February 07, 2017
Trumparia!
Fay Voshell
I thought this was one of the funniest articles I've yet read about what's happening.
https://spectator.org/the-mad-scene-in-the-anti-trump-opera/
Fay Voshell
I thought this was one of the funniest articles I've yet read about what's happening.
https://spectator.org/the-mad-scene-in-the-anti-trump-opera/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:35 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
Black on Black Crime "Ain't no Big Thing"
Dana Mathewson
Idiot!
https://apple.news/AzPdAsNC0MQCVKRnt72OHgg
Toure: Black-on-Black Crime in Chicago Not a Prime Issue Black Americans Need Resolved
Breitbart News
During the Saturday "AM Joy†broadcast on MSNBC, MSNBC contributor Toure said black-on-black crime is not the biggest issue for black Americans at this time. Instead, Toure suggested the war on drugs, wealth inequality, public schooling and police violence are bigger issues for the black community. "This attack on black-on-black crime in Chicago — this is not the prime thing that black America needs dealt with†Toure told host Joy Reid. "We need the war on drugs dealt with, we need the wealth
Idiot!
https://apple.news/AzPdAsNC0MQCVKRnt72OHgg
Toure: Black-on-Black Crime in Chicago Not a Prime Issue Black Americans Need Resolved
Breitbart News
During the Saturday "AM Joy†broadcast on MSNBC, MSNBC contributor Toure said black-on-black crime is not the biggest issue for black Americans at this time. Instead, Toure suggested the war on drugs, wealth inequality, public schooling and police violence are bigger issues for the black community. "This attack on black-on-black crime in Chicago — this is not the prime thing that black America needs dealt with†Toure told host Joy Reid. "We need the war on drugs dealt with, we need the wealth
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
What Part of Temporary Don't Liberals Understand?
Dana Mathewson
To listen to the Left -- if anyone with intelligence could actually bear to do it -- one would think that Mr. Trump had actually declared Muslims illegal and had ordered the National Guard (or some other such group) to go out, hunt them up and imprison them. Apparently the word "temporary" is too long and complicated for people like Chuck Schumer (Harvard '71) to understand. Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he's hoping it's too long and complicated for his constituents to understand.
And he certainly does not want his constituents to understand that for a time, the sainted Mr. Obama instituted a similar ban.
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP:
Dana, this is a replay of the 1960s riots. They are demanding that Trump voters pay for whatever the ghettos want to receive much wealth redistribution - or else. This is a revolt against the Judeo-Christian West and a serious attempt to turn it into The New Third World.
To listen to the Left -- if anyone with intelligence could actually bear to do it -- one would think that Mr. Trump had actually declared Muslims illegal and had ordered the National Guard (or some other such group) to go out, hunt them up and imprison them. Apparently the word "temporary" is too long and complicated for people like Chuck Schumer (Harvard '71) to understand. Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he's hoping it's too long and complicated for his constituents to understand.
And he certainly does not want his constituents to understand that for a time, the sainted Mr. Obama instituted a similar ban.
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP:
Dana, this is a replay of the 1960s riots. They are demanding that Trump voters pay for whatever the ghettos want to receive much wealth redistribution - or else. This is a revolt against the Judeo-Christian West and a serious attempt to turn it into The New Third World.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.
The hidden agendas of sustainability illusions
Paul Driessen
"Sustainable development†has long been the alter ego of "dangerous manmade climate change,†as a mantra and a justification for controls on energy production and use, human consumption and living standards, and economic development. But there are three major problems with the concept.
First, no one can predict future technologies or the raw materials those technologies will require. So we have no way of knowing what resource consumption today will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Second, we will not run out of oil, gas, coal or metals anytime soon. So there is no reason we should shortchange the needs of current generations, to safeguard the unknowable needs of future generations.
Third, sustainability terminology is circular, malleable, infinitely elastic – the perfect tool for activists. Whatever they support is sustainable; whatever they oppose is unsustainable; and whatever mantras or protective measures they propose give them more power and control.
The hidden agendas of sustainability illusions
Absurd, impractical sustainability precepts are actually a prescription for government control
Paul Driessen
As President Trump downgrades the relevance of Obama era climate change and anti-fossil fuel policies, many environmentalists are directing attention to "sustainable development.â€
Like "dangerous manmade climate change,†sustainability reflects poor understanding of basic energy, economic, resource extraction and manufacturing principles – and a tendency to emphasize tautologies and theoretical models as an alternative to readily observable evidence in the Real World. It also involves well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists who use the concept to gain greater government control over people’s lives, livelihoods and living standards.
The most common definition is that we may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability thus reflects the assertion that we are rapidly depleting finite resources, and must reduce current needs and wants so as to save raw materials for future generations.
At first blush, it sounds logical and even ethical. But it requires impossible clairvoyance.
In 1887, when the Hearthstone House became the world’s first home lit via hydroelectric power, no one did or could foresee that electricity would dominate, enhance and safeguard our lives in the myriad ways it does today. Decades later, no one anticipated pure silica fiber optic cables replacing copper wires.
No one predicted tiny cellular phones with superb digital cameras and more computing power than a 1990 desktop computer or 3-D printing or thousands of wind turbines across our fruited plains – or cadmium, rare earth metals and other raw materials suddenly required to manufacture these technological wonders.
Mankind advanced at a snail’s pace for thousands of years. As the modern fossil-fuel industrial era found its footing, progress picked up at an increasingly breathtaking pace. Today, change is exponential. As we moved from flint to copper, to bronze, iron, steel and beyond, we didn’t do so because mankind had exhausted Earth’s supplies of flint, copper, tin and so on. We did it because we innovated – invented something better, more efficient or practical. Each advance required different raw materials.
Who today can foresee what technologies future generations will have 25, 50 or 200 years from now? What raw materials they will need? How we are supposed to ensure that those families meet their needs?
Why then would we even think of empowering government to regulate today’s activities today based on the wholly unpredictable technologies, lifestyles, needs, and resource demands of distant generations? Why would we ignore or compromise the needs of current generations, to meet those totally unpredictable future needs – including the needs of today’s most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished people, who desperately want to improve their lives?
Moreover, we are not going to run out of resources anytime soon. A 1-kilometer fiber optic cable made from 45 pounds of silica (Earth’s most abundant element) carries thousands of times more information than an equally long RG-6 cable made from 3,600 pounds of copper, reducing demand for copper.
In 1947, the world’s proven oil reserves totaled 47 billion barrels. Over the next 70 years, we consumed hundreds of billions of barrels – and yet, in 2016 we still had at least 2,800 billion barrels of oil reserves, including oil sands, oil shales and other unconventional deposits: at least a century’s worth, plus abundant natural gas. Constantly improving technologies now let us find and produce oil and natural gas from deposits that we could not even detect, much less tap into, just a couple decades ago.
Sustainability dogma also revolves around hatred of fossil fuels, and a determination to rid the world of them, regardless of any social, economic or environmental costs of doing so. And we frequently find that supposedly green, eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives are frequently anything but.
U.S. ethanol quotas eat up 40% of the nation’s corn, cropland the size of Iowa, billions of gallons of water, and vast quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, tractor fuel and natural gas, to produce energy that drives up food prices, damages small engines and gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline.
Heavily subsidized wind energy requires standby fossil fuel generators, ultra-long transmission lines and thus millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals and fiberglass. The turbines create chronic health problems for people living near them and kill millions of birds and bats – to produce intermittent, wholly unreliable electricity that costs up to 250% more than coal-based electricity.
For all that, on a torrid August 2012 day, Great Britain’s 3,500 giant wind turbines generated a mere 12 megawatts of electricity: 0.032% of the 38,000 MW the country was using at the time.
The United Kingdom also subsidizes several huge anaerobic digesters, intended to convert animal manure and other farm waste into eco-friendly methane for use in generating electricity. But there is insufficient farm waste. So the digesters are fed with corn (maize), grass and rye grown on 130,000 acres (four times the size of Washington, DC), using enormous amounts of water, fertilizer – and of course diesel fuel to grow, harvest and transport the crops to the digesters. Why not just drill and frack for natural gas?
That brings us to the political arena, where the terminology is circular, malleable, infinitely elastic, the perfect tool for activists. Whatever they support is sustainable; whatever they oppose is unsustainable; and whatever mantras or protective measures they propose give them more power and control.
The Club of Rome sought to build a new movement by creating "a common enemy against whom we can unite†– allegedly looming disasters "caused by human intervention in natural processes†and requiring "changed attitudes and behavior†to avoid global calamities: global warming and resource depletion.
"Building an environmentally sustainable future requires restricting the global economy, dramatically changing human reproductive behavior, and altering values and lifestyles,†said Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown. "Doing this quickly requires nothing short of a revolution.â€
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable,†Canadian arch-environmentalist Maurice Strong declared.
"Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change,†former Vice President Al Gore asserted – "these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.†Environmental activist Daniel Sitarz agreed, saying: "Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions intended to be implemented by every person on Earth. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.â€
"Sustainable development,†the National Research Council declaimed in a 2011 report, "raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy, including how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development, and climate change controls.†In fact, said Obama science advisor John Holdren, we cannot even talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power, and control. Especially control.
Of course, the activists, politicians and regulators feel little pain, as they enjoy salaries and perks paid by taxpayers and foundations, fly to UN and other conferences at posh 5-star resorts around the world, and implement agendas that control, redesign and transform other people’s lives.
It is We the Governed – especially working class and poor citizens – who pay the price, with the world’s poorest families paying the highest price. We can only hope the Trump Administration and Congress will dismantle and defund sustainable development, the alter ego of cataclysmic manmade climate change.
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.
"Sustainable development†has long been the alter ego of "dangerous manmade climate change,†as a mantra and a justification for controls on energy production and use, human consumption and living standards, and economic development. But there are three major problems with the concept.
First, no one can predict future technologies or the raw materials those technologies will require. So we have no way of knowing what resource consumption today will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Second, we will not run out of oil, gas, coal or metals anytime soon. So there is no reason we should shortchange the needs of current generations, to safeguard the unknowable needs of future generations.
Third, sustainability terminology is circular, malleable, infinitely elastic – the perfect tool for activists. Whatever they support is sustainable; whatever they oppose is unsustainable; and whatever mantras or protective measures they propose give them more power and control.
The hidden agendas of sustainability illusions
Absurd, impractical sustainability precepts are actually a prescription for government control
Paul Driessen
As President Trump downgrades the relevance of Obama era climate change and anti-fossil fuel policies, many environmentalists are directing attention to "sustainable development.â€
Like "dangerous manmade climate change,†sustainability reflects poor understanding of basic energy, economic, resource extraction and manufacturing principles – and a tendency to emphasize tautologies and theoretical models as an alternative to readily observable evidence in the Real World. It also involves well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists who use the concept to gain greater government control over people’s lives, livelihoods and living standards.
The most common definition is that we may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability thus reflects the assertion that we are rapidly depleting finite resources, and must reduce current needs and wants so as to save raw materials for future generations.
At first blush, it sounds logical and even ethical. But it requires impossible clairvoyance.
In 1887, when the Hearthstone House became the world’s first home lit via hydroelectric power, no one did or could foresee that electricity would dominate, enhance and safeguard our lives in the myriad ways it does today. Decades later, no one anticipated pure silica fiber optic cables replacing copper wires.
No one predicted tiny cellular phones with superb digital cameras and more computing power than a 1990 desktop computer or 3-D printing or thousands of wind turbines across our fruited plains – or cadmium, rare earth metals and other raw materials suddenly required to manufacture these technological wonders.
Mankind advanced at a snail’s pace for thousands of years. As the modern fossil-fuel industrial era found its footing, progress picked up at an increasingly breathtaking pace. Today, change is exponential. As we moved from flint to copper, to bronze, iron, steel and beyond, we didn’t do so because mankind had exhausted Earth’s supplies of flint, copper, tin and so on. We did it because we innovated – invented something better, more efficient or practical. Each advance required different raw materials.
Who today can foresee what technologies future generations will have 25, 50 or 200 years from now? What raw materials they will need? How we are supposed to ensure that those families meet their needs?
Why then would we even think of empowering government to regulate today’s activities today based on the wholly unpredictable technologies, lifestyles, needs, and resource demands of distant generations? Why would we ignore or compromise the needs of current generations, to meet those totally unpredictable future needs – including the needs of today’s most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished people, who desperately want to improve their lives?
Moreover, we are not going to run out of resources anytime soon. A 1-kilometer fiber optic cable made from 45 pounds of silica (Earth’s most abundant element) carries thousands of times more information than an equally long RG-6 cable made from 3,600 pounds of copper, reducing demand for copper.
In 1947, the world’s proven oil reserves totaled 47 billion barrels. Over the next 70 years, we consumed hundreds of billions of barrels – and yet, in 2016 we still had at least 2,800 billion barrels of oil reserves, including oil sands, oil shales and other unconventional deposits: at least a century’s worth, plus abundant natural gas. Constantly improving technologies now let us find and produce oil and natural gas from deposits that we could not even detect, much less tap into, just a couple decades ago.
Sustainability dogma also revolves around hatred of fossil fuels, and a determination to rid the world of them, regardless of any social, economic or environmental costs of doing so. And we frequently find that supposedly green, eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives are frequently anything but.
U.S. ethanol quotas eat up 40% of the nation’s corn, cropland the size of Iowa, billions of gallons of water, and vast quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, tractor fuel and natural gas, to produce energy that drives up food prices, damages small engines and gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline.
Heavily subsidized wind energy requires standby fossil fuel generators, ultra-long transmission lines and thus millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals and fiberglass. The turbines create chronic health problems for people living near them and kill millions of birds and bats – to produce intermittent, wholly unreliable electricity that costs up to 250% more than coal-based electricity.
For all that, on a torrid August 2012 day, Great Britain’s 3,500 giant wind turbines generated a mere 12 megawatts of electricity: 0.032% of the 38,000 MW the country was using at the time.
The United Kingdom also subsidizes several huge anaerobic digesters, intended to convert animal manure and other farm waste into eco-friendly methane for use in generating electricity. But there is insufficient farm waste. So the digesters are fed with corn (maize), grass and rye grown on 130,000 acres (four times the size of Washington, DC), using enormous amounts of water, fertilizer – and of course diesel fuel to grow, harvest and transport the crops to the digesters. Why not just drill and frack for natural gas?
That brings us to the political arena, where the terminology is circular, malleable, infinitely elastic, the perfect tool for activists. Whatever they support is sustainable; whatever they oppose is unsustainable; and whatever mantras or protective measures they propose give them more power and control.
The Club of Rome sought to build a new movement by creating "a common enemy against whom we can unite†– allegedly looming disasters "caused by human intervention in natural processes†and requiring "changed attitudes and behavior†to avoid global calamities: global warming and resource depletion.
"Building an environmentally sustainable future requires restricting the global economy, dramatically changing human reproductive behavior, and altering values and lifestyles,†said Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown. "Doing this quickly requires nothing short of a revolution.â€
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable,†Canadian arch-environmentalist Maurice Strong declared.
"Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change,†former Vice President Al Gore asserted – "these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.†Environmental activist Daniel Sitarz agreed, saying: "Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions intended to be implemented by every person on Earth. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.â€
"Sustainable development,†the National Research Council declaimed in a 2011 report, "raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy, including how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development, and climate change controls.†In fact, said Obama science advisor John Holdren, we cannot even talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power, and control. Especially control.
Of course, the activists, politicians and regulators feel little pain, as they enjoy salaries and perks paid by taxpayers and foundations, fly to UN and other conferences at posh 5-star resorts around the world, and implement agendas that control, redesign and transform other people’s lives.
It is We the Governed – especially working class and poor citizens – who pay the price, with the world’s poorest families paying the highest price. We can only hope the Trump Administration and Congress will dismantle and defund sustainable development, the alter ego of cataclysmic manmade climate change.
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.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1491 words, total size 11 kb.
Actress Alison Becker Sends Racist, Sexist Tweet
By Selwyn Duke
It’s yet another example of Trump-era celebrity derangement. Comedienne and actress Alison Becker attacked me via Twitter recently, saying I "have absolutely no authority on inequality as a white, cis male.â€
Becker, a host on Fuse and VH1 who has also appeared on Law & Order: Criminal Intent, had some hostile intent Feb. 1 in tweeting that an article I wrote "is ignorant, offensive, and misses the point.†She didn’t indicate what piece raised her ire (I write a lot), but the only article of mine published that day was titled " HYPERLINK "http://observer.com/2017/02/npr-oxfam-report-eight-richest-men/" The Equality Con: Why Income Gaps Don’t Matter†and made the snowflake-melting assertion that inequality is "irrelevant.â€
Whatever upset little Alison, though, she perhaps feared her own increasing irrelevancy — it appears she deleted the tweet in question. But here it is:
The irony of presenting oneself as a champion for equality while claiming that a whole group defined by race and sex has no business even talking about it apparently eluded Becker. But I don’t blame her for nixing the tweet. Using the word "cis� Really?
For the uninitiated, that’s short for "cisgender,†a silly term for someone who, shockingly, actually identifies as the sex he was born as. That’s awfully presumptuous of Alison, though. How does she know I’m cis? Maybe I aim to supplant Milo Yiannopoulos as the new fabulous thing on college campuses.
Speaking of which, it’s bad enough when college-age lunkheads use the term. Becker is 39 years old. Not only that, but when I mocked her for parroting the cis nonsense and, uh…impugned her intellect (okay, I called her an airhead), she responded with the following:
Actually, Alison, I’m getting people to notice you! It’s interesting that this Mensa genius can’t figure out that every term was made up at one point or another and that "cis†is new enough so that, for example, my Word program flags it as a misspelling. And this is a woman who HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/thealisonbecker?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" calls President Trump a "stupid, ignorant, incompetent a**†on her Twitter page (so she’s eloquent, too).
But given Becker’s defensiveness about her intellect, if she herself ever decides to graduate from cis status, maybe she can play the following role in some future remake of The Godfather Part II.
[Insert video: HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A]
So, newer Fredo: "I can handle things, Mike! I’m smart! I’m in MENSA!â€
Whatever the case, don’t worry, Alison — you’ll make it one of these days. If Sarah Silverman and Madonna find their happy place in a rubber room, next year’s Women’s March may need a featured shrieker.
HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com
It’s yet another example of Trump-era celebrity derangement. Comedienne and actress Alison Becker attacked me via Twitter recently, saying I "have absolutely no authority on inequality as a white, cis male.â€
Becker, a host on Fuse and VH1 who has also appeared on Law & Order: Criminal Intent, had some hostile intent Feb. 1 in tweeting that an article I wrote "is ignorant, offensive, and misses the point.†She didn’t indicate what piece raised her ire (I write a lot), but the only article of mine published that day was titled " HYPERLINK "http://observer.com/2017/02/npr-oxfam-report-eight-richest-men/" The Equality Con: Why Income Gaps Don’t Matter†and made the snowflake-melting assertion that inequality is "irrelevant.â€
Whatever upset little Alison, though, she perhaps feared her own increasing irrelevancy — it appears she deleted the tweet in question. But here it is:
The irony of presenting oneself as a champion for equality while claiming that a whole group defined by race and sex has no business even talking about it apparently eluded Becker. But I don’t blame her for nixing the tweet. Using the word "cis� Really?
For the uninitiated, that’s short for "cisgender,†a silly term for someone who, shockingly, actually identifies as the sex he was born as. That’s awfully presumptuous of Alison, though. How does she know I’m cis? Maybe I aim to supplant Milo Yiannopoulos as the new fabulous thing on college campuses.
Speaking of which, it’s bad enough when college-age lunkheads use the term. Becker is 39 years old. Not only that, but when I mocked her for parroting the cis nonsense and, uh…impugned her intellect (okay, I called her an airhead), she responded with the following:
Actually, Alison, I’m getting people to notice you! It’s interesting that this Mensa genius can’t figure out that every term was made up at one point or another and that "cis†is new enough so that, for example, my Word program flags it as a misspelling. And this is a woman who HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/thealisonbecker?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" calls President Trump a "stupid, ignorant, incompetent a**†on her Twitter page (so she’s eloquent, too).
But given Becker’s defensiveness about her intellect, if she herself ever decides to graduate from cis status, maybe she can play the following role in some future remake of The Godfather Part II.
[Insert video: HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A]
So, newer Fredo: "I can handle things, Mike! I’m smart! I’m in MENSA!â€
Whatever the case, don’t worry, Alison — you’ll make it one of these days. If Sarah Silverman and Madonna find their happy place in a rubber room, next year’s Women’s March may need a featured shrieker.
HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 5 kb.
February 06, 2017
Woman Says Airline Made Her Move Because 2 Pakistanis
Jack Kemp
KCBS in Los Angeles. The website has a short video of the story as well...
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/29/only-on-2-o-c-woman-says-airline-gave-her-pre-booked-seat-away-because-2-men-didnt-want-to-sit-next-to-female/
Only On 2: O.C. Woman Says Airline Made Her Move Because 2 Pakistani Monks Can’t Sit Next To Female
September 29, 2016 11:42 PM
COTO DE CAZA (CBSLA.com) — An Orange County woman said she is the victim of discrimination.
Mary Campos says her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.
It’s a story that is Only On 2. Stacey Butler spoke to Campos.
A a million-mile flier, Campos — a mom who lives in Coto de Caza — said she thought she’d seen it all.
Until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.
"He said this is your new seat,†Campos said, "And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know how to tell you this'â€
She said she continued by saying, "Yes?â€
And the agent told her, "The two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females.â€
She was shocked.
"I thought I lived in a culture where women were equal to men,†she says.
Campos is a senior consultant in the oil and gas industry.
She said she had no choice but to take her new seat assignment.
That’s when she said she wrote a letter to the CEO of United Airlines.
The letter said, in part, "What if I were handicapped, or transgender?†she wrote. "What if your entire crew were female? Any belief that prevents individuals from interacting with females should not travel on commercial aircraft.â€
She got a reply that said United would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again.
But Butler did. A company spokesperson wrote, in part:
"We regret that Ms. Campos was unhappy with the handling of the seat assignments on her flight. United holds its employees to the highest standards of professionalism and has zero tolerance for discrimination.â€
Campos was told the men were Pakistani monks who were wearing long orange shirts. She says the female flight crew were not allowed to serve the men.
"We can’t discriminate against half the population,†Campos said, "for a belief from another nation.â€
Butler asked Campos if she intended on suing the airline and she said that was not her intention. But she did want two things from United.
1. Apologize to every female that was on that plane, including their employees.
2. Change their policy. Campos said if she didn’t get those things, she would do whatever she had to do to protect women’s rights.
KCBS in Los Angeles. The website has a short video of the story as well...
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/29/only-on-2-o-c-woman-says-airline-gave-her-pre-booked-seat-away-because-2-men-didnt-want-to-sit-next-to-female/
Only On 2: O.C. Woman Says Airline Made Her Move Because 2 Pakistani Monks Can’t Sit Next To Female
September 29, 2016 11:42 PM
COTO DE CAZA (CBSLA.com) — An Orange County woman said she is the victim of discrimination.
Mary Campos says her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.
It’s a story that is Only On 2. Stacey Butler spoke to Campos.
A a million-mile flier, Campos — a mom who lives in Coto de Caza — said she thought she’d seen it all.
Until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.
"He said this is your new seat,†Campos said, "And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know how to tell you this'â€
She said she continued by saying, "Yes?â€
And the agent told her, "The two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females.â€
She was shocked.
"I thought I lived in a culture where women were equal to men,†she says.
Campos is a senior consultant in the oil and gas industry.
She said she had no choice but to take her new seat assignment.
That’s when she said she wrote a letter to the CEO of United Airlines.
The letter said, in part, "What if I were handicapped, or transgender?†she wrote. "What if your entire crew were female? Any belief that prevents individuals from interacting with females should not travel on commercial aircraft.â€
She got a reply that said United would look into it. She said she didn’t hear from them again.
But Butler did. A company spokesperson wrote, in part:
"We regret that Ms. Campos was unhappy with the handling of the seat assignments on her flight. United holds its employees to the highest standards of professionalism and has zero tolerance for discrimination.â€
Campos was told the men were Pakistani monks who were wearing long orange shirts. She says the female flight crew were not allowed to serve the men.
"We can’t discriminate against half the population,†Campos said, "for a belief from another nation.â€
Butler asked Campos if she intended on suing the airline and she said that was not her intention. But she did want two things from United.
1. Apologize to every female that was on that plane, including their employees.
2. Change their policy. Campos said if she didn’t get those things, she would do whatever she had to do to protect women’s rights.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.
Who the Dems Should Run for President
Jack Kemp
I saw this online. The Dems should run Al Franken for President and Jill Stein (the Green Party nut who wanted recounts in some of Trump's winning states) as VP.
Their buttons and banners would read "Vote Franken-Stein!"
I saw this online. The Dems should run Al Franken for President and Jill Stein (the Green Party nut who wanted recounts in some of Trump's winning states) as VP.
Their buttons and banners would read "Vote Franken-Stein!"
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
Typical liberal lying
Wil Wirtanen
As I have said, if it wasn’t for hypocrisy and lying liberals would not have any redeeming values.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/climate-science-rocked-by-another-scandal.php
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
How Ronald Reagan Handled Berkeley Protesters
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13131/flashback-heres-how-president-reagan-handled-amanda-prestigiacomo
FLASHBACK: Here's How Ronald Reagan Handled Berkeley Protesters
Amanda Prestigiacomo
February 3, 2017
On Wednesday night, violent protesters at the University of California, Berkeley shut down the free speech of a scheduled conservative speaker by rioting, committing arson, destroying property and pepper spraying innocent Trump supporters in attendance. There was indeed a police presence, but there was no reason for them being there, as the officers were seemingly handcuffed by authorities from actually acting on the violent thugs.
As summed up nicely by vile leftist Debra Messing in a celebratory tweet, the violent rioting from leftist thugs "worked": free speech was successfully suppressed due to the violent actions of the "tolerant" left.
After the fact, President Donald Trump reacted to the insanity by issuing a tweet suggesting he might revoke federally funding from the university if free speech continues to be suppressed.
But how have past state and local officials handled disorderly protesters in the past? When Ronald Reagan was serving as governor of California in 1969, he was faced with student protesters on the Berkeley campus who refused to follow the rule of law; their protest eventually morphed into a riot. Reagan's approach in handling such students was no-nonsense, to put it mildly.
Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs
Berkeley.edu reports:
Students and activists had begun an attempt to transform a vacant plot of university property into "People's Park." Attempting to head off the activists, the university engaged a fencing company, accompanied by 250 police, to erect a chain-link fence around the land at 4 a.m. on May 15, 1969. Five hours later, a rally was called on Sproul Plaza to protest the action. Resource, a current UC Berkeley reference guide for new students, relates the story of how Reagan intervened, sending in the National Guard:
"The rally, which drew 3,000 people, soon turned into a riot, as the crowd moved down Telegraph (Ave.) towards the park. That day, known as Bloody Thursday, three students suffered punctured lungs, another a shattered leg, 13 people were hospitalized with shotgun wounds, and one police officer was stabbed. James Rector, who was watching the riot from a rooftop, was shot by police gunfire; he died four days later.
"At the request of the Berkeley mayor, Governor Ronald Reagan declared a state of emergency and sent 2,200 National Guard troops into Berkeley. Some of these guardsmen were even Cal students. At least one young man had participated in the riots, been shot at by police, gotten patched up, and then returned to his dorm to find a notice to report for guard duty. In the following days approximately 1,000 people were arrested: 200 were booked for felonies, and 500 were taken to Santa Rita jail."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13131/flashback-heres-how-president-reagan-handled-amanda-prestigiacomo
FLASHBACK: Here's How Ronald Reagan Handled Berkeley Protesters
Amanda Prestigiacomo
February 3, 2017
On Wednesday night, violent protesters at the University of California, Berkeley shut down the free speech of a scheduled conservative speaker by rioting, committing arson, destroying property and pepper spraying innocent Trump supporters in attendance. There was indeed a police presence, but there was no reason for them being there, as the officers were seemingly handcuffed by authorities from actually acting on the violent thugs.
As summed up nicely by vile leftist Debra Messing in a celebratory tweet, the violent rioting from leftist thugs "worked": free speech was successfully suppressed due to the violent actions of the "tolerant" left.
After the fact, President Donald Trump reacted to the insanity by issuing a tweet suggesting he might revoke federally funding from the university if free speech continues to be suppressed.
But how have past state and local officials handled disorderly protesters in the past? When Ronald Reagan was serving as governor of California in 1969, he was faced with student protesters on the Berkeley campus who refused to follow the rule of law; their protest eventually morphed into a riot. Reagan's approach in handling such students was no-nonsense, to put it mildly.
Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs
Berkeley.edu reports:
Students and activists had begun an attempt to transform a vacant plot of university property into "People's Park." Attempting to head off the activists, the university engaged a fencing company, accompanied by 250 police, to erect a chain-link fence around the land at 4 a.m. on May 15, 1969. Five hours later, a rally was called on Sproul Plaza to protest the action. Resource, a current UC Berkeley reference guide for new students, relates the story of how Reagan intervened, sending in the National Guard:
"The rally, which drew 3,000 people, soon turned into a riot, as the crowd moved down Telegraph (Ave.) towards the park. That day, known as Bloody Thursday, three students suffered punctured lungs, another a shattered leg, 13 people were hospitalized with shotgun wounds, and one police officer was stabbed. James Rector, who was watching the riot from a rooftop, was shot by police gunfire; he died four days later.
"At the request of the Berkeley mayor, Governor Ronald Reagan declared a state of emergency and sent 2,200 National Guard troops into Berkeley. Some of these guardsmen were even Cal students. At least one young man had participated in the riots, been shot at by police, gotten patched up, and then returned to his dorm to find a notice to report for guard duty. In the following days approximately 1,000 people were arrested: 200 were booked for felonies, and 500 were taken to Santa Rita jail."
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.
The Liberal Violence
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/democrats_find_a_use_for_violence.html
February 5, 2017
Democrats Find a Use for Violence
By Karin McQuillan
Conservatives are torn these days. We wake up happy and excited to read the headlines and see what great new thing Trump has done. Then we're hit with images of thugs in black masks beating up Trump supporters. It is very disturbing.
Democrats are scared stiff that Trump's sensible, practical polices will make our country safer, boost our economy, and deliver jobs to blacks and millennials. That's why they are running around in pink hats and black masks, beating dissenters up literally or verbally.
Democrats are rejecting the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power via the ballot box.
Democrat leaders says Trump has no right to enact the conservative policies we voted for, that our election victory is illegitimate. They have embraced violence and violent rhetoric. In Congress, senators boycotted committee meetings, forcing an emergency rule to move nominations forward. Progressives are training government employees in passive resistance. That will create another confrontation. There is talk of impeachment before Trump is in office two weeks.
This is not the 1960s. This is not a mass movement protesting an unpopular war or supporting civil rights legislation. We have Obama's community agitation, not Martin Luther King's nonviolent resistance.
Via powerlineblog, The Week in Pictures.
It is hard to claim the moral high ground when men in black masks beat a Trump supporter unconscious, sending him to the hospital with a concussion. They are "protesting" Americans' right to vet Syrian refugees.
The professional agitators at Berkeley didn't stop with setting things on fire. They, too, bloodied Trump supporters, including women, beating them with poles. They are "protesting" Republican students' right to listen to a speaker of their choice.
These ugly assaults are live-streamed and go viral. Do Democrats really think this will hurt Trump and not them?
Oddly, the answer is yes.
V.P. candidate Tim Kaine called for fighting in the streets, and former President Barack Obama praised the black-masked pro-Syrian protesters' "level of engagement" and declared through his spokesman that this is "exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake." Obama previously told reporters that he and Michelle will be devoting themselves to funding, training, and organizing left-wing agitators – what he calls community activists. As a supporter of Black Lives Matter and the international BDS movement, mob violence is precisely Obama's definition of democracy in action.
Democrats are not trying to win people to their side. Their strategy has four strategic goals: keep their followers in line, shut conservatives up, make Trump seem extreme, and provoke a national crisis. They have ambitious goals. They hope to end Trump's presidency.
It is evident that the left, with the active cooperation of the news media, wishes to drive Trump from office. Nothing will sate the left or get them to calm down into a recognizably responsible opposition force. And why shouldn't the left think this can succeed? It has worked before. They bagged two presidents in succession back in the 1960s and 1970s – Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
First, progressive violence reinforces the messages of identity politics, to keep their side from hemorrhaging support. Identity politics is pandering, yes, promising special treatment for special groups, but it is also a control mechanism. Are you one of the kind, caring Democrats, or not? Moderate Democrats actually like Trump's ideas on immigration, but they can't picture themselves switching over and joining the mean, racist Republicans. It's not who they are, and their friends would freak out. Demonization works in reinforcing bonds of identification.
Second, Democrats liked it better before Trump, when conservatives kept their heads down and their mouths shut. The violence is meant to silence and intimidate us. Will people start thinking twice about putting on a MAGA hat? Ask any conservative black or Jew or college kid how comfortable it is for him to express himself among liberal friends. You need a backbone of steel to do it.
Democrat power relies on millions of unpaid thought police. Democrats demonize and bully their conservative friends on social media, in personal conversations, at family dinners. Sportscasting is now part of the social bullying. Hollywood is doubling down. The escalation into violence against Trump and his supporters encourages the bullying to continue.
Third, violent speech and actions by Democrats are meant to define Trump's policies as abnormal. See all the violence Trump's extreme policies are creating? Pay no attention to your own thoughts that vetting Muslims from jihadi countries makes sense, or that Trump's focus on job creation is appealing. Even iconic liberals like Bill Maher and Sam Harris are straying off the reservation and openly saying Obama's Muslim immigration and refugee policy was nuts.
Maher then stated, "But also, you're not automatically a racist if you have concerns about assimilation." Harris agreed, adding, "[Y]ou don't have to be a fascist, or a racist, or, even a Trumpian to not want to import people into your society who think cartoonists should be killed for drawing the prophet, right? That's a totally rational thing not to want, and the left has been demonizing anyone who will talk about this."
The fourth strategic goal: provoke a national crisis. Democrats seem to be doing their best to provoke a law and order reaction and get some video that will bring down Trump: police in riot gear mowing down the violent protesters. I imagine them thinking hopefully of a dead co-ed, a repeat of the tragedy at Kent State. If Democrats can provoke a police overreaction, they could set off riots. More people will be hurt and killed, but it will be good politically.
Democrats usually signal their Machiavellian intentions well in advance. The meme this week over the 120-day visa halt was "constitutional crisis." Trump will have to watch his every step, because Democrats with pitchforks are waiting to get him. They are not giving up power peacefully.
"We are here tonight because it is a constitutional crisis," said Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren at a protest outside the Supreme Court Monday night.
"A constitutional crisis," said Democratic Sen. Cory Booker as he joined demonstrators at Dulles Airport Saturday night.
"A constitutional crisis," said Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer when he arrived at Dulles Sunday.
Meanwhile, conservatives are still breaking open bottles of champagne with friends and toasting our new president. We can't believe how just plain impressive his nominations have been. Trump and his Cabinet and Supreme Court pick seem committed to shrinking government overreach and returning America to fiscal sanity and constitutional limits. The stock market is booming, even unions are happy, and business has regained confidence. Jihadis are no longer welcome into our country, and the Iranians and Chinese and Russians are being put on notice their military adventurism will no longer be condoned. Everywhere we look, Trump is keeping his campaign promises and more, doing so in a better way than we ever dared hope.
This is a happy moment for us and for our country, a time of great promise.
Trump will continue fighting Democrat obstructionism, politically and in the courts, while forging ahead with his own constructive policies. The more successful he is, the more Democrats will foment violence.
Some Americans will end up hurt, beat up, and perhaps worse. Democrats don't care. Republicans are non-persons; their bloodied faces and concussions are acceptable collateral damage for Democrat power politics. Our police will eventually have to get involved, and confrontations will escalate.
We booted the Democrats out of office, and they are kicking us back – not metaphorically, but with bricks and sticks and firebombs. This is not responsible leadership. Democrats' violent refusal to accept their loss of the presidency and Congress should be a national scandal.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
She hit the nail on the head. The violence acts to triangulate the "moderate" position of a Warren or Tim Caine, to make them seem reasonable in an era of violence. This is Marxism 101; thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Violence is a tool to that end.
All her other points are spot on. They want a Kent State event to spark the revolution. And they wed people to their cause by joining in this. It's a bonding thing. You are no longer an individual but a soldier in the Progressive Army.
And she's right about the blame part. Richard Nixon was blamed for Vietnam even though two Progressive icons got us into the war and Nixon wound it down. As long as the media lies (a universal constant) they will try to say Trump is causing this.
Oh, and lastly, they seek to wear us out, to drain our will to keep fighting. Eventually people will say "peace" meaning surrender. It's how the Left has so often advanced their agenda, by getting people sick of the endless troubles. Exhaustion is how wars are won or lost oftentimes, and the Left knows this.
A NOTE FROM DANA MATHEWSON
True -- sadly. Democrats are as they have always been: little children, who cannot stand to lose a game or an argument.
___________
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/democrats_find_a_use_for_violence.html
February 5, 2017
Democrats Find a Use for Violence
By Karin McQuillan
Conservatives are torn these days. We wake up happy and excited to read the headlines and see what great new thing Trump has done. Then we're hit with images of thugs in black masks beating up Trump supporters. It is very disturbing.
Democrats are scared stiff that Trump's sensible, practical polices will make our country safer, boost our economy, and deliver jobs to blacks and millennials. That's why they are running around in pink hats and black masks, beating dissenters up literally or verbally.
Democrats are rejecting the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power via the ballot box.
Democrat leaders says Trump has no right to enact the conservative policies we voted for, that our election victory is illegitimate. They have embraced violence and violent rhetoric. In Congress, senators boycotted committee meetings, forcing an emergency rule to move nominations forward. Progressives are training government employees in passive resistance. That will create another confrontation. There is talk of impeachment before Trump is in office two weeks.
This is not the 1960s. This is not a mass movement protesting an unpopular war or supporting civil rights legislation. We have Obama's community agitation, not Martin Luther King's nonviolent resistance.
Via powerlineblog, The Week in Pictures.
It is hard to claim the moral high ground when men in black masks beat a Trump supporter unconscious, sending him to the hospital with a concussion. They are "protesting" Americans' right to vet Syrian refugees.
The professional agitators at Berkeley didn't stop with setting things on fire. They, too, bloodied Trump supporters, including women, beating them with poles. They are "protesting" Republican students' right to listen to a speaker of their choice.
These ugly assaults are live-streamed and go viral. Do Democrats really think this will hurt Trump and not them?
Oddly, the answer is yes.
V.P. candidate Tim Kaine called for fighting in the streets, and former President Barack Obama praised the black-masked pro-Syrian protesters' "level of engagement" and declared through his spokesman that this is "exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake." Obama previously told reporters that he and Michelle will be devoting themselves to funding, training, and organizing left-wing agitators – what he calls community activists. As a supporter of Black Lives Matter and the international BDS movement, mob violence is precisely Obama's definition of democracy in action.
Democrats are not trying to win people to their side. Their strategy has four strategic goals: keep their followers in line, shut conservatives up, make Trump seem extreme, and provoke a national crisis. They have ambitious goals. They hope to end Trump's presidency.
It is evident that the left, with the active cooperation of the news media, wishes to drive Trump from office. Nothing will sate the left or get them to calm down into a recognizably responsible opposition force. And why shouldn't the left think this can succeed? It has worked before. They bagged two presidents in succession back in the 1960s and 1970s – Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
First, progressive violence reinforces the messages of identity politics, to keep their side from hemorrhaging support. Identity politics is pandering, yes, promising special treatment for special groups, but it is also a control mechanism. Are you one of the kind, caring Democrats, or not? Moderate Democrats actually like Trump's ideas on immigration, but they can't picture themselves switching over and joining the mean, racist Republicans. It's not who they are, and their friends would freak out. Demonization works in reinforcing bonds of identification.
Second, Democrats liked it better before Trump, when conservatives kept their heads down and their mouths shut. The violence is meant to silence and intimidate us. Will people start thinking twice about putting on a MAGA hat? Ask any conservative black or Jew or college kid how comfortable it is for him to express himself among liberal friends. You need a backbone of steel to do it.
Democrat power relies on millions of unpaid thought police. Democrats demonize and bully their conservative friends on social media, in personal conversations, at family dinners. Sportscasting is now part of the social bullying. Hollywood is doubling down. The escalation into violence against Trump and his supporters encourages the bullying to continue.
Third, violent speech and actions by Democrats are meant to define Trump's policies as abnormal. See all the violence Trump's extreme policies are creating? Pay no attention to your own thoughts that vetting Muslims from jihadi countries makes sense, or that Trump's focus on job creation is appealing. Even iconic liberals like Bill Maher and Sam Harris are straying off the reservation and openly saying Obama's Muslim immigration and refugee policy was nuts.
Maher then stated, "But also, you're not automatically a racist if you have concerns about assimilation." Harris agreed, adding, "[Y]ou don't have to be a fascist, or a racist, or, even a Trumpian to not want to import people into your society who think cartoonists should be killed for drawing the prophet, right? That's a totally rational thing not to want, and the left has been demonizing anyone who will talk about this."
The fourth strategic goal: provoke a national crisis. Democrats seem to be doing their best to provoke a law and order reaction and get some video that will bring down Trump: police in riot gear mowing down the violent protesters. I imagine them thinking hopefully of a dead co-ed, a repeat of the tragedy at Kent State. If Democrats can provoke a police overreaction, they could set off riots. More people will be hurt and killed, but it will be good politically.
Democrats usually signal their Machiavellian intentions well in advance. The meme this week over the 120-day visa halt was "constitutional crisis." Trump will have to watch his every step, because Democrats with pitchforks are waiting to get him. They are not giving up power peacefully.
"We are here tonight because it is a constitutional crisis," said Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren at a protest outside the Supreme Court Monday night.
"A constitutional crisis," said Democratic Sen. Cory Booker as he joined demonstrators at Dulles Airport Saturday night.
"A constitutional crisis," said Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer when he arrived at Dulles Sunday.
Meanwhile, conservatives are still breaking open bottles of champagne with friends and toasting our new president. We can't believe how just plain impressive his nominations have been. Trump and his Cabinet and Supreme Court pick seem committed to shrinking government overreach and returning America to fiscal sanity and constitutional limits. The stock market is booming, even unions are happy, and business has regained confidence. Jihadis are no longer welcome into our country, and the Iranians and Chinese and Russians are being put on notice their military adventurism will no longer be condoned. Everywhere we look, Trump is keeping his campaign promises and more, doing so in a better way than we ever dared hope.
This is a happy moment for us and for our country, a time of great promise.
Trump will continue fighting Democrat obstructionism, politically and in the courts, while forging ahead with his own constructive policies. The more successful he is, the more Democrats will foment violence.
Some Americans will end up hurt, beat up, and perhaps worse. Democrats don't care. Republicans are non-persons; their bloodied faces and concussions are acceptable collateral damage for Democrat power politics. Our police will eventually have to get involved, and confrontations will escalate.
We booted the Democrats out of office, and they are kicking us back – not metaphorically, but with bricks and sticks and firebombs. This is not responsible leadership. Democrats' violent refusal to accept their loss of the presidency and Congress should be a national scandal.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
She hit the nail on the head. The violence acts to triangulate the "moderate" position of a Warren or Tim Caine, to make them seem reasonable in an era of violence. This is Marxism 101; thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Violence is a tool to that end.
All her other points are spot on. They want a Kent State event to spark the revolution. And they wed people to their cause by joining in this. It's a bonding thing. You are no longer an individual but a soldier in the Progressive Army.
And she's right about the blame part. Richard Nixon was blamed for Vietnam even though two Progressive icons got us into the war and Nixon wound it down. As long as the media lies (a universal constant) they will try to say Trump is causing this.
Oh, and lastly, they seek to wear us out, to drain our will to keep fighting. Eventually people will say "peace" meaning surrender. It's how the Left has so often advanced their agenda, by getting people sick of the endless troubles. Exhaustion is how wars are won or lost oftentimes, and the Left knows this.
A NOTE FROM DANA MATHEWSON
True -- sadly. Democrats are as they have always been: little children, who cannot stand to lose a game or an argument.
___________
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1523 words, total size 10 kb.
Hey, Starbucks, here's a new refugee employee for you
Jack Kemp forwards this:
In the United Kingdom...
http://pamelageller.com/2016/04/muslim-cooks-covered-in-fecal-matter.html/
"Covered in fecal matterâ€: Muslim chef prepared food after wiping his bottom with his bare hands because he doesn’t use toilet paper for Islamic reasons
By Pamela Geller - on April 17, 2016
Cultural Jihad
Respect it! Now eat.
The devout Muslim cooking with his own feces was fined more than £5,000 last year for ten similar offenses relating to food hygiene. So why was he permitted to operate a restaurant?
Respect it! Now eat.
When you go into a Muslim-owned restaurant, do you know how devout the chef is? Think about that the next time you want, say, Turkish food.
Curry house chef prepared food after wiping his bottom with his bare hands because he doesn’t use toilet paper for ‘cultural reasons’
Mahbub Chowdhury, 46, from Swindon, ran the Yeahya Flavour of Asia
Inspectors found bottle in kitchen that was covered in ‘faecal matter’
Chef filled it with water from kitchen taps before using it to clean backside
In the United Kingdom...
http://pamelageller.com/2016/04/muslim-cooks-covered-in-fecal-matter.html/
"Covered in fecal matterâ€: Muslim chef prepared food after wiping his bottom with his bare hands because he doesn’t use toilet paper for Islamic reasons
By Pamela Geller - on April 17, 2016
Cultural Jihad
Respect it! Now eat.
The devout Muslim cooking with his own feces was fined more than £5,000 last year for ten similar offenses relating to food hygiene. So why was he permitted to operate a restaurant?
Respect it! Now eat.
When you go into a Muslim-owned restaurant, do you know how devout the chef is? Think about that the next time you want, say, Turkish food.
Curry house chef prepared food after wiping his bottom with his bare hands because he doesn’t use toilet paper for ‘cultural reasons’
Mahbub Chowdhury, 46, from Swindon, ran the Yeahya Flavour of Asia
Inspectors found bottle in kitchen that was covered in ‘faecal matter’
Chef filled it with water from kitchen taps before using it to clean backside
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
Was Superbowl 51 Fake News?
Timothy Birdnow
When I was in high school I attended a lot of professional wrestling events. A friend's father received not only free tickets but IP front row tickets, and so I went to quite a few matches and sat within touching distance of the wrestlers. It was fun, because we knew it was fake and we could enjoy heckling the guys we didn't like.
At any rate, I became familiar with the way they worked. Professional wrestling was a morality play, and while evil triumphed frequently over good, the good usually came on strong near the end, a promise to the audience that the battle was not lost. And when the good guys won, they usually took a beating through much of the match, rallying in the end to be victorious.
In other words, most pro wrestling events looked just like Superbowl 51.
Now, miraculous comebacks do occur, but usually not at this level. In fact, nobody ever came back from a 14 point deficit prior to last night! Something smelled, and I think I know what it was.
I think this whole thing was as genuine as the breasts of a Hollywood stripper.
During the '80's and early '90's the Superbowl ended in blowouts after boring games, and the public was complaining about the hype that disappointed. That seemed to change, and has remained so for a while now. How, you ask? Well, for starters, the officials discover those little yellow handkerchiefs they tote around when the game starts getting out of hand. And we saw that yesterday with a series of penalties against the Atlanta Falcons that ended with the first points the Patriots posted. A string of fouls changed the dynamic of the game. After that the Falcons started playing cautious; the blitzed less, they covered receivers less diligently, and the offense began playing timidly. The momentum of the game shifted as a result of calls by the refs, and often those calls were either bogus or should have been offset by calls against the Patriots. For example, there was a disastrous call against the Falcons that put them out of field goal range late in the game (which would have won it for them). The refs ignored a facemasking by the Pats on the same play, which would have led to offsetting penalties.
That is the kind of stuff that changes game outcomes.
It should be pointed out that all but one of the announcers last night said the Pats would win, which means all the money was on New England, a not inconsequential motivation.
And the New England team has always played fast and loose with the rules. Deflategate kept Tom Brady out of the first four games of the season (and was referee assistance payback for the suspension?) More egregious was the spygate scandal of the last decade. It is now know that the Pats stole the Superbowl from the St. Louis Rams in '02; they had all the plays and could disrupt the precision offense of the best team in football at that time. STL. running back Marshall Falk - hardly a man to make rash statements - said at the time it was as if they had their playbook. Now we know they did.
So the great Bellicheat/Brady dynasty was built on cheating and lies. But more than that, last night smelled to high heave
When the Pats beat the Rams in the Super Bowl I knew the game was lost before the kickoff. I said as much to my chums who were watching with me. How did I know? The 911 terror attacks had happened that fall, and so this was a more than usually hyped championship. Paul McCartney was present at the pre-game, and he said "wouldn't it be wonderful if a team called the Patriots won the Supperbowl". At that moment I knew the fix was in; the NFL would never allow the Rams to win. They wanted the name, the pageantry of a Minuteman mascot, the coastal appeal. The didn't want a flyover country team of religious zealots to win. Surprise, surprise, the Patriots won, and they have been winning ever since.
I'm not saying they aren't good; they are as good as it gets. But I am saying they get a little help from their friends.
Getting back to the pro wrestling metaphor, I think last night was a morality play. There were several disgusting politically correct "commercials" that did not seem designed to sell a product so much as promote multiculturalism and open borders. A Coke commercial, for example, had America the Beautiful sung in different languages, showing how we aren't an Anglo nation but a salad, a potpourri of different nations, peoples, cultures, and tongues. An ad for 84 Lumber was just as bad, with a heart-wrenching vignette of Chicano illegals trudging their way to America (and no mention of the gangs, the drug cartels, or the crimes committed by the immigrants. No mention either of the cost in jobs, in "reverse gentrification" of communities, in stolen social services and resources. And no mention of the rule of law.) The league approved those ads.
And let us not forget the Kapernick capers. The league took no steps to stop Kapernick from insulting the patriots who watch the NFL. In fact they gave tacit approval to him. Funny; they fine a player for not tucking in his shirt during a game but won't order a guy to stand for the national anthem.
I didn't watch the regular season precisely because of this left wing politicization.
At any rate, what I think we witnessed was a morality play designed to put some spirit in the left. The Patriots are from New England, epicenter of liberal snobbery and elitism. They now represent the old guard, the Establishment. They WERE the counter culture in bygone years, but now hold the power. They were facing an upstart team from the South, infamous home of redneck pro-rasslin' fans and NASCAR enthusiasts. The Pats are the enlightened, the cultured, the patrician. In other words, they are the people who would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
(Yes, I know; Tom Brady took a lot of heat for having a "make America great again" hat. But that doesn't matter to the larger picture, now does it?)
Consider what this did. It showed a team being pummeled, and miraculously coming back in the end to win. Isn't that the exact metaphor you would use to buck up the depressed Left, who desperately need some sort of hope right now? If the Pats can come back, so too can the Progressives! The dark times will pass and if you stay in the game you will triumph! That is precisely the message conveyed. It was as if a Hollywood producer had scripted it. And the team is from Boston, the center of the Ivy League and the bluest of blue places.
We know the fake news stuff is real, and it largely comes out of the mainstream media and the Establishment. Sports journalists are especially liberal and politically active, and they wouldn't dream of questioning the veracity of so important (and financially lucrative) a game as the Superbowl. But we've been lied to in the past, and an attempt to subvert the superbowl - especially by the NFL itself - is not beyond credulity.
Well, how much proof do I have of this? None whatsoever. This post is a matter of pure speculation. But I am not one to accept things at face value, and something about last night's game does not sit right. I don't believe the Falcons could have collapsed so easily. SOMETHING happened last night, something that should concern the league because it is something that likely undermines the credibility of pro football. Or at least it casts doubts on the integrity of the league. While there may not have been open duplicity at least the policy of officiating to keep the game close is skewing the results.
If this keeps up the NFL will join the WWE as a faux sport. Someone needs to take a hard look at this.
When I was in high school I attended a lot of professional wrestling events. A friend's father received not only free tickets but IP front row tickets, and so I went to quite a few matches and sat within touching distance of the wrestlers. It was fun, because we knew it was fake and we could enjoy heckling the guys we didn't like.
At any rate, I became familiar with the way they worked. Professional wrestling was a morality play, and while evil triumphed frequently over good, the good usually came on strong near the end, a promise to the audience that the battle was not lost. And when the good guys won, they usually took a beating through much of the match, rallying in the end to be victorious.
In other words, most pro wrestling events looked just like Superbowl 51.
Now, miraculous comebacks do occur, but usually not at this level. In fact, nobody ever came back from a 14 point deficit prior to last night! Something smelled, and I think I know what it was.
I think this whole thing was as genuine as the breasts of a Hollywood stripper.
During the '80's and early '90's the Superbowl ended in blowouts after boring games, and the public was complaining about the hype that disappointed. That seemed to change, and has remained so for a while now. How, you ask? Well, for starters, the officials discover those little yellow handkerchiefs they tote around when the game starts getting out of hand. And we saw that yesterday with a series of penalties against the Atlanta Falcons that ended with the first points the Patriots posted. A string of fouls changed the dynamic of the game. After that the Falcons started playing cautious; the blitzed less, they covered receivers less diligently, and the offense began playing timidly. The momentum of the game shifted as a result of calls by the refs, and often those calls were either bogus or should have been offset by calls against the Patriots. For example, there was a disastrous call against the Falcons that put them out of field goal range late in the game (which would have won it for them). The refs ignored a facemasking by the Pats on the same play, which would have led to offsetting penalties.
That is the kind of stuff that changes game outcomes.
It should be pointed out that all but one of the announcers last night said the Pats would win, which means all the money was on New England, a not inconsequential motivation.
And the New England team has always played fast and loose with the rules. Deflategate kept Tom Brady out of the first four games of the season (and was referee assistance payback for the suspension?) More egregious was the spygate scandal of the last decade. It is now know that the Pats stole the Superbowl from the St. Louis Rams in '02; they had all the plays and could disrupt the precision offense of the best team in football at that time. STL. running back Marshall Falk - hardly a man to make rash statements - said at the time it was as if they had their playbook. Now we know they did.
So the great Bellicheat/Brady dynasty was built on cheating and lies. But more than that, last night smelled to high heave
When the Pats beat the Rams in the Super Bowl I knew the game was lost before the kickoff. I said as much to my chums who were watching with me. How did I know? The 911 terror attacks had happened that fall, and so this was a more than usually hyped championship. Paul McCartney was present at the pre-game, and he said "wouldn't it be wonderful if a team called the Patriots won the Supperbowl". At that moment I knew the fix was in; the NFL would never allow the Rams to win. They wanted the name, the pageantry of a Minuteman mascot, the coastal appeal. The didn't want a flyover country team of religious zealots to win. Surprise, surprise, the Patriots won, and they have been winning ever since.
I'm not saying they aren't good; they are as good as it gets. But I am saying they get a little help from their friends.
Getting back to the pro wrestling metaphor, I think last night was a morality play. There were several disgusting politically correct "commercials" that did not seem designed to sell a product so much as promote multiculturalism and open borders. A Coke commercial, for example, had America the Beautiful sung in different languages, showing how we aren't an Anglo nation but a salad, a potpourri of different nations, peoples, cultures, and tongues. An ad for 84 Lumber was just as bad, with a heart-wrenching vignette of Chicano illegals trudging their way to America (and no mention of the gangs, the drug cartels, or the crimes committed by the immigrants. No mention either of the cost in jobs, in "reverse gentrification" of communities, in stolen social services and resources. And no mention of the rule of law.) The league approved those ads.
And let us not forget the Kapernick capers. The league took no steps to stop Kapernick from insulting the patriots who watch the NFL. In fact they gave tacit approval to him. Funny; they fine a player for not tucking in his shirt during a game but won't order a guy to stand for the national anthem.
I didn't watch the regular season precisely because of this left wing politicization.
At any rate, what I think we witnessed was a morality play designed to put some spirit in the left. The Patriots are from New England, epicenter of liberal snobbery and elitism. They now represent the old guard, the Establishment. They WERE the counter culture in bygone years, but now hold the power. They were facing an upstart team from the South, infamous home of redneck pro-rasslin' fans and NASCAR enthusiasts. The Pats are the enlightened, the cultured, the patrician. In other words, they are the people who would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
(Yes, I know; Tom Brady took a lot of heat for having a "make America great again" hat. But that doesn't matter to the larger picture, now does it?)
Consider what this did. It showed a team being pummeled, and miraculously coming back in the end to win. Isn't that the exact metaphor you would use to buck up the depressed Left, who desperately need some sort of hope right now? If the Pats can come back, so too can the Progressives! The dark times will pass and if you stay in the game you will triumph! That is precisely the message conveyed. It was as if a Hollywood producer had scripted it. And the team is from Boston, the center of the Ivy League and the bluest of blue places.
We know the fake news stuff is real, and it largely comes out of the mainstream media and the Establishment. Sports journalists are especially liberal and politically active, and they wouldn't dream of questioning the veracity of so important (and financially lucrative) a game as the Superbowl. But we've been lied to in the past, and an attempt to subvert the superbowl - especially by the NFL itself - is not beyond credulity.
Well, how much proof do I have of this? None whatsoever. This post is a matter of pure speculation. But I am not one to accept things at face value, and something about last night's game does not sit right. I don't believe the Falcons could have collapsed so easily. SOMETHING happened last night, something that should concern the league because it is something that likely undermines the credibility of pro football. Or at least it casts doubts on the integrity of the league. While there may not have been open duplicity at least the policy of officiating to keep the game close is skewing the results.
If this keeps up the NFL will join the WWE as a faux sport. Someone needs to take a hard look at this.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1363 words, total size 8 kb.
February 04, 2017
You Break it You Buy it; Gun Free Businesses Liable for Violent Crimes
Dana Mathewson
About time, sez I! I have long thought this should be the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444594/gun-free-businesses-liable-violent-crime-florida-law
[...]
"SB 160 provides that a "gun-free zone†store "assumes absolute custodial responsibility . . . for the safety and defense†of any person who disarms in compliance with the store’s policy and who is otherwise licensed to carry a firearm for self-defense. It ensures that the store’s liability for failing this responsibility is not limited to actual damages suffered by injured customers who disarmed in accordance with store policy, but also includes such customers’ "reasonable attorney fees, court costs, expert witness costs, and other costs.†And it requires any business enacting a "gun-free zone†policy to clearly display notice of its legal responsibility."
See our website at: www.danamarthamusic.com
About time, sez I! I have long thought this should be the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444594/gun-free-businesses-liable-violent-crime-florida-law
[...]
"SB 160 provides that a "gun-free zone†store "assumes absolute custodial responsibility . . . for the safety and defense†of any person who disarms in compliance with the store’s policy and who is otherwise licensed to carry a firearm for self-defense. It ensures that the store’s liability for failing this responsibility is not limited to actual damages suffered by injured customers who disarmed in accordance with store policy, but also includes such customers’ "reasonable attorney fees, court costs, expert witness costs, and other costs.†And it requires any business enacting a "gun-free zone†policy to clearly display notice of its legal responsibility."
See our website at: www.danamarthamusic.com
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:38 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
Wall Wishing or Gringo the Lilacs? Mexico and the Ugly American
Brian Birdnow
Last week a number of major American news outlets, in response to the reported cancellation of Mexican President Pena Nieto’s visit to the United States, ran stories decrying the terrible state of Mexican-American relations. Some of the papers trotted out a number of Mexican commentators who opined that bilateral relations had never been worse, and pinned the blame, predictably, on President Donald Trump, expressing "…shock and dismay that Trump’s campaign promises could be moving toward reality.†This nascent controversy seems to have been overshadowed by the travel ban fury, but it bears closer examination nonetheless.
The media brought out many prominent Mexican citizens, mostly former political figures of note, who all agreed that Mexican-American relations had reached a low ebb, and that they could never remember a tenser diplomatic atmosphere. Margarita Zavala, mentioned as a possible candidate for the Mexican presidency in 2018 said, "When we are talking about building a wall, about deporting migrants, about eliminating sanctuary cities…we are talking about causing human suffering.†Former Mexican President Vincente Fox said that he could not remember a worse time in relations with the Colossus of the North. Fox declared, "We don’t want the ugly American, which Trump represents: the imperial gringo that used to invade our country, that used to send the Marines…this is what this guy is menacing us with.â€
Mr. Fox makes a breathtakingly broad statement here, and his use of the "gringo†vernacular would be condemned if such a common and unfavorable term were used by an American president. (The term used to describe Americans is reputed to have developed during the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, when American troops endlessly sang the popular song, "Green Grow the Lilacs,†which was understood by Mexican troops as "Gringoâ€, hence the title of this piece.) Are bilateral relations really worse than they have ever been? US-Mexican relations have been tense since 1836, and have been characterized by periods of frost and thaw, with the cold times outweighing the warm spells. The aforementioned war of 1846-48 marked the nadir of relations, but the French intervention in Mexico in 1863-67 nearly brought armed conflict with the USA after our civil war. Disorders in Mexico after their revolution of 1910 provoked conflict, and border incursions by Mexican outlaws in 1916 precipitated a police action by American forces. Later on, German plans to use Mexico as a staging ground for an invasion of the American Southwest, and a partition of the USA, led to great friction. So, it is quite a stretch to argue that Mexican-American relations have never been worse that right now.
CARTOONS | Jerry Holbert
View Cartoon
The statement that Mexicans fear an American invasion is ridiculous on its face. Trump has never suggested any sort of American infringement on Mexican sovereignty, he has argued, instead, for a clear territorial division between America and Mexico, with a border wall. As far as an American "invasion†of Mexico, one does see the occasional example of off-duty sailors and marines making spectacles of themselves in Tijuana, but this is hardly something that local police cannot handle, and they do so, very well.
It would seem to the casual observer that the Mexicans, possibly misunderstanding the American system, would like the president to forsake his constitutional duty. The president’s oath of office as most readers certainly know, requires that he faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America, duly enacted by the Congress. Securing the national border is at the top of that list, and cannot be ignored, although a series of presidents have hoped that this problem would simply go away. The Mexicans, themselves, are doing nothing to police the border, and have for many decades turned a blind eye to blatant violations of the line, usually refusing to discuss the matter with the Americans. This happened, most famously, when President Jimmy Carter was curtly rebuffed by the Mexican government during a state visit in 1978.
The Mexican obstruction of border policing has ratcheted up during recent years. The public interest law firm Judicial Watch noted recently that Homeland Security officials reported in October 2016 on a Mexican plan to trans-ship tens of thousands of migrants from Haiti, Russia, Armenia, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Congo to America, under a secret accord with the Obama administration. The migrants journey starts in Brazil, under a South American policy to allow free transit of immigrants through the continent. They are forwarded to Mexico, with the understanding that the Mexican government will help them gain entry to the USA, where they will then apply for asylum. A border wall will not end these schemes, but it will certainly make them more difficult to succeed. Is this the reason the Mexicans are incensed about the planned increased border security?
So, let’s recap. Mexican observers claim Mexican-American relations have never been this bad. Trump wants to enforce the national immigration laws, and asks Mexico to co-operate. The Mexican government predictably scoffs at this supposed American temerity. The American leadership decides that the time has come for action, and will no longer fool around on this issue, so they will build a border wall. The Mexican political class erupts in outrage, and decries the "historically bad relations†with the USA. The American president has a constitutional responsibility to enforce the immigration laws. Perhaps the Mexican government finds his zeal distasteful, but he will fulfill his obligation to enforce the laws. The Mexican government and political class are finding out what the American liberals and the Democratic Party found out a few months ago. Donald Trump may be inelegant at times, but he is a president who means what he says, and intends to keep campaign promises.
Last week a number of major American news outlets, in response to the reported cancellation of Mexican President Pena Nieto’s visit to the United States, ran stories decrying the terrible state of Mexican-American relations. Some of the papers trotted out a number of Mexican commentators who opined that bilateral relations had never been worse, and pinned the blame, predictably, on President Donald Trump, expressing "…shock and dismay that Trump’s campaign promises could be moving toward reality.†This nascent controversy seems to have been overshadowed by the travel ban fury, but it bears closer examination nonetheless.
The media brought out many prominent Mexican citizens, mostly former political figures of note, who all agreed that Mexican-American relations had reached a low ebb, and that they could never remember a tenser diplomatic atmosphere. Margarita Zavala, mentioned as a possible candidate for the Mexican presidency in 2018 said, "When we are talking about building a wall, about deporting migrants, about eliminating sanctuary cities…we are talking about causing human suffering.†Former Mexican President Vincente Fox said that he could not remember a worse time in relations with the Colossus of the North. Fox declared, "We don’t want the ugly American, which Trump represents: the imperial gringo that used to invade our country, that used to send the Marines…this is what this guy is menacing us with.â€
Mr. Fox makes a breathtakingly broad statement here, and his use of the "gringo†vernacular would be condemned if such a common and unfavorable term were used by an American president. (The term used to describe Americans is reputed to have developed during the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, when American troops endlessly sang the popular song, "Green Grow the Lilacs,†which was understood by Mexican troops as "Gringoâ€, hence the title of this piece.) Are bilateral relations really worse than they have ever been? US-Mexican relations have been tense since 1836, and have been characterized by periods of frost and thaw, with the cold times outweighing the warm spells. The aforementioned war of 1846-48 marked the nadir of relations, but the French intervention in Mexico in 1863-67 nearly brought armed conflict with the USA after our civil war. Disorders in Mexico after their revolution of 1910 provoked conflict, and border incursions by Mexican outlaws in 1916 precipitated a police action by American forces. Later on, German plans to use Mexico as a staging ground for an invasion of the American Southwest, and a partition of the USA, led to great friction. So, it is quite a stretch to argue that Mexican-American relations have never been worse that right now.
CARTOONS | Jerry Holbert
View Cartoon
The statement that Mexicans fear an American invasion is ridiculous on its face. Trump has never suggested any sort of American infringement on Mexican sovereignty, he has argued, instead, for a clear territorial division between America and Mexico, with a border wall. As far as an American "invasion†of Mexico, one does see the occasional example of off-duty sailors and marines making spectacles of themselves in Tijuana, but this is hardly something that local police cannot handle, and they do so, very well.
It would seem to the casual observer that the Mexicans, possibly misunderstanding the American system, would like the president to forsake his constitutional duty. The president’s oath of office as most readers certainly know, requires that he faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America, duly enacted by the Congress. Securing the national border is at the top of that list, and cannot be ignored, although a series of presidents have hoped that this problem would simply go away. The Mexicans, themselves, are doing nothing to police the border, and have for many decades turned a blind eye to blatant violations of the line, usually refusing to discuss the matter with the Americans. This happened, most famously, when President Jimmy Carter was curtly rebuffed by the Mexican government during a state visit in 1978.
The Mexican obstruction of border policing has ratcheted up during recent years. The public interest law firm Judicial Watch noted recently that Homeland Security officials reported in October 2016 on a Mexican plan to trans-ship tens of thousands of migrants from Haiti, Russia, Armenia, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Congo to America, under a secret accord with the Obama administration. The migrants journey starts in Brazil, under a South American policy to allow free transit of immigrants through the continent. They are forwarded to Mexico, with the understanding that the Mexican government will help them gain entry to the USA, where they will then apply for asylum. A border wall will not end these schemes, but it will certainly make them more difficult to succeed. Is this the reason the Mexicans are incensed about the planned increased border security?
So, let’s recap. Mexican observers claim Mexican-American relations have never been this bad. Trump wants to enforce the national immigration laws, and asks Mexico to co-operate. The Mexican government predictably scoffs at this supposed American temerity. The American leadership decides that the time has come for action, and will no longer fool around on this issue, so they will build a border wall. The Mexican political class erupts in outrage, and decries the "historically bad relations†with the USA. The American president has a constitutional responsibility to enforce the immigration laws. Perhaps the Mexican government finds his zeal distasteful, but he will fulfill his obligation to enforce the laws. The Mexican government and political class are finding out what the American liberals and the Democratic Party found out a few months ago. Donald Trump may be inelegant at times, but he is a president who means what he says, and intends to keep campaign promises.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:08 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 961 words, total size 6 kb.
Obama and Google Plotted to Steal Internet
Timothy Birdnow
The Obama Administration illegally colluded with Google and others to push through the internet giveaway.
From Americans for Limtited Government:
http://netrightdaily.com/2017/02/ntia-illegally-inserted-govt-talking-points-icann-google-oped-favor-internet-transition-covered-almost-3-years/
"NTIA illegally inserted gov't talking points into ICANN-Google oped in favor of Internet transition, covered it up for almost 3 years
The Obama Commerce Department appeared to have illegally colluded with a vice president at Google and a government contractor, ICANN, in contributing to an oped beneficial to Google and ICANN, on behalf of ICANN, to promote a proposal creating a global Internet monopoly with ICANN at the top by ending a U.S. government oversight of the Internet's domain name system."
The Obama Administration illegally colluded with Google and others to push through the internet giveaway.
From Americans for Limtited Government:
http://netrightdaily.com/2017/02/ntia-illegally-inserted-govt-talking-points-icann-google-oped-favor-internet-transition-covered-almost-3-years/
"NTIA illegally inserted gov't talking points into ICANN-Google oped in favor of Internet transition, covered it up for almost 3 years
The Obama Commerce Department appeared to have illegally colluded with a vice president at Google and a government contractor, ICANN, in contributing to an oped beneficial to Google and ICANN, on behalf of ICANN, to promote a proposal creating a global Internet monopoly with ICANN at the top by ending a U.S. government oversight of the Internet's domain name system."
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.
Trump wants to restict govmt. unions
Jack Kemp
It was JF Kennedy who gave unions the right exist in the fed. government.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/trump-interested-national-restrictions-unions/97377998/
Trump interested in national
restrictions on unions
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal [WI], by Mary Spicuzza & Patrick Marley Original Article
2/3/2017 4:29:13 PM
WAUWATOSA, Wis. — President Donald Trump´s administration is interested in going national with Wisconsin´s restrictions on unions, Gov. Scott Walker said Wednesday. Walker said he spoke with Vice President Mike Pence during his Friday visit to the White House about his 2011 move to sharply limit collective bargaining for most public workers in Wisconsin, known as Act 10. The governor said he and Pence talked about "what we´ve done here in Wisconsin, how they may take bits and pieces of what we did with Act 10 and with civil service reform, and how they could apply that at the national
It was JF Kennedy who gave unions the right exist in the fed. government.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/trump-interested-national-restrictions-unions/97377998/
Trump interested in national
restrictions on unions
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal [WI], by Mary Spicuzza & Patrick Marley Original Article
2/3/2017 4:29:13 PM
WAUWATOSA, Wis. — President Donald Trump´s administration is interested in going national with Wisconsin´s restrictions on unions, Gov. Scott Walker said Wednesday. Walker said he spoke with Vice President Mike Pence during his Friday visit to the White House about his 2011 move to sharply limit collective bargaining for most public workers in Wisconsin, known as Act 10. The governor said he and Pence talked about "what we´ve done here in Wisconsin, how they may take bits and pieces of what we did with Act 10 and with civil service reform, and how they could apply that at the national
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
Neil Gorsuch and the Living Constitution Lie
By Selwyn Duke
While leftists are outraged at the idea of banning immigrants who may spit on our Constitution, banning judges who would actually uphold it is a different matter. This brings us to the opposition to President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who The New York Times actually HYPERLINK "https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-the-nominee-for-a-stolen-seat.html" calls a "Nominee for a Stolen Seat.†In reality, the Times advocates a perversion of judicial philosophy that long ago had stolen Americans’ birthright.
The paper complains that like Justice Antonin Scalia,Gorsuch "is an originalist, meaning he interprets the Constitution’s language to mean what it was understood to mean when it was written….†Leftists prefer the Constitution be considered a "living document,†interpreted to "suit the times†(and the Times). This just guarantees a dying republic.
Why? Consider: Imagine I violate the language of a contract to which you and I are party. You take me to court, but the judge determines that the contract can be interpreted to suit the times. You may object and say the "times†are being interpreted to suit me, but the judge is in my pocket.
Oh, he justifies this by saying he’s a "pragmatist.†Feel better?
The analogy is apt because, in essence, the Constitution is the contract the American people have with one another. It specifies the rights (of the people) and powers (of the different governmental arenas) of those party to it. It does have one significant flaw, however.
For it to work as intended, people must actually abide by it.
When they don’t, our very rights are in jeopardy.
Another analogy was drawn by Chief Justice John Roberts when, during his confirmation hearings, he HYPERLINK "http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/12/roberts.statement/" said his job was only "to call balls and strikes.†Expanding on this, judges can in fact be likened to baseball umpires, while the players are the people, the game’s ruling body is the legislature and the rule book the Constitution.
Now, if a rule is thought inadequate, it’s the ruling body’s role to change it. Of course, the players, umpires or anyone else may lobby passionately in that regard. What, however, if an umpire considered the rule book living and said, "With the great pitchers in these times, three strikes are insufficient; I’m giving the batter four strikes�
He’d be fired. And would it help his cause if he added an intellectual veneer to his cheating, saying "You don’t understand! I’m not a radical like those originalists! I’m moderate — a pragmatist�
No, he’s a bad umpire — and he’d be history.
Likewise, all the terms describing justices — constructionist, originalist, moderate, pragmatic — are part of a pseudo-intellectual rationalization obscuring a simple truth: There are only two kinds of justices, good justices and bad justices. Good justices rule based on the founders’ original intent.
Bad justices don’t.
They put a spin on the Constitution to prove "by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white,†as satirist Jonathan Swift put it, so they can impose their agenda from the bench. They are derelict in their duty.
Some will say we mustn’t be hamstrung by a 200-year-old document, like an insect trapped in amber. This gets at the big lie. For there is a lawful way to make the Constitution "liveâ€: the Amendment Process.
Yes, it can be long and difficult. This ensures that before our national contract is altered, the vast majority of those party to it (the people) agree on the change. "Living-document†judges, with an intellectual veneer and a sneer, usurp this power. The people are to decide when and how the Constitution will live — not five unelected lawyers.
Those who trade the rule of law for the rule of lawyers, to facilitate an unconstitutional agenda, tread a dangerous path. Their corruption of the establishment has led to precisely the kind of anti-establishment movement we see today. After all, if a game is judged and won or lost fairly, both sides can accept the outcome. But what happens when the vanquished know the judges fixed the contest for the other side?
That is the stuff revolutions are made of.
The living-document lie can be gussied up as "pragmatism†or something else, but it’s not a legitimate legal philosophy. We can have a living constitution or a living constitutional republic — but we cannot have both.
HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com
While leftists are outraged at the idea of banning immigrants who may spit on our Constitution, banning judges who would actually uphold it is a different matter. This brings us to the opposition to President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who The New York Times actually HYPERLINK "https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-the-nominee-for-a-stolen-seat.html" calls a "Nominee for a Stolen Seat.†In reality, the Times advocates a perversion of judicial philosophy that long ago had stolen Americans’ birthright.
The paper complains that like Justice Antonin Scalia,Gorsuch "is an originalist, meaning he interprets the Constitution’s language to mean what it was understood to mean when it was written….†Leftists prefer the Constitution be considered a "living document,†interpreted to "suit the times†(and the Times). This just guarantees a dying republic.
Why? Consider: Imagine I violate the language of a contract to which you and I are party. You take me to court, but the judge determines that the contract can be interpreted to suit the times. You may object and say the "times†are being interpreted to suit me, but the judge is in my pocket.
Oh, he justifies this by saying he’s a "pragmatist.†Feel better?
The analogy is apt because, in essence, the Constitution is the contract the American people have with one another. It specifies the rights (of the people) and powers (of the different governmental arenas) of those party to it. It does have one significant flaw, however.
For it to work as intended, people must actually abide by it.
When they don’t, our very rights are in jeopardy.
Another analogy was drawn by Chief Justice John Roberts when, during his confirmation hearings, he HYPERLINK "http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/12/roberts.statement/" said his job was only "to call balls and strikes.†Expanding on this, judges can in fact be likened to baseball umpires, while the players are the people, the game’s ruling body is the legislature and the rule book the Constitution.
Now, if a rule is thought inadequate, it’s the ruling body’s role to change it. Of course, the players, umpires or anyone else may lobby passionately in that regard. What, however, if an umpire considered the rule book living and said, "With the great pitchers in these times, three strikes are insufficient; I’m giving the batter four strikes�
He’d be fired. And would it help his cause if he added an intellectual veneer to his cheating, saying "You don’t understand! I’m not a radical like those originalists! I’m moderate — a pragmatist�
No, he’s a bad umpire — and he’d be history.
Likewise, all the terms describing justices — constructionist, originalist, moderate, pragmatic — are part of a pseudo-intellectual rationalization obscuring a simple truth: There are only two kinds of justices, good justices and bad justices. Good justices rule based on the founders’ original intent.
Bad justices don’t.
They put a spin on the Constitution to prove "by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white,†as satirist Jonathan Swift put it, so they can impose their agenda from the bench. They are derelict in their duty.
Some will say we mustn’t be hamstrung by a 200-year-old document, like an insect trapped in amber. This gets at the big lie. For there is a lawful way to make the Constitution "liveâ€: the Amendment Process.
Yes, it can be long and difficult. This ensures that before our national contract is altered, the vast majority of those party to it (the people) agree on the change. "Living-document†judges, with an intellectual veneer and a sneer, usurp this power. The people are to decide when and how the Constitution will live — not five unelected lawyers.
Those who trade the rule of law for the rule of lawyers, to facilitate an unconstitutional agenda, tread a dangerous path. Their corruption of the establishment has led to precisely the kind of anti-establishment movement we see today. After all, if a game is judged and won or lost fairly, both sides can accept the outcome. But what happens when the vanquished know the judges fixed the contest for the other side?
That is the stuff revolutions are made of.
The living-document lie can be gussied up as "pragmatism†or something else, but it’s not a legitimate legal philosophy. We can have a living constitution or a living constitutional republic — but we cannot have both.
HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 754 words, total size 5 kb.
How to Drain the Judicial Swamp
By Selwyn Duke
It’s no surprise the Democrats plan to fight against the nomination of President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch. There are no confirmation battles like Supreme Court confirmation battles because, as we always hear, such a decision can "shape the country for a generation.â€
This doesn’t sound like the role envisioned by the founders. As Alexander Hamilton HYPERLINK "http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm" wrote in The Federalist No. 78, the judiciary is (theoretically) the "least dangerous†branch of government because it "has no influence over either the sword or the purse.†So how have the courts been afforded so much power?
"Afforded†is the word. In reality, the judiciary has become the most dangerous branch due to ignorance and congressional abdication of responsibility.
Conservatives often complain that the courts thwart the people’s will, act unconstitutionally and impose their own biases via judicial fiat. A good example is the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision dictating that states must recognize faux ("same-sexâ€) marriage. What most don’t know is that Congress could long before have prevented the courts from weighing in.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on marriage (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues. This would, essentially, have left marriage where it belongs: in the states.
Why was this not done?
Cowardice.
Congress would’ve had to take a firm stand on a contentious issue and perhaps suffer electoral consequences. It’s easier for politicians to just puff up their chests, complain of judicial overreach, then throw up their hands and say "The courts have ruled — there’s nothing we can do.†Few today understand the Constitution, so who will argue?
Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court except the SCOTUS. For example, it could have sent the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — known for insane rulings and as the nation’s " HYPERLINK "http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/373273/ninth-circuit-leading-pack-most-reversed-jonathan-keim" most reversed†court — packing long ago. It certainly would make judges mind their p’s and q’s, too, if they knew acting unconstitutionally could mean their jobs.
Again, though, this would require Congress to take a stand. Besides, if it actually did so and drained the judicial swamp, what could Congress blame for divisive political outcomes? The transgressing courts would be gone and the remaining ones chastened, and judges would more often leave issues (e.g., abortion, marriage) in the legislature’s hands, putting politicians on the hot seat. Can’t have that. Federal judges don’t have to be reelected — congressmen do.
Yet this is why courts are going rogue. How can there be a balance of power in our system, as the founders intended, if one branch refuses to exercise its power?
The kicker is that accepting the courts’ current role is not only misguided, but, HYPERLINK "http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s16.html" according to Thomas Jefferson, makes our Constitution a "felo de se†— a suicide pact.
Jefferson was warning of judicial supremacy, the idea that courts have the power to determine what law means and thus constrain not only their own branch, but the other two as well. Why did this bother Jefferson?
The legislature’s power to create law and the executive branch’s power to enforce it are granted by the Constitution. But what of judicial supremacy?
It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Rather, this "power†was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the Marbury v. Madison HYPERLINK "http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison" decision in 1803. Talk about circular reasoning: The SCOTUS has trump card power….
Because the SCOTUS says so.
The result? The Supreme Court was only meant to be supreme among courts. Instead, in a government supposedly of, by and for the people, five lawyers can determine what law means for 320 million Americans.
With Trump poised to transform the SCOTUS, conservatives may say that now isn’t the time to question its power. But Republican judicial nominees have often disappointed. Moreover, draining the swamp is fine, but if we want the right kind of governmental revolution, perhaps we should start by listening to the revolutionaries who created our government.
HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com
It’s no surprise the Democrats plan to fight against the nomination of President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch. There are no confirmation battles like Supreme Court confirmation battles because, as we always hear, such a decision can "shape the country for a generation.â€
This doesn’t sound like the role envisioned by the founders. As Alexander Hamilton HYPERLINK "http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm" wrote in The Federalist No. 78, the judiciary is (theoretically) the "least dangerous†branch of government because it "has no influence over either the sword or the purse.†So how have the courts been afforded so much power?
"Afforded†is the word. In reality, the judiciary has become the most dangerous branch due to ignorance and congressional abdication of responsibility.
Conservatives often complain that the courts thwart the people’s will, act unconstitutionally and impose their own biases via judicial fiat. A good example is the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision dictating that states must recognize faux ("same-sexâ€) marriage. What most don’t know is that Congress could long before have prevented the courts from weighing in.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on marriage (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues. This would, essentially, have left marriage where it belongs: in the states.
Why was this not done?
Cowardice.
Congress would’ve had to take a firm stand on a contentious issue and perhaps suffer electoral consequences. It’s easier for politicians to just puff up their chests, complain of judicial overreach, then throw up their hands and say "The courts have ruled — there’s nothing we can do.†Few today understand the Constitution, so who will argue?
Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court except the SCOTUS. For example, it could have sent the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — known for insane rulings and as the nation’s " HYPERLINK "http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/373273/ninth-circuit-leading-pack-most-reversed-jonathan-keim" most reversed†court — packing long ago. It certainly would make judges mind their p’s and q’s, too, if they knew acting unconstitutionally could mean their jobs.
Again, though, this would require Congress to take a stand. Besides, if it actually did so and drained the judicial swamp, what could Congress blame for divisive political outcomes? The transgressing courts would be gone and the remaining ones chastened, and judges would more often leave issues (e.g., abortion, marriage) in the legislature’s hands, putting politicians on the hot seat. Can’t have that. Federal judges don’t have to be reelected — congressmen do.
Yet this is why courts are going rogue. How can there be a balance of power in our system, as the founders intended, if one branch refuses to exercise its power?
The kicker is that accepting the courts’ current role is not only misguided, but, HYPERLINK "http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s16.html" according to Thomas Jefferson, makes our Constitution a "felo de se†— a suicide pact.
Jefferson was warning of judicial supremacy, the idea that courts have the power to determine what law means and thus constrain not only their own branch, but the other two as well. Why did this bother Jefferson?
The legislature’s power to create law and the executive branch’s power to enforce it are granted by the Constitution. But what of judicial supremacy?
It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Rather, this "power†was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the Marbury v. Madison HYPERLINK "http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison" decision in 1803. Talk about circular reasoning: The SCOTUS has trump card power….
Because the SCOTUS says so.
The result? The Supreme Court was only meant to be supreme among courts. Instead, in a government supposedly of, by and for the people, five lawyers can determine what law means for 320 million Americans.
With Trump poised to transform the SCOTUS, conservatives may say that now isn’t the time to question its power. But Republican judicial nominees have often disappointed. Moreover, draining the swamp is fine, but if we want the right kind of governmental revolution, perhaps we should start by listening to the revolutionaries who created our government.
HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 753 words, total size 5 kb.
February 03, 2017
Ellison too Conservative for Democrat Party?
Dana Mathewson
This is really getting to be fun!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/civil-war-on-the-left-part-37-is-ellison-too-right-wing-for-the-dnc.php
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP
Ellison could also be a problem for the Motor Voter Law because he probably doesn't want to give women the right to drive cars, so they won't have a license i.d.
I want to see some uninformed Democrat or lib tv reporter ask him, "Tell me, Congressman Ellison, before you were in office, what did you do to bring home the bacon?"
This is really getting to be fun!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/civil-war-on-the-left-part-37-is-ellison-too-right-wing-for-the-dnc.php
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP
Ellison could also be a problem for the Motor Voter Law because he probably doesn't want to give women the right to drive cars, so they won't have a license i.d.
I want to see some uninformed Democrat or lib tv reporter ask him, "Tell me, Congressman Ellison, before you were in office, what did you do to bring home the bacon?"
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.
Tears of a Clown
Dana Mathewson
Tears of a clown. Great description for the NYT. As a friend of mine observed, why shouldn't a president fill a conservative Justice's seat with another conservative? And why should the Senate object to that? The real fight will come when Ginsburg dies and Trump trots out another selection like Gorsuch.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13044/tears-clown-nyt-laments-stolen-supreme-court-seat-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=070516-news-title&utm_campaign=three
As for the idea of Trump governing like Hillary, that's just too funny for words.
Tears of a clown. Great description for the NYT. As a friend of mine observed, why shouldn't a president fill a conservative Justice's seat with another conservative? And why should the Senate object to that? The real fight will come when Ginsburg dies and Trump trots out another selection like Gorsuch.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13044/tears-clown-nyt-laments-stolen-supreme-court-seat-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=070516-news-title&utm_campaign=three
As for the idea of Trump governing like Hillary, that's just too funny for words.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
97kb generated in CPU 0.0158, elapsed 0.1844 seconds.
32 queries taking 0.1714 seconds, 192 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
32 queries taking 0.1714 seconds, 192 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
