November 22, 2016
The National Review has been in the weeds over Trump, but one of their best has apparently seen the light -- at least about The Hag. And has used his splendid writing ability to slam her.
Another slant on that bear-pets-dog video. This may be the real skinny on it, and it's not so attractive.
Richard Branson, Bob Geldof, and a number of other Limey fat cats have been conspiring with British politicians to thwart the will of the People and overturn the Brexit vote.
A leaked memo written by former Labor Secretary Alan Milburn details the plot:
" "We have been beavering away over the last few months to get a Europe campaign up and running. I’m pleased to say that substantial progress has been made.”
"I have met the Freuds team several times and we are making good progress.
"I have been in discussions with an excellent potential CEO to lead the campaign.
"Virgin … are keen to help ... Since we last spoke [they] have offered a further £25k, plus bigger office space, help with legal advice and a possible secondment.
"I have held discussions with Stronger In, Chuka Umunna, a new organisation called Common Ground, Bob Geldof and a number of senior politicians across the party spectrum.”
Virgin Airlines is going to be one of the heavy financiers of this campaign to overturn British independence.
The Independent story further states:
"An email seen by The Independent highlights the scale of backing the group has already secured. It shows the campaign has been months in the planning and claims "substantial progress” has already been made, including the identification of "an excellent potential CEO”. The memo was written by Alan Milburn, who was one of Tony Blair’s closest cabinet allies.
It reveals the group has heavy financial, political and corporate backing and is receiving advice and support from a host of high-level business and communications organisations."
Liberty won a victory when Britain decided it had had enough of the corrupt imperium of the E.U., and decided to restore sanity and security. But the Empire would not go quietly into that good night, and the counter-strike in Britain is under way - as it is here in the U.S. Be prepared for this on both sides of the pond.
November 21, 2016
"'It's not Madness, ma'am,' replied Mr. Bumble, after a few moments of deep meditation. 'It's Meat.'
'What?' exclaimed Mrs. Sowerberry.
'Meat, ma'am, meat,' replied Bumble, with stern emphasis. 'You've over-fed him, ma'am. You've raised a artificial soul and spirit in him, ma'am unbecoming a person of his condition: as the board, Mrs. Sowerberry, who are practical philosophers, will tell you. What have paupers to do with soul or spirit? It's quite enough that we let 'em have live bodies. If you had kept the boy on gruel, ma'am, this would never have happened.' "
Oliver Twist, Chapter 7
Daniel Greenfield chronicles a new plot by the Gang Green to impose food rationing to "save the planet".
From Front Page Mag:
" The average person may oppose the left, but he fails to grasp how extreme its agenda is. Every new insane policy is treated as an extreme. It's not an extreme. The extreme is inconceivable. It can only be gathered from histories of successful leftist regimes like Stalin's Soviet Union. What we think of as an extreme is just the next step on the ladder that the left is building.
Here's the next step.
A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change.
The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food at the University of Oxford and the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, is the first global analysis to estimate the impacts that levying emissions prices on food could have on greenhouse gas emissions and human health.
Much of the emissions reduction would stem from higher prices and lower consumption of animal products, as their emissions are particularly high. The researchers found that beef would have to be 40% more expensive globally to pay for the climate damage caused by its production. The price of milk and other meats would need to increase by up to 20%, and the price of vegetable oils would also increase significantly. The researchers estimate that such price increases would result in around 10% lower consumption of food items that are high in emissions. "If you’d have to pay 40% more for your steak, you might choose to have it once a week instead of twice,” said Dr Springmann.
Let them eat kale.
Under this scheme, steak would be the exclusive preserve of elites, like Oxford climate researchers, instead of the working class. It would seem that the elites in the UK and D.C. have not grasped the message of Brexit or Trump's victory. Instead of studying icebergs, they might want to contemplate what will happen when the people finally grow tired of the entire infrastructure of left-wing totalitarianism. "
If I may toot my own horn I TOLD YOU SO!!!
I warned about this back in 2004 in a piece entitled "Where's the Beef" I made the following case:
"Environmentalists hated beef because it used land which the tree-huggers wanted to return to pasture or forest; anti-capitalists hated beef because it was a symbol of the triumph of wealth over poverty. The poor throughout the world traditionally couldn't afford to eat it. Advocates for the poor hated it because it takes much anywhere from 4 to 10 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, presumably denying the poor their land for soybeans and wheatgrass. Animal rights nut-jobs hate it because, well, it's taken from animals. All of these disparate groups were gunning for that symbol of American bounty, and now they think they've found the means to permanently remove that patty from Granny Wendy's bun.
Back about the same time that Wendy's was running their `"where's the beef" ads, Leftist the world over were flocking to yet another doomsday theory, one which made the case that human industrial emissions were raising the temperature of the Earth. Since Carbon Dioxide is emitted by virtually all human activity-including breathing, the Left had a perfect tool to force their particular nightmare vision on the world. Global Warming predicts spectacular disaster resulting from Man's every action, which means that we need to have international regulations on all economic activity, on our diets, on our fertility, on our land usage and our general way of life.
Automobiles: restrict them! Factories: force "carbon trading" to restrict the developed countries (of course, exempt the socialists and developing countries like China). Don't allow poor farmers to clear fields in the Amazon Basin or the Congo. Restrict fishing while we're at it! Oh, and absolutely, positively, get rid of Beef!
There was absolutely no way anybody who has followed the Environmentalist Movement couldn't see this coming; a United Nation report now claims that cow flatulence is a major cause of Global Warming. That's right; every time you enjoy one of those juicy Hardee`s Thickburgers, you, you personally, are helping to destroy Mother Earth. Every steak you buy, every potroast you eat, is encouraging the despoilment of the air you breathe, the sinking of the seacoasts, the melting of the glaciers and the desertification of now fertile land. All this is caused by cattle and their poor etiquette."
Food is the stuff of life, of course, and if the Left can control it, decide who eats and how they eat, then they will control what you do and how you think. This is an ancient technique, one practiced by Egyptian Pharoahs, by Chinese Emperors, Babylonian Kings, and other potentates with the power to restrict agriculture - usually by controlling the water supply. Sometimes refered to as an hydraulic empire or water-monopoly empire, the system generally worked in semi-arid or mountainous regions where the flow of water could be restricted. There is a reason why places like Egypt had such strong central governments; the flow of water could simply be cut off and a farmer's crops would die - and then so would the farmer. Food is the stuff of life.
The Left knows that, which is why they have taken every opportunity to put farming and food distribution under their thumbs. I have chronicled this extensively at Canada Free Press, and the offensive is ongoing. U.N. Agenda 21/30 has been ambitious in this regard as well, hoping to pen people into the cities and lasso the farmers, force them into the role of company employees rather than private producers.
To make this dream a reality, the Gang Green wants to impose a food tax.
I warned you.
Joseph Stalin did that in the Ukraine, where he simply removed all the food and starved the people to death. Why? because Ukrainian peasants, working on small farms (allowed under Lenin's New Economic Program) were outproducing the state-run coops. Stalin wanted to consolidate power and eliminate this embarassing "reactionary" private system, so he murdered the Ukrainians by starvation. Simple.
And let us not forget the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which is a radical group of Deep Environmentalists who believe Man is a virus and must be removed from this world. Now, most environmentalists are not quite that rabid, but they all share a hatred of humanity in common, and almost all of them are Malthusians and Eugenicists, believing in radically reducing the World's population so as to just leave themselves, the pinnacle of evolution. To rid the world of teh vermin that currently inhabits it there must be pressures applied - food reduced, energy cut back, until the ratlike horde stops having babies and fades away. See, they don't want to use the approach of Stalin or Hitler because they know it is bad p.r. So they create devious little lies to justify the same program.
And, should they succeed, they will have the power of life and death over the citizenry, so that nobody would dare stop them. If you fight them you can eat rocks.
That is what this is all about, folks. Don't think anything else.
"I wish some well-fed philosopher, whose meat and drink turn to gall within him; whose blood is ice, whose heart is iron; could have seen Oliver Twist clutching at the dainty viands that the dog had neglected. I wish he could have witnessed the horrible avidity with which Oliver tore the bits asunder with all the ferocity of famine. There is only one thing I should like better; and that would be to see the Philosopher making the same sort of meal himself, with the same relish. "
Oliver Twist, Chapter 4
Publicly-funded National Public Radio (NPR) wants to end live interviews with Conservatives because - drumroll please! - they lose the argument!
Breitbart has the scoop:
"In her response, "Listeners: Two Recent Interviews Are ‘Normalizing Hate Speech’,” Jensen concluded that the live format had allowed Pollak to get the better of host Steve Inskeep.
She suggested that future interviews be taped: "In addition, in my opinion, these interviews should not be done live. Inskeep is an excellent live interviewer, but live interviews are difficult, especially when there is limited time. A little contextualizing never hurts.”
Jensen went on to argue that "contextualizing” had worked for a similar interview with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, as well as for an interview Nov. 17 with white nationalist Richard Spencer. (Pollak responded to the latter interview in an article Nov. 18 rejecting NPR’s attempt to link Bannon and Breitbart with white nationalism.)
Notably, Jensen’s recommendation mirrors the language of a critique by the left-wing pressure group Media Matters, which complained that "the interview failed to contextualize the true extent of Breitbart’s extremism under Bannon’s leadership.”
Bannon was recently appointed Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President-elect Donald J. Trump. He took a leave of absence from Breitbart News in August when he was appointed Trump campaign CEO.
Jensen applauded the use of the term "white nationalist” to describe Bannon, although she noted Bannon had disputed that term. She linked to an internal NPR memorandum suggesting the term "white nationalist” be used in stories on the "alt-right.”
Elizabeth Jensen is the ombudsman for NPR.
So liberal media types can't stand the heat but want to be the chefs anyway. This is vintage liberalism; do not give those you disagree with a fair airing of their views, but rather "contextualize" i.e. twist and distort what they think. You don't dare have an honest debate, lest people realize they aren't crazy and perhaps you are.
Here is an example from history; Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew's best friend was a Japanese-American and Agney and his friend used to make jokes about the other good-naturedly. The friend called Agney a greasy Greek and Agney called his friend a "fat Jap". It was done as a matter of affection. But the media wanted to get Agney, and they reported his "vicious insult" of a poor wretched Japanese gentleman. They did the opposite of "contextualize" becauswe they wanted to destroy Agnew. In that instance "contextualize" meant twisting and distorting. Tlhe reporters who dealt with Agnew understood fully that there was no real insult involved.
Now NPR is publicly funded, and if the left wants to lie on their own outlets they can - up to a point. (Bear in mind there are laws against slander and libel, and there is also the matter of press credentialing) but not on our dime, thanki you very much! NPR is also tax-exempt, something their buddies in the Obama Administration have tried to deny conservatives.
That is the way the Left operates - insult and malign us and use our own money to do it. They love adding insult to injury.
It's past time NPR and PBS were defunded and allowed to sink or swim on their own merits. It has been a "safe space" for supercilious liberals for far too long.
November 20, 2016
When I was at that veterans' gathering in New Jersey a few weeks back, I took a copy of the handout sheet of helping organizations given out by the charity Backpacks For Life. It contains a few of the charities I mentioned in my own handout list but there are a number of others contributed by the young Marine founder of that charity. He, as a former Afghanistan-based veteran, is obviously a lot more in touch with the situations of young veterans.
As those that read the article may recall, I wanted people to contact Backpacks For Life directly to get this short list. I don't know if this is something the typical Aviary reader (or their children and grandchildren) would be interested in, but do believe the is no harm in posting it. The list below prints out on one page of Microsoft Word.
Backpacks for Life - Resource Information
The Starlight Program– Stonington, CT
Mission – serves active duty military members and veterans experiencing significant substance abuse and/or mental health issues
Psalm 91 Military Edition 1-541-549-7600 firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact for a free copy of this book
Operation Warrior Wellness 1-212-644-9880
Mission – provides transcendental meditation for veterans, military personnel & their families (PTSD relief, reduced insomnia, improved relationships, decreased anger and irritability)
3 Keys To Managing PTSD www.stressisgone.org
Warrior’s Guide to Overcoming Combat Trauma
Patriot Outreach 1-866-967-8766 www.patriotoutreach.org
Mission – To provide private and confidential access to simple and effective resources to those troubled or suffering as a result of stressful or traumatic experiences while in the service of our nation.
Give An Hour – http://giveanhour.org/Default.aspx
Mission - psychologists who volunteer some time to treat Veterans
Veterans Crisis Line
1-800-273-8255 - press 1 to talk to someone NOW
Veterans for Veterans Stress Project www.stressproject.org
Hidden Wounds 1-888-4HW-HERO http://hiddenwounds.org
Mission – provide veterans with PTSD & other post war challenges with assistance
K9 For Warriors www.k9sforwarriors.org
Mission – provide veterans suffering with PTSD & other post 9/11 war injuries with canine support
And Trump is tolerant of gay marriage. But he isn't a Democrat so that doesn't matter to these fanatics. I'm not planning any trips to Trump Tower to watch or talk to the protesters.
Nearly 500 protesters marched to Trump Tower from Queens on Saturday to protest what they called the "racist, sexist, anti-gay” views of President-elect Donald Trump.
The march across the 59th Street Bridge to the Fifth Avenue skyscraper included City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and city Comptroller
Scott Stringer and was organized by Queens City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer.
This $3.8-billion, 1,172-mile, state-of-the-art, Dakota Access Pipe Line would replace 700 railroad tanker cars or 2,000 semi-trailer highway tanker trucks loaded with crude oil per day. The four-state conduit is 85% complete, and the only segment left to be finished in North Dakota is a 1,000-foot passage under Lake Oahe, a manmade reservoir on the Missouri River. DAPL runs parallel to the existing Northern Border natural gas pipeline, through the very same parts of North Dakota and under the same lake.
So naturally, thousands of "peaceful protesters” are "venting their anger” over the pipeline – by blockading roads and rail lines, setting fires, and harassing reporters who question their actions. One tried to shoot a deputy. They have destroyed millions of dollars of construction equipment, killed, maimed or eaten cattle, horses and domesticated buffalo – and threatened to kill at least one person who has had the backbone and temerity to speak out against the criminals.
My article this week lays out the facts – and explains what is really driving the fanatical anarchists.
Trump win fuels more rampant theft and destruction – and North Dakota citizens pay the price
Is this to be our future? Last week’s elections will soon end autocratic rule via executive fiat, the war on coal and hydrocarbons, IRS agents targeting conservative groups, government SWAT teams invading businesses and homes http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french, and numerous other Abuses and Usurpations.
But now we’re getting leftist anarchy and riots – with mindless, incoherent radicals smashing Portland storefronts http://freedomdaily.com/portland-anti-trump-protest-riot/, beating a Chicago motorist http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/11/whats-happened-to-america-trump-supporter-beaten-by-chicago-mob-speaks-out/, and pummeling a ninth grade Woodside, CA Trump supporter. http://100percentfedup.com/shocking-attack-high-school-girl-brutally-beaten-supporting-trump-video/
Amid it all, the epitome of nihilist, watermelon environmentalist http://www.responsiblenergy.org/watermelons.asp, criminal, sore-loser fury is raging south of Bismarck, North Dakota, where thousands of "peaceful protesters” are camping illegally on federal and private lands, "venting their anger” over the Dakota Access Pipe Line.
This $3.8-billion, 1,172-mile, state-of-the-art, 30-inch conduit will carry 470,000 barrels of oil daily from the state’s Bakken oil fields to Illinois. It’s about 85% complete, and the only segment left to be finished in North Dakota is a 1,000-foot passage under Lake Oahe, a manmade reservoir on the Missouri River. DAPL runs parallel to the existing Northern Border natural gas pipeline, through the same area and under the lake.
The pipeline would replace 700 railroad tanker cars or 2,000 semi-trailer highway tanker trucks per day. It has created thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs. Bakken’s light, sweet crude oil replaces imports, fuels our vehicles, powers our economy, and provides raw materials for many essential products.
Since it is underground, once it is installed and grasses are planted, the pipeline will be invisible except for occasional pumping stations, valves and other facilities. Modern metals, warning systems, automatic shutoff valves, 24/7/365 monitoring and other safeguards minimize the risk of spills – and nearly 140 revisions rerouted the DAPL around populated areas and sensitive ecological, archaeological, sacred and historic sites. The pipeline is 99.98% on private land and is covered by easements and other agreements.
All these and other issues were addressed repeatedly and thoughtfully during a three-year, 389-meeting review and approval process. Landowners, communities, environmentalists and citizens provided input, and 55 Native American groups were consulted. Prominent in their refusal to participate were the Standing Rock Sioux, whose reservation is a half-mile from Lake Oahe, where the pipeline is set to cross.
Only now are Standing Rock tribal leaders and members voicing opposition. Not surprisingly, they have been joined by Indians from across America, and by a motley assortment of activists, agitators and anarchists whom friendly media and politicians insist on praising as "peaceful resisters” against an industrial intrusion that "threatens” the climate, tribal culture, drinking water, historic artifacts and sacred sites. A United Nations "special rappoteur” on human rights claims law enforcement officials are using "violent” tactics against arrested protesters and subjecting them to "inhuman and degrading” conditions!
These claims are "tonka chesli” – Lakota for BS.
These thousands of militants are trespassing. They’ve wiped out forage that ranchers were depending on to feed their cattle and bison during fall and winter months. They blockade roads and rail lines, set fires to make passage impossible, and harass reporters who question their actions. One tried to shoot a deputy. They have burned bridges, destroyed millions of dollars of construction equipment, chased livestock until they lose their calves or die of exhaustion – and killed, maimed or eaten cattle, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/dakota-access-pipeline-reservation-ranchers-strugg/ horses and domesticated buffalo. They’ve promised far more destructive actions, and even issued death threats against their critics.
A favorite tactic employs "peaceful dissidents” and "prayer groups” to block and distract ranchers and sheriff’s deputies from an area, while others destroy nearby fence wire and posts. One rancher told me repairing just the fence on the ranch where they graze buffalo will cost at least $300,000 and weeks of hard work. The anarchists obviously don’t care about innocent people who are caught in the middle.
Other ranchers’ lost forage and animals, time and fuel spent on repairs, and other expenses will cost well over $500,000. No one has offered any compensation, even though the militants have millions of dollars.
Washington Times journalist Valerie Richardson reports that, as of November 1, the militants’ Sacred Stone camp alone raised $1.3 million for supplies http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/1/dakota-access-protesters-raise-millions-online-in-/ on GoFundMe and $1.2 million on FundRazr for legal defense. The Red Warrior Camp quickly collected $142,000 via GoFundMe and $105,000 in legal defense cash on IndieGogo, even though the Standing Rock council is frustrated and wants them gone.
Rumors run rampant that the "protesters” are also raking in bundles of welfare checks, plus "charitable and educational contributions” from "progressive” billionaires like Tom Steyer (coal), George Soros (currency speculation), Warren Buffett (railroads and tanker cars) http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2016/10/29/billionaire-crony-corporatist-schemes-n2237950 ; outfits they fund, such as the Tides Foundation, 350.org, EarthJustice and Indigenous Environmental Network; and various Russian, Saudi and other foreign sources that would like to keep US oil and gas locked up.
Perhaps the abundant cash will attract corporate and pro bono lawyers, legal foundations and attorneys general who can freeze the assets and pursue individual or joint and several liability claims, plus punitive damages, to compensate ranchers, other locals and companies – and dissuade future lawlessness.
Last January, 26 peaceful ranchers who encamped on federal wildlife refuge property in Oregon were arrested http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/life-under-an-iron-fist, one was shot and killed, and the survivors were charged with, tried for (and found not guilty of) theft, conspiracy and weapons violations. Many wonder why these North Dakota militants and criminals are getting a free pass, glowing press coverage, and millions of dollars from crime-financing enablers.
The nearly completed DAPL has to cross the river somewhere and will pose the same low pollution risks wherever it goes. But it will be built with the utmost care, with the best technologies and materials.
So what is actually driving these destructive, vindictive, violent protests against this convenient "poster child” pipeline?
* True-believers are obsessed with "dangerous manmade climate change” – to justify and obscure their real agenda: a new world economic order to replace capitalism, global wealth redistribution, and UN control of development, livelihoods and living standards, for rich, poor and emerging nations alike.
* The "keep it in the ground” anti-hydrocarbon movement prefers blanketing the USA and planet with billions of solar panels, wind turbines and biofuel fields, to produce expensive, subsidized, unreliable energy – while killing birds, bats and other wildlife by the millions – rather than producing affordable energy-dense fossil fuels from holes in the ground, and transporting them by pipeline. (Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II supports much greater emphasis on renewable energy.)
* Radical elements among Native Americans (and Canadian Indigenous Peoples) want to control the land, water, energy and lives of white people http://canadafreepress.com/comments/energy-bills-hidden-tribal-forest-management-amp-other-provisions#Comments whose predecessors took their ancestral lands. Their feelings are understandable. But imagine the chaos this would cause and the precedent their success would set for Europe, Latin America, China, Hawaii, the Middle East and beyond, as PC politics rewrite history.
* The anarchists think they have a right to vilify and void laws, processes, approvals and property rights – even threaten lives. 90% of those arrested have been out-of-state agitators, and many get paid to raise hell.
* And of course, they are outraged, inconsolable and defiant over Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.
They have no grasp of basic facts. Pipelines are safer than trucks or rail cars. This low-pressure line is state-of-the-art and will be monitored constantly and inspected regularly. High-cost renewable energy impacts small businesses, hospitals, blue-collar workers, and poor and minority families the hardest. And President Obama’s refusal to accept a court order or speak out against the crime is fueling the insanity.
Hopefully, President Trump, governors, AGs, other elected officials, and publicly spirited lawyers and judges will do the right thing: shut these anarchists down, compensate ranchers and other victims – and award punitive damages against the Big Green operatives who have caused so much damage, under the guise of freedom of speech (for them only) and phony concern for Native culture and the environment.
Then finish the pipeline, renew our focus on energy we can count on, and put America back to work.
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 and other books on the environment.
I'm going to publish Marc Morano's State of the Climate Report in stages. Here is the first installment:
Key climate data highlights:
Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming
The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade’
Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically.
Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
While the climate fails to behave as the UN and climate activists predict, very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called "consensus.”
Brother David sent this. Too late tonight for me to publish it, but I really like it. I see Newt's behind it too, and maybe this kind of thing's why Newt wants to be an advisor but doesn't want a job description. Could be a match made in Heaven!
Wow, this is some column, it's loaded, baby:
Dear Trump: Blow up the system with a focus on federalism
By Lisa Nelson
While oddsmakers in Washington are busy plugging names into boxes for the new administration, President-elect Tr...
Helen Dyer forwarded a question from John Droz, jr, a physicist involved with the Trump transition team. Droz is looking for suggestions of candidates to fill the top slots at the Departments of Energy, Education, and the EPA.
My picks for the three e's? Sarah Palin or, if you want a scientist, S.Fred Singer for Department of Energy, Marc Morano for EPA, and I am not sure who for Dep. Ed; Dave Brat wuold be a good choice, but I don't want to lose him in Congress. Be that as it may, Trump should pick someone who would return authority over education to the states and local districts. Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education and, frankly, I think it should be eliminated entirely.
Any thoughts? We have an historic opportunity to change these institutions from instruments of oppression to harmless or even beneficial agencies. They have been gathering power for a long time, under Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, and if we can devolve power back to the states now we can break the cycle, putting these agencies back where they belong. It took decades to usurp this power.
November 19, 2016
A grain of intelligence in a sandbox of stupidity
Aw, couldn't you just bawl?
Ace of Spades makes an interesting suggestion; banks and financial institutions are forced to issue disclosures of possible conflicts of interest, so why aren't journalists? ItAc is not a way of regulating speech so much as of enforcing transparency from the people who supply the news to America.
The Wikileaks dump showed considerable collusion between the Democratic Party and media people. These mediosa types lie about their "objectivity" and seduce many Americans. As of a few years ago half of all Americans still got their news from the network news services. If there are conflicts of interest the public has a right to know. Wasn't that the motto of Walter Cronkite or some such?
This proposal is fraut with danger, because it could be used to nickel and dime the little bloggers (such as yours truly) out of business. (Granted, I'm not in business at all, but you get the point.) But the sysem we have in place is no longer viable, as the Democrats now have control of the major media outlets. That has to change.
There should be a registration of formal for-pay journalists, and a disclosure requirement under the law. Bloggers offering independent opinions should not be subject, any more than entertainers or whatnot. I include liberals in Hollywood or musicians or whatnot. Jon Stewart included. But he should have to say his opinions are just that and his show is for entertainment purposes only.
The jounrnalists who are working for licensed outlets and who have access should have to pony up with the info.
The sad fact is American media is worse than Pravda was in the old Soviet Union. They were at least "offical truth" (which is what Pravda means) and so people knew to not beleive them. But our media claims to be unbiased, yet they are pure propoganda machines. That MUST change!
I've been saying this for years, and yet many conservatives never saw the danger. Too many figured that talk radio (on the a.m. dial, which had been a dying medium) and a few scribbling blogs, and one middle of the road cable outlet was adequate. Wrong. While we fought political wars and sometimes won the Left crept into the minds and hearts of the children through "cool" cultural things (like rap music or television shows) and we couldn't stop it because they owned the media, which would never mention this as a problem. So much of the media's power is to get at underlying attitudes and control the language. You can't get homosexual faux marriage without using phrases like "marriage equality" first. If they are doing that on the news programs we lose. There has to be a way to call it out.
Control of the dissemination of information is key to the success of liberalism. We have to break their monopoly, or any political victories we have will be short-lived.
Ace's suggestion may be a good start.
HEAVY SIGH! A writer at American Thinker this morning called for "proportional voting" in the Electoral College.
This is a foolish proposition. As I pointed out in a previous blogpost, the Electoral College is not just a mechanism for voting nor is it a vehicle for "democracy", something the Founding Fathers' rightly abhorred. No it is a tool to promote Federalism, the division of power between state and central governments. In short, how a state chooses and distributes it's electoral votes is entirely up to the citizens of that particular state, and is no business whatsoever of the country as a whole.
But let us first see what J.S. Anderson said in his essay this morning at American Thinker:
"Setting aside the deliberately intended difficulty of amending the Constitution, here is a suggestion for the Electoral College of the future. Let stand the requirement of 270 out of the total 538 electoral votes, or 50.19%, to be elected president. In partial deference to the "one man one vote -- total votes” argument, instead of allotting electoral votes by a winner take all requirement, allot each state’s electoral votes proportionally based mathematically upon the popular votes the candidates receive in the state, while eliminating individual electors.
For example, look at Florida with its 29 electoral votes. Based upon currently available data, Ms. Clinton received 47.8% of the popular vote, with 49.1% going to Mr. Trump. Based on these popular vote results, Ms. Clinton would receive 13.86 electoral votes, with 14.24 going to Mr. Trump. Completing the math for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, the results tally 257.01 electoral votes for Ms. Clinton, with 253.37 for Mr. Trump, both short of the 270 needed to claim victory. With neither candidate above the necessary threshold, the modification would require a runoff election."
In point of fact this scheme has been promoted by liberals for some time now as a way around the will of the individual states. It is called the National Popular Vote, and it is intended to circumvent the current system by apportioning votes based on the popular vote.
And they even have a way to do it Constitutionally; create an entente' between the indivudual states where the states agree to assign the EC votes proportionally. This is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and a few states have already adoopted it. But there is going to be a problem, because many states will not accept it voluntarily, and they have no reason to do so.
Which means you had better watch your pocket books! What the Left will no doubt do is try to force it via boycotts and, when next a Democrat is President, a cutting off of Federal funding. Oh, and expect George Soros' gang to mosey into town with signs and placards and molotov cocktails.
But in the end, it will have to be pushed through as a Constitutional Amendment. I doubt even the Warren Court would have been able to push it through the gates of constitutionality without one.
The Founding Fathers sought to create a system where the states were the coequals of the central government, not vassals. A national vote puts them into a permanent state of subjugation. If the central government can tell the states how to hold elections then they own the states. It really is that simple. People have forgotten, but the states were never intended to be provinces. Of course, we upset the balance of power in innumerable ways with the Civil War and Reconstruction, then with the adoption of the 17th Amendment which forced the Senate to be elected by a vote of the People and not by their state reps. Now we face a final curtain on American federalism with schemes to eliminate or fundamentally alter the Electoral College. It is quite foolish.
It is a liberal scheme. According to wikipedia it is endorsed by:
"the New York Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune"
All notoriously left-wing newspapers. And Pete Duponte, former Delaware Governor, rightly observed it was an urban power-grab.
This will end with continual litigation and runoffs as attempts by the Democrats to steal the elections in their urban machine will proliferate. There will be lawsuits to disqualify electors, lawsuits to recount, lawsuits to decertify. If anyone thinks this will solve any problems they are sadly mistaken.
It should be pointed out that every effort taken to impose a national popular vote has occured in the last forty years; this was never considered while states had even the illusion of autonomy. It is a child of the flower children's cultural revolution, not a long standing issue for reasonable men.
There are currently 11 states that have adopted the compact. They are:
1 Maryland 10 000000002007-04-10-0000April 10, 2007
2 New Jersey 14 000000002008-01-13-0000January 13, 2008
3 Illinois 20 000000002008-04-07-0000April 7, 2008
4 Hawaii 4 000000002008-05-01-0000May 1, 2008
5 Washington 12 000000002009-04-28-0000April 28, 2009
6 Massachusetts 11 000000002010-08-04-0000August 4, 2010
7 District of Columbia 3 000000002010-12-07-0000December 7, 2010
8 Vermont 3 000000002011-04-22-0000April 22, 2011
9 California 55 000000002011-08-08-0000August 8, 2011
10 Rhode Island 4 000000002013-07-12-0000July 12, 2013
11 New York 29 000000002014-04-15-0000April 15, 2014
Which totals 165 electoral votes.
If that is how these states want to use their votes they have every right, but this will not stop here. For such a scheme to work everybody ahs to play along, and that isn't going to happen. Eventually coersion is going to come into play.
[link-http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/destroying-the-electoral-college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular-vote-scheme]The Heritage Foundation had this to say about NPV:
"Aside from shaping the electoral system, this fear of marginalizing large portions of the population is also the reason that the Constitution calls for a representative republic and not a direct democracy. Under the NPV, this electoral benefit to states would disappear, and presidential candidates could win elections by catering to high-density population centers and ignoring the rest of the country. As John Samples argues, the NPV would "encourage presidential campaigns to focus their efforts in dense media markets where costs per vote are lowest,” and states that are sometimes ignored now will "continue to be ignored under NPV.” There is no question that smaller states receive less attention than larger states, but any national direct election system "would magnify, not improve, this problem.
Despite these facts, both large and small states have joined the National Popular Vote movement. The NPV, at face value, may appeal to traditionally democratic notions of "every vote being equal.” Yet its supporters seemingly have no concern for the many other non-majoritarian aspects of the governmental structure established by the Constitution, such as:
* Every state having two Senators regardless of its size or population;
* A President’s ability to veto legislation passed by a majority of the people’s popularly elected representatives;
* The lifetime appointment of federal judges whose power is inherently undemocratic;
* The unequal representation in the U.S. House of Representatives due to widely varying populations in congressional districts between different states, such as Delaware (with a population of almost 900,000) and Wyoming (with a population of only 600,000); and
* The unequal apportionment among the states of House districts caused by the inclusion of large numbers of ineligible voters (such as non-citizens) in the census count.
As former Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Bradley Smith says, "If such direct checks on popular majorities can be reasonable and acceptable in a democracy, then it is difficult to argue that indirect checks on popular majority such as the Electoral College, are inherently illegitimate.””"
America was set up this way for a reason. Monkeying with something that has served us well in the interest of "fairness" is juvenile and Progressive (but I repeat myself.) We don't want this.
By the way, here is a fascinating article from The Federalist which predicted a Republican victory in this election back in 2014. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/04/history-is-not-on-the-democrats-side-in-2016/
President Obama seems to think he can jawbone his "legacy” into permanency, despite the recent election. He says the Iran nuclear deal will endure. The Paris agreement will last. Regulations cannot and will not be rolled back. ObamaCare will retain its chief provisions.
But the political earthquake resulting in the election of Donald Trump is but an indicator of the tsunami of change that is about to happen. The truth of the matter is that the Obama administration saw the high-water mark of progressivism. Its overwhelming power has been broken.
Attempts to persuade the renegade American public and its new leaders back into the progressive fold will not cease, but they will be largely futile because Americans have made it clear they do not want progressivism to dictate domestic and foreign policy.
Why was there a revolution at the voting booth?
The revolution happened because Americans have seen the wrecking ball that is progressivism in action for the last eight years (and counting). The pendulum swung because citizens have watched as the leadership of the Democratic Party was gradually taken over by a bunch of fanatical extremists whose agenda was both morally and pragmatically repellent -- completely divorced from the realities of human existence.
What happened was that the once noble moral impulses undergirding the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s were gradually distorted by the radical feminist and gay rights movements, both of which hijacked civil rights terminology and both of which leveraged the momentum of the initial civil rights movement for their own increasingly fatuous, fanatical and narrow purposes; purposes which wound up badly hurting other Americans -- in fact, the American majority.
Jettisoning the highly religious foundations established by Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke in terms of human rights as rights for all, the new so-called civil rights movements embraced by the Democratic Party did not seek equality before the law for all human beings, but rather special privileges and power for themselves regardless of the cost to others. In their attempts to promote the causes of the latest self-proclaimed victims, progressives ran roughshod over the core institutions of America and over those structures upholding her constitutional republic. The Church and her institutions were also targeted for destruction in the name of progress.
In some circles, it became seen as inherently hateful to be a Christian because the Christian conscience as defined by orthodox doctrine simply could not accommodate the demands of the Left and remain Christian. For example, America’s Christians saw a Harvard professor encourage progressives to treat Christians, particularly evangelical Christians, as Nazis were treated after the end of World War II. No quarter or clemency was to be offered Christians now that progressives were in the seats of power. Many progressives agreed with the professors’ assessment. For them, it was only just to persecute people like the Little Sisters of the Poor because of their stance on birth control.
As progressive extremism wrote Christians out of their script, they kept writing an increasingly radical script for the American masses to follow. Those who refused to act out the parts assigned them were treated with contempt and often exiled to the periphery of society, there to join the aforementioned leprous Christians already outside the camp.
Those who opposed the new truths -- "truths” which could be changed daily according to the latest decree of political correctness -- were treated with ridicule and often persecuted. Whether it was the CEO of Chick-fil-A or the small-town butcher, baker, or candlestick maker, those who stood against the progressive tide were marked for destruction.
Despite the deeply held convictions of tens of millions of America’s people of faith, the proselytizers of the progressive movement insisted on abortion on demand up to the point of birth. They insisted the primordial universal understanding of marriage as being between man and woman had to be redefined. Even gender, the foundational distinction of the human race, was to be "fluid,” open to redefinition at any time.
Included in the radical agenda was the completion of the retrofitting of academia to the progressive agenda. Even language was to be retooled in order to express gender preference; indeed, to eliminate the distinctions of words denoting male and female. Further, the doctrine of global warming was to become the accepted scientific viewpoint, and woe to those scientists who disagreed.
Such extreme positions are but a few examples of the radical transformations sought under the Obama administration and embraced by the Democratic Party, which from all appearances seems determined to double down on radical orthodoxy, oblivious or resistant to reform.
In other words, Americans were to be forced into believing and accepting a complete reversal of the Western understanding of reality and the substitution of unreality -- a worldview matching neither science nor acceding to the moral transcendence supplied by faith.
Instead, Americans were to be forced to agree with and live within the progressive bubble world that was hell bent on enforcing a confabulist viewpoint that would extend to the entire globe. History and even memory were up for grabs as the Brave New World was effectuated through force, as persuasion was not enough to do the job.
But the unreality, extremism and fanaticism of leftist progressivism has been a sure sign of its demise. It became more and more abhorrent to the American people. Voters saw that their country could not continue to embrace the destructive concepts perpetrated and enforced by the Obama administration if America was to endure, much less flourish. If the nation was to survive, the progressive movement had to be rolled back.
As Eric Hoffer pointed out in The True Believer, the confabulist, not worried a bit about facts -- even those recorded on camera or by eye witnesses, can move on a dime and invent another truth to fit changing circumstances. Confabulists hand on their penchant for fabulism to their children, encouraging, for instance, transgenderism in kids as little as six. Of course, confabulism is a descent into insanity -- and mass insanity is what we are seeing today. "Fanatical orthodoxy is in all movements a late development. It comes when the movement is in full possession of power and can impose its faith by force as well as by persuasion.”
Americans had found themselves forced to believe and practice an ideology that endured only by coercion. As Hoffer notes, for a time, force works. "Thus coercion when implacable and persistent has an unequaled persuasiveness, and this not only with simple souls but also with those who pride themselves on the strength and integrity of their intellect.”
Progressives were Sovietizing America, to the point that arbitrary decrees from leading progressives, including the person inhabiting the White House, were forcing people of conscience to recant their convictions and confess their errors lest they be destroyed. We saw the United States military, for instance, subjected to progressivism’s politically-correct mandates that undermined the mission and effectiveness of the armed forces, while protesting generals were arbitrarily forced into resignation.
As time went on, the more unworkable and oppressive the mandate, the greater the force needed to ensure capitulation of the resistant. As Hoffer noted concerning Soviet Russia:
"The more unworkable communism proves in Russia, and the more its leaders are compelled to compromise and adulterate the original creed, the more brazen and arrogant will be their attack on a non-believing world.”
Here in America, what the above translated into was that those who have opposed the imposition of the latest progressive doctrine were persecuted as heretics.
Is it any wonder, then, that the pragmatic and commonsense Americans, along with those whose consciences and religious freedoms were constantly violated, revolted at last? Is it any wonder that when an elite few invent a world without any relationship to reality, the rest of unconverted society refuses to accommodate itself to their confabulist insanities? Is it any wonder that honest Americans saw, as did the late theologian John Webster, that "The lie can be kept intact only if anything which threatens to expose it is destroyed?” Is it any wonder that the mere mortals among us have seen that the progressive gods are mad, and that their insistence that we retrofit our existence and all of society to accommodate their insane demands was a potentially fatal assault on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
In sum, by using the power remaining to them; namely the voting booth, Americans repudiated the lies and subterfuges of the extremist progressive movement. While fundamentalist progressivism will live on for a time and fight back through academia, the media and Hollywood, the flood tide crested during the reign of Obama, and now has begun to recede. Progressives will increasingly live on in backwater subcultures, much like the ones to which for generations they routinely consigned those who opposed them. People like Al Gore will be seen in the same light Aimee Semple McPherson is now seen in retrospect -- as an irrelevant curiosity and the purveyor of pure poppycock.
It remains for the newly elected leadership to close their ears to those who want to preserve the outlandish "legacy” of the past eight years. It is time to forge ahead with the mandate of the voting public. Now is not the time for timid compromise and "reaching across the aisle.”
It’s time for conservatives to continue to continue to roll back the progressive tide -- across the board.
November 18, 2016
Hillary, having been beaten fair and square, is now trying to steal the election by using Mafiosa tactics to intimidate members of the College of Electors to force them to change their votes in her favor. See here and here.
And, as Dana Mathewson observes, Barack Obama is giving his blessing to rioters and protesters.
What does all this mean? It means that the corporate academia complex is not going down without a fight, and are willing to kill people even to maintain power.
They hope to deny Trump 270 votes, thus throwing the election into the House of Representatives, a place where Hillary and Obama and company no doubt have done quite a bit of opposition research.
If they succeed at this we will have open civil war, as Jack Kemp observes.
Here is the petition to flip electors at Change.org.
On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!
We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.
Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.
Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won” is because of the Electoral College.
But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?
52 queries taking 0.6558 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.