exposed for honoring an Islamic assassin as a saint. Judicial Watch reports:.......
France has “Rehab” for Jihadis… and it’s NOT Working
By Constitution.com
France’s attempts to deradicalize jihadis have been a complete failure, a parliamentary r
As I watch excusers of Islamic thought and violence being interviewed I find one thing that is consistent in their comments - they never answer the questions they're asked. They obfuscate, change the subject, accuse those asking the questions of being insulting - but they never answer the question. In short - they lie by any means possible, meaning they're deliberately trying to get the public to believe things that aren't true, including claiming Islamic violence is a direct result of the west killing "millions" of innocent Muslim civilians and the west's constant interference in the Muslim world.
First, it was Islam that invaded Christian lands and all the Crusades were a direct result of Muslim aggression and "interfering" in the lives of Christians and the western world. Secondly, where does this number of "millions" of innocent "civilians" come from?
Below is a list of articles appearing that brings home what Islam is all about, and it's not a religion. Islam is a criminal political organization masquerading as a religion. The fact they've done so for 1400 years is immaterial. But they, like the Mafia and other organized criminal organizations, do so through the persuasion of fear and violence, not they persuasion of thought or intellect.
Don't Worry about 'Islamophobia' Law, Says Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Canadian Spokesman
Pamela Geller February 25, 2017
As the Canadian Parliament prepares to adopt a motion condemning "Islamophobia," the Canadian media have shifted into high-gear propaganda mode to smear all opposition to this anti-free speech measure as hysterical.
Leading the charge in the Toronto Star is Faisal Kutty, who teaches law at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana and Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto and has numerous ties to groups linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Kutty leads off by scapegoating me as the "lunatic fringe" opposing this thought-crushing measure...........Kutty also tries to lull Canadians into complacency when he falsely claims: "There is no monolithic understanding of the Sharia. Like any world view it can be used and abused by people with varying agendas. Developed over 1,424 years in diverse societies, it has manifested itself in a range of views. In fact, the inherent diversity and pluralism of the Sharia may be the best tool we have to counter the violent and antimodern narratives of extremists."
This is downright false: if there is any system that is not characterized by "diversity and pluralism," it is sharia. Look around the world: everywhere sharia is fully implemented, it looks the same, with stonings, amputations, oppression of women and non-Muslims, and denial of the freedom of speech. "Diversity and pluralism"? In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan? If sharia is so diverse, why do those countries look so drearily similar to one another in their societal mores and legal structures?............
Man Charged with Blasphemy for Burning Quran
By Michael Ware
Pre-School Teacher Suspended for Tweeting “Kill Some Jews.”
By Michael Ware
Islam, Not Trump, Is The Elephant In The Room, Threatening Jewish Survival
By Ilana Mercer
Anti-Semite Keith Ellison calls Donald Trump an Anti-Semite
By Philip Hodges
It doesn’t matter what President Trump says or does – even if it’s something that liberals agree with deep down – it’s never good enough. Right after he won the election, he was called on to denounce violence [allegedly] done in his name. He denounced it. He looked into the camera and told those committing violence to “stop it.” But that wasn’t good enough.........
US Mosque Honors Muslim Assassin Who Murdered Pakistani Governor: “He Was Not A Terrorist”
By Tim Brown
As I reported earlier, the town of Sterling Height bowed to government tyranny and Islamic supremacism in approving the building of a mega-mosque in the middle of a community of Christians who fled Iraq to escape genocide. This story is just one of many in which mosques are promoting the very ideology of Muhammad and jihad
France has “Rehab” for Jihadis… and it’s NOT Working
By Constitution.com
France’s attempts to deradicalize jihadis have been a complete failure, a parliamentary r
George W. Bush’s Daughter is Headlining a Fundraiser for Planned Parenthood of Texas
This is another reason why self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” in government cannot be trusted. They can’t even seem to pass on real pro-life values to their children. Barbara Pierce Bush, daughter of former President George W. Bush, has been announced to headline a Planned Parenthood fundraiser this coming week in Texas.
Bush is to be the keynote speaker at the Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas’s annual Fort Worth fundraising luncheon for an organization whose main business is the decapitation, dismemberment and murder of unborn children, and then selling the parts of those unborn children to other companies.
While Bush claimed he was pro-life during his time as Texas governor and President, the fact is that he did nothing to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood nor reverse the Roe v. Wade decision. He did sign a partial birth abortion ban, but that was also filled with loopholes and no teeth, and as we know from the Kermit Gosnell trial, even after birth abortions were being performed........To Read More.....
My Take - For the record....I was never impressed with either of the Bush's. It was obvious Bush I wasn't a conservative, and I had misgivings about Bush II, which he dispelled quickly....he wasn't either. And when he called Islam a religion of peace..... I knew the libtards were right.....he really was as dumb as dirt. I also think he, just like others, was in cahoots with the Saudi's, because of oil. Which is diturbing because all we had to do was....drill, and we wouldn't need them. With fracking we now know just how true that was.
So why should we be shocked when his daughter supports infanticide. After all, her mother supported it saying abortion should “remain legal, because I think it’s important for people, for medical reasons and other reasons.” So much for the Bush's lauded Christianity.
Let's try and understand this. As William F. Buckley said: There's only one reason to support abortion: you don't believe it's murder. There's only one reason to be against abortion: you believe it is murder. If a person claims to be a Christian and supports abortion - that person supports murder and is an heretic. It's just that simple.
And Jeb and the Republican elite wondered why conservatives didn't support him. There's a side benefit of Trump's election that's not been talked about. I don't see Karl Rove and his chalk board charts on Fox anymore.
Rove-Stupid: Bannon-Smart
When Steven K. Bannon commissioned yours truly in early 2015 to write the Breitbart series "Rove-Stupid," based on the 2013 book about Rove and the establishment, I realized that there was someone who loathed the Republican establishment even more than I. Previously, I was not aware this was even possible, but Bannon is like that.
He is full pedal to the metal, and more intense, singularly focused, and passionate than anyone you'll ever meet. We agree on most things, including the fact that Karl Rove was an accurate prototype for the incompetence, isolation, tone deafness, and corruption of the GOP-E -- even on issues where Rove was not specifically involved. That's why both this series, and my book, featured "Turd Blossom, aka Rove," in the respective titles........More
GWPF PRESS RELEASE 27/02/17
As Polar Bear Numbers Continue To Increase, GWPF
Calls For Re-assessment Of Endangered Species Status
On the occasion of International Polar Bear Day, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is calling on the U.S. Administration to re-assess the ‘endangered species’ status of polar bears.
On May 15, 2008, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The listing is based on the assumption that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.
In a GWPF video released today, Dr Susan Crockford, a Canadian wildlife expert, documents the latest findings about rising polar bear numbers.
In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.
Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.
A growing number of observational studies have documented that polar bears are thriving, despite shrinking summer sea ice.
By September 2007 sea ice extent was about 43% less than it had been in 1979 – a decline not expected until mid-century, and every year after was almost as low, or lower.
Yet no more drowned polar bears were documented, no more bears than normal starved to death, no unusual spikes in cannibalism occurred, and not a single polar bear population was wiped out.
New scientific evidence suggests that loss of summer sea ice, regardless of the cause, is not a major risk for polar bear survival.
“A thorough external review of the polar bear status issue is now required - not only because it’s the right thing to do but because it may help restore public support for science and conservation,” Dr Crockford said.
GWPF TV: Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon
Contact
Dr Susan Crockford
e: sjcrock@shaw.ca
Entitlement at its Nastiest
Daily Mail, The Sun UK and The Mirror UK have all reported on a Migrant French Couple with 8 kids that has refused a FREE 5 bedroom home. Not only that, but they have refused a total of 3 homes offered to them. They are currently residing in a 4 bedroom apartment; one bedroom is being used as an office. The parents each have smartphones and a laptop. There is a 60 inch flat screen TV and Sky HD box in their front room, plus a 52 inch television in their bedroom. Their children also have a TV and an Xbox with dozens of games. I guess that is where the nearly $55,000 they have received in government money has gone.
So why did they turn down the homes? Are they rat infested? NO. Are they eligible to be condemned? NO. The reason is because they NEED at least 6 bedrooms to be “comfortable.” If you’re not ready to chew nails yet, this might send you over the edge: The government also put them up for 2 months in a Hampton Hotel to the tune of over $47,000 with a room service bill of of over $25,000.......To Read More....
Freedom Watch on Hollywood
As Expected, The Oscars Became A Night Of Protest Against Donald Trump
Klayman: Don't Think Politics Did Not Play a Role in La La Land Losing Award for Best Picture! Typical Hollywood!
By Todd Van Luling, Huffington Post, February 27, 2017
Leading up to the Oscars this year, both liberals and conservatives knew full well that the event would be clouded by the now-perpetual shadow of President Donald Trump.
In January, Meryl Streep's pro-immigration speech became the most memorable moment from the Golden Globes. Later in the year, many Grammys performers and attendees spent that night creating musical moments of resistance. It was clear: The 89th Academy Awards were simply going to get political..........Continue Reading.....
Klayman: Keep It Up Leftist Hollywood - the More You Mock Trump and Conservatives the More Your and the ACLU's Politics Will Lose!
In January, Meryl Streep's pro-immigration speech became the most memorable moment from the Golden Globes. Later in the year, many Grammys performers and attendees spent that night creating musical moments of resistance. It was clear: The 89th Academy Awards were simply going to get political..........Continue Reading.....
Klayman: Keep It Up Leftist Hollywood - the More You Mock Trump and Conservatives the More Your and the ACLU's Politics Will Lose!
By Lilly Workneh, Huffington Post, February 27, 2017
History was made at the 2017 Academy Awards on Sunday night with a record number of wins by black stars, and, ultimately by awarding the most diverse group of Oscar winners since the show began in 1929.
History was not only made by the number of collective wins among stars of color but also by shattered records within many of the individual categories, too. Barry Jenkins and Tarell Alvin McCraney won for Best Adapted Screenplay for "Moonlight," which also won for Best Picture, Viola Davis took home the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal in "Fences" becoming the first black woman to win an Oscar, Tony and Emmy award for acting, Mahershela Ali became the first black muslim actor to win an Oscar when he took home the award for Best Supporting Actor for his stunning role in "Moonlight" and director Ezra Edelman won alongside filmmaker Caroline Waterlow for Best Documentary Feature for "O.J.: Made in America."...........Continue Reading.....
History was not only made by the number of collective wins among stars of color but also by shattered records within many of the individual categories, too. Barry Jenkins and Tarell Alvin McCraney won for Best Adapted Screenplay for "Moonlight," which also won for Best Picture, Viola Davis took home the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal in "Fences" becoming the first black woman to win an Oscar, Tony and Emmy award for acting, Mahershela Ali became the first black muslim actor to win an Oscar when he took home the award for Best Supporting Actor for his stunning role in "Moonlight" and director Ezra Edelman won alongside filmmaker Caroline Waterlow for Best Documentary Feature for "O.J.: Made in America."...........Continue Reading.....
Klayman: Don't Think Politics Did Not Play a Role in La La Land Losing Award for Best Picture! Typical Hollywood!
Monday, February 27, 2017
P&D For February 27, 2017
Commentary of the Day By Paul Driessen
Democrats
Fixing Government
Guns
Hollywood
Islam
Leftism
Media
Race
Democrats
Fixing Government
Guns
Hollywood
Islam
Leftism
Media
Race
Media Bias and Trump
Here’s a variation of a joke I heard recently that is circulating among conservatives. The pope and Trump were out on a ship and suddenly a gust of wind causes the pontiff’s hat to fly several feet away from the boat on surface of the water. Trump gets out of the boat and walks on water to retrieve the miter. On a nearby boat are members of the media.
- The next day the headline read in the New York Times declares, “Trump Can’t Swim.”
- The Washington Post headline read, “Trump Guilty of Water Pollution.”
- The LA Times headline declares, “Trump Shows Off in Front of Pope.”
- USA Today notes: “Trump Tries to Upstage Jesus.”
Son Shoots Intruders, Saving Mom’s Life
By Dave Jolly
Anti-Second Amendment liberals care nothing about your welfare or safety. If they had their way, you would be left defenseless in your own home. I’ve asked many anti-gun advocates what they would do if someone broke into their home and attacked their spouse and kids. When pressing the issue, many finally admitted that in such a situation, they would want some means of protection or self-defense, up to and including a gun.
Then I ask them about gun control laws that require homeowners to keep their guns unloaded and secured with either a trigger locking device or locked in a gun safe? At this point, most admit that the laws leave homeowners defenseless in their own homes........To Read More......
Anti-Second Amendment liberals care nothing about your welfare or safety. If they had their way, you would be left defenseless in your own home. I’ve asked many anti-gun advocates what they would do if someone broke into their home and attacked their spouse and kids. When pressing the issue, many finally admitted that in such a situation, they would want some means of protection or self-defense, up to and including a gun.
Then I ask them about gun control laws that require homeowners to keep their guns unloaded and secured with either a trigger locking device or locked in a gun safe? At this point, most admit that the laws leave homeowners defenseless in their own homes........To Read More......
GIGO-based energy and climate policies
It’s like formulating public safety policies using models based on dinosaur DNA from amber
Paul Driessen (Editor's Note: Emphasis added by me. RK)
Things are never quiet on the climate front.
After calling dangerous manmade climate change a hoax and vowing to withdraw the USA from the Paris agreement, President Trump has apparently removed language criticizing the Paris deal from a pending executive order initiating a rollback of anti-fossil-fuel regulations, to help jumpstart job creation.
Meanwhile, EPA Administration Scott Pruitt says he expects quick action to rescind the Clean Power Plan, a central component of the Obama Era’s war on coal and hydrocarbons. The US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is reopening its investigation into NOAA’s mishandling or tampering with global temperature data, for a report designed to promote action in Paris in 2015.
Hundreds of scientists signed a letter urging President Trump to withdraw from the UN climate agency. They warn that efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions are not scientifically justified and will kill jobs and exacerbate US and international poverty without improving the environment or stabilizing climate.
Hundreds of other scientists told Mr. Trump he must not waver on climate stabilization efforts or make any moves to defund government or university climate research. Hundreds of businessmen and investors told the President failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.
Over in Britain, Members of Parliament say efforts to build a low-carbon economy have led to a 58% rise in electricity prices since 2006, sending manufacturing and jobs overseas, to countries that are under no obligation to reduce fossil fuel use or CO2 emissions. MPs are also angry that carefully hidden “green subsidies” will account for nearly one-fourth of sky-high residential electricity bills by 2020.
All of this is a valuable reminder that the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry is now a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! And that’s just for its private sector components, the corporate rent-seekers.
This monstrous price tag does not include the Big Green environmentalism industry, the salaries and pensions of armies of federal, state, local, foreign country and UN bureaucrats who create and coordinate climate and renewable energy programs, or the far higher electricity and motor fuel costs that businesses and families must pay, to cover the costs of “saving people and planet from climate ravages.”
Earth’s climate is likely changing somewhere, as it has throughout planetary and human history. Our fuel use and countless other human activities may play a role, at least locally – but their role is dwarfed to near irrelevance by powerful solar, oceanic, cosmic ray and other natural forces.
Moreover, real-world ice, sea level, temperature, hurricane, drought and other observations show nothing outside historic fluctuations. Unprecedented disasters exist only in the realm of hypotheses, press releases and computer models.
So there is no reason to cede control over our livelihoods and living standards to politicians, activists and bureaucrats; replace reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy with expensive, unreliable renewables; destroy millions of jobs in the process; and tell billions of impoverished people they must be content with solar ovens, solar panels, wind turbines, and health, nutrition and living standards little better than today’s.
There is no reason to honor the document that President Obama unilaterally signed in Paris. As Dr. Steve Allen observed in a masterful analysis: “The decisive action promised in the treaty that is not a treaty consists of governments, most of them run by dictators and thieves, promising, on an honor system, to take steps of their own choosing, to change future weather patterns, and then coming up with ways by which they can measure their own progress and hold themselves accountable by their own standards for the promises they have made, on penalty of no punishment if they break their word.”
Mainly, Allen continues, the Paris con is about “taking money from taxpayers and consumers and businesspeople and electricity ratepayers, and giving it to crony capitalists; and taking money from people in relatively successful countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries, to benefit governing elites.”
India alone wants hundreds of billions of dollars in climate “adaptation and reparation” money from industrialized nations that are supposed to slash their fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions and economic growth, while pouring trillions into the Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, India, China and other rapidly developing nations are firing up hundreds of coal-fueled power plants, burning more oil and gas, and emitting more CO2, to industrialize their countries and lift their people out of abject poverty – as well they should.
So just follow the money – and power-grabbing. That is the real source of the religious fervor, the Catechism of Climate Cataclysm, behind the vehement denunciations of President Trump for having the gall to threaten the global high priests who drive and profit from climate change fear mongering.
Those forces are desperate and determined to keep their power and money train on track. They’re ramping up indignation and cranking out “research” to justify their demands. For example:
Expert Market (whose core expertise is helping companies compare prices for postage meters, coffee machines and other B2B products) has just released a study purporting to show which US states will suffer most “from Trump’s climate change denial” and America’s “climate change inaction.”
The total cost will be $506 billion by 2050, just for hurricane and other real estate damages, extra energy costs, and more frequent and severe droughts. “Vermont emerged as the state worst equipped to handle the cost,” the study contends, while Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas are also “severely at risk.” California and New York are among those best able to endure the imminent chaos.
It sounds horrific – and it’s intended to be, the better to pressure the White House and Congress to codify and enforce the nonbinding provisions of the Paris non-treaty, and retain Obama-era anti-hydrocarbon energy policies. But the entire exercise is a classic example of Garbage In/Garbage Out (GIGO) black box computer modeling, carefully crafted to ensure the justifications required for a predetermined political outcome, especially the monumental “nationwide green initiatives” that Expert Market supports.
Thus, carbon dioxide will drive rapidly rising global temperatures that will warm the planet enough to increase sea surface temperatures dramatically – spawning more frequent, more damaging hurricanes, and melting polar ice caps enough to raise sea levels 23 inches by 2050, the Expert Market experts assert.
Global warming measured in hundredths of a degree over the past 19 years will suddenly be replaced by runaway heat waves. Seas now rising at 7 inches per century will suddenly climb at ten times that rate over the next three decades, sending storm surges far inland. Major US land-falling hurricanes that have been absent now for eleven years will suddenly proliferate to unprecedented levels.
How Vermont and the other top-five “worst equipped” states – all of them inland – will be affected by any of this is anyone’s guess. But the model says they’re at risk, so we must take drastic action now.
Soaring temperatures will increase demand for air conditioning, and thus raise household energy costs, says Expert Market. CA, NY and other “green” state electricity costs are already twice as high as those in coal and gas-reliant states. Imposing wind and solar initiatives on fossil fuel states would likely double their family and business energy costs, but that factor is not included in its calculations.
Droughts “will become more frequent and severe” in states already afflicted by arid conditions – assuming all the dire CO2 depredations, and ignoring both those states’ long experience with drought cycles and how California’s years-long drought has once again given way to abundant rainfall.
The Expert Market study is symptomatic of the politicized assumptions and data manipulation that have driven climate models and disaster scenarios since the IPCC began studying manmade climate chaos.
Indeed, the entire climate chaos exercise is akin to basing public safety policies on computer models that assume dinosaur DNA extracted from fossilized amber will soon result in hordes of T rexes running rampant across our land. We deserve a more honest, rational basis for policies that govern our lives.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
Quote of the Day!
Barack Obama wrote a book titled "The Audacity of Hope." His own career, however, might more accurately be titled "The Mendacity of Hype." - Thomas Sowell
Trump says not going to White House Correspondents dinner
By Joseph Weber February 26, 2017
Klayman: Good for President Trump. The WHCD is hosted by a bunch of self aggrandizing leftist media snobs who have a false sense of self importance!
Ben Stein: Media doing to Trump what it did to Nixon
Klayman: Well said by my good friend Ben Stein on leftist media's attempt to destroy President Trump!
President Trump said Saturday that he will not attend the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, escalating his battle with the news media and raising questions about the future of the annual event. "I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year," Trump tweeted. "Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!".........Continue Reading.....
Klayman: Good for President Trump. The WHCD is hosted by a bunch of self aggrandizing leftist media snobs who have a false sense of self importance!
Ben Stein: Media doing to Trump what it did to Nixon
CNN February 26, 2017
While defending President Trump's decision to skip the White House Correspondence Dinner, Ben Stein said that the media is "trying to do to Trump what they did to Nixon" during the Watergate scandal..........Continue Reading.....
Klayman: Well said by my good friend Ben Stein on leftist media's attempt to destroy President Trump!
Do as I say, not as I do
Jon Ray @ Dissecting Leftism
(Editor's Note: This is paraphrased of a series of comments made by Jon Ray on this subject. RK)
The Left love preaching civilized behaviour even while they behave in the most offensive manner possible. The election of Trump has seen them sink to the very depths of offensive words and behaviour. So what has Amnesty International got to say about that behavior? Crickets. They criticize Mr. Trump only.
There is no doubt that Mr Trump's policies have tended to make Muslims and Hispanics feel unwelcome but that is just a reflection of the fact that Muslims and Hispanics have made themselves unwelcome by their egregious behaviour. If Amnesty wants to seen as more than a Leftist propaganda mouthpiece they will have to start looking at both sides of the matter.
This article, Global Rights Group Accuses Trump, Others of ‘Politics of Demonization’, by Patrick Goodenough notes: The Left-leaning Amnesty International has accused President Trump and other “anti-establishment” politicians of “wield[ing] politics of demonization that hounds, scapegoats and dehumanizes entire groups of people to win the support of voters.” “Donald Trump’s poisonous campaign rhetoric exemplifies a global trend towards angrier and more divisive politics,” Amnesty International said in a new annual report covering 159 countries and territories.
A Washington post editorial, "Breaking the unwritten rules of governing", criticizes Mr Trump's firing of Sally Yates -- an Obama relic heading the Justice Department -- when she refused to do her job. What was he supposed to say other than "You're fired"? Once again the Leftist rag is preaching the highest standards of civilized behavior -- oblivious that the Left themselves constantly do the opposite. They have the brass to say that we should not demonize political opponents. So "Trump = Hitler" and all the rest is wrong? It certainly is but the Post does not mention that.
I have not made any attempt to do a search of their own articles but I note that in yesterday's issue they had an article written by an Obamabot which was headed "The White House’s thoughtless, cruel and sad rollback of transgender rights". That's a pretty good effort at demonization -- particularly because Trump didn't roll back anything. He just reverted the matter to the States, who may or may not do something about it.
Ethics, morality, principles and decency are all alien to the left. They just haven't got it in them. Their only constancy is their hatred of others.
(Editor's Note: This is paraphrased of a series of comments made by Jon Ray on this subject. RK)
The Left love preaching civilized behaviour even while they behave in the most offensive manner possible. The election of Trump has seen them sink to the very depths of offensive words and behaviour. So what has Amnesty International got to say about that behavior? Crickets. They criticize Mr. Trump only.
There is no doubt that Mr Trump's policies have tended to make Muslims and Hispanics feel unwelcome but that is just a reflection of the fact that Muslims and Hispanics have made themselves unwelcome by their egregious behaviour. If Amnesty wants to seen as more than a Leftist propaganda mouthpiece they will have to start looking at both sides of the matter.
This article, Global Rights Group Accuses Trump, Others of ‘Politics of Demonization’, by Patrick Goodenough notes: The Left-leaning Amnesty International has accused President Trump and other “anti-establishment” politicians of “wield[ing] politics of demonization that hounds, scapegoats and dehumanizes entire groups of people to win the support of voters.” “Donald Trump’s poisonous campaign rhetoric exemplifies a global trend towards angrier and more divisive politics,” Amnesty International said in a new annual report covering 159 countries and territories.
A Washington post editorial, "Breaking the unwritten rules of governing", criticizes Mr Trump's firing of Sally Yates -- an Obama relic heading the Justice Department -- when she refused to do her job. What was he supposed to say other than "You're fired"? Once again the Leftist rag is preaching the highest standards of civilized behavior -- oblivious that the Left themselves constantly do the opposite. They have the brass to say that we should not demonize political opponents. So "Trump = Hitler" and all the rest is wrong? It certainly is but the Post does not mention that.
I have not made any attempt to do a search of their own articles but I note that in yesterday's issue they had an article written by an Obamabot which was headed "The White House’s thoughtless, cruel and sad rollback of transgender rights". That's a pretty good effort at demonization -- particularly because Trump didn't roll back anything. He just reverted the matter to the States, who may or may not do something about it.
Ethics, morality, principles and decency are all alien to the left. They just haven't got it in them. Their only constancy is their hatred of others.
Champagne Time! It's a "Bloodbath" at the State Department
by Robert Spencer, February 24, 2017
At least one swamp appears to be being drained. "It's a bloodbath at the State Department," the New York Post hyperventilated last Friday: "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is cleaning house at the State Department, according to a report." In Donald Trump's America, so much has happened so quickly to set the nation on a course decisively different from the one it was on during the regime of his disastrous socialist internationalist predecessor that this particular bit of good news was largely overlooked.
But if a housecleaning at the State Department isn't a cause for celebration, nothing is. "Many of those let go were on the building's seventh floor - top-floor bigs," the Post tells us, and adds that this is "a symbolically important sign to the rest of the diplomatic corps that their new boss has different priorities than the last one." Pop the champagne! And not only that, but "this week's round of firings marks the second time State Department personnel have been cleared out since President Trump took office last month. Four top officials were cleared out of the building at the end of January." Break out the hats and hooters!.......To Read More....
At least one swamp appears to be being drained. "It's a bloodbath at the State Department," the New York Post hyperventilated last Friday: "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is cleaning house at the State Department, according to a report." In Donald Trump's America, so much has happened so quickly to set the nation on a course decisively different from the one it was on during the regime of his disastrous socialist internationalist predecessor that this particular bit of good news was largely overlooked.
But if a housecleaning at the State Department isn't a cause for celebration, nothing is. "Many of those let go were on the building's seventh floor - top-floor bigs," the Post tells us, and adds that this is "a symbolically important sign to the rest of the diplomatic corps that their new boss has different priorities than the last one." Pop the champagne! And not only that, but "this week's round of firings marks the second time State Department personnel have been cleared out since President Trump took office last month. Four top officials were cleared out of the building at the end of January." Break out the hats and hooters!.......To Read More....
Slavery Wasn’t Based Upon Skin Color
By on February 21, 2017 in Daily Rant, Education, Politics, Race & Politics 30
A myth that many Americans as a whole buy into is that slavery was about being a skin color - Self-limiting pursuits that serve only to retard personal growth and reject modernity have plagued blacks in America uninterrupted, in the form of identity politics, since the collapse of the oppressive eras of subjugated inequality, i.e., slavery, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and Jim Crow laws that were instituted and maintained by the Democrat Party.
No people as a group have been more harmed by the ruthless constructs of identity politics than blacks. I contend that W.E.B. Du Bois, with the admonition of Vladimir Lenin, introduced identity politics at the beginning of the 20th century, and it continues today as an industry – second only to abortion in its destructive effect on blacks.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiative and Richard Nixon’s skin-color based affirmative action programming can be argued as nails in the coffin that contained the abandonment of personal responsibility, true self-esteem, civility, and propriety, for many, if not most blacks. And as referenced, said decline continues unabated today.
Tragically, most blacks base their identity upon the color of their skin and the inculcated immiseration born out of their self-induced theology of victimology associated with same.
For the overwhelming majority of blacks, being a skin color is not only sacrosanct; it is paramount to their identity above all else including God Almighty Himself. Skin color is foundational to all they aspire to be to the point of harboring visceral contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their debilitating fixation upon same.
Perhaps one of the most overlooked, indeed most unknown facts is that blacks were not brought to America as a color. That is a difficult fact to digest for those fixated upon being a color. It is the deadly truth those making an industry out of marketing skin color do not want known, and/or understood because it threatens the skin color narrative. Specific to said point, if that understanding is embraced, then it logically follows that people will begin to question when and why did skin color become important?
Africans were hunted, captured, and sold as a form of commerce, just as slavery was with every other group of people spanning history beginning in the Old Testament Book of Genesis. People were not selected to be slaves based upon skin color, they were conscripted into slavery vis-a`-vis war and/or commerce, which understandably resulted in people being born into slavery.
As I outlined in my eBook “Blacks Are Victims Because They’re Told They Are,” blacks were slaves just as every other population group has been at some point in their history. But thanks to Lenin and Du Bois slavery in America has resulted in a windfall of bounty for the skin color mongers, and emotional and psychological poverty for the rest.
Reducing one’s self-esteem to being a skin color is an act of self-sabotage that has been encouraged by nefarious hate mongers, the ignorant and those who refuse to acknowledge and embrace modernity.
Another myth that many Americans as a whole buy into is that slavery was about being a skin color. Slavery was not about being a skin color, rather as I have argued, it became about being a skin color because that fit at first a social narrative, and later a socio-political narrative.
I have argued many times that the Civil War wasn’t fought based upon the skin color of the slaves. Slavery was only a tangential reason for fighting the Civil War. The primary reasons had to do with state’s rights versus what several Southern states viewed as an overreach of federal authority in violation to the Constitution. Other causal factors included expansionism and nationalism that led to calls for Southern secession, which the Northern states were unwilling to abide. These factors, while not exhaustive, played a large role in launching America into war with itself. Specific to that point, skin color only became the issue when the Democrat Party employed same as a means to continue slavery and as a reason to punish “free Negroes” for supporting Republicans.
Skin color became the issue Democrats exploited, as we see evidenced by the arguments Democrats employed to perpetuate slavery. Skin color for Democrats was a means of fomenting fear-mongering that the “dark skinned” slaves were less than human, and if freed they would rape white women. (Evidence: The Birth of a Nation; D. W. Griffith; 1915)
“In 1820, the Democrat Congress passed the Missouri Compromise. That law first repealed the provisions of the original 1789 anti-slavery law forbidding the extension of slavery into any federal territory, and then authorized the extension of slavery into new federal territories.” (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Page 3)
Democrats fought all restrictions on slavery asserting that ending slavery would not only negatively impact the happiness of America but would also lead to America’s destruction by the freed slaves. The same argument would have been made regardless of the skin color of the slaves. In fact, the argument was used against the Indian tribes to validate the abhorrent treatment they received. Hitler likewise used the argument against the Jews to create negatives that were used as reasons to validate their extermination.
It is also important to note that the terrorism and mistreatment of “free Negroes,” as persons of color were called in America at that time, didn’t start until slaves were freed. It was at that time the KKK and Jim Crow laws were used by Democrats to subjugate blacks because blacks had turned to the Republican Party in vast numbers. Democrat consternation had to do with political control and skin color identity politics was the most expedient way to accomplish their objective.
This fact was attested to by “free Negroes” themselves: The “inhuman outrages” perpetuated upon African Americans in the South were largely committed through the Democrats’ Ku Klux Klan. It is indisputable historical fact that the Klan was started by Democrats. In fact, during congressional hearings on the subject, one prominent Democrat testified that the Ku Klux Klan “belongs to . . . our party – the Democratic Party.” And the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan was prominent Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, an honoree at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. Recall also that every Democrat in Congress voted against the 1871 bill to punish Klan violence (See note about this bill on Pg. 8; Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Word).
Why were blacks so often the target of Klan violence? According to African American U. S. Rep. John Roy Lynch: “More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.” African American U. S. Rep. Richard Cain of South Carolina, a bishop of the AME denomination, agreed, declaring: “The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” It was these Democratic and Klan “inhuman outrages” to which Republicans here object. (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Pg.14)
It cannot be overlooked that neither of these men said they were persecuted for being black. Both men stated quite clearly that they were persecuted because the “free Negroes” in vastly greater numbers supported the Republican Party. Democrats weren’t concerned about skin color as such; they were concerned about the preservation of slavery at any cost. Skin color was simply the vehicle they used to disenfranchise the “freed Slaves” and advance their Erebusic agenda, just as Democrats and progressives are doing today.
Moving forward, both Lenin and Du Bois understood that by fomenting resentment and distrust based upon skin color they could prosper politically, which also meant that they could prosper financially.
Fast forwarding past the history I discuss in my book, as referenced previously, we come to where we are today. Being recognized in any capacity as long as their skin color is included is the utmost desire for many blacks. In reality skin color prestige is the affectation of the small-minded who are motivated by various forms of inculcated inferiority and exhibitions of bigotry as a means of obfuscating same.
The brainwashing of blacks pursuant to the importance of valuing skin color above all reason has been so complete and thorough — that they with apoplectic hysteria reflexively attack anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to being a color.
Persons who view themselves by nationality juxtaposed by skin color are accused of being ashamed of their “race,” which as I have explained in other writings, there is no such thing as “race.” Blacks despise persons who do not place skin color on an altar to be worshiped. And the Erebusic progressive hordes that benefit financially and politically encourage said behavior.
Americans are more than a skin color and embracing nationality over ethnicity does not by definition mean one is ashamed of their ethnicity. It means they are proud of their nationality a fact that history proves is not a bad thing; it is quite the opposite.
A myth that many Americans as a whole buy into is that slavery was about being a skin color - Self-limiting pursuits that serve only to retard personal growth and reject modernity have plagued blacks in America uninterrupted, in the form of identity politics, since the collapse of the oppressive eras of subjugated inequality, i.e., slavery, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and Jim Crow laws that were instituted and maintained by the Democrat Party.
No people as a group have been more harmed by the ruthless constructs of identity politics than blacks. I contend that W.E.B. Du Bois, with the admonition of Vladimir Lenin, introduced identity politics at the beginning of the 20th century, and it continues today as an industry – second only to abortion in its destructive effect on blacks.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiative and Richard Nixon’s skin-color based affirmative action programming can be argued as nails in the coffin that contained the abandonment of personal responsibility, true self-esteem, civility, and propriety, for many, if not most blacks. And as referenced, said decline continues unabated today.
Tragically, most blacks base their identity upon the color of their skin and the inculcated immiseration born out of their self-induced theology of victimology associated with same.
For the overwhelming majority of blacks, being a skin color is not only sacrosanct; it is paramount to their identity above all else including God Almighty Himself. Skin color is foundational to all they aspire to be to the point of harboring visceral contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their debilitating fixation upon same.
Perhaps one of the most overlooked, indeed most unknown facts is that blacks were not brought to America as a color. That is a difficult fact to digest for those fixated upon being a color. It is the deadly truth those making an industry out of marketing skin color do not want known, and/or understood because it threatens the skin color narrative. Specific to said point, if that understanding is embraced, then it logically follows that people will begin to question when and why did skin color become important?
Africans were hunted, captured, and sold as a form of commerce, just as slavery was with every other group of people spanning history beginning in the Old Testament Book of Genesis. People were not selected to be slaves based upon skin color, they were conscripted into slavery vis-a`-vis war and/or commerce, which understandably resulted in people being born into slavery.
As I outlined in my eBook “Blacks Are Victims Because They’re Told They Are,” blacks were slaves just as every other population group has been at some point in their history. But thanks to Lenin and Du Bois slavery in America has resulted in a windfall of bounty for the skin color mongers, and emotional and psychological poverty for the rest.
Reducing one’s self-esteem to being a skin color is an act of self-sabotage that has been encouraged by nefarious hate mongers, the ignorant and those who refuse to acknowledge and embrace modernity.
Another myth that many Americans as a whole buy into is that slavery was about being a skin color. Slavery was not about being a skin color, rather as I have argued, it became about being a skin color because that fit at first a social narrative, and later a socio-political narrative.
I have argued many times that the Civil War wasn’t fought based upon the skin color of the slaves. Slavery was only a tangential reason for fighting the Civil War. The primary reasons had to do with state’s rights versus what several Southern states viewed as an overreach of federal authority in violation to the Constitution. Other causal factors included expansionism and nationalism that led to calls for Southern secession, which the Northern states were unwilling to abide. These factors, while not exhaustive, played a large role in launching America into war with itself. Specific to that point, skin color only became the issue when the Democrat Party employed same as a means to continue slavery and as a reason to punish “free Negroes” for supporting Republicans.
Skin color became the issue Democrats exploited, as we see evidenced by the arguments Democrats employed to perpetuate slavery. Skin color for Democrats was a means of fomenting fear-mongering that the “dark skinned” slaves were less than human, and if freed they would rape white women. (Evidence: The Birth of a Nation; D. W. Griffith; 1915)
“In 1820, the Democrat Congress passed the Missouri Compromise. That law first repealed the provisions of the original 1789 anti-slavery law forbidding the extension of slavery into any federal territory, and then authorized the extension of slavery into new federal territories.” (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Page 3)
Democrats fought all restrictions on slavery asserting that ending slavery would not only negatively impact the happiness of America but would also lead to America’s destruction by the freed slaves. The same argument would have been made regardless of the skin color of the slaves. In fact, the argument was used against the Indian tribes to validate the abhorrent treatment they received. Hitler likewise used the argument against the Jews to create negatives that were used as reasons to validate their extermination.
It is also important to note that the terrorism and mistreatment of “free Negroes,” as persons of color were called in America at that time, didn’t start until slaves were freed. It was at that time the KKK and Jim Crow laws were used by Democrats to subjugate blacks because blacks had turned to the Republican Party in vast numbers. Democrat consternation had to do with political control and skin color identity politics was the most expedient way to accomplish their objective.
This fact was attested to by “free Negroes” themselves: The “inhuman outrages” perpetuated upon African Americans in the South were largely committed through the Democrats’ Ku Klux Klan. It is indisputable historical fact that the Klan was started by Democrats. In fact, during congressional hearings on the subject, one prominent Democrat testified that the Ku Klux Klan “belongs to . . . our party – the Democratic Party.” And the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan was prominent Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, an honoree at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. Recall also that every Democrat in Congress voted against the 1871 bill to punish Klan violence (See note about this bill on Pg. 8; Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Word).
Why were blacks so often the target of Klan violence? According to African American U. S. Rep. John Roy Lynch: “More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.” African American U. S. Rep. Richard Cain of South Carolina, a bishop of the AME denomination, agreed, declaring: “The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” It was these Democratic and Klan “inhuman outrages” to which Republicans here object. (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Pg.14)
It cannot be overlooked that neither of these men said they were persecuted for being black. Both men stated quite clearly that they were persecuted because the “free Negroes” in vastly greater numbers supported the Republican Party. Democrats weren’t concerned about skin color as such; they were concerned about the preservation of slavery at any cost. Skin color was simply the vehicle they used to disenfranchise the “freed Slaves” and advance their Erebusic agenda, just as Democrats and progressives are doing today.
Moving forward, both Lenin and Du Bois understood that by fomenting resentment and distrust based upon skin color they could prosper politically, which also meant that they could prosper financially.
Fast forwarding past the history I discuss in my book, as referenced previously, we come to where we are today. Being recognized in any capacity as long as their skin color is included is the utmost desire for many blacks. In reality skin color prestige is the affectation of the small-minded who are motivated by various forms of inculcated inferiority and exhibitions of bigotry as a means of obfuscating same.
The brainwashing of blacks pursuant to the importance of valuing skin color above all reason has been so complete and thorough — that they with apoplectic hysteria reflexively attack anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to being a color.
Persons who view themselves by nationality juxtaposed by skin color are accused of being ashamed of their “race,” which as I have explained in other writings, there is no such thing as “race.” Blacks despise persons who do not place skin color on an altar to be worshiped. And the Erebusic progressive hordes that benefit financially and politically encourage said behavior.
Americans are more than a skin color and embracing nationality over ethnicity does not by definition mean one is ashamed of their ethnicity. It means they are proud of their nationality a fact that history proves is not a bad thing; it is quite the opposite.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
P&D For Februry 25, 26, 2017
My Commentary
Academia
Book Review
Clinton's
Government Corruption
Feminism
Immigration
Academia
Book Review
Clinton's
Government Corruption
Feminism
Immigration
- The media portrays the affirmation of the First Amendment in the Trump CPAC speech.
- Savages of Stockholm
- Intelligence
- NSA Wiretap Net Much Larger Than Previously Reported
Observations From the Back Row: Media Outrage and Hypocrisy
By Rich Kozlovich
Today I've linked a number of articles dealing with the "fake news" and "The media is the enemy of Americans" issue surrounding President Trump.
Of course the media is outraged - they're finally being called to task by someone everyone has to listen to - the owner of the Bully Pulpit - The President of the United States, Donald Trump.
He's called the media scum. So have I and many others over the years. He's called the media America's enemy. So have I and many others over the years. He's called the media liars. So have I and many others over the years. And the list goes on.
But when newsies like me - and all these others - exposed their craven mendacity it may had some effect, but how much can only be guessed at. While we may have gotten others to see what we've been seeing for decades we couldn't change a thing as long as the leadership play the game by the media's rules, i.e., they decide what's important, who's important, what's news and what's not news. In short - someone is finally saying to them - you don't have the power to control the message by lying and get away with it any longer. And that someone is the President of the United States who doesn't care one whit whether the media likes him or not. Mostly because he's smart enough to know no matter what he does they're going to hate and villify them. And he understands appeasers are like the prey eaten by crocodiles.
He doesn't want money - he has more than he or his family can spend. He doesn't want more power because he's got all he can handle. He doesn't want prestige or he would have stayed out of this. He doesn't want position because he is the "position". And it's clear by his actions none of these things are of concern to him after he's out of office.
I never liked Trump. From the beginning of this election cycle I dismissed both he and Bernie Sanders as "perpetual" candidates looking to get some publicity. And that's what they were. Both of the were as shocked as I when it looked like they actually had a following and could take their party's nomination. We now know that couldn't happen with the Democrats because it was rigged.
But it was possible in the Republican Party, and it did happen in the Republican party, the party the media hates. Not the party of rigged elections, but the party that allowed someone the leadership despised to become it's nominee because the "people" of the Republican party decided who was to be the nominee, not the party leaders. And they picked a nominee prominent Republicans repudiated, and a number of them - including George Will - even wanted Hillary to win.
I said back then: Tell me how a man treats his wife, and in this case wives, and I will tell you who he is. Well, I really hate being wrong, but I also hate not admitting to being wrong. As I'm fond of saying.....that was a logical fallacy. First, his life was an open book so he didn't have anything to hide and his reputation couldn't have been worse. Secondly, I didn't take into consideration a man who was unstable in his married life can still be successful in business.
If a man can be successful in business, he can be successful in politics, because both require good acting skills. He never expected to be where he is and when it became obvious to him he might actually win the Presidency, I saw a change. He's now come to believe he can save America from the socialists who've been working to destroy the Constitution, American capitalism and the nation. An ongoing effort since Stalin sent his agents here to do so in the 1920's, and the Democrat party with FDR was instrumental in that infiltration.
That infiltration included the newspapers, radio, Hollywood, the unions, academia and every department of the federal government, including what became the CIA. Are you ready for this? McCarthy was right. His numbers may have been off, but based on what we know from the VENONA intercepts, perhaps not by much. One more thing. McCarthy's Senate committee only looked into communist infiltration of government. It was the House on UnAmerica Activities Committee (HUAC) in the House run by the Democrats who went after Hollywood.
Do you see the pattern? McCarthy has been vilified for decades by the Democrats and their propaganda machine - the main stream media in the fifties, but actually the corruption goes back to before WWII. During the war they even promoted Stalin and Russia as allies against Hitler, easily forgetting they were collaborators of Hitler invading Poland, the Baltic states and Finland.
Donald Trump has taken them to task and they're outraged at being exposed as "alcoholics" of news. Addicted to the power, prestige and privilege that's been bestowed upon them by themselves. That's over with. With the exception of Reince Priebus, White House Chief of Staff, the Trump team won't play their game.
Trump's team is going to lay down the rules and the media will play by them or be out. The main stream media is toast and the so-called alternative media is going to become transcendent because the alternative media doesn't need Trump and will say what they believe to be true without concern about pride, prejudice or privilege.
Trump reminds me of me - "It's not about me, it's about the mission." And part of his mission in saving America means destroying the traitors, liars, and charlatans of the media. And the idea of a man who's played the clown saving America must he heady stuff for him, and that's how he sees his place in history. The President who saved America. With that as a goal: who cares what the media thinks?
One more thing. For those of us who remember when Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers we remember the media's, and the Democrats, outrage. Reagan won, even against advisers in his own party and administration - and the net result? The postal workers, who threatened to strike, didn't, and world leaders realized they were facing a real man who was not to be taken lightly, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Don't kid yourself. The world's leaders were aware Obama - and his administration - on their best day had a backbone of spaghetti and the mental and intellectual discipline of a child. The world's leaders understand Trump and his administration is made up of adults who are smart, knowledgeable, tough and fearless.
America's greatest threat durning the Reagan years was the Soviet Union. Reagan's goal was to defeat the Soviet Union and he made compromises with the left in order to do so. The world is going to change, and the left, which has been a threat to the nation for over a hundred years, is now the number one threat to the nation's continued existence.
Just as Reagan bested the air traffic controllers and brought down the Soviet Union, Trump is going to have to face down the media because his goal must be to defeat the left. Trump must stay the course and expose the media for whom and what they are in order to accomplish that mission.
Today I've linked a number of articles dealing with the "fake news" and "The media is the enemy of Americans" issue surrounding President Trump.
Of course the media is outraged - they're finally being called to task by someone everyone has to listen to - the owner of the Bully Pulpit - The President of the United States, Donald Trump.
He's called the media scum. So have I and many others over the years. He's called the media America's enemy. So have I and many others over the years. He's called the media liars. So have I and many others over the years. And the list goes on.
But when newsies like me - and all these others - exposed their craven mendacity it may had some effect, but how much can only be guessed at. While we may have gotten others to see what we've been seeing for decades we couldn't change a thing as long as the leadership play the game by the media's rules, i.e., they decide what's important, who's important, what's news and what's not news. In short - someone is finally saying to them - you don't have the power to control the message by lying and get away with it any longer. And that someone is the President of the United States who doesn't care one whit whether the media likes him or not. Mostly because he's smart enough to know no matter what he does they're going to hate and villify them. And he understands appeasers are like the prey eaten by crocodiles.
He doesn't want money - he has more than he or his family can spend. He doesn't want more power because he's got all he can handle. He doesn't want prestige or he would have stayed out of this. He doesn't want position because he is the "position". And it's clear by his actions none of these things are of concern to him after he's out of office.
I never liked Trump. From the beginning of this election cycle I dismissed both he and Bernie Sanders as "perpetual" candidates looking to get some publicity. And that's what they were. Both of the were as shocked as I when it looked like they actually had a following and could take their party's nomination. We now know that couldn't happen with the Democrats because it was rigged.
But it was possible in the Republican Party, and it did happen in the Republican party, the party the media hates. Not the party of rigged elections, but the party that allowed someone the leadership despised to become it's nominee because the "people" of the Republican party decided who was to be the nominee, not the party leaders. And they picked a nominee prominent Republicans repudiated, and a number of them - including George Will - even wanted Hillary to win.
I said back then: Tell me how a man treats his wife, and in this case wives, and I will tell you who he is. Well, I really hate being wrong, but I also hate not admitting to being wrong. As I'm fond of saying.....that was a logical fallacy. First, his life was an open book so he didn't have anything to hide and his reputation couldn't have been worse. Secondly, I didn't take into consideration a man who was unstable in his married life can still be successful in business.
If a man can be successful in business, he can be successful in politics, because both require good acting skills. He never expected to be where he is and when it became obvious to him he might actually win the Presidency, I saw a change. He's now come to believe he can save America from the socialists who've been working to destroy the Constitution, American capitalism and the nation. An ongoing effort since Stalin sent his agents here to do so in the 1920's, and the Democrat party with FDR was instrumental in that infiltration.
That infiltration included the newspapers, radio, Hollywood, the unions, academia and every department of the federal government, including what became the CIA. Are you ready for this? McCarthy was right. His numbers may have been off, but based on what we know from the VENONA intercepts, perhaps not by much. One more thing. McCarthy's Senate committee only looked into communist infiltration of government. It was the House on UnAmerica Activities Committee (HUAC) in the House run by the Democrats who went after Hollywood.
Do you see the pattern? McCarthy has been vilified for decades by the Democrats and their propaganda machine - the main stream media in the fifties, but actually the corruption goes back to before WWII. During the war they even promoted Stalin and Russia as allies against Hitler, easily forgetting they were collaborators of Hitler invading Poland, the Baltic states and Finland.
Donald Trump has taken them to task and they're outraged at being exposed as "alcoholics" of news. Addicted to the power, prestige and privilege that's been bestowed upon them by themselves. That's over with. With the exception of Reince Priebus, White House Chief of Staff, the Trump team won't play their game.
Trump's team is going to lay down the rules and the media will play by them or be out. The main stream media is toast and the so-called alternative media is going to become transcendent because the alternative media doesn't need Trump and will say what they believe to be true without concern about pride, prejudice or privilege.
Trump reminds me of me - "It's not about me, it's about the mission." And part of his mission in saving America means destroying the traitors, liars, and charlatans of the media. And the idea of a man who's played the clown saving America must he heady stuff for him, and that's how he sees his place in history. The President who saved America. With that as a goal: who cares what the media thinks?
One more thing. For those of us who remember when Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers we remember the media's, and the Democrats, outrage. Reagan won, even against advisers in his own party and administration - and the net result? The postal workers, who threatened to strike, didn't, and world leaders realized they were facing a real man who was not to be taken lightly, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Don't kid yourself. The world's leaders were aware Obama - and his administration - on their best day had a backbone of spaghetti and the mental and intellectual discipline of a child. The world's leaders understand Trump and his administration is made up of adults who are smart, knowledgeable, tough and fearless.
America's greatest threat durning the Reagan years was the Soviet Union. Reagan's goal was to defeat the Soviet Union and he made compromises with the left in order to do so. The world is going to change, and the left, which has been a threat to the nation for over a hundred years, is now the number one threat to the nation's continued existence.
Just as Reagan bested the air traffic controllers and brought down the Soviet Union, Trump is going to have to face down the media because his goal must be to defeat the left. Trump must stay the course and expose the media for whom and what they are in order to accomplish that mission.
Undercover Journalist Goes After CNN and Establishment Media with Hundreds of Hours of Insider Footage
Project Veritas‘ James O’Keefe appeared on Sean Hannity
‘s radio show on Monday and has warned that he would release “hundreds of hours” of tape from inside the establishment media, and it seems that particular media group is CNN. Here’s how the important portions of the Hannity interview went.O’Keefe: In the next 48 hours, Project Veritas, like Wikileaks, will be releasing hundreds of hours of tape from within the establishment media. Our next target is in fact, the media.
Hannity: How long have you been working on this?
O’Keefe: We’ve had people on the inside come to us. Just like Julian Assange has people come to him, we’ve had people, sources come to us and give us information, and we’re going to be releasing it “Wikileaks Style” this week............“The Most Trusted Name in News,” CNN has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted and we’ve covered that with video evidence that they are not erring on certain stories, but knowingly fabricating them..............To Read More.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)