January 29, 2016
21st Century Fox also ranks as the 13th biggest contributor to Hillary Clinton during her political career, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics. The database credits the Rupert Murdoch-owned company as having pitched in $340,936 to her campaigns. That puts Fox just below Lehman Brothers, but eleven spots below second-place Goldman Sachs, on the pro-Clinton list."
No wonder Fox has been moving steadily leftward.
January 28, 2016
Long range, eh? It'll splash down in the sea 20 miles south of SoKo, maybe 30 if everyone's lucky.
North Korea is preparing a long-range missile launch and it could happen as early as next week, according to a published report.
The games begin.
Someone broke into Rand Paul's campaign office in New Hampshire. Why? Paul is polling in numbers that would not even make a decent shoe size. There would be no sensible reason for a GOP candidate to do this. If anyone believes it was a random burglarly I have a bridge for sale!
This fairly reeks of either the Clinton's or Obama. They likely want info on contributors to the GOP, probably so they can strongarm them.
Bet the DOJ takes little interest in this.
January 27, 2016
Writing at Net Right Daily, Dustin Howard chronicles an attack by the Obama Administration on car dealers:
From the article:
"Peter Roff, who writes for U.S. News and World Report, has recently documented how the Obama Administration's "watchdogs" are waging war on the car dealers of America, trying to destroy their business model. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) organized an event last week that was "designed to show the franchise model on which the industry operates is anti-competitive and results in consumers paying higher prices for new cars than they ought," wrote Roff.
As Roff noted, the CFPB is alleging that dealerships are employing discriminatory practices to harm minority car buyers. He also noted that they have a "specious" empirical basis to do so. He instead points to research that overtly contradict the notion that competition is being restricted by franchisees to harm Obaconsumers. Why then do they press on?
Taken with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) flawed modeling to assume that auto dealerships are discriminating against minority consumers, it seems that a full scale assault is underway.
This begs the question, why would they do this and who stands to gain?
Roff came short of saying that the Obama administration is clearing the way for Tesla, who has enjoyed a cozy relationship with the administration. Tesla has obstacles that prevent them from expanding, particularly that they want to have an Apple Store-like, manufacturer to consumer model that is prohibited in many states. Tesla seems to be leveraging their political connections to ameliorate their growing pains, to the point of using them as a weapon against their competition.â€
And indeed Dustin is correct; the Obama Administration hates the internal combustion engine and seeks its overthrow in our society. Ostensibly the Administration wants to promote "green" automobiles, which means electric cars (which take more energy and generate more greenhouse gases than a regular old-fashioned gas burner) but in the end what they seek is to control the movement of the public. Electric cars, with their limited range, are ideal to promoting restrictions on the movement of the public. That movement is an inalienable right, as I have argued.http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0708/0708drillingconsright.htm
Another point to ponder here; what Obama is doing to the auto industry is exactly what his friends in Congress did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Housing Bubble was generated by government imposed "fairness" to promote minority home ownership. The government, in it's boundless wisdom, decided that banks should be forced to make loans to people with sub-par credit, and do so in neighborhoods that did not command top dollar. The increase in risk was passed along to investors via bundling of loans and the monetizing of the mortgage industry. The result was a wild west where people without jobs were borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars and living well beyond their means. The result was the correction of 2008 which saw America drop into the worst economic period since the Great Depression. All of this was caused by government interference in an industry that thought to manipulate.
There is no difference here, except that cars are a little cheaper and are mobile. It's a lot harder to repossess a vehicle than to foreclose on a home.
This will, of course, drive the prices of automobiles way up, just as it did the price of housing prior to the crash,. That is, in my opinion, the4 whole point; the Feds want to force people out of cars and into Uber or bicycles. It is a part of Agenda 21/30, to get America to eschew the automobile and thus become a sedentary people, one that is easier to control and monitor.
Tom DeWeese has an excellent essay about Agenda 21. Read it here.http://americanpolicy.org/2012/05/12/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-or-threat-4/
As Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild point out in an article on Agenda 21 at American Thinker:
"Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, "Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government's goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left."
Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a "smart code" zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums. "
It also has the added benefit of allowing the Federal Government to overturn redistricting in Republican-controlled states by simply colonizing red districts with "blue" people.
And one way to guarantee that the public remain in these high density urban centers is to restrict the means of transportation. That is behind the drive to develop driverless cars that Google - a good friend of Agenda 21 - has undertaken.
Here is an example:
"George Gilhooley, an engineer with consulting firm HNTB, says the effort to attain better, more efficient usage of highways is helping drive the adoption of these new technologies. Apart from optimizing road use, the main issue is one of safety. He feels that the sooner traffic managers can respond to a given situation â€“ and get traffic moving again â€“ the better.
According to RITA, because of the variety of vehicle and infrastructure safety systems installed or planned, the focus must be on consistent and widely applicable standards and protocols. There are two forms of connected vehicles: those which can communicate with other vehicles and those that communicate with the infrastructure itself."
In either case, the driverless car is under the watchful eye of the authorities - and likely under their control as well. And this article in The Guardian gives us a glimpse into the WHY of driverless cars:
"Point-to-point systems such as bike-sharing programmes allow users to pick-up and drop-off vehicles at different locations. If properly designed these schemes can be complementary to public transport. Users can take a bus or subway train and then transfer to a shared bicycle for the last mile of their trip.
But bikes tend to cluster at popular locations at certain times of the day, while other locations may be devoid of available vehicles. Shared bike programmes solve this problem by redistributing bikes manually via truck. This is very costly and operators can never keep up with the demand for redistribution. Studies point to the significant impact bike redistribution has on total operational costs in running a shared bike programme. Clearly using trucks to move cars is hardly a reasonable proposition.
But with autonomous vehicles, we can solve this problem and release the power of the collaborative consumption economy. Imagine the following scenario: a customer uses a smartphone app to request an autonomous shared vehicle, it arrives at your door and drops you to your destination, and the vehicle then either moves on and picks up another customer or parks itself and recharges."
So, if the price of cars rises too high we shall go to "shared vehicles". Uber is a start on that, and Uber-like programs will increase over time. As cars become too expensive (and my brother was complaining that he had to buy a five year old vehicle when he has worked for Ford for 20 years!) and traffic more onerous - thanks to bicycle lanes and skinnier streets, two gifts of Agenda 21's planning - the "shared vehicles" will become more and more attractive. And driverless cars will become more and more of a necessity. Of course, those driverless cars will have restricted travel areas.
With the development of hydraulic fracturing we have seen a worldwide collapse of the price of oil, ruining the careful planning of the internationalists and the environmental lobby. It now becomes difficult to restrict the gasoline engine with cheap oil and no global warming, and so the Administration must act tan a different level. Car sales and roads are the next battlefront .
The whole point is to ultimately pen Americans in like cattle. Making cars too expensive and difficult to buy is a great start in implementing this.
January 26, 2016
I hope they send her to Club Gitmo...
Missouri Prof Who Shoved Students During Protest Charged With Assault
Christine Rousselle | Jan 25, 2016
University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click sparked controversy last November when she tried to forcibly remove a student journalist from documenting the ConcernedStudent1950 protest. She quickly resigned her courtesy post with the university's journalism school, and now she'll be facing third degree assault charges.
How much snow fell on Washington D.C. during this past weekend's massive snowstorm?
A NOTE FROM TIM:
If they can't measure snowfall in one American city how does the climate change establishment measure planetary differences of .1 degreee or less with any accuracy?
I lived in Niagara Falls, NY during a year when the American Falls was turned off totally for repairs to the rock face. Would take me hours to locate but I'm sure I have photos.
New York officials are considering temporarily turning Niagara Falls into a trickle.
Sent via the Fox News App. Download the app here.
January 25, 2016
Donald Trumpâ€™s rise this election season has been historic, amounting to something heretofore unseen in the annals of American politics. Given this, itâ€™s perhaps not surprising that many are still befuddled by the phenomenon. Pundit Charles Krauthammer is bewildered, saying that "for some reasonâ€ Trump "is immune to the laws of contradiction.â€ (In reality, Democrats get away with contradiction continually; the only difference is that the media actually report on Trumpâ€™s.) Also in the news recently is that some find his appeal among evangelicals "inexplicable.â€ Of course, itâ€™s all quite explainable.
In an earlier piece â€” which I strongly urge you to read â€” I expanded on certain factors evident in the Trump phenomenon. Trump is
* tapping into anger against the Establishment and over immigration and is a plain-spoken breath of fresh air.
* sounding a nationalistic note in an age where it is not the "eliteâ€ norm.
* not campaigning as conservative but a populist, which, almost by definition, tends to make one popular in an era of mass discontent.
* a crusader against hated political correctness, which has stifled tongues and killed careers nationwide. And in being the first prominent person to defeat the thought police (at least for now) â€” and by not cowering and apologizing to them â€” he has become a hero.
And as I wrote, "[W]hen you have a hero, leading the troops in the heat of battle against a despised oppressor, you donâ€™t worry about his marriages, past ideological indiscretions or salty language. You charge right behind him.â€ This is largely why Trumpâ€™s contradictions donâ€™t matter. Yet more can be said.
I often mention the fault of "mirroring,â€ which most everyone exhibits and is when you project your own ideals, values, priorities and mindset onto others. Itâ€™s particularly amusing when pundits and politicians comment on the electorate and speak as if everyone is a politics wonk who analyzes issues logically within the context of a broad knowledge base (pundits themselves often lack erudition and reason; of course, theyâ€™re blissfully unaware of it when thus guilty and nonetheless consider those qualities ideals). But man is not Mr. Spock, and logic and reason play less of a role in peopleâ€™s decision-making than most of us care to think.
This brings us to what Trump now has. Itâ€™s something all successful politicians have to a degree and that every iconic one has in spades: an emotional bond with his supporters.
Trump has been criticized for speaking in vague generalities and not providing specifics on the campaign trail. This misses the point. If advertising a product on TV, do you willingly provide mundane details about its ingredients or describe the intricacies of its manufacturing process? Thatâ€™s more the stuff of documentaries, and, insofar as the vendor goes, would only be found on an Internet product-information page (tantamount to a politicianâ€™s policy-position page) provided for those interested. No, you say "Look 15 years younger!â€ or "Lose 20 to 30 pounds in 6 weeks!â€ Or think of the circa2000 Mazda commercial with the young boy whispering "Zoom, zoom!â€ It was advertising an expensive, hi-tech machine but was invoking the unbridled joy of childhood, thus endeavoring to pique peopleâ€™s passions. And thatâ€™s the secret: capture your audience on an emotional level and theyâ€™re yours.
Or think about affairs of the heart. If youâ€™re truly bonded and in love with your wife, itâ€™s not because you first looked at her and, rendering a logical analysis, thought "Well, sheâ€™s vibrant and seems to have good genes, so weâ€™d likely have healthy kids; and sheâ€™s a darn good cook, and I relish a fine pot roast.â€ Rather, a true romantic bond is somewhat inscrutable, an emotional phenomenon, not an intellectual one. And itâ€™s powerful enough to cause a woman to follow a man into a life of faith or a life of crime (Bonnie and Clyde); it explains the enduring good marriages â€” and the bad ones.
Likewise, playing on emotion is not the sole province of morally bad or good politicians â€” only of successful ones. Hitler did it and Churchill did it; Huey Long did it and Reagan did it. When a candidate stands on a podium expounding upon policy nerd-like or has little to say beyond touting his "accomplishmentsâ€ (John Kasich comes to mind), theyâ€™re proving they donâ€™t get it. Create an emotional bond with the people, and theyâ€™re yours. And they will remain yours in the face of othersâ€™ intellectual appeals for their affections, for as Jonathan Swift observed, "You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.â€ Note that while this relates the futility of trying to shake a person from passionately embraced error, people can also have an emotional attachment to correct beliefs, for the right or wrong reasons and with or without an intellectual understanding (e.g., Plato spoke of inculcating children, who are too young to grasp abstract moral principles, with an "erotic [emotional] attachmentâ€ to virtue).
And this is what Trump does so masterfully. When he repeats his slogan "Make America Great Again,â€ says weâ€™re going to "winâ€ under his administration or speaks of building a border wall and getting "Mexico to pay for it,â€ itâ€™s silly to wonder why it resonates despite the lack of detail. Heâ€™s marketing, not doing R&D; heâ€™s not trying to appeal mainly to the intellect, but the emotions. And you do this with the slogan, not by reciting the list of ingredients. Again, this isnâ€™t a commentary on the validity of his recipe, only on the principles of effective campaigning.
Having said this, if a candidate is the real McCoy, heâ€™ll also have a quality product with a list of ingredients (again, a policy-position webpage) for the discriminating shopper. But if heâ€™s smart heâ€™ll understand that most people are impulse buyers with relatively short memories and recognize the importance of branding himself. Coca-Cola has "Coke is it!â€ Nike "Just do it!â€ and Barack Obama had "Yes, we can!â€ (no, he couldnâ€™t â€” but it worked). Now, can you think of a GOP candidate other than Trump identifiable by way of a catchy and popular slogan? And itâ€™s no coincidence that "Make America Great Againâ€ was also Reaganâ€™s slogan in 1980.
Of course, stating the obvious, to connect with people emotionally you must capitalize on something appealing to them emotionally. Trumpâ€™s bold nationalism does this. What do the others offer? Jeb Bush is associated with saying that illegal migration is "an act of loveâ€ and John Kasich with "Think about the [illegalsâ€™] families, câ€™mon, folks!â€ which might appeal to illegal migrants if they could speak English. And none of the others will even support suspending Muslim immigration â€” despite deep and widespread fear of Muslim terrorism â€” which certainly will appeal to Daâ€™esh (ISIS).
Itâ€™s as if Trump is courting Lady America with wine, roses and his alpha-male persona, while the Establishment candidates are lead-tongued nerds promising a tent with NSA surveillance, a bowl of soup and squatters on a burnt-out lawn.
In case some readers didn't know, the St. Louis Browns were an American League team that later became the Baltimore Orioles. And Bill Veeck, an innovative owner of several teams, is in the Hall of Fame as an owner.
From Page 70 of Lasorda's book "I Live for This!"...
In fact, for about three hours, he was actually part of the St. Louis Browns' starting rotation. It was 1953, a couple of months after he had been sold to St. Louis. He was traveling east with the Browns after they finished spring training in San Bernadino, California. Just before the trip, Lasorda had been informed that he was in the opening day rotation. He was staring out at the desert and marveling at his good fortune when the train stopped in Phoenix and Bill Veeck, the Browns' owner, asked to see him.
"I knew it couldn't be good," Lasorda recalls. But I'm thinking, 'What are the gonna do, throw me off the train in the middle of nowhere?'"
In its way, it was just as bad. Veeck told Lasorda that because of the team's mounting debt, he couldn't afford the $50,000 it had cost to buy him. He was sending Lasorda back to the Dodgers. Just like that, Lasorda had been dropped from a big-league mound into a maddening purgatory and passed back and forth like a bruised piece of fruit. Everybody admired him, but nobody wanted him.
END OF QUOTE
Now Mr. Veeck and his team had just completed spring training with Lasorda, so they had a chance to get to know Tommy's history around the time that WWII ended, very possibly from casual personal conversations. I cannot prove the following difference between Mr. Veeck's WWII service and Lasorda's service, listed below, figured in Veeck's decision to dump Lasorda instead of the $50,000 cost of acquiring the then young pitcher. It is anybody's guess as to why Veeck dropped him, but here is what Mr. Veeck did during the war.
From Wikipedia's page on Bill Veeck:
While a half-owner of the Brewers, Veeck served for nearly three years in the United States Marine Corps during World War II in an artillery unit. During this time a recoiling artillery piece crushed his leg, requiring amputation first of the foot, and shortly after of the leg above the knee. Over the course of his life he had 36 operations on the leg. He had a series of wooden legs and, as an inveterate smoker, cut holes in them to use as an ashtray.
END OF QUOTE
Mr. Veeck is also shown in Wikipedia recooperating from his war wounds in 1944. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Veeck#/media/File:Bill_Veeck_1944.jpg ;
That means Veeck entered the Marines early in World War II. And probably those 36 operations, whenever they happened, were a indelible reminder of what he sacrificed, significantly more than what Tommy Lasorda had sacrificed. Players have been traded off of teams for less reason than this.
January 24, 2016
You can see the Tweets better if you go to the linked-to website, but this will give you a good idea of the egomaniacs in the Trump organization.
President Trumpâ€™s White House will be full of Katrina Piersons
By: Joe Cunningham (Diary) | January 23rd, 2016 at 12:30 PM | 8
Donald Trump is an unserious candidate who is dominating the Republican race for president through his capitalization of fear and civil unrest. The people who work for Trump on this campaign are just as unserious as he is. Take, for example, Katrina Pierson, who is the spokeswoman for the Trump Campaign.
As far as unserious goes, Piersonâ€™s own Twitter account is a veritable stockpile of the types of thoughts and statements that make a Trump Administration as hilarious a concept as it is frightening. Take, for exampleâ€¦
Katrina Pierson @KatrinaPierson
Just saw a commercial from Catholic Church stating that Catholic Church was started by Jesus. I bet they believe that too. #sad
11:41 AM - 18 Dec 2011
Katrina Pierson @KatrinaPierson
@frymesumchicken #MLK was too moderate for me.lol Malcolm X is my #freedomfighter hero! Work, educate, and empower!!! @blackrepublican
5:03 PM - 6 Feb 2013
Hashtag sad, indeed, Katrina.
Oh, and she believes the Republican Party is racist, too. In case she deletes any of her embarrassing tweets, donâ€™t worry! Mediaite has them screencapped forever.
Pierson is the exact type of bombastic personality that we can expect to see in Donald Trumpâ€™s White House. She is interested entirely in being loud and out front, and more importantly interested in herself over others. It is no coincidence that a woman who wants to start her own clothing line would join a high profile campaign that would have her face constantly out in front of cameras. This type of attention-seeking behavior in many areas of the Executive Branch would create worse issues than a White House full of people who take cover for an inept president.
Can you imagine a White House full of Katrina Piersons? It would be a trainwreck we would be able to look away fromâ€¦ Not that we could. The reality show that will be the Trump Administration will be on every news network every day, with every thing transcribed in full for us as a party to regret.
Here is a reply from Judson Phillips:
I was looking for some material for research for my column in the Times and in one article, I saw a claim that was a fake Katrina Pierson account. I'll look back and see if I can find it. I don't know one way or another but I thought I would just give you the heads up on th
Here it is. This is Bill Hennesy's blog. He was a part of the Tea Party movement from the beginning.
He refers to a "fake twitter account."
A NOTE FROM TIM:
Everyone should remember the scorn heaped upon Richard Nixon for his "dirty tricks squad" of political operatives who were martialled forth to embarass or undermine political opponents. (Chuck Colson, one of the leaders of the "dirty Tricks Squad" went to prison. So did G.Gordon Liddy.) Yet today dirty tricks are considered de rigeour for modern politics. One must wonder who is behind this fakery if fakery it be? I tend to believe Hennessey.
Who indeed. I cannot help but suspect not the Democrats but rather the Republican Establishment. They see Conservatives as the real, clear and present danger, not the Democrats with whom they are willing to work.
But it should be remembered that Richard Nixon was not a conservative but an Establishment guy, albeit not an insider. Looks like the Nixon wing is still alive and well...
See the Tommy Lasorda story here and the followup here and here.
Tommy Lasorda lit into a decent young vet who ran a charity for homeless veterans. from May of 20:
"This one year old veterans' charity also gets homeless vets a temporary room where they can clean up and helps them find work.
I was hearing the Sergeant tell me all this and I showed him some of my own outreach, the half page of veterans helping veterans phone numbers I hand out on the street to homeless vets I see. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/meeting_two_homeless_veterans_vs._mostly_just_writing_about_ptsd As we spoke about this and other related matters, a few people came up to us to talk. One person, a very old short man who I first didn't recognize, lit into Sgt. D'Alessandro, peppering him with questions about why he doesn't have a full time job. The Sergeant politely replied that he worked part time in his dad's business and did some carpentry. Standing near the old man (who I still did not recognize) - and the Sergeant's mother - I found this negative pep talk to be unfair and just too much. Using my familiarity with political stories, I challenged him by saying, "Ninety-three million Americans are out of work" and "This isn't 1956 (when America had a strong industrial based economy. Come to think of it, it isn't 2007 either). It isn't that easy to get a job." The "1956" remark was also a thinly-veiled reference to the old man's age.
The old man walked about twenty feet away and I continued to talk to Sgt. D'Alessandro about how mean he was and the Sergeant said that he didn't want to fight with "the baseball coach." In that instant, I realized the old man was, in fact 87 year-old Tommy Lasorda, whose voice I recognized but whose face was more thin and haggard than in his Dodger manager days. The Dodgers website in 2008, pointed out that Lasorda was present at a Veterans Day event in Los Alamitos, California, where he said:
"I've spoken to the Air Force Academy nine times, the Naval Academy twice, to West Point twice and to the National War College," said Lasorda, proudly. "But I always feel that much better when I can talk to veterans."
You know what I should have thought up to tell Lasorda in that park last May?
Hey, Lasorda, if you don't like that this young Marine is out of work, why don't you use one of your many connections in both the private sector and the government in New York City to get him a job - and get some jobs for homeless vets connected to his charity?
Even if he would have initially turned us down, at that point, I would have effectively shamed Lasorda in front of his buddies to where he would feel compelled to do something for the Marine later on. Darn, I wish I had thought of that on that day in the park in NY. I did email the young Marine, who is now working somewhere, that if someone else wealthy or in the media pulls that guilt trip line on him, he should ask them to use their influence to get him a job!
P.S. As is, Lasorda looked like some freaky elf to me with a distended stomach and sunken face who couldn't do anything. He looked like this trader Watto from the Star Wars first prequel movie:
I also found this 2011 story about Lasorda cursing kids at a minor league ball game in Rancho Cucamonga, CA, at a team called the QUAKES. There are roughly twenty little comment posts where people talk about Lasorda's foul mouth and some people blaming the staff of the QUAKES team for not managing Lasorda well. Like Lasorda couldn't have shown some class and decency and it's all the QUAKES team staff's fault. Rubbish.
Here's the intro. But I don't think you would want to read these posts of stupid people acting stupidly.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Tommy Lasorda Verbally Attacks Fans @ Rancho Cucamonga
Nothing new here. Just Tommy Lasorda being Tommy Lasorda. And why are you surprised? Lasorda has been acting like this for years unless the media is there. Then he will be the great Lasorda telling jokes and laughing.
I really wish I could publish all of your e-mails but you guys are terrible. I received a dozen e-mails since last night. The problem is that it's full of bad words. I can't be posting those words here.
END OF QUOTE
By the way, the story from Lasorda's own book "I Live for This" (pages 49-50) about Pedro Guerrero being told he was fired by this idiot manager resulted in Guerrero telephoning Dodger General Manager Al Campanis and then cursing Campanis out. Lasorda let the joke go too long to new immigrant from the Dominican Republic that doesn't get this type of American guys' humor. Yeah, it sounds like a lot of fun. Why he even mentioned this story in his own book shows how out of touch he is because of is powerful position, thinks he can get away with any crap with anyone who doesn't have $10 million like Lasorda.
Baltimore Prosecutor Marilyn Moseby has been sternly rebuked by a municipal judge for "stall tactics" in her demand that a police officer be forced to testify against other officers.
Western Journalism has the story:
"Baltimore City Circuit Judge Barry Williams called the prosecutorsâ€™ motion a "stall tactic,â€ since it would have postponed indefinitely the trials of officers who are part of the so-called "Baltimore Six,â€ according to Reuters.
Judge Williams ruled that Porter does not have to testify against Officers Garrett Miller and Edward Nero, and Lt. Brian Rice. In contrast, the judge held last month that Porter did have to testify against Officer Caesar R. Goodson, Jr. and Sgt. Alicia White, after being granted limited immunity from prosecutors.
Baltimore City Circuit Judge Barry Williams called the prosecutorsâ€™ motion a "stall tactic,â€ since it would have postponed indefinitely the trials of officers who are part of the so-called "Baltimore Six,â€ according to Reuters.
Judge Williams ruled that Porter does not have to testify against Officers Garrett Miller and Edward Nero, and Lt. Brian Rice. In contrast, the judge held last month that Porter did have to testify against Officer Caesar R. Goodson, Jr. and Sgt. Alicia White, after being granted limited immunity from prosecutors."
Before this is over I suspect all of the charges will wind up being dropped, as Moseby has been more interested in a political witch hunt than in actually pursuing justice.
My column this week examines climate chaos claims and realities â€“ and pays tribute to my friend Professor Bob Carter of Australia, who died unexpectedly this week, and to his insightful observations on climate change and adapting to the vicissitudes of Mother Nature.
I'm sending it before I have to head out again to shovel out some more from what they are saying is the (no doubt manmade) snowstorm of the century for the Washington, DC area: perhaps 30 inches or more. Remember when the gurus of climate change assured us just a few years ago that "children just arenâ€™t going to know what snow is anymoreâ€?
Base policies on reality, not deceit
Dr. Bob Carter understood that climate frequently changes, and we must prepare to adapt
Dangerous manmade global cooling, global warming, climate change and extreme weather claims continue to justify what has become a HYPERLINK "http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc-n2042164" $1.5-trillion-per-year industry: tens of billions spent annually on one-sided research and hundreds of billions sent to crony corporatists to subsidize replacing dependable, affordable carbon-based fuels with unreliable, expensive "renewableâ€ energy.
Some 50 million acres of US crop and habitat land (equal to Wyoming) have been turned into corn-for-ethanol farms, biofuel plantations, and wind and solar installations. American forests are being converted to fuel for British power plants. Towering turbines butcher birds and bats, while Big Wind is exempted from endangered species rules that would cost fossil fuel companies billions in fines and send their execs to jail for such carnage. (But if you're saving the planet, whatâ€™s a few million birds and bats a year?)
Climate chaos is likewise the foundation for endless, punitive government policies and regulations intended to keep oil, gas and coal "in the ground.â€ Crony politicians pass laws and unelected bureaucrats impose rules that transfer taxpayer and consumer wealth, decide which companies, industries and workers win or lose, and control peopleâ€™s lives, livelihoods, liberties and living standards.
Research and ruling classes benefit, while poor, minority and blue-collar families suffer â€“ and Africans are told they must be content with wind and solar energy because, as HYPERLINK "https://reason.com/blog/2013/07/02/obamas-climate-worries-about-africans-ge"President Obama put it, "if everybody has got a carâ€ and air conditioning and a big house, "the planet will boil over.â€
Climate Crisis, Inc. jealously guards this power and money train. The IPCC, EPA and NOAA spend billions in tax dollars to publish horror stories about runaway temperatures and looming disasters. Mike Mann HYPERLINK "http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/" sues anyone who HYPERLINK "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html" disparages him or his work. HYPERLINK "http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2015/10/20/elizabeth-and-sheldon-torquemada-pursuing-agenda-intolerance-and-retribution-ag" Sheldon Whitehouse and HYPERLINK "http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/20/paul-driessen-using-rico-against-climate-skeptics/?page=all" Jagedish Shukla demand that anyone who disputes manmade disaster claims be prosecuted for "climate denial.â€
Now a new Paris climate treaty says the "ultimate goalâ€ is to stabilize atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that will "prevent dangerous [human] interference with the climate systemâ€ â€“ under the assumption that CO2 now drives climate change and weather events.
The Paris accord stipulates that developed nations must reduce their emissions, regardless of impacts on economies, employment or families. This means they must de-carbonize, de-industrialize and de-develop â€“ while they give trillions of dollars in cash and free technology to developing countries like Brazil, China, India and Indonesia, for climate "reparationâ€ and "mitigation.â€
Developing countries need try to reach their voluntary goals only if now-wealthy nations make those wealth transfers â€“ and if reducing their emissions will not interfere with their "first and overriding prioritiesâ€ of eradicating poverty, malnutrition and disease, and improving living standards and life spans.
This means fossil fuel use and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb â€“ and US, EU, Canadian and Australian sacrifices will have no effect on stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels, much less controlling Earthâ€™s ever-changing climate or weather, again assuming CO2 does determine climate.
But what if this dynasty is built on a foundation of errors, miscalculations and exaggerations â€“ or worse: on manipulation, fabrication and fraud? The house of cards would tumble down, the catechism of climate cataclysm would go the way of other vanished religions, and the power and money train would derail.
Before his untimely death January 19, HYPERLINK "http://blog.heartland.org/2016/01/dr-robert-m-carter-r-i-p/" Dr. Robert M. Carter, former director of James Cook Universityâ€™s Marine Geophysical Laboratory and expert on historic and prehistoric climate change, offered succinct analyses of climate forces, fears and realities, underscoring how fragile the climate chaos claims are.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, he always emphasized. It is a plant-fertilizing trace gas (400 ppm or 0.04% of the atmosphere), essential for photosynthesis and life on Earth. Rising CO2 levels are increasing crop, forest and grassland growth, improving ecosystems and wildlife, and feeding more people. In fact, the 50 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1981 and 2010 fertilized an 11% boost in plant cover worldwide. Moreover, current carbon dioxide levels are quite low relative to their levels across geological time, meaning terrestrial, fresh water and oceanic plant life is currently starved for CO2 by comparison.
The real scientific debate, Professor Carter noted in his book HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Counter-Consensus-Palaeoclimatologist-Speaks-Independent/dp/1906768293" Climate: the Counter Consensus and other works, is about the direction and magnitude of global human effects, and their likely significance in the context of natural climate change â€“ which has been occurring ever since Earth developed its oceans, atmosphere and climate. Indeed, modern temperatures are not unusually warm, compared to many previous periods in the historic and geologic record. My friendâ€™s other insights are equally important.
* The primary temperature records relied on by the IPCC and EPA are far too short to be a useful tool for policy making and are inadequately corrected for the urban heat island effect and other errors. One analysis of these records found errors of 1-5 degrees C (1.8-9.0 F) for 1969 data in certain regions, when the claimed warming for the entire twentieth century was only 0.7 deg C (1.3 F); errors for records in the early century are likely even greater. Reliance on these records is thus misplaced
* Recent warming trends in Greenland and the Arctic are not alarming in rate or magnitude compared to other similar and totally natural warming periods over the past 250 to 10,000 years, as recorded in explorersâ€™ log books and geological evidence.
* When we consider those climate records, the positive feedback effects of rising carbon dioxide levels (such as enhanced water vapor in the atmosphere), negative feedback effects (more low level heat-reflecting clouds, for instance), significant natural sources of more atmospheric CO2, and the declining "greenhouseâ€ effect of each additional CO2 molecule, it is unlikely that conceivable human carbon dioxide emissions will cause "dangerousâ€ warming or other climate changes in the future.
* The rate and magnitude of the reported 1979-2000 warming are not outside normal natural variability, nor are they unusual compared to earlier periods in Earth and human history. There is likewise no unambiguous evidence that humans have caused adverse changes such as melting ice, rising sea levels, rainfall or droughts, or "extreme weatherâ€ over the past 50 years.
* Moderate warming will reduce human mortality, whereas colder weather will increase suffering and deaths, especially if energy and climate policies make heating homes less affordable.
* IPCC computer climate models have thus far not been able to predict warming or other climate changes accurately for even short 10-year periods. It is therefore highly unlikely that they can do so for 100 years in the future. Therefore, they should not be used as the basis for energy and economic policies.
* The IPCC does not even study climate change in its entirety, or all the complex, interrelated forces that cause periodic warming, cooling and other changes. It analyzes only variations allegedly caused by humans, and assumes that all recent and future changes are human-caused and dangerous. Its analyses, conclusions and recommendations therefore do not form a credible basis for public policies.
Carterâ€™s ultimate policy recommendation was that climate hazards are overwhelmingly natural problems, and should be dealt with by preparing for them in advance, and adapting to them when they occur.
Whether the threats are short-term (hurricanes, floods and blizzards), intermediate (droughts) or long-term (warm or cool eras), preparation must be specific and regional in scale, for the perils vary widely by geographic location and a nationâ€™s state of technological advancement. If governments prepare properly for natural hazards, their countries and communities will also be ready for human-caused climate disruptions, should they ever occur.
Professor Carterâ€™s jovial Aussie persona will be sorely missed, but his insights and legacy will live on.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (HYPERLINK "http://www.CFACT.org"www.CFACT.org) and author of HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Imperialism-Green-Power-Black-Death/dp/0939571234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433540490&sr=1-1&keywords=paul+driessen+%2B+eco+imperialism&pebp=1433540499327&perid=01JDAJ8XPWAV9VND8SDE"Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. © January 2016
January 23, 2016
Just a few quick thoughts on illegal alien trespassing.
First, the Republican Establishment keeps telling us we cannot round up 11 million illegal aliens, that it is a logistic impossibility. Is that so?
First, I would like to point out that immigration is not some absolute American value. Immigration was restricted largely to Western Europeans until the late 1899's when large numbers (ultimately 25 million) of Eastern and Southern Europeans immigrated to the U.S. The Page Act of 1875 excluded Chinese and other Asians from immigrating, although that same year SCOTUS ruled that individual states could not exclude immigrants, thus opening the flood gates to immigration from Europe.
The flood of low-skilled workers into the U.S. led Congress to pass a literacy act requiring that immigrants know how to read and write in 1917; the Great War threatened a massive influx of refugees, and the U.S. was wary of unassimilatable people overwhelming her. This was followed by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924 which essentially stopped almost all immigration to the U.s.They also had passed the National Origins Formula in 1921 to restrict immigration to prefered countries of origin, meaning in Western Europe.
The end of WWII began the change in immigration as strict controls were relaxed.
Immigration from Mexico and Central America increased dramatically as a result of the post-War economic boom, and Harry Truman thoughtfully deported 3 million illegal aliens. Not to be outdone, his successor Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated Operation Wetback and kicked two million more out of the country. In short, five million illegal aliens were booted out of the U.S. in the forties and fifties.
Think about that; five million at a time when the U.S. population was only 150 million. The 2010 census shows the U.S. as having 309 million people, so in essence Truman and Ike kicked out a proportionally equal number of illegals as we currently have officially here. Of course, we are likely being lied to about the number of illegals, which may number as high as 22 million or more.
But remember, this evicting of trespassers was done in an era when there were no interstate highways, no commercial jet air travel, no satellite imaging, no drones, no electronic surveillance of spending, none of this. It had to be done through legwork and eyeball contact, and the deportees had to be moved out by train or bus on small roads.
So one must question the claim that we cannot remove the breaking and entering lawbreakers. We have tools that nobody ever dreamed of in 1950, and yet with such great technology we are supposedly helpless.
If, as we are told, modern science can allow us to determinet he weather a hunded years hence based on complex computer models, why cannot a computer model predict where illegals are hiding and ferret them out? I can even give the authorities a clue; check at Swift meat plants, or in California or Colorado farms. It really isn't that complex.
And we can certainly stop people from crossing the border. If we can kill terrorists with drone strikes overseas, can't we frighten off some barefoot muchachos wandering in the desert? A warning shot in front of them should suffice.
The claims to justify the deluge of alien invaders is dishonest in the extreme.
I agree. Just because she gets some facts wrong isn't necessarily grounds for firing. The Pope's getting it wrong too.
The faculty council at an Illinois Christian college recommended Wednesday that the school end its effort to fire a professor who asserted while wearing a headscarf that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Thanks Dana; I'm torn on my view of this. On the one hand, a Christian college should not have these lefty types who teach the wrong thing. On the other there is academic freedom, and mistakes should be forgiveable. In the end I think I come down on the side of canning her, or at least putting her on probation; if a Christian school cannot promote Christianity than what is the point?
Someone really should ask her if this same God has different rules for different peoplle. Why do the Muslims get to have four wives, and as many hookups as they want? If this is indeed the same God then we are all in the wrong denomination...
JACK KEM takes a sterner view:
Dana, I'm through making excuses for idiots like this.
How does a turd like this woman get a professorship job and Tim's brother Brian have to scrounge for an untenured instructors position? And how come Fay doesn't have a tenured position in a college? It happens because Brian Birdnow and Fay Voshel don't believe in this universalist leftist one world propaganda.
This so called professor reminds me of Mrs. Cosby when she said that the Ukrainian who murdered her son learned to hate blacks ONLY when he got to the United States. It is EXACTLY the same level of understanding of Western Culture.
I'd fire this Wheaton College thinly disguised anti-American culture black hack in two seconds. I hope they keep up the attack on her and she gets a new job fitting her understanding of Western cultural values and Christianity, namely that she winds up working at a McDonalds or as a chicken plucker in a factory.
Tim replies to Jack:
Excellent point, Jack! How do these internationalist liberals worm their way into everything? I have little doubt my brother would have taken that position in a heartbeat, but he never got the chance. Brian is a solidly orthodox Catholic. Why is a Muslim wannabee hired for this slot by a Christian school? Why can't Christians teach, oh, I don't know, uh, Christianity?
I wonder how many closet Christians teach in Muslim schools...
Jack, there may indeed be a number of reasons she should be fired -- or never have been hired in the first place. My point is that equating God and Allah is not a reason in itself. It's wrong, but as we can see, it's a misconception held by many people these days.
Sadly, being a conservative is enough to prevent one's being hired as a tenured professor at way too many institutions of "higher learning" these days, as we are all well aware. And I don't see that situation changing until the entire Woodstock Generation is dead -- and perhaps the generation it spawned. Much the worse for us.
Fay Voshell replies:
I have been watching this case carefully, as Phil Ryken, president of Wheaton, was pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, which I am presently attending.
I believe faculty members sign a statement of faith outlining the doctrinal standards of Wheaton, which requires adherence to Christian orthodoxy. The professor who is saying Christianity and Islam worship the same God is going directly against Wheatonâ€™s required statement of faith.
Further, there are basically two issues at stake here.
One, are Christian institutions going to be allowed to maintain their integrity as Christian entities whose standards are those of orthodox Christianity; or will they be coerced into a type of Hellenization favored by the Left, which is in religious matters represented by multi-culturalists who insist all religions worship the same God?
Second, at the heart of the Christian religion are the claims of Jesus Christ, who said he was God in the flesh and Savior of the world. Islam rejects those claims, and rejects Christ as savior. Christians worship Christ as member of the Trinityâ€”Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Islam rejects the Trinity and the salvific work of Christ.
Therefore, Christianity and Islam do not worship the same God.
Now. The dilemma of Wheaton is down to this: Will it maintain Christian orthodoxy and insist the professors it hires also maintain Christian orthodoxy, or will it capitulate to the demands of such anti-Christian institutions as the ACLU, CAIR and the SPLC, all of which are champing at the bit to close down institutions like Wheaton. Will it deny the uniqueness and authority of Christ and accept what has always been a heretical view for Christians; namely, that Christ is not God?
If it does so, Wheaton, one of its most prominent graduates Bill Graham would probably say, should close its doors. That is because for the mission for which it was founded; namely, the proclamation of and the formation of disciples of Jesus Christ will have become so badly compromised, it may as well not exist at all.
Hmmm...I think I have the bones of an article...A final thought: What if this were happening at an orthodox Jewish institution--a teacher who says Islam and Judaism are the same because Jews and Muslims worship the same God? Think about that!
Go to the previous message Go to the previous message (control+alt+pagedown) (control+alt+pagedown) Go to the next message Go to the next message (control+alt+pageup) (control+alt+pageup) Close message Close message (escape) (escape)
Re: Christian college's faculty opposes effort to fire professor for comparing Christianity to Islam
From: Dana Mathewson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Fay Voshell <email@example.com>; Jack Kemp <firstname.lastname@example.org>; bgoccia <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 2:01 pm
Put that way, Fay, you are certainly right, and I am wrong, and therefore I retract my statement. Now the question is, did that dingbat understand the statement she signed upon joining the faculty in the first place, I wonder? Or did she assume, as a typical liberal, that it was just a piece of paper and she could repudiate it at will, since the argument apparently meant little to her?
I think most liberals care little about the "identity" of God. A Christian-oriented big band I play in, called the Good News Big Band, is often invited to play at its members' churches, and for the last three years or so we've played at the "church" attended by our (recently retired) drummer. I don't know if I included you in the discussion, but I dumped all over Jack and Tim when I told how, in the service bulletin, they made a big deal of how, in The Lord's Prayer, attendees were to feel free to say "Our Father," "Our Mother," or to use any other construct that made them feel good, despite (as they pointed out) the Bible does indicate that Jesus said "Our Father."
If you're going to take that approach, you may end up thinking of God as merely the biggest tree in the forest, the largest mountain on Earth, or anything else whose size impresses you -- sort of a Heavenly sumo wrestler. And if you know nothing about the degree (a large one indeed) to which God and Allah are different, as explained in the Bible and the Koran, I guess you end up like this "professor."
As the saying goes, "you can't fix stupid."
That was a very thoughtful and inarguable reply there Fay! I am going to post this thread at The Aviary.
If we worhsip the same God why do we have different rules? While Jews and Christians have differences of custom and ceremony we essentially follow the same rules, which are derived from the Ten Commandments. Both are commanded to treat others decently, to be kind to strangers and the poor and those in need. We are not supposed to promote our faith with the sword. Compulsion is not acceptable in either faith. Fornication is forbidden, adultery is forbidden. Slavery is forbidden (although indentured servitude was permitted under the Old Testament it was a regulated institution, one with a clear ending point after a few years.)
Islam turns all of this on it's head.
How can it be the same God who commands Christians and Jews to behave one way and the Muhammadans another?
I've been doing a lot of research on the religious roots of Islam, and have come to conclude it is really a religion based more on Mithraism and Manicheanism than on Christianity or Judaism. Mithraism was a competitor to Christianity in the early days, a relative of the Persian Zoarastrianism. Many Roman soldiers joined the cult of Mithra because it was a warrior's creed, teaching of teh absolute division between good and evil, and that there is a necessity for warriors to fight against darkness and subdue it. Sound familiar? It is the Jihad concept. The god of both Islam and Mithra requires that the Infidels be subdued by force.
Then there was Manicheanism. Mani was only a few centuries before Muhammad, and he taught a similar doctrine to Mithraism. Mani - whose father was also a "prophet" - called himself a Christian though he denied Christ as a person but rather saw him as a kind of force, an emanation of a higher power. Interestingly enough, Mani was called "the seal of the Prophets" by his followers - just like Muhammad. Also, he had his followers all face in the same direction when they prayed, which was done three times a day facing to the north. They underwent a ritual cleansing, as do the Muslims. They made a series of prostrations just as the Muslims do. Manicheanism was condemned as a heresy by the Church.
Let us not forget Arianism, which taught that Jesus was just a man.
All of these were skulking around the Arabian peninsula about the time of Muhammad, and no doubt he and his followers absorbed pieces of them into the new religion. It is interesting because the only one that was remotely related to Christianity or Judaism was Arianism, and that was roundly condemned as heretical.
In the end Muhammed stole the Law from Judaism and that was about it; he didn't even keep the name of teh Most High, cprefering to worship one of the animist local deities as the supreme being.
I don't know why someone who is supposed to be teaching at a college level wouldn't bother to educate herself on this sort of thing. Liberals are so academically lazy, never bothering to actually look at the roots of what it is they believe.
53 queries taking 0.6254 seconds, 283 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.