May 09, 2017
Refocusing a Chicago water summit
Paul Driessen
Next week’s Freshwater Lab Summit in Chicago is shaping up to become just another activist rant against Trump Administration proposals to revise rules and policies, reduce taxes, trim government budgets and personnel, eliminate wasteful and intrusive regulations – and thereby reinvigorate America’s economy and job-creation machine.
My article dissects the summiteers’ claims, and offers suggestions about topics that they ought to focus on. They’re good lessons for legislators, policy makers, academics and street protesters everywhere.
Refocusing a Chicago water summit
Proposed EPA budget cuts have activists in dither over wrong issues and imaginary problems
Paul Driessen
President Trump’s proposal to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s $8.1-billion budget by $1.6 billion was cut to an $80-million trim in the omnibus spending bill. However, the EPA funding and staff controversy will undoubtedly resume during the next budgetary battles in September.
That’s fueling consternation and con jobs in the heartland. According to press releases, funds for cleaning up the Great Lakes, eliminating lead poisoning, stopping oil pollution and "ensuring justice†for affected groups are "on the chopping block.†Community leaders, government officials, academics and activists will therefore meet May 10-11 in Chicago for a Freshwater Lab Summit, to "engage the public†and map out strategies for preserving Obama environmental staffs, budgets, programs, policies and priorities.
Women, minorities and low-income communities often "bear the brunt of environmental degradation,†say conference organizers, who plan to emphasize "rights†to clean water, "regardless of race, wealth or class.†Speakers include mayors, opponents of oil pipelines and exporting Canadian water to the United States, proponents of sustainability and "environmental climate justice,†and an expert on the role of water sharing and management in "peacemaking, diplomacy and economic equality.â€
The summit promises to be lively, somewhat informative, certainly politicized, and likely to energize more of the resistance, rallies, recriminations, rabble rousing, rage, rants and riots that have dominated the U.S. political scene since the November 2016 elections.
Here are a few thoughts that speakers and attendees might want to consider, but most likely will not.
As I’ve noted previously, since EPA was created in 1970, America’s air and water quality have improved dramatically, to the point where most serious pollution concerns are rare and isolated. Cars have eliminated 98% of the pollutants that they emitted 47 years ago. Coal-fired power plants now remove 80- 90% of the mercury, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates and other dangerous substances that used to come out of their stacks. Factories and paper mills have done likewise with air and water emissions.
However, as our laws, technologies, and changed corporate and citizen attitudes resolved most of the chronic environmental problems of yesteryear, EPA and the environmentalist movement set new agendas and priorities. They became ideological, politicized and determined to control what Congress, the states and citizens never intended them to regulate: lingering traces of air pollution, climate change, our entire energy and economic infrastructure, and nearly every rivulet, puddle and other waters of the USA.
The Obama EPA also engaged in illegal experiments on humans; when their results proved that microscopic soot particles are not deadly, the agency ignored the evidence. It also claimed plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide "endangers†America and must be slashed by de-carbonizing and de-industrializing the US economy, under the agency’s Clean Power Plan and social cost of carbon scheme.
It held "listening sessions†in Chicago and other cities where abundant college and other activists could easily testify, but affected miners, factory workers and farmers would have to travel hundreds of miles – and then have their stories and concerns ignored by the regulators. They simply became Collateral Damage in a war on coal and affordable energy that brought green energy poverty to millions.
In the mostly former steel town of Middlebury, Ohio, jobs and people moved out, as dependency, despondency and drugs moved in. In September 2016, this city of 49,000 had 30 heroin overdoses in one week. Many factors played a role in the decline, but EPA’s regulatory warfare was clearly one of them.
Meanwhile, Flint, Michigan’s drinking water was laced with lead, because EPA, state and local officials were too distracted to safeguard what Chicago summiteers view as a basic right to clean water. Prevention and repair funds were spent on climate change and other agendas. Fixing this serious health problem is a high Trump EPA priority; the funds are not going to be deleted, as summit organizers claim.
Out in Colorado, EPA-supervised contractors unleashed a toxic flashflood from the Gold King Mine, contaminating river water for hundreds of miles. EPA waited an entire day before notifying impacted communities. It refused to provide adequate compensation and never punished anyone.
Will the conferees offer compassion and demand environmental justice for all these regulatory victims? Will they demand accountability for the inexcusable derelictions of duty by irresponsible regulators?
When they call for action to block more pipelines, will they even mention that new pipelines are needed to bring oil and natural gas from new fields to refineries and petrochemical plants that provide the fuels and products they use every day? That new pipelines are needed to replace aging pipes that could spring leaks? Or that pipelines are much safer than railway tanker cars and tanker trucks on our highways?
Will summit speaker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett explain the millions of gallons of untreated wastewater and sewage that his city still discharges into Lake Michigan every year?
In the context of "drastic†budget and personnel reductions proposed for EPA, will the "unprecedented coalition of mayors and community advocates†meeting in Chicago discuss the fact that EPA simply will not require so many people or funds, now that it won’t need a massive bureaucracy to control US lands, waters, farms, factories, energy and economic development, to "stabilize†Earth’s ever-fickle climate?
Staff and funding will still be more than adequate to clean up the Great Lakes, monitor and address drinking water and sewage problems in our cities, ensure that oil and gas pipelines are built and operated safely, and enforce factory and vehicle compliance with pollution standards. Fewer funds and personnel will simply be reallocated from the grand schemes of the Obama years to real remaining problems.
Will the conference recognize that federal regulations alone cost $1.9 trillion per year – prior to the regulatory tsunami of the Obama Administration’s final three months? The eight-year Obama era alone generated over $800 billion of those annual regulatory burdens. EPA alone was responsible for well over $350 billion of the overall bill, based on 2012 data from just the first four years of the Obama presidency.
These regulations – combined with countless thousands of criminal offenses embedded in them – impose an enormous burden on every business, industry, state, community and family in the United States. They are an incalculable drag on job creation, economic growth, family budgets, and the ability of families to meet medical, nutrition, rent, mortgage, college, retirement and other needs. They have an acute and disproportionate impact on poor, minority, single parent and blue-collar families.
They deprive people of their basic civil rights and environmental justice, often for few or no benefits.
Conference participants, community leaders, lawmakers and regulators should worry less about saving the planet, and more about doing their jobs and keeping little problems from becoming big ones. Less about exaggerated, fabricated climate risks, and more about actual pollution and joblessness risks. Less about rights and demands – and more about personal and shared responsibilities.
They should especially emphasize what kids and adults must do to succeed in life: Stay in school, study hard, graduate. Minimize drug and alcohol use. Don’t join gangs or become unwed teen parents. Get and stay married. Be parents, not just sperm or egg donors. Get a job, be on time, work hard, learn new skills, and parlay that experience into better jobs. Save for college or to move into a better neighborhood. Play a positive role in making your current home, neighborhood and school cleaner, safer, better.
President Trump’s election was an equal and opposite reaction to the excesses, abuses and failures by previous administration. Yes, elections do have consequences. The Trump election has brought new visions, agendas, directions and policies for America: rolling back costly, excessive, intrusive regulations; reducing tax burdens; devolving more power and responsibility to states and cities; telling federal agencies to focus on actual remaining problems that should be handled at that level; and persuading more people and communities to take greater responsibility for their own success or failure.
These changes will help bring jobs, opportunities and prosperity back to America. They deserve a fair hearing at the Chicago summit and elsewhere, in civil conversations that truly involve all affected parties.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.
Next week’s Freshwater Lab Summit in Chicago is shaping up to become just another activist rant against Trump Administration proposals to revise rules and policies, reduce taxes, trim government budgets and personnel, eliminate wasteful and intrusive regulations – and thereby reinvigorate America’s economy and job-creation machine.
My article dissects the summiteers’ claims, and offers suggestions about topics that they ought to focus on. They’re good lessons for legislators, policy makers, academics and street protesters everywhere.
Refocusing a Chicago water summit
Proposed EPA budget cuts have activists in dither over wrong issues and imaginary problems
Paul Driessen
President Trump’s proposal to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s $8.1-billion budget by $1.6 billion was cut to an $80-million trim in the omnibus spending bill. However, the EPA funding and staff controversy will undoubtedly resume during the next budgetary battles in September.
That’s fueling consternation and con jobs in the heartland. According to press releases, funds for cleaning up the Great Lakes, eliminating lead poisoning, stopping oil pollution and "ensuring justice†for affected groups are "on the chopping block.†Community leaders, government officials, academics and activists will therefore meet May 10-11 in Chicago for a Freshwater Lab Summit, to "engage the public†and map out strategies for preserving Obama environmental staffs, budgets, programs, policies and priorities.
Women, minorities and low-income communities often "bear the brunt of environmental degradation,†say conference organizers, who plan to emphasize "rights†to clean water, "regardless of race, wealth or class.†Speakers include mayors, opponents of oil pipelines and exporting Canadian water to the United States, proponents of sustainability and "environmental climate justice,†and an expert on the role of water sharing and management in "peacemaking, diplomacy and economic equality.â€
The summit promises to be lively, somewhat informative, certainly politicized, and likely to energize more of the resistance, rallies, recriminations, rabble rousing, rage, rants and riots that have dominated the U.S. political scene since the November 2016 elections.
Here are a few thoughts that speakers and attendees might want to consider, but most likely will not.
As I’ve noted previously, since EPA was created in 1970, America’s air and water quality have improved dramatically, to the point where most serious pollution concerns are rare and isolated. Cars have eliminated 98% of the pollutants that they emitted 47 years ago. Coal-fired power plants now remove 80- 90% of the mercury, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates and other dangerous substances that used to come out of their stacks. Factories and paper mills have done likewise with air and water emissions.
However, as our laws, technologies, and changed corporate and citizen attitudes resolved most of the chronic environmental problems of yesteryear, EPA and the environmentalist movement set new agendas and priorities. They became ideological, politicized and determined to control what Congress, the states and citizens never intended them to regulate: lingering traces of air pollution, climate change, our entire energy and economic infrastructure, and nearly every rivulet, puddle and other waters of the USA.
The Obama EPA also engaged in illegal experiments on humans; when their results proved that microscopic soot particles are not deadly, the agency ignored the evidence. It also claimed plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide "endangers†America and must be slashed by de-carbonizing and de-industrializing the US economy, under the agency’s Clean Power Plan and social cost of carbon scheme.
It held "listening sessions†in Chicago and other cities where abundant college and other activists could easily testify, but affected miners, factory workers and farmers would have to travel hundreds of miles – and then have their stories and concerns ignored by the regulators. They simply became Collateral Damage in a war on coal and affordable energy that brought green energy poverty to millions.
In the mostly former steel town of Middlebury, Ohio, jobs and people moved out, as dependency, despondency and drugs moved in. In September 2016, this city of 49,000 had 30 heroin overdoses in one week. Many factors played a role in the decline, but EPA’s regulatory warfare was clearly one of them.
Meanwhile, Flint, Michigan’s drinking water was laced with lead, because EPA, state and local officials were too distracted to safeguard what Chicago summiteers view as a basic right to clean water. Prevention and repair funds were spent on climate change and other agendas. Fixing this serious health problem is a high Trump EPA priority; the funds are not going to be deleted, as summit organizers claim.
Out in Colorado, EPA-supervised contractors unleashed a toxic flashflood from the Gold King Mine, contaminating river water for hundreds of miles. EPA waited an entire day before notifying impacted communities. It refused to provide adequate compensation and never punished anyone.
Will the conferees offer compassion and demand environmental justice for all these regulatory victims? Will they demand accountability for the inexcusable derelictions of duty by irresponsible regulators?
When they call for action to block more pipelines, will they even mention that new pipelines are needed to bring oil and natural gas from new fields to refineries and petrochemical plants that provide the fuels and products they use every day? That new pipelines are needed to replace aging pipes that could spring leaks? Or that pipelines are much safer than railway tanker cars and tanker trucks on our highways?
Will summit speaker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett explain the millions of gallons of untreated wastewater and sewage that his city still discharges into Lake Michigan every year?
In the context of "drastic†budget and personnel reductions proposed for EPA, will the "unprecedented coalition of mayors and community advocates†meeting in Chicago discuss the fact that EPA simply will not require so many people or funds, now that it won’t need a massive bureaucracy to control US lands, waters, farms, factories, energy and economic development, to "stabilize†Earth’s ever-fickle climate?
Staff and funding will still be more than adequate to clean up the Great Lakes, monitor and address drinking water and sewage problems in our cities, ensure that oil and gas pipelines are built and operated safely, and enforce factory and vehicle compliance with pollution standards. Fewer funds and personnel will simply be reallocated from the grand schemes of the Obama years to real remaining problems.
Will the conference recognize that federal regulations alone cost $1.9 trillion per year – prior to the regulatory tsunami of the Obama Administration’s final three months? The eight-year Obama era alone generated over $800 billion of those annual regulatory burdens. EPA alone was responsible for well over $350 billion of the overall bill, based on 2012 data from just the first four years of the Obama presidency.
These regulations – combined with countless thousands of criminal offenses embedded in them – impose an enormous burden on every business, industry, state, community and family in the United States. They are an incalculable drag on job creation, economic growth, family budgets, and the ability of families to meet medical, nutrition, rent, mortgage, college, retirement and other needs. They have an acute and disproportionate impact on poor, minority, single parent and blue-collar families.
They deprive people of their basic civil rights and environmental justice, often for few or no benefits.
Conference participants, community leaders, lawmakers and regulators should worry less about saving the planet, and more about doing their jobs and keeping little problems from becoming big ones. Less about exaggerated, fabricated climate risks, and more about actual pollution and joblessness risks. Less about rights and demands – and more about personal and shared responsibilities.
They should especially emphasize what kids and adults must do to succeed in life: Stay in school, study hard, graduate. Minimize drug and alcohol use. Don’t join gangs or become unwed teen parents. Get and stay married. Be parents, not just sperm or egg donors. Get a job, be on time, work hard, learn new skills, and parlay that experience into better jobs. Save for college or to move into a better neighborhood. Play a positive role in making your current home, neighborhood and school cleaner, safer, better.
President Trump’s election was an equal and opposite reaction to the excesses, abuses and failures by previous administration. Yes, elections do have consequences. The Trump election has brought new visions, agendas, directions and policies for America: rolling back costly, excessive, intrusive regulations; reducing tax burdens; devolving more power and responsibility to states and cities; telling federal agencies to focus on actual remaining problems that should be handled at that level; and persuading more people and communities to take greater responsibility for their own success or failure.
These changes will help bring jobs, opportunities and prosperity back to America. They deserve a fair hearing at the Chicago summit and elsewhere, in civil conversations that truly involve all affected parties.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1478 words, total size 10 kb.
Catholic School Assaulted for Canceling LGBT Play for Children
Dana Mathewson
Catholic school hit for canceling LGBT play for 5-year-olds.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/07/catholic-school-hit-for-canceling-lgbt-play-for-5-year-olds.html
LGBT Canadians are furious after a Catholic school district canceled performances of a play about gender identity – meant for children as young as 5 years old.
Catholic school hit for canceling LGBT play for 5-year-olds.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/07/catholic-school-hit-for-canceling-lgbt-play-for-5-year-olds.html
LGBT Canadians are furious after a Catholic school district canceled performances of a play about gender identity – meant for children as young as 5 years old.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
Diversity and Inclusion claim another victim
Dana Mathewson
The victim claimed in the subject line is as follows:
As noted by Peter LaBarbera of Lifesitenews.com,https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-trumps-pro-life-army-secretary-nom-bows-out-amid-liberal-witch-hun LGBT activists were bitter and outraged that a conservative Christian with a public policy record of opposing the LGBTQ agenda was chosen to succeed a homosexual for the job of secretary of the Army. That is why a dishonest attack on Dr. Mark Green, a West Point grad and decorated U.S. Army flight surgeon, was launched by the Huffington Post, as well as other media and gay rights organizations.
"Green engendered significant opposition to his nomination after HuffPost first reported on comments he had made about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community,†said the far-left, openly anti-Trump publication.
One of Dr. Mark Green’s so-called objectionable comments was the science-based and common-sense belief, made in his capacity as a Tennessee state senator, that most psychiatrists believe transgenderism is "a disease.†He referred to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as having listed transgenderism as a disorder to be treated.
A new book, Diversity and Inclusion: What You Don’t Know and Why You Don’t Know It, explains how the forces of "diversity and inclusion†are used to marginalize and destroy the influence of conservative Christians in U.S. society, along with the traditional values they uphold.
What’s more, [its] author George W. Draper told Accuracy in Media in an interview, "The harsh reality is that literally none of President Trump’s objectives can be accomplished on an enduring basis until the policy of diversity and inclusion (DI) is rescinded as an unlawful attempt to usurp the ‘rule of law’ and the Constitution.â€
As an example, he said, "To stop terrorist immigration is certainly a necessary goal. However, this and all other threats pale in comparison to the lethality of diversity and inclusion.†It is this policy that is truly "the enemy from within,†and which threatens not only unlimited immigration but "Third-World style†bondage for the United States, he says.
Furthermore, he argues, "Diversity and Inclusion serve as the basis and platform from which all other vicious political agendas and anti-American actions are expertly and expeditiously carried out against this nation.â€
One of those political agendas is the popular (in the media) mental disorder known as transgenderism, in which biological men and boys with male DNA try to pass themselves off as women, and vice versa. Liberals believe in this alien ideology to such an extent that their hero, former President Obama, tried to force it on elementary school children.
The entire article, by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, is here: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/diversity-and-inclusion-claim-another-victim/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%20May-09-2017&utm_medium=email
The victim claimed in the subject line is as follows:
As noted by Peter LaBarbera of Lifesitenews.com,https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-trumps-pro-life-army-secretary-nom-bows-out-amid-liberal-witch-hun LGBT activists were bitter and outraged that a conservative Christian with a public policy record of opposing the LGBTQ agenda was chosen to succeed a homosexual for the job of secretary of the Army. That is why a dishonest attack on Dr. Mark Green, a West Point grad and decorated U.S. Army flight surgeon, was launched by the Huffington Post, as well as other media and gay rights organizations.
"Green engendered significant opposition to his nomination after HuffPost first reported on comments he had made about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community,†said the far-left, openly anti-Trump publication.
One of Dr. Mark Green’s so-called objectionable comments was the science-based and common-sense belief, made in his capacity as a Tennessee state senator, that most psychiatrists believe transgenderism is "a disease.†He referred to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as having listed transgenderism as a disorder to be treated.
A new book, Diversity and Inclusion: What You Don’t Know and Why You Don’t Know It, explains how the forces of "diversity and inclusion†are used to marginalize and destroy the influence of conservative Christians in U.S. society, along with the traditional values they uphold.
What’s more, [its] author George W. Draper told Accuracy in Media in an interview, "The harsh reality is that literally none of President Trump’s objectives can be accomplished on an enduring basis until the policy of diversity and inclusion (DI) is rescinded as an unlawful attempt to usurp the ‘rule of law’ and the Constitution.â€
As an example, he said, "To stop terrorist immigration is certainly a necessary goal. However, this and all other threats pale in comparison to the lethality of diversity and inclusion.†It is this policy that is truly "the enemy from within,†and which threatens not only unlimited immigration but "Third-World style†bondage for the United States, he says.
Furthermore, he argues, "Diversity and Inclusion serve as the basis and platform from which all other vicious political agendas and anti-American actions are expertly and expeditiously carried out against this nation.â€
One of those political agendas is the popular (in the media) mental disorder known as transgenderism, in which biological men and boys with male DNA try to pass themselves off as women, and vice versa. Liberals believe in this alien ideology to such an extent that their hero, former President Obama, tried to force it on elementary school children.
The entire article, by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, is here: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/diversity-and-inclusion-claim-another-victim/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%20May-09-2017&utm_medium=email
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.
The Return of Piers Morgan
Dana Mathewson
No, really. Quoted in Urgent Agenda, it appears that now that Piers is back home, he's doing some good work.
http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20IX/MAY%202017/07.HILLARY.HTML
No, really. Quoted in Urgent Agenda, it appears that now that Piers is back home, he's doing some good work.
http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20IX/MAY%202017/07.HILLARY.HTML
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
May 08, 2017
A counter to the left's tale of wonderful 0bamacare
Wil Wirtanen
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/6/my-husband-wouldve-died-obamacare/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/6/my-husband-wouldve-died-obamacare/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
Hidden facts exposed in Planned Parenthood Iowa lawsuit
Jack Kemp forwards this:
Planned Parenthood likes to claim it is "a trusted healthcare providerâ€, that abortion is a tiny part of what it does, and that it "is creating a healthier world for everyoneâ€.
Of course everyone includes only those fortunate enough to have actually breached the womb in one piece. Otherwise, your health is irrelevant. But that’s another topic for another time.
Today’s topic is the law – specifically, the fact that in order to present the strongest case possible, parties in legal disputes frequently have to reveal information they don’t typically broadcast to the rest of the world.
Such is the case with Planned Parenthood and its attempt to invalidate The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In addition to other restrictions, that act – signed into law by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad on Friday – bans abortion after 20 weeks, and requires a 3-day waiting period.
The act went in to effect immediately, and before the ink was dry on Branstad’s signature, the State Supreme Court had imposed a temporary injunction on the waiting period provision. The court is set to begin considering today (Monday) whether that injunction will be lifted or made permanent. The high court intervened after an initial injunction request was denied by a District Court judge.
The remaining provisions of the law seem to be safe, at least for now.
The most interesting aspects of this story are in the details. Very few people will ever actually read the action filed by Planned Parenthood to stop this law – but it truly is a MUST READ, because in that action Planned Parenthood reveals information that runs contrary to its public image.
See, in order to prove that it actually has a dog in this hunt – which is Georgian for "has legal standing to seek an injunction†– Planned Parenthood has to show that it is adversely affected by this new law. Here’s how it makes that case:
* "[Planned Parenthood of the Heartland] provides medication and surgical abortion at two health centers in Iowa … and medication abortion at six additional Iowa health centersâ€.
* "Over the past year (April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017), PPH provided over 2,100 medication abortions and over 1,200 surgical abortions in Iowa.â€
* "PPH would have to add staff or extend hours … And it certainly could not absorb the additional cost without charging patients more for an abortion.†The rub here for PPH is that 3-day waiting period, which would require a patient make a second clinic visit before obtaining an abortion.
Now think for a moment about what Planned Parenthood is saying here. First, they admit that they actually provide abortions, not just referrals for abortion. Second, they admit to having performed 3,300 abortions in Iowa in a year. That’s more than the number who died in the 9-11 terror attacks and nearly as many as at Pearl Harbor. Considering that there were an estimated 4,000 total abortions in Iowa during that year, Planned Parenthood itself was directly responsible for more than 80% of them.
Read it all!
Jack Kemp forwards this:
Planned Parenthood likes to claim it is "a trusted healthcare providerâ€, that abortion is a tiny part of what it does, and that it "is creating a healthier world for everyoneâ€.
Of course everyone includes only those fortunate enough to have actually breached the womb in one piece. Otherwise, your health is irrelevant. But that’s another topic for another time.
Today’s topic is the law – specifically, the fact that in order to present the strongest case possible, parties in legal disputes frequently have to reveal information they don’t typically broadcast to the rest of the world.
Such is the case with Planned Parenthood and its attempt to invalidate The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In addition to other restrictions, that act – signed into law by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad on Friday – bans abortion after 20 weeks, and requires a 3-day waiting period.
The act went in to effect immediately, and before the ink was dry on Branstad’s signature, the State Supreme Court had imposed a temporary injunction on the waiting period provision. The court is set to begin considering today (Monday) whether that injunction will be lifted or made permanent. The high court intervened after an initial injunction request was denied by a District Court judge.
The remaining provisions of the law seem to be safe, at least for now.
The most interesting aspects of this story are in the details. Very few people will ever actually read the action filed by Planned Parenthood to stop this law – but it truly is a MUST READ, because in that action Planned Parenthood reveals information that runs contrary to its public image.
See, in order to prove that it actually has a dog in this hunt – which is Georgian for "has legal standing to seek an injunction†– Planned Parenthood has to show that it is adversely affected by this new law. Here’s how it makes that case:
* "[Planned Parenthood of the Heartland] provides medication and surgical abortion at two health centers in Iowa … and medication abortion at six additional Iowa health centersâ€.
* "Over the past year (April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017), PPH provided over 2,100 medication abortions and over 1,200 surgical abortions in Iowa.â€
* "PPH would have to add staff or extend hours … And it certainly could not absorb the additional cost without charging patients more for an abortion.†The rub here for PPH is that 3-day waiting period, which would require a patient make a second clinic visit before obtaining an abortion.
Now think for a moment about what Planned Parenthood is saying here. First, they admit that they actually provide abortions, not just referrals for abortion. Second, they admit to having performed 3,300 abortions in Iowa in a year. That’s more than the number who died in the 9-11 terror attacks and nearly as many as at Pearl Harbor. Considering that there were an estimated 4,000 total abortions in Iowa during that year, Planned Parenthood itself was directly responsible for more than 80% of them.
Read it all!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.
North Korean EMP Strategem
Timothy Birdnow
Aaron Klein makes the case that North Korea may be developing EMP capabilities using an old Soviet plan to knock out the vulnerable U.S. electric grid.
From the Breitbart article:
"North Korea, by contrast, "doesn’t have enough missiles or sophisticated missiles to blow up our missile bases and bomber bases. What they seem to be doing with the satellites is the EMP part of the Soviet plan.â€
"I think what they are mainly going for is the unhardened electric grid,†Pry surmised. "Transportation, communications, all of the other civilian critical infrastructure that we depend upon to keep our population alive.â€
Pry spotlighted recent North Korean nuclear and missile tests minimized by the news media for reported failures. When viewed through the lens of potential preparations for an EMP attack, Pry warned, the tests were actually successes.
Pry wrote about some of those tests in a Newsmax piece last week:
I am looking at an unclassified U.S. Government chart that shows a 10-kiloton warhead (the power of the Hiroshima A-Bomb) detonated at an altitude of 70 kilometers will generate an EMP field inflicting upset and damage on unprotected electronics. …
On April 30, South Korean officials told The Korea Times and YTN TV that North Korea’s test of a medium-range missile on April 29 was not a failure, as widely reported in the world press, because it was deliberately detonated at 72 kilometers altitude. 72 kilometers is the optimum burst height for a 10-Kt warhead making an EMP attack. "
End excerpt.
I have been warning about this for a decade now; the ability to damage our silicon technology is within the reach of the most modest nuclear/satellite capable nation. The U.S. government lied about the EMP effect for decades, denying any such thing would happen (my own article at American Thinker was "rebutted" by someone claiming to have been a part of the original Starfish Prime tests in 1962. Shortly after this Congress commissioned a report on the dangers of EMP to the U.S. - completely vindicating me.
What happens in an EMP attack is this: a nuclear device is air burst - generally over the atmosphere - and the resultant release of gamma radiation ionizes the atmosphere, stripping electrons from air and sending it off in a big wave (the Compton Effect). The wave acts as a sudden surge in power in microelectronics, and it acts so fast that surge protectors do not have time to react. The result is computers burn out, and that means nearly everything; cars fail, radios fail, the telephone network fails, and the electric grid - so dependent on computer switching and interrelated in a series of grids (3 total) = gails. Without electricity we are thrown back to 1800.
But it is not 1800 but 2017. We can't grow enough food to feed the population, and farmers don't have horse drawn ploughs anyway. We would have no way of getting food to markets with no automobiles (except those built before 1980, when computers started being installed in them.) There will be no water pumps in the west, so the more arid regions will be thirsty. No lights, no heat, no air conditioning, no refrigeration. Here and there emergency generators may be employed, but without adequate transportation it will be hard to get fuel. Oh, and the Starfish Prime tests saw light bulbs blow out all in Honolulu, 800 miles away from Johnston Atoll, the test sight. Many of the needed basic equipment will be blown. And of course, nobody has the skills anymore; who knows how to can fruit, or smoke meat? Who remembers the old folk medicines? There won't be any penicillin, or even sulfa. What about clothes? There won't be any more.
And all this against a population of 320 million or so. Desperate people will do desperate things, and the few places that manage to organize will be prime targets of raiders. Some military bases may maintain order, but at the expense of total martial law, and those protected will likely starve anyway. There will be plagues, diseases nobody ever gets anymore burning through the refugees. The four horsemen will ride across America.
So if we burn North Korea to a cinder it will be small comfort.
The Congressional report predicted a 90% kill rate within one year of an EMP attack! Those who survive will suffer horrendously.
We need to use satellite killers to take out the Nork satellites, and we need to do that at the first chance we have.
But America is engulfed in a battle between utopians who think WE are the problem and the rest of us, and those in power won't accept there is anything to worry about until the bombs are detonated.
Aaron Klein makes the case that North Korea may be developing EMP capabilities using an old Soviet plan to knock out the vulnerable U.S. electric grid.
From the Breitbart article:
"North Korea, by contrast, "doesn’t have enough missiles or sophisticated missiles to blow up our missile bases and bomber bases. What they seem to be doing with the satellites is the EMP part of the Soviet plan.â€
"I think what they are mainly going for is the unhardened electric grid,†Pry surmised. "Transportation, communications, all of the other civilian critical infrastructure that we depend upon to keep our population alive.â€
Pry spotlighted recent North Korean nuclear and missile tests minimized by the news media for reported failures. When viewed through the lens of potential preparations for an EMP attack, Pry warned, the tests were actually successes.
Pry wrote about some of those tests in a Newsmax piece last week:
I am looking at an unclassified U.S. Government chart that shows a 10-kiloton warhead (the power of the Hiroshima A-Bomb) detonated at an altitude of 70 kilometers will generate an EMP field inflicting upset and damage on unprotected electronics. …
On April 30, South Korean officials told The Korea Times and YTN TV that North Korea’s test of a medium-range missile on April 29 was not a failure, as widely reported in the world press, because it was deliberately detonated at 72 kilometers altitude. 72 kilometers is the optimum burst height for a 10-Kt warhead making an EMP attack. "
End excerpt.
I have been warning about this for a decade now; the ability to damage our silicon technology is within the reach of the most modest nuclear/satellite capable nation. The U.S. government lied about the EMP effect for decades, denying any such thing would happen (my own article at American Thinker was "rebutted" by someone claiming to have been a part of the original Starfish Prime tests in 1962. Shortly after this Congress commissioned a report on the dangers of EMP to the U.S. - completely vindicating me.
What happens in an EMP attack is this: a nuclear device is air burst - generally over the atmosphere - and the resultant release of gamma radiation ionizes the atmosphere, stripping electrons from air and sending it off in a big wave (the Compton Effect). The wave acts as a sudden surge in power in microelectronics, and it acts so fast that surge protectors do not have time to react. The result is computers burn out, and that means nearly everything; cars fail, radios fail, the telephone network fails, and the electric grid - so dependent on computer switching and interrelated in a series of grids (3 total) = gails. Without electricity we are thrown back to 1800.
But it is not 1800 but 2017. We can't grow enough food to feed the population, and farmers don't have horse drawn ploughs anyway. We would have no way of getting food to markets with no automobiles (except those built before 1980, when computers started being installed in them.) There will be no water pumps in the west, so the more arid regions will be thirsty. No lights, no heat, no air conditioning, no refrigeration. Here and there emergency generators may be employed, but without adequate transportation it will be hard to get fuel. Oh, and the Starfish Prime tests saw light bulbs blow out all in Honolulu, 800 miles away from Johnston Atoll, the test sight. Many of the needed basic equipment will be blown. And of course, nobody has the skills anymore; who knows how to can fruit, or smoke meat? Who remembers the old folk medicines? There won't be any penicillin, or even sulfa. What about clothes? There won't be any more.
And all this against a population of 320 million or so. Desperate people will do desperate things, and the few places that manage to organize will be prime targets of raiders. Some military bases may maintain order, but at the expense of total martial law, and those protected will likely starve anyway. There will be plagues, diseases nobody ever gets anymore burning through the refugees. The four horsemen will ride across America.
So if we burn North Korea to a cinder it will be small comfort.
The Congressional report predicted a 90% kill rate within one year of an EMP attack! Those who survive will suffer horrendously.
We need to use satellite killers to take out the Nork satellites, and we need to do that at the first chance we have.
But America is engulfed in a battle between utopians who think WE are the problem and the rest of us, and those in power won't accept there is anything to worry about until the bombs are detonated.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 795 words, total size 5 kb.
May 07, 2017
Oh the Humanity; a Belated Tribute to the Hindenberg
Timothy Birdnow
Dana Mathewson and I had a conversation about lighter than air travel, particularly the old zeppelins, which offered true luxury in the sky but had serious drawbacks. Below is our conversation:
Dana Mathewson
Airships would have been great, except that they were so damn vulnerable to storms. So were prop-driven planes. Gotta be able to get above them-there storms for safety.
The generally-accepted skinny on the Hindenberg was that it was sabotaged but the bomb was meant to go off when it was safely "at rest," with nobody on board. However, it docked a few hours late because of weather (and the German propensity for safety).
TIM REPLIES:
I know the Graf Zeppelin - the Hindenberg's sister ship - had a long service life with no problems. Something fishy about that Hindenberg.
I saw a special on PBS where they claim the engineers changed materials they used to act as a reflective coating. The new material was aluminum oxide - thermite! It still begs the question of why it went up, which the bomb theory explains.
Yep - flying through storms in a giant gas bag isn't a good idea. Too bad; that would have been a great way to fly otherwise.
Dana Replies:
When you recall how static electricity was such a problem with airships of all kinds -- how they used draglines that had to hit the ground first to discharge it -- and how hydrogen was such dangerous stuff anyhow, you wonder how anybody dared get into one of those things. And with any turbulence, that gas was surging around in the bags, not just sitting there quietly. For an interesting account of the problems with zeppelins, read "The Airmen Who Would Not Die," an account of (among other things) the last British airship, one that never actually got into service before its fatal crash; an event that spelled doom to Britain's attempt at lighter-than-air flight.
Still, the Germans were very, very methodical about everything. As you say, the Graf Zeppelin had a pretty good service record. There were only two times a day that the Krauts would dock a zeppelin in Lakehurst. On the day of the Hindenburg disaster, it arrived in a rainstorm and sailed around for a few hours, missing its first scheduled time. On the second time, the storm had ceased and the landing could take place. IF the sabotage story is correct, the explosion was set for a time when nobody was expected to be near the ship, instead of being on it and not yet landed. Remember the Hindenburg had made ten successful round trips prior to the explosion.
BTW, you're aware that yesterday (I believe) is the anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster, and there is still one survivor alive?
end
Here are a few good websites about the disaster, which "celebrated" its 80'th anniversary yesterday:
http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-hindenburg-disaster
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-93241465/
Dana Mathewson and I had a conversation about lighter than air travel, particularly the old zeppelins, which offered true luxury in the sky but had serious drawbacks. Below is our conversation:
Dana Mathewson
Airships would have been great, except that they were so damn vulnerable to storms. So were prop-driven planes. Gotta be able to get above them-there storms for safety.
The generally-accepted skinny on the Hindenberg was that it was sabotaged but the bomb was meant to go off when it was safely "at rest," with nobody on board. However, it docked a few hours late because of weather (and the German propensity for safety).
TIM REPLIES:
I know the Graf Zeppelin - the Hindenberg's sister ship - had a long service life with no problems. Something fishy about that Hindenberg.
I saw a special on PBS where they claim the engineers changed materials they used to act as a reflective coating. The new material was aluminum oxide - thermite! It still begs the question of why it went up, which the bomb theory explains.
Yep - flying through storms in a giant gas bag isn't a good idea. Too bad; that would have been a great way to fly otherwise.
Dana Replies:
When you recall how static electricity was such a problem with airships of all kinds -- how they used draglines that had to hit the ground first to discharge it -- and how hydrogen was such dangerous stuff anyhow, you wonder how anybody dared get into one of those things. And with any turbulence, that gas was surging around in the bags, not just sitting there quietly. For an interesting account of the problems with zeppelins, read "The Airmen Who Would Not Die," an account of (among other things) the last British airship, one that never actually got into service before its fatal crash; an event that spelled doom to Britain's attempt at lighter-than-air flight.
Still, the Germans were very, very methodical about everything. As you say, the Graf Zeppelin had a pretty good service record. There were only two times a day that the Krauts would dock a zeppelin in Lakehurst. On the day of the Hindenburg disaster, it arrived in a rainstorm and sailed around for a few hours, missing its first scheduled time. On the second time, the storm had ceased and the landing could take place. IF the sabotage story is correct, the explosion was set for a time when nobody was expected to be near the ship, instead of being on it and not yet landed. Remember the Hindenburg had made ten successful round trips prior to the explosion.
BTW, you're aware that yesterday (I believe) is the anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster, and there is still one survivor alive?
end
Here are a few good websites about the disaster, which "celebrated" its 80'th anniversary yesterday:
http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-hindenburg-disaster
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-93241465/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.
Bad Parent Shaming
Jack Kemp forwards this
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/05/07/its-time-shame-bad-parents-n2323313?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
It’s Time to Shame Bad Parents
Derek Hunter
|
Posted: May 07, 2017 12:01 AM
I learned a new term this week: lunch shaming. What is lunch shaming? It’s when parents don’t pay their children’s lunch bills at school so the schools make them eat food I lived a large portion of my life surviving off of.
We really are out of problems if this is an issue worthy concern for society.
The New York Times had a big story on how children were made to eat cheese sandwiches because their parents had paid off their school lunch debt.
Now, it’s been a while since I was in school, but I do remember school lunches costing a couple of bucks. And I remember I was allowed to buy a school lunch one day per week because that was all my parents could afford. Free lunch was not an option. While we might have qualified – I honestly have no idea how much my father made but I know it wasn’t a lot – the government teat was not an option. My family had pride and my parents provided for me and my siblings, undoubtedly at their own expense.
The idea of parental sacrifice for the good of their children is now dead. "The school will feed them†is the new way of life. But it shouldn’t be.
One of the students mentioned in the Times piece said, "I was so embarrassed,†about being denied the school food she wanted and given lesser "cheese sandwich†level food…for free.
According to the paper, the family qualified for free lunches but "a paperwork mix-up†caused confusion and led to the denial. No, bad and lazy parenting led to the denial.
Read the rest!
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/05/07/its-time-shame-bad-parents-n2323313?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
It’s Time to Shame Bad Parents
Derek Hunter
|
Posted: May 07, 2017 12:01 AM
I learned a new term this week: lunch shaming. What is lunch shaming? It’s when parents don’t pay their children’s lunch bills at school so the schools make them eat food I lived a large portion of my life surviving off of.
We really are out of problems if this is an issue worthy concern for society.
The New York Times had a big story on how children were made to eat cheese sandwiches because their parents had paid off their school lunch debt.
Now, it’s been a while since I was in school, but I do remember school lunches costing a couple of bucks. And I remember I was allowed to buy a school lunch one day per week because that was all my parents could afford. Free lunch was not an option. While we might have qualified – I honestly have no idea how much my father made but I know it wasn’t a lot – the government teat was not an option. My family had pride and my parents provided for me and my siblings, undoubtedly at their own expense.
The idea of parental sacrifice for the good of their children is now dead. "The school will feed them†is the new way of life. But it shouldn’t be.
One of the students mentioned in the Times piece said, "I was so embarrassed,†about being denied the school food she wanted and given lesser "cheese sandwich†level food…for free.
According to the paper, the family qualified for free lunches but "a paperwork mix-up†caused confusion and led to the denial. No, bad and lazy parenting led to the denial.
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.
A scary view of an alternative history
Wil Wirtanen
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/assessing_president_rodham_clintons_first_100_days.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/assessing_president_rodham_clintons_first_100_days.html
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.
New York's Met Museum Now Checks i.d.s of Illegals and Out-of-Towners
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.
May 06, 2017
Searching for my Lost Shaker of Salt; a Happy Cinco de Mayo to You!
Timothy Birdnow
Today is Cinco De Mayo and the day where everyone drinks margheritas or Carona beer to excess while pigging out on faux Mexican food (nachos and the like) and listening to mariachi bands. Ariba! But few know exactly what Cinco de Mayo is (and it has nothing to do with Mayonaise.)
Recently some coworkers asked me about it and I had to admit (rather shamefacedly, I might add) that I really didn't know. It was a celebration of a military victory, and perhaps (I conjectured) over the French but tha was all I had. As is my custom I looked up the details which can be read at History.com.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cinco-de-mayo
From the article:
"n 1861, Benito Juarez became president of Mexico, a country in financial ruin, and he was forced to default on his debts to European governments. In response, France, Britain, and Spain sent naval forces to Veracruz to demand reimbursement.
Britain and Spain negotiated with Mexico and withdrew, but France, ruled by Napoleon III, decided to use the opportunity to carve a dependent empire out of Mexican territory. Late in 1861, a well-armed French fleet stormed Veracruz, landing a large French force and driving President Juarez and his government into retreat.
Certain that French victory would come swiftly in Mexico, 6,000 French troops under General Charles de Lorencez set out in May, 1862, to attack Puebla de Los Angeles. From his new headquarters in the north, Juarez rounded up a ragtag force of loyal men and sent them to Puebla.
Zaragoza Defeats French Invaders
Led by General Ignacio Zaragoza, the 2,000 Mexicans fortified the town and prepared for the assault by the well-equipped French force.
On the fifth of May, or Cinco de Mayo, Lorencez gathered his army and began an attack from the north side of Puebla.
The battle lasted from daybreak to early evening. After Lorencez realized his superior French force had lost nearly 500 soldiers, while fewer than 100 Mexican troops had been killed, he completely withdrew his defeated army."
End excerpt.
Six years later the Emperor Maximillian, whom the French installed to run Mexico, was executed after the Mexicans defeated the French.
I do think this article makes short shrift of the occurance; France did not merely invade Mexico to carve out an empire but was invited in by the conservatives who were horrified by the excesses of the liberals in power. When France sought to punish Mexico for defaulting the conservatives asked them to come in and run the country. They wanted a king and so the French hunted down Maximillian and asked him to reign in Mexico. He did, and was immediately shocked by the backward condition of the country. Maximillian began a process of reform that horrified the conservatives more than the liberals had, and in the end the sides completely flipped with conservatives leading the opposition to the empirial reign.
Be that as it may, Cinco de Mayo is an unimportant holiday south of the border, much like the Battle of New Orleans, which is not celebrated here in the States. Cinco de Mayo is primarily a drinking holiday, like St. Patrick's day or the Octoberfest.
So if you imbibe some tequila today enjoy yourself but do be careful lest you meet the fate of the Emperor Maximillion!
Today is Cinco De Mayo and the day where everyone drinks margheritas or Carona beer to excess while pigging out on faux Mexican food (nachos and the like) and listening to mariachi bands. Ariba! But few know exactly what Cinco de Mayo is (and it has nothing to do with Mayonaise.)
Recently some coworkers asked me about it and I had to admit (rather shamefacedly, I might add) that I really didn't know. It was a celebration of a military victory, and perhaps (I conjectured) over the French but tha was all I had. As is my custom I looked up the details which can be read at History.com.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cinco-de-mayo
From the article:
"n 1861, Benito Juarez became president of Mexico, a country in financial ruin, and he was forced to default on his debts to European governments. In response, France, Britain, and Spain sent naval forces to Veracruz to demand reimbursement.
Britain and Spain negotiated with Mexico and withdrew, but France, ruled by Napoleon III, decided to use the opportunity to carve a dependent empire out of Mexican territory. Late in 1861, a well-armed French fleet stormed Veracruz, landing a large French force and driving President Juarez and his government into retreat.
Certain that French victory would come swiftly in Mexico, 6,000 French troops under General Charles de Lorencez set out in May, 1862, to attack Puebla de Los Angeles. From his new headquarters in the north, Juarez rounded up a ragtag force of loyal men and sent them to Puebla.
Zaragoza Defeats French Invaders
Led by General Ignacio Zaragoza, the 2,000 Mexicans fortified the town and prepared for the assault by the well-equipped French force.
On the fifth of May, or Cinco de Mayo, Lorencez gathered his army and began an attack from the north side of Puebla.
The battle lasted from daybreak to early evening. After Lorencez realized his superior French force had lost nearly 500 soldiers, while fewer than 100 Mexican troops had been killed, he completely withdrew his defeated army."
End excerpt.
Six years later the Emperor Maximillian, whom the French installed to run Mexico, was executed after the Mexicans defeated the French.
I do think this article makes short shrift of the occurance; France did not merely invade Mexico to carve out an empire but was invited in by the conservatives who were horrified by the excesses of the liberals in power. When France sought to punish Mexico for defaulting the conservatives asked them to come in and run the country. They wanted a king and so the French hunted down Maximillian and asked him to reign in Mexico. He did, and was immediately shocked by the backward condition of the country. Maximillian began a process of reform that horrified the conservatives more than the liberals had, and in the end the sides completely flipped with conservatives leading the opposition to the empirial reign.
Be that as it may, Cinco de Mayo is an unimportant holiday south of the border, much like the Battle of New Orleans, which is not celebrated here in the States. Cinco de Mayo is primarily a drinking holiday, like St. Patrick's day or the Octoberfest.
So if you imbibe some tequila today enjoy yourself but do be careful lest you meet the fate of the Emperor Maximillion!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.
Trump Ends Christian Gag Rule
Timothy Birdnow
I've tried to avoid being overly critical of Donald Trump. Why? Because I see no value in it at this stage of the game; Trump isn't going to change on account of me, and all a steady drumbeat against him will do will be to aid the Fake News organizations and their Democrat Party allies. But there has been a lot to dislike about what Trump has done; he has now given us Eternal Obamacare with a GOP fingerprint, meaning when (not if) it crashes and burns we will have the Republicans to blame and Single Payer aka socialized medicine will become the American system by default. If you want to see the glories of socialized medicine read here and here and here to disabuse yourself of the notion that care will be just fine under Marxist medicine.) He has continued to allow Syrian "refugees" to come in and scatter to the winds in these United States despite promises to the contrary. He now wants to reform NAFTA and other bad trade deals rather than scrap them - as he promised. He is even floating the idea of staying in the Paris Accord which sought to fix a fake problem in global warming. And he has helped negotiate a budget deal giving the Democrats almost everything they want, from funding for Planned Parenthood to no money for a border wall (indeed, Trump is banned from building one in the current budget even if Mexico sends him a check) and what has Trump's done? Crowed about how he "won" the negotiations because he gets a few table scraps (like increased military funding). The Great Negotiator made a deal on a par with the kind struck by John Boehner over the years, one where he gives up everything that was important. Why? Because it's not yet his budget and his "victory" was in getting anything he wanted. In short, the mighty Trump has morphed into John McCain.
But I have to give him credit where credit is due; trump has done good work with his (overturn able) Executive Orders. His most recent is a deceptive little order which may have profound implications in years to come. Let me explain:
Writing in the Daily Signal Ryan T. Anderson complains that the Donald's order on religious liberty is a weak and pathetic effort. According to Anderson:
"In reality, what Trump issued today is rather weak. All it includes is general language about the importance of religious liberty, saying the executive branch "will honor and enforce†existing laws and instructing the Department of Justice to "issue guidance†on existing law; directives to the Department of the Treasury to be lenient in the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment; and directives to the secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (HHS) to "consider issuing amended regulations†to "address conscience-based objections†to the HHS contraception mandate.
But the federal government should be honoring and enforcing our religious liberty laws anyway, legislation is required to actually address the Johnson Amendment—which isn’t the prime priority on religious liberty—and the Supreme Court has already unanimously instructed the federal government to resolve the case of Little Sisters of the Poor and other HHS mandate cases."
End excerpt.
I beg to differ.
It is clear from the Executive Order that Trump is demanding that "the imposition of taxes, or tax penalties or denial of tax exemption is not going to be permitted and that political speech is to be given the broadest leeway under the Trump Administration. (Sorry, couldn't copy the pertinent passages in the Order.)
I heartily disagree with Anderson's dismissal of Trump's unwillingness to enforce the Johnson Amendment; that is huge.
Paragraph 3 subsection c of the tax code states:
"(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious [ . . . ] purposes [ . . . ] no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h) [relating to certain expenditures by charities to influence legislation]), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.[3]"
Prior to this religious organizations could lobby, openly campaign, and promote their religious beliefs. This was a clear violation of the First Amendment, but with Earl Warren at the helm of SCOTUS it was never struck down.
The Johnson Amendment (proposed by then Senator Johnson in 1954) profoundly changed the landscape of American politics and opened the door for the triumph of liberal progressivism in the U.S. Prior to Lab’s machinations religious organizations were tax exempt but free to openly preach their political views. It was one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the Left, as they would propose something and be shut down on Sunday at the pulpit. Catholicism in particular was seriously damaged by the Johnson Amendment as it shut the mouths of the priests on key issues. Even though the Popes have issued encyclicals on key issues over the years the priests are unable to speak about them to the Catholics in attendance out of fear of losing their tax exemption.. The end result has been an ever smoothing blandness to the sermons which sound more like a rerun of Barney the Dinosaur than a moral admonition to adult Catholics. They rarely speak about abortion, and never really call it evil, despite the fact that the Pope has made it abundantly clear that it is so. The end result is that Nancy Pelosi can claim to be a good Catholic on the side of the Church and promote all manner of immoral and evil things and the general populace believes it is acceptable.
Of course, the IRS has never gone after liberal black southern churches so aggressively, and many still engage in the old style of rhetoric and promotion. Naturally, such churches are big supporters of the Progressive cause.
But prior to the Johnson Amendment Churches had real influence over elections, over laws, over policy and more than that they had real influence over what their members believed. Christianity has waned in a horrible, excruciating way since this was imposed on America, precisely because there is such fear of preaching boldly about ANYTHING that the churches have all become bland, inoffensive, and as anything that loses it's flavor does, they have become pointless anachronisms. Why waste time in church listening to a guy drone on like an like one of those late night public service programs radio stations have to play once in a while when you could be watching football or go out fishing? The Johnson Amendment managed to make Christianity - perhaps the most exciting story in history and clearly the most important for humanity - into a bore. A content free message is pointless, like drinking diet caffeine cola. It's worse because it also has no taste. So the young people in particular left in droves.
In the few places where Christianity is preached with gusto the youths show up en masse. They are dying of thirst for the water that true Christianity provides, but are denied it in the deserts of modern Christendom. LBJ turned off the tap. What Trump is doing here may have profound implications over the long haul, because it will reinvigorate the churches by allowihg them to speak frankly, and may lead to a revival that could put them back into a position of importance in the American conversation.
Having started the ball rolling Congress must now look to pass a repeal of Johnson.
Most people don't realize just how important this is; when I heard it mentioned on the radio the other day I was thrilled. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Donald Trump, but I think he is showing himself to be ahead of the game here.
Here is an example of liberal heads exploding over ending Johnson. From the article:
"Robert P. Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute said, in an interview with Salon, "Church members could give tax-deductible donations to a church, which would then be used by the church to campaign for a specific candidate. It could effectively turn churches into campaign offices and pastors into party operatives.†As the website explained, "a religious group could begin to release campaign ads, and church members could contribute to political candidates and write it off on their taxes.â€
According to the Citizens United for Responsibility and Ethics, the change has the potential to further darken our political process.
Most of the dark money spending currently done by the non-charitable section 501(c) groups would almost certainly move to charities, as would at least some of the super PAC spending. The ability to deduct what would effectively be political contributions would be a massive incentive to contribute to charities that engage in politics, instead of to other section 501(c) entities. Even better, donors could still keep their contributions secret. Deductibility of contributions and secrecy similarly would motivate donors to switch from super PACs—and from candidates and political parties—to political charities.
Free speech with few limits is a very American perspective. Allowing nonprofit organizations to join more openly into the political conversation is not inherently controversial. But allowing them to become fundraising engines for candidates and parties would change the philanthropic landscape and ultimately make it harder for the nonprofit sector fulfill its core purposes, which includes campaigning for social change."
End excerpt.
Of course, labor unions and a host of other organizations have always been able to do this, and the IRS has given a great deal of leniency to 501c3 groups on the Left - take the radical Media Matters, for example or Moveon.org. They are beside themselves with the idea that the churches may not compete on an even footing.
See more liberal panic here.
I should say CONSERVATIVE churches; the liberal ones are very happy with the current arrangement largely because liberals do not follow rules if they are inconvenient and liberal churches know they need not fear trouble with a progressive government and that a conservative one would not be willing to vigorously prosecute this law. Cute trick.
In the end I think we can be quite pleased with this and give Mr. Trump kudos here. After all, there is plenty to be angry with him about.
I've tried to avoid being overly critical of Donald Trump. Why? Because I see no value in it at this stage of the game; Trump isn't going to change on account of me, and all a steady drumbeat against him will do will be to aid the Fake News organizations and their Democrat Party allies. But there has been a lot to dislike about what Trump has done; he has now given us Eternal Obamacare with a GOP fingerprint, meaning when (not if) it crashes and burns we will have the Republicans to blame and Single Payer aka socialized medicine will become the American system by default. If you want to see the glories of socialized medicine read here and here and here to disabuse yourself of the notion that care will be just fine under Marxist medicine.) He has continued to allow Syrian "refugees" to come in and scatter to the winds in these United States despite promises to the contrary. He now wants to reform NAFTA and other bad trade deals rather than scrap them - as he promised. He is even floating the idea of staying in the Paris Accord which sought to fix a fake problem in global warming. And he has helped negotiate a budget deal giving the Democrats almost everything they want, from funding for Planned Parenthood to no money for a border wall (indeed, Trump is banned from building one in the current budget even if Mexico sends him a check) and what has Trump's done? Crowed about how he "won" the negotiations because he gets a few table scraps (like increased military funding). The Great Negotiator made a deal on a par with the kind struck by John Boehner over the years, one where he gives up everything that was important. Why? Because it's not yet his budget and his "victory" was in getting anything he wanted. In short, the mighty Trump has morphed into John McCain.
But I have to give him credit where credit is due; trump has done good work with his (overturn able) Executive Orders. His most recent is a deceptive little order which may have profound implications in years to come. Let me explain:
Writing in the Daily Signal Ryan T. Anderson complains that the Donald's order on religious liberty is a weak and pathetic effort. According to Anderson:
"In reality, what Trump issued today is rather weak. All it includes is general language about the importance of religious liberty, saying the executive branch "will honor and enforce†existing laws and instructing the Department of Justice to "issue guidance†on existing law; directives to the Department of the Treasury to be lenient in the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment; and directives to the secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (HHS) to "consider issuing amended regulations†to "address conscience-based objections†to the HHS contraception mandate.
But the federal government should be honoring and enforcing our religious liberty laws anyway, legislation is required to actually address the Johnson Amendment—which isn’t the prime priority on religious liberty—and the Supreme Court has already unanimously instructed the federal government to resolve the case of Little Sisters of the Poor and other HHS mandate cases."
End excerpt.
I beg to differ.
It is clear from the Executive Order that Trump is demanding that "the imposition of taxes, or tax penalties or denial of tax exemption is not going to be permitted and that political speech is to be given the broadest leeway under the Trump Administration. (Sorry, couldn't copy the pertinent passages in the Order.)
I heartily disagree with Anderson's dismissal of Trump's unwillingness to enforce the Johnson Amendment; that is huge.
Paragraph 3 subsection c of the tax code states:
"(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious [ . . . ] purposes [ . . . ] no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h) [relating to certain expenditures by charities to influence legislation]), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.[3]"
Prior to this religious organizations could lobby, openly campaign, and promote their religious beliefs. This was a clear violation of the First Amendment, but with Earl Warren at the helm of SCOTUS it was never struck down.
The Johnson Amendment (proposed by then Senator Johnson in 1954) profoundly changed the landscape of American politics and opened the door for the triumph of liberal progressivism in the U.S. Prior to Lab’s machinations religious organizations were tax exempt but free to openly preach their political views. It was one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the Left, as they would propose something and be shut down on Sunday at the pulpit. Catholicism in particular was seriously damaged by the Johnson Amendment as it shut the mouths of the priests on key issues. Even though the Popes have issued encyclicals on key issues over the years the priests are unable to speak about them to the Catholics in attendance out of fear of losing their tax exemption.. The end result has been an ever smoothing blandness to the sermons which sound more like a rerun of Barney the Dinosaur than a moral admonition to adult Catholics. They rarely speak about abortion, and never really call it evil, despite the fact that the Pope has made it abundantly clear that it is so. The end result is that Nancy Pelosi can claim to be a good Catholic on the side of the Church and promote all manner of immoral and evil things and the general populace believes it is acceptable.
Of course, the IRS has never gone after liberal black southern churches so aggressively, and many still engage in the old style of rhetoric and promotion. Naturally, such churches are big supporters of the Progressive cause.
But prior to the Johnson Amendment Churches had real influence over elections, over laws, over policy and more than that they had real influence over what their members believed. Christianity has waned in a horrible, excruciating way since this was imposed on America, precisely because there is such fear of preaching boldly about ANYTHING that the churches have all become bland, inoffensive, and as anything that loses it's flavor does, they have become pointless anachronisms. Why waste time in church listening to a guy drone on like an like one of those late night public service programs radio stations have to play once in a while when you could be watching football or go out fishing? The Johnson Amendment managed to make Christianity - perhaps the most exciting story in history and clearly the most important for humanity - into a bore. A content free message is pointless, like drinking diet caffeine cola. It's worse because it also has no taste. So the young people in particular left in droves.
In the few places where Christianity is preached with gusto the youths show up en masse. They are dying of thirst for the water that true Christianity provides, but are denied it in the deserts of modern Christendom. LBJ turned off the tap. What Trump is doing here may have profound implications over the long haul, because it will reinvigorate the churches by allowihg them to speak frankly, and may lead to a revival that could put them back into a position of importance in the American conversation.
Having started the ball rolling Congress must now look to pass a repeal of Johnson.
Most people don't realize just how important this is; when I heard it mentioned on the radio the other day I was thrilled. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Donald Trump, but I think he is showing himself to be ahead of the game here.
Here is an example of liberal heads exploding over ending Johnson. From the article:
"Robert P. Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute said, in an interview with Salon, "Church members could give tax-deductible donations to a church, which would then be used by the church to campaign for a specific candidate. It could effectively turn churches into campaign offices and pastors into party operatives.†As the website explained, "a religious group could begin to release campaign ads, and church members could contribute to political candidates and write it off on their taxes.â€
According to the Citizens United for Responsibility and Ethics, the change has the potential to further darken our political process.
Most of the dark money spending currently done by the non-charitable section 501(c) groups would almost certainly move to charities, as would at least some of the super PAC spending. The ability to deduct what would effectively be political contributions would be a massive incentive to contribute to charities that engage in politics, instead of to other section 501(c) entities. Even better, donors could still keep their contributions secret. Deductibility of contributions and secrecy similarly would motivate donors to switch from super PACs—and from candidates and political parties—to political charities.
Free speech with few limits is a very American perspective. Allowing nonprofit organizations to join more openly into the political conversation is not inherently controversial. But allowing them to become fundraising engines for candidates and parties would change the philanthropic landscape and ultimately make it harder for the nonprofit sector fulfill its core purposes, which includes campaigning for social change."
End excerpt.
Of course, labor unions and a host of other organizations have always been able to do this, and the IRS has given a great deal of leniency to 501c3 groups on the Left - take the radical Media Matters, for example or Moveon.org. They are beside themselves with the idea that the churches may not compete on an even footing.
See more liberal panic here.
I should say CONSERVATIVE churches; the liberal ones are very happy with the current arrangement largely because liberals do not follow rules if they are inconvenient and liberal churches know they need not fear trouble with a progressive government and that a conservative one would not be willing to vigorously prosecute this law. Cute trick.
In the end I think we can be quite pleased with this and give Mr. Trump kudos here. After all, there is plenty to be angry with him about.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1746 words, total size 12 kb.
TrumpCare Symbolic of History’s Progressive Ratchet
Daren Jonescu
Once again, the American political center has been shifted leftward, as a Republican President and Congress have demonstrated their principled opposition to a progressive program by promising to keep half of it forever. The House has passed, and President Trump signed, what Right Scoop accurately calls an "Obamacare reform package.†Not the promised repeal, and not even a dubious "replacement,†but a mere reform of a law hitherto denounced as unconstitutional and un-American.
This act of cowardice (at best) or duplicity (more likely) is consistent with the pattern of progressive advance over the past one hundred and seventy years or so.
(Wait — what’s with the "hundred and seventy year†thing? Don’t we usually mark the beginning of America’s progressive era with the election of Woodrow Wilson? Yes, if we don’t care about the ideas and gradual civilizational shifts that made Wilson’s presidency possible. Horace Mann was instituting the Prussian school model in Massachusetts in the 1840s. William Torrey Harris, a Hegelian idealist, was the first federal commissioner of education in 1880s. If you think the German-influenced neo-mysticism of global collectivism and the regimented caste society ruled by a progressive elite just popped out of a box in 1912, you need to start reading some history. Might I suggest, as a starting point, The Case Against Public Education, available on my website?)
The pattern is well-known and simple enough: The so-called left runs roughshod over the Constitution and the spirit of self-determination to pass laws, or entrench bureaucratic hyper-regulations, that centralize more power in the federal government while gouging out chunks of the natural liberty America’s founders had sought to preserve — all in the name of eradicating social ills, of course. Then the so-called right, having succumbed without a fight to the rhetorical hogwash about the underlying social ills — i.e., having accepted the left’s implicit premise that government exists to coddle the individual through life’s difficulties — argues that the left’s solution "goes too far†and should be reformed with a view to undoing its "excesses.†Once in a position to effect change, then, the movement claiming to represent conservatives proves its mettle by taking a perfunctory one step back for each of the left’s two steps forward.
The effects of this pattern are profound. For its result is not merely a failure to undo bad laws, but, more significantly, a continual shift in societal perceptions concerning what constitutes the moderate position on any given issue, or on the role of government in general.
When Ronald Reagan recorded his famous warning against socialized medicine in 1961, his view was considered relatively mainstream, not extreme at all, but rather just a precise and eloquent statement of the basic "conservative†position on healthcare: the federal government should not be involved in this industry, period.
Today, Donald Trump, a freewheeling real estate entrepreneur and now GOP President, and Paul Ryan, a supposed aficionado of libertarian fountainhead Ayn Rand (whose ideas on socialized medicine helped to galvanize conservative opinion of the sort represented by Reagan’s recording), have conspired to ensure that some basic premises of Obamacare will officially become permanent fixtures of the platforms of both major parties, that there shall no longer be any principled separation between left and right on this issue, and that crony capitalism, the wheel-greaser of modern American government, shall continue unabated in the healthcare industry through subsidies to the insurance companies. (Rand Paul, the elected Republican who has been strongest on the principles involved in this issue, explains the cronyism well.)
Once the ticker-tape stops falling on the GOP parade and the glad-handing photo-ops have tapered off at the White House, what will America be left with from all of this? A bipartisan acceptance that it is the role of the federal government to control and manipulate the healthcare industry; a mass-forgetting of why many Americans used to think socialized medicine was an evil idea on principle; and therefore an ever-widening door for future "reforms†in the direction of full single-payer healthcare, the deeper theoretical premises of that tyrannical policy having already been officially granted by the only political party that might have presented an opposing view.
The Republican Party and its well-trained supporters in "the conservative media†are claiming victory today, not realizing, or not caring, that this Pyrrhic victory has guaranteed that nothing will ever again be done to combat the advance of one of socialism’s most important moral revolutions, the public acceptance that decisions and options regarding the preservation of a man’s own body — his physical existence, and hence his very life — fall legitimately within the purview of the State. In other words, that you are property of the government, to be used and disposed of as the government sees fit.
Welcome the beginning of a new healthcare era in America.
Once again, the American political center has been shifted leftward, as a Republican President and Congress have demonstrated their principled opposition to a progressive program by promising to keep half of it forever. The House has passed, and President Trump signed, what Right Scoop accurately calls an "Obamacare reform package.†Not the promised repeal, and not even a dubious "replacement,†but a mere reform of a law hitherto denounced as unconstitutional and un-American.
This act of cowardice (at best) or duplicity (more likely) is consistent with the pattern of progressive advance over the past one hundred and seventy years or so.
(Wait — what’s with the "hundred and seventy year†thing? Don’t we usually mark the beginning of America’s progressive era with the election of Woodrow Wilson? Yes, if we don’t care about the ideas and gradual civilizational shifts that made Wilson’s presidency possible. Horace Mann was instituting the Prussian school model in Massachusetts in the 1840s. William Torrey Harris, a Hegelian idealist, was the first federal commissioner of education in 1880s. If you think the German-influenced neo-mysticism of global collectivism and the regimented caste society ruled by a progressive elite just popped out of a box in 1912, you need to start reading some history. Might I suggest, as a starting point, The Case Against Public Education, available on my website?)
The pattern is well-known and simple enough: The so-called left runs roughshod over the Constitution and the spirit of self-determination to pass laws, or entrench bureaucratic hyper-regulations, that centralize more power in the federal government while gouging out chunks of the natural liberty America’s founders had sought to preserve — all in the name of eradicating social ills, of course. Then the so-called right, having succumbed without a fight to the rhetorical hogwash about the underlying social ills — i.e., having accepted the left’s implicit premise that government exists to coddle the individual through life’s difficulties — argues that the left’s solution "goes too far†and should be reformed with a view to undoing its "excesses.†Once in a position to effect change, then, the movement claiming to represent conservatives proves its mettle by taking a perfunctory one step back for each of the left’s two steps forward.
The effects of this pattern are profound. For its result is not merely a failure to undo bad laws, but, more significantly, a continual shift in societal perceptions concerning what constitutes the moderate position on any given issue, or on the role of government in general.
When Ronald Reagan recorded his famous warning against socialized medicine in 1961, his view was considered relatively mainstream, not extreme at all, but rather just a precise and eloquent statement of the basic "conservative†position on healthcare: the federal government should not be involved in this industry, period.
Today, Donald Trump, a freewheeling real estate entrepreneur and now GOP President, and Paul Ryan, a supposed aficionado of libertarian fountainhead Ayn Rand (whose ideas on socialized medicine helped to galvanize conservative opinion of the sort represented by Reagan’s recording), have conspired to ensure that some basic premises of Obamacare will officially become permanent fixtures of the platforms of both major parties, that there shall no longer be any principled separation between left and right on this issue, and that crony capitalism, the wheel-greaser of modern American government, shall continue unabated in the healthcare industry through subsidies to the insurance companies. (Rand Paul, the elected Republican who has been strongest on the principles involved in this issue, explains the cronyism well.)
Once the ticker-tape stops falling on the GOP parade and the glad-handing photo-ops have tapered off at the White House, what will America be left with from all of this? A bipartisan acceptance that it is the role of the federal government to control and manipulate the healthcare industry; a mass-forgetting of why many Americans used to think socialized medicine was an evil idea on principle; and therefore an ever-widening door for future "reforms†in the direction of full single-payer healthcare, the deeper theoretical premises of that tyrannical policy having already been officially granted by the only political party that might have presented an opposing view.
The Republican Party and its well-trained supporters in "the conservative media†are claiming victory today, not realizing, or not caring, that this Pyrrhic victory has guaranteed that nothing will ever again be done to combat the advance of one of socialism’s most important moral revolutions, the public acceptance that decisions and options regarding the preservation of a man’s own body — his physical existence, and hence his very life — fall legitimately within the purview of the State. In other words, that you are property of the government, to be used and disposed of as the government sees fit.
Welcome the beginning of a new healthcare era in America.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 808 words, total size 6 kb.
FBI: Sanders wife may have defrauded church, others
Jack Kemp
Will Bernie's wife "move to a gated community" and complain that the wide stripes on her prison uniform make her look fat? Time will tell.
http://theresurgent.com/bernie-sa nders-wife-is-being-investigated-by-the-fbi-heres-why/
Bernie Sanders’ Wife Is Being Investigated By the FBI. Here’s Why.
By Autumn Price | May 3, 2017, 10:00pm | @AutumnDawnPrice
Jane O’Meara Sanders, the wife of U.S. Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, is currently being investigated by the FBI.
According to Red State, Mrs. Sanders is being investigated for alleged federal loan fraud.
"The investigation appears to stem from a January 2016 complaint filed by Vermont Republican Party vice chair Brady Toensing on behalf of Catholic parishioner Wendy Wilton, a conservative activist and Rutland City treasurer,†a report from Vermont news organization Seven Days says. "Toensing alleged that O’Meara Sanders committed federal loan fraud by inflating the number of fundraising commitments she had secured to buy the 32-acre North Avenue campus from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. When those donations failed to materialize, the college defaulted on its loans — costing the church, which financed a portion of the sale, between $1.6 million and $2 million.â€
O’Meara Sanders served as Provost and interim President of Goddard College from 1996 to 1997, and President of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011.
"Neither the FBI nor the U.S. attorney for the District of Vermont would comment on the matter. But according to Carol Moore, who served as the college’s final president until it closed last May, an FBI agent who contacted her "three or four weeks ago†called it "an ongoing investigation.â€â€
"Moore said the focus of the feds’ questions was clear: "Was there any collusion between Jane Sanders and the bank?†Moore said, quoting the FBI agent. "Did she falsify records in order to get the loan from the bank?â€
Will Bernie's wife "move to a gated community" and complain that the wide stripes on her prison uniform make her look fat? Time will tell.
http://theresurgent.com/bernie-sa nders-wife-is-being-investigated-by-the-fbi-heres-why/
Bernie Sanders’ Wife Is Being Investigated By the FBI. Here’s Why.
By Autumn Price | May 3, 2017, 10:00pm | @AutumnDawnPrice
Jane O’Meara Sanders, the wife of U.S. Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, is currently being investigated by the FBI.
According to Red State, Mrs. Sanders is being investigated for alleged federal loan fraud.
"The investigation appears to stem from a January 2016 complaint filed by Vermont Republican Party vice chair Brady Toensing on behalf of Catholic parishioner Wendy Wilton, a conservative activist and Rutland City treasurer,†a report from Vermont news organization Seven Days says. "Toensing alleged that O’Meara Sanders committed federal loan fraud by inflating the number of fundraising commitments she had secured to buy the 32-acre North Avenue campus from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. When those donations failed to materialize, the college defaulted on its loans — costing the church, which financed a portion of the sale, between $1.6 million and $2 million.â€
O’Meara Sanders served as Provost and interim President of Goddard College from 1996 to 1997, and President of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011.
"Neither the FBI nor the U.S. attorney for the District of Vermont would comment on the matter. But according to Carol Moore, who served as the college’s final president until it closed last May, an FBI agent who contacted her "three or four weeks ago†called it "an ongoing investigation.â€â€
"Moore said the focus of the feds’ questions was clear: "Was there any collusion between Jane Sanders and the bank?†Moore said, quoting the FBI agent. "Did she falsify records in order to get the loan from the bank?â€
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:38 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.
The true energy story
Wil Wirtanen
These two articles of a 3 article series really puts the energy market in focus. There are some mind boggling numbers in the articles.
The third article is not out yet.
Part 1
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/04/26/energy_revolutions_hidden_in_plain_sight_part_1_of_3_--_shale_crushes_solar_110215.html
Part 2
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/03/energy_revolutions_hidden_in_plain_sight_part_2_of_3_demand__the_cloud_crushes_electric_cars_110219.html
A NOTE FROM TIM:
You know, the juxtapositioning of these two articles is interesting. In the first he discusses shale oil and gas and shows how it is laregly unlimited in growth potential while wind and solar are pretty much peaked already. In the second he speaks of growing power needs because of high tech gadgetry. I've always believed wind and solar are a judas goat, bait for a trap to get people to use less and less energy because so little will be available. I believe the Greens want to sucker the public into adopting them, and then adopting "sustainabiklity" to fit within the power parameters that are there - and thus force everyone to reduce energy consumption. Of course, energy consumption IS the measure of wealth, so it means we will all be equally poor, as poor as the Third World. That way we have to cut back on population growth and the Earth can be returned to a primal state.
It's funny how liberal environmental types love their computers, though, which are more destructive to Mother Earth than any automobile. The time will come when they will begin promoting restrictions on such technology, only exempting themselves, the "smart people". I think it's just a mater of time.
That is, of course, why many promote ideas like "net neutrality" already; getting a head start on that campaign.
Untill we can develop non-material wind generators that can harvest the energy from an area of tens of square miles (or more) wind will be of little use. It just doesn't blow enough. Solar will always be limited. Fine for powering up your cabin, perhaps (something I would like to do but fear my equipment would be stolen) but not so good for running an advanced civilization.
These two articles of a 3 article series really puts the energy market in focus. There are some mind boggling numbers in the articles.
The third article is not out yet.
Part 1
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/04/26/energy_revolutions_hidden_in_plain_sight_part_1_of_3_--_shale_crushes_solar_110215.html
Part 2
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/03/energy_revolutions_hidden_in_plain_sight_part_2_of_3_demand__the_cloud_crushes_electric_cars_110219.html
A NOTE FROM TIM:
You know, the juxtapositioning of these two articles is interesting. In the first he discusses shale oil and gas and shows how it is laregly unlimited in growth potential while wind and solar are pretty much peaked already. In the second he speaks of growing power needs because of high tech gadgetry. I've always believed wind and solar are a judas goat, bait for a trap to get people to use less and less energy because so little will be available. I believe the Greens want to sucker the public into adopting them, and then adopting "sustainabiklity" to fit within the power parameters that are there - and thus force everyone to reduce energy consumption. Of course, energy consumption IS the measure of wealth, so it means we will all be equally poor, as poor as the Third World. That way we have to cut back on population growth and the Earth can be returned to a primal state.
It's funny how liberal environmental types love their computers, though, which are more destructive to Mother Earth than any automobile. The time will come when they will begin promoting restrictions on such technology, only exempting themselves, the "smart people". I think it's just a mater of time.
That is, of course, why many promote ideas like "net neutrality" already; getting a head start on that campaign.
Untill we can develop non-material wind generators that can harvest the energy from an area of tens of square miles (or more) wind will be of little use. It just doesn't blow enough. Solar will always be limited. Fine for powering up your cabin, perhaps (something I would like to do but fear my equipment would be stolen) but not so good for running an advanced civilization.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
The economic illiterates
Wil Wirtanen
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/what-caused-venezuelas-collapse-is-no-mystery-except-to-economically-illiterate-journalists/
Wil Wirtanen
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/what-caused-venezuelas-collapse-is-no-mystery-except-to-economically-illiterate-journalists/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.
Fay Voshell's profound article
Born Perfect: the LGBT Movement vs. Reality
Born Perfect: the LGBT Movement vs. Reality
Time was any person who declared himself perfect invited ridicule along with a suggestion he have his head examined.
But those days apparently are long gone, at least according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which has recently declared there are classes of people who are born perfect, whose sexual and gender choices are infallible and therefore not to be subjected to anything resembling criticism, much less "conversion therapy.â€
A few years ago, NCLR began a campaign to end all conversion therapy, believing that attempts to change any youth’s sexual orientation or choice of gender invited irreparable psychological trauma, as such choices were inherently infallible. Consequently, NCLR and similar organizations began a campaign to outlaw all conversion therapy. The organization issued a statement:
"We believe that every LGBT child is born perfect and that any young person’s identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender should be honored, celebrated, and supported. We are committed to ending these dangerous and stigmatizing practices across the country once and for all -- relegating them to the dustbin of history, and ensuring every child knows they were #Born Perfect.â€
The idea that human beings are born perfect and therefore the choices they make are beyond reproach and are not to be subject to criticism or persuasion to change is a very dangerous thought.
It is an idea dangerous to the LGBT community itself as well as to those who don’t belong to that community. All of us humans need to remember Aristotle’s dictum "The unexamined life is not worth living.†In other words, self-examination and examination by others is what makes each of us more human, not less. Not to permit persuasion or criticism and to claim perfection as a given is to invite distortion of one’s very being. Quite simply, none of us are perfect nor are our choices infallibly correct. The LGBT movement should be very cautious in its proclamations of perfection, for by so doing, it declares itself beyond introspection or criticism by others. Questions such as "Am I and are we wrong in any way?†should be but are never even floated by perfect people.
Further, to demand any young person’s chosen identity should be "honored, celebrated and supported†essentially is to demand worship from the rest of us decidedly flawed mortals. It is to declare "I’m OK, but you aren’t.†It is to say, "I am without sin; and if you disagree, you are a hateful person who deserves punishment by fire.†It is to say "What I say and do is beyond debate,†and if you disagree, your life is forfeit. It is to surrender to the ideas that have always animated tyrants; to become like the perfect and perfectly tyrannous King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who upon seeing three Jewish youths who refused to bow down, "honor, celebrate and support†and worship him and his god demanded the young men be incinerated.
History reminds us that it is self-proclaimed perfect men and women who have wrought the most carnage on their flawed fellow human beings. Maniacs who believed themselves and their vision for humanity beyond reproach or even persuasion and criticism turn out to be tyrants who think nothing of silencing or even eliminating the imperfect people who do not agree with them. However tiresome it may seem to repeat some of history’s lessons, it is still salutary to recall the idea of the perfect Aryan race resulted in the deaths of millions. The idea of the perfect communist man resulted in imperfect classes of people being sent to the gulag to be tortured, starved, and worked to death.
How did the leaders of organizations such as NCLR get to the point of declaring themselves born perfect? What intellectual trends support their declaration of perfection? Further, what pressures are being and will be brought to bear on those who know through common sense observation and who therefor do not believe anyone is born perfect and that all mankind is in need of persuasion to change; who believe conversion and being born again is essential for the entire sinful human race; namely, Christians and the Church universal?
It has been gradual and radical secularization of certain Reformation doctrines that led some to the point of believing that self-proclaimed identity is infallible. Behind the self-proclamation of Elizabeth Warren that she is a Cherokee Indian; Rachel Dolezal’s insistence she is black and that race is only a social construct; and Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner’s belief he is a woman is a radical distortion of the deeply religious belief that one’ conscience is ultimately responsible to God alone.
The LGBT movement is at least partly due to the unintended effects of the Protestant Reformation, particularly the secularization of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura; that is that the Bible alone was the standard. But individual interpretations of the scriptures divorced from tradition and the history of the Church resulted in a splintering into Protestant hyperplurality. The constant splintering due to varying interpretations of scripture divorced from Christian tradition and history and subject only to individual human will resulted in increasingly unorthodox and unsustainable interpretations.
What happened was that secularists saw soon enough that assertion of the authority of human will did not have to have the backing of scripture, as bible verses separated from the authority, tradition and history of the Church could mean anything an individual meant it to be. The secularized interpretation of the doctrine of sola scriptura coupled with the accompanying secularization of the idea that every human being is responsible to God alone led to the idea that each person could interpret for him or herself the meaning of the world and of what it meant to be human. Why bother with scripture or the Church at all?
The result: Sola scriptura devolved into sola me.
Everyman, once characterized by late medieval theologians as requiring divine salvation, was gradually secularized, needing no guide to life other than himself.
For the secularist, John Bunyan’s Christian pilgrim needlessly staggered through life with his burden of sin, looking for salvation.
For the secularist, any traveler through life could be guided solely by the secular trinity of Me, Myself and I. The individual alone had the right and authority to interpret reality, including the reality of one’s self. I could save myself. I also could declare myself to be anything I wanted to be.
Thus the Reformation doctrine of everyman as a priest and everyman as answerable to God alone morphed into the secular idea that everyman is a god. Complete autonomy meant the supremacy of the human will at any particular point in time. It also meant the denial of history and tradition, which in turn led to the repudiation of hierarchy and authority. Hence the anarchism and nihilism we currently find on college campuses and within our cities. Hence -- unless rectified -- the collapse of Western civilization, as infallibility of individual human choice means anyone and everyone can declare him or herself above any law, human or divine.
In sum, the Left and its vanguard movement is a religion that advocates the total triumph of the human will, even over reality. Since not everyone’s will can triumph without complete disintegration of all societal structures; a few power players would discern what is the collective will and enforce it, inventing "rights†to achieve a transformation of a society. The real issue, then, is not the will or rights of individual transgenders or others who are disaffected, but the will of those behind it to assert power over entities resisting fundamental transformation.
The new ideology of the triumph of the will is essentially related to the fascist and communist movements that have preceded the current attempts at fundamental transformation. The power plays are the same; namely, the obliteration of all hierarchies, all institutions, histories, nations, and classes that are deemed enemies opposed to the new definition of reality.
Such a viewpoint Inevitably results in tyranny, as those who oppose the perfect will of the self-anointed gods are viewed as attacking the new gods and therefore intrinsically hateful and worthy of severe punishment. It starts small: Here a butcher; there a baker; there a calligrapher or candlestick maker. But small persecutions are turning into a mighty tide of resistance against the Church itself, which is in the business of conversion of sinful humans and therefore anathema to the intrinsically perfect. For two thousand years (and two thousand years before that when one adds the observations of the Jewish prophets), the Church has realized all human beings are imperfect and are in need of salvation. The Church offers the message of redemption to sinners through belief in the salvation provided through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It offers a new birth; a chance to be born again.
The orthodox Church has always repudiated Jean Jacque Rousseau’s idea that humans are born perfectly good and are merely corrupted by society. It repudiates his idea that sentiment (feeling) trumps reality. The Church traces the fault in mankind back to the Fall of Adam and Eve, believing the first perfectly good human being was ruined by the sin of rebellion against God; but that mankind can be redeemed. Christianity puts the finger on the heart of every human being, declaring along with the prophet Isaiah that we like sheep have all gone astray but that God has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.
By going full bore Rousseau, as has the entire so-called "enlightened†Left for at least several centuries or more, organizations such as the NCLR have placed themselves squarely against orthodox Christianity and its foundational beliefs. They have declared war against the Church and thus the moral and spiritual foundations of Western civilization. Christians can expect the war to intensify.
In response, some within the Church have capitulated to the ideas of Rousseau and other "enlightened†secularist thinkers. The result, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, has been the acceptance of the secular doctrines that humans are just fine as they are and so do not need conversion therapy: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.â€
A new Reformation of the Christian Church would and should reclaim the gospel news that all of us imperfect people may be redeemed and reborn perfect because of the love and sacrifice of the only perfect human who ever lived; Christ, the Son of Man and Son of God.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1962 words, total size 16 kb.
May 03, 2017
The Aviary Postponed on account of Rain
Timothy Birdnow
Dear readers,
I , editor, chief cook and bottle washer, and general bigwig at the Aviary will be out of the loop for the next few days. What with all the flooding I have discovered that a computer doesn't work so well under water.
Jack Kemp or Dana Mathewson may post here, though; both are editors and are an integral part of this website (as regular readers are aware) but I know both gentleman are rather busy right now so blogging will be sparse. Please stay tuned to this channel, though, for updates leading into the weekend.
I wish you all the best, especially those of you who are now practicing the art of breathing hydrogen oxide.
All the best!
Tim
Dear readers,
I , editor, chief cook and bottle washer, and general bigwig at the Aviary will be out of the loop for the next few days. What with all the flooding I have discovered that a computer doesn't work so well under water.
Jack Kemp or Dana Mathewson may post here, though; both are editors and are an integral part of this website (as regular readers are aware) but I know both gentleman are rather busy right now so blogging will be sparse. Please stay tuned to this channel, though, for updates leading into the weekend.
I wish you all the best, especially those of you who are now practicing the art of breathing hydrogen oxide.
All the best!
Tim
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
Ugly Ties of Berkeley Antifa Group to Pedophilia
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://theresurgent.com/the-deep-ugly-ties-of-berkeley-antifa-group-to-pedophilia/
The Deep, Ugly Ties of Berkeley Antifa Group to Pedophilia
By Susan Wright | May 2, 2017, 08:59pm | @SweetieWalker
The clashes on campuses between pro-Trump supporters and the liberal Antifa groups have been getting a lot of attention, lately.
One of the enduring questions, through it all, has to be who are these Antifa groups, other than just militant, anti-free speech, anti-conservative leftists?
The recent threat of rioting at Berkeley University by one of the Antifa groups called, The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary – or By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) – was made, in order to prevent Ann Coulter from making an appearance.
Shutting down free speech is nothing new for leftists.
Liberals love fascism, even when they’re accusing conservatives of being fascists.
Hypocrisy is a virtue to liberals, after all.
This particular group have even more loathsome ties, other than their obvious Marxist bent.
From the Daily Caller:
BAMN’s parent organization worked directly with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in the years just before it founded BAMN, according to NAMBLA documents reviewed by The Daily Caller. In addition, a member of that parent organization said to have founded BAMN is an admitted member of NAMBLA, which she has described as the victim of a "witch-hunt.â€
So, for those who don’t know what NAMBLA is, it’s just as the name implies. It is a group of pedophiles, grown men who are sexually attracted to young boys.
How young is too young?
I saw an interview with the founder of NAMBLA years ago and he was asked that very question.
The obviously disgusted interviewer asked if a one-year old boy was too young for a sexual relationship.
The NAMBLA head answered that it would depend on if the parents were agreeable.
If you’re in the floor now, that was pretty much my reaction – and then I wondered how the man conducting the interview was able to keep from punching a hole in the guy’s face.
So why hasn’t NAMBLA been shut down?
Free speech. How’s that for irony?
They can talk about having sex with little boys all day, as long as it remains just talk. That’s ok with BAMN. Just don’t try to talk about conservatism.
Meanwhile, BAMN were founded by the Revolutionary Workers League, a Marxist organization based out of Detroit.
"The Revolutionary Workers League is a Trotskyist organization of which I’m a member,†Luke Massie, one of BAMN’s founders told the Michigan Daily in 2001. "We are proud to have played a part in a whole lot of struggles and to have played a role in the founding of BAMN.â€
An anonymous group of researchers provided TheDC with copies of internal NAMBLA publications from the 1990’s. The internet sleuths requested anonymity, citing fear of retaliation by BAMN members, and asked instead to be collectively referred to as, "The shadowy and/or mysterious organization known as Antifaleaks.â€
That’s disgusting enough. Where is the link to NAMBLA?
Well…
NAMBLA’s November-December 1991 bulletin, reviewed by TheDC, described at one of its conferences the "participation of Revolutionary Workers League, a Trotskyite group centered in the Detroit area. RWL is supportive of gay rights in general and NAMBLA in particular.†The journal contained details of the organization’s conferences and activities, as well as detailed, erotic stories about naked young boys.
Read the entire excellent article!
http://theresurgent.com/the-deep-ugly-ties-of-berkeley-antifa-group-to-pedophilia/
The Deep, Ugly Ties of Berkeley Antifa Group to Pedophilia
By Susan Wright | May 2, 2017, 08:59pm | @SweetieWalker
The clashes on campuses between pro-Trump supporters and the liberal Antifa groups have been getting a lot of attention, lately.
One of the enduring questions, through it all, has to be who are these Antifa groups, other than just militant, anti-free speech, anti-conservative leftists?
The recent threat of rioting at Berkeley University by one of the Antifa groups called, The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary – or By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) – was made, in order to prevent Ann Coulter from making an appearance.
Shutting down free speech is nothing new for leftists.
Liberals love fascism, even when they’re accusing conservatives of being fascists.
Hypocrisy is a virtue to liberals, after all.
This particular group have even more loathsome ties, other than their obvious Marxist bent.
From the Daily Caller:
BAMN’s parent organization worked directly with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in the years just before it founded BAMN, according to NAMBLA documents reviewed by The Daily Caller. In addition, a member of that parent organization said to have founded BAMN is an admitted member of NAMBLA, which she has described as the victim of a "witch-hunt.â€
So, for those who don’t know what NAMBLA is, it’s just as the name implies. It is a group of pedophiles, grown men who are sexually attracted to young boys.
How young is too young?
I saw an interview with the founder of NAMBLA years ago and he was asked that very question.
The obviously disgusted interviewer asked if a one-year old boy was too young for a sexual relationship.
The NAMBLA head answered that it would depend on if the parents were agreeable.
If you’re in the floor now, that was pretty much my reaction – and then I wondered how the man conducting the interview was able to keep from punching a hole in the guy’s face.
So why hasn’t NAMBLA been shut down?
Free speech. How’s that for irony?
They can talk about having sex with little boys all day, as long as it remains just talk. That’s ok with BAMN. Just don’t try to talk about conservatism.
Meanwhile, BAMN were founded by the Revolutionary Workers League, a Marxist organization based out of Detroit.
"The Revolutionary Workers League is a Trotskyist organization of which I’m a member,†Luke Massie, one of BAMN’s founders told the Michigan Daily in 2001. "We are proud to have played a part in a whole lot of struggles and to have played a role in the founding of BAMN.â€
An anonymous group of researchers provided TheDC with copies of internal NAMBLA publications from the 1990’s. The internet sleuths requested anonymity, citing fear of retaliation by BAMN members, and asked instead to be collectively referred to as, "The shadowy and/or mysterious organization known as Antifaleaks.â€
That’s disgusting enough. Where is the link to NAMBLA?
Well…
NAMBLA’s November-December 1991 bulletin, reviewed by TheDC, described at one of its conferences the "participation of Revolutionary Workers League, a Trotskyite group centered in the Detroit area. RWL is supportive of gay rights in general and NAMBLA in particular.†The journal contained details of the organization’s conferences and activities, as well as detailed, erotic stories about naked young boys.
Read the entire excellent article!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:35 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.
113kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.2323 seconds.
32 queries taking 0.2101 seconds, 220 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
32 queries taking 0.2101 seconds, 220 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
