July 07, 2017
Lies my Climate Change Promoter Told Me
Timothy Birdnow
Last night on the Larry Elder show a man called in to disagree with host Larry about "climate change". The man - well spoken and polite but of a mind to filibuster - was likely what Rush Limbaugh calls a "seminar caller" in that he followed the rules set down for dealing with hostiles in these seminars/talking points memos sent out by the Left. The subject was global warming (or as he called it climate change) and the caller made the following points:
1.There is an almost universal consensus. In fact, the caller claimed to be a regular attendee of climate change conferences and said there is not just a 96% agreement but that agreement is universal.
2. He disagreed with Larry Elder, who had made an issue of Roger Revelle turning against the theory. His point was that if Darwin changed his mind and disagreed with evolution it would not change the fact, and just because an elder scientist changed his mind it doesn't change the reality.
3. He reiterated that no credible scientists disagreed with the theory.
He made these points and would not allow Elder to offer any rebuttal, something he didn't really need to do because Elder, who did wind up making some adequate points, was clearly outmatched here. It's unfortunate he took this call because he did not have the facts at his command at that moment.
Elder did ask the caller what he thought of the Heartland Institute, and the caller apparently was unfamiliar with it, but he dismissed it as an advocacy group (which it is). Elder ended the call at that point, dismissing the caller as uninformed.
As I say, it was unfortunate because I was shouting out answers like an unruly child; I soo wish I had been on the line at that point.
Here is what Elder should have said:
1. First, this was called global warming until the planet failed to warm and then proponents of this theory created the sneakier "climate change" precisely to obfuscate the fact that the Earth hasn't warmed since 1998. Science is about facts and not opinions or uninformed projections and the facts are against the theory. The Greenland ice sheet - one of the pillars of global warming hysteria, is at near record highs. Antarctic ice is at record highs. There has been no increase in earth's albedo despite the fact that a warmer world should see increased cloud cover. There is little tropospheric warming. Planetary temperatures have not been measured to have risen in a statistically significant fashion in at least 19 years. There has been no statistically significant increase in the Earth's albedo in recent years (a measure of increased cloud cover). The deep oceans are not holding substantial amounts of extra heat as would be necessary to explain the "missing heat".
And let us not forget that there has been underhanded things done to manipulate the data sets. NOAA and NASA have both been caught tampering with data sets to promote global warming theory. There is a lot of money involved. So too was Michael Mann with his "Nature trick" to "hide the decline".
What do the warm-mongers have on their side? Computer simulations and largely anecdotal evidence and a whole lot of conjecture.
Second, the 97% number is ultimately based on a study by a global warming activist, an historian (and not a statistician) named Nancy Oreskes. It was soundly debunked by another historian, the head of what is now called the Global Warming Policy Institute, Benny Peiser. But Peiser couldn’t get his work published in a peer-reviewed journal (thanks, we now know, to efforts by Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and the rest of the "hockey team" who were shown in hacked e-mails to be conspiring to control what went into peer reviewed journals.) Here is more on the false consensus. See this also. And there was a survey conducted by the U. of Illinois that wound up surveying fewer than seven hundred scientists with the vast majority not bothering to respond. This claim is a testament to Joseph Goebbles who said that if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth.
It's easy to get almost unanimous consensus on this. If you do what the people who have conducted these studies did you are assured. Ask "is the climate changing" and "is human activity responsible" and any good scientist has to agree. Climate always changes and, yes, man is responsible for some of it. Roger Pielke Sr. has often discussed land use change; cut down a forest and what happens? a black top parking lot is hotter than a copse of trees.
But to believe in the alarmist view? I know plenty of scientists who disagree; Pielke Sr., his son Pielke Jr., Roy Spencer, John christie, Patrick Michaels, Tim Ball, Judith Curry, Joanne Simpson, S. Fred Singer, the late Frederick Seitz, Freeman Dyson, David Bellamy, Piers Corbin, Richard Lindzen, Phillip Stott, Sally Baliunis, William Happer, Willie Soon, David Legates, Nicollo Scafetta, George Taylor, and a host of others. Strange that this caller couldn't seem to locate any. But then, he attended climate conferences where the livelihood of everyone present was utterly dependent on the money flowing into climatology. Climatology was a sleep poor cousin to meteorology until the 1980's when this War of the World's scare took off.
And yes, Roger Revelle, the creator of this, did indeed disavow it later. Revelle understood that at best this was a curiosity, with a minimal warming of at most 2* (thanks to the logarithmic nature of energy absorption as the IR wavelength would become saturated). This is as important as the Pope saying there is no God. While he may have been senile or whatnot, it still is a very damaging claim.
I wish Larry Elder would have said all that.
As I said earlier, I suspect the caller was a "seminar caller", a guy armed with talking points. Elder should have been ready for him; after all, his call was screened.
This issue should be dead by now. They Gang Green have been caught with their paws in the cookie jar repeatedly, and the average person can see that there is no major changes occurring. You can only cry wolf so often.
Last night on the Larry Elder show a man called in to disagree with host Larry about "climate change". The man - well spoken and polite but of a mind to filibuster - was likely what Rush Limbaugh calls a "seminar caller" in that he followed the rules set down for dealing with hostiles in these seminars/talking points memos sent out by the Left. The subject was global warming (or as he called it climate change) and the caller made the following points:
1.There is an almost universal consensus. In fact, the caller claimed to be a regular attendee of climate change conferences and said there is not just a 96% agreement but that agreement is universal.
2. He disagreed with Larry Elder, who had made an issue of Roger Revelle turning against the theory. His point was that if Darwin changed his mind and disagreed with evolution it would not change the fact, and just because an elder scientist changed his mind it doesn't change the reality.
3. He reiterated that no credible scientists disagreed with the theory.
He made these points and would not allow Elder to offer any rebuttal, something he didn't really need to do because Elder, who did wind up making some adequate points, was clearly outmatched here. It's unfortunate he took this call because he did not have the facts at his command at that moment.
Elder did ask the caller what he thought of the Heartland Institute, and the caller apparently was unfamiliar with it, but he dismissed it as an advocacy group (which it is). Elder ended the call at that point, dismissing the caller as uninformed.
As I say, it was unfortunate because I was shouting out answers like an unruly child; I soo wish I had been on the line at that point.
Here is what Elder should have said:
1. First, this was called global warming until the planet failed to warm and then proponents of this theory created the sneakier "climate change" precisely to obfuscate the fact that the Earth hasn't warmed since 1998. Science is about facts and not opinions or uninformed projections and the facts are against the theory. The Greenland ice sheet - one of the pillars of global warming hysteria, is at near record highs. Antarctic ice is at record highs. There has been no increase in earth's albedo despite the fact that a warmer world should see increased cloud cover. There is little tropospheric warming. Planetary temperatures have not been measured to have risen in a statistically significant fashion in at least 19 years. There has been no statistically significant increase in the Earth's albedo in recent years (a measure of increased cloud cover). The deep oceans are not holding substantial amounts of extra heat as would be necessary to explain the "missing heat".
And let us not forget that there has been underhanded things done to manipulate the data sets. NOAA and NASA have both been caught tampering with data sets to promote global warming theory. There is a lot of money involved. So too was Michael Mann with his "Nature trick" to "hide the decline".
What do the warm-mongers have on their side? Computer simulations and largely anecdotal evidence and a whole lot of conjecture.
Second, the 97% number is ultimately based on a study by a global warming activist, an historian (and not a statistician) named Nancy Oreskes. It was soundly debunked by another historian, the head of what is now called the Global Warming Policy Institute, Benny Peiser. But Peiser couldn’t get his work published in a peer-reviewed journal (thanks, we now know, to efforts by Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and the rest of the "hockey team" who were shown in hacked e-mails to be conspiring to control what went into peer reviewed journals.) Here is more on the false consensus. See this also. And there was a survey conducted by the U. of Illinois that wound up surveying fewer than seven hundred scientists with the vast majority not bothering to respond. This claim is a testament to Joseph Goebbles who said that if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth.
It's easy to get almost unanimous consensus on this. If you do what the people who have conducted these studies did you are assured. Ask "is the climate changing" and "is human activity responsible" and any good scientist has to agree. Climate always changes and, yes, man is responsible for some of it. Roger Pielke Sr. has often discussed land use change; cut down a forest and what happens? a black top parking lot is hotter than a copse of trees.
But to believe in the alarmist view? I know plenty of scientists who disagree; Pielke Sr., his son Pielke Jr., Roy Spencer, John christie, Patrick Michaels, Tim Ball, Judith Curry, Joanne Simpson, S. Fred Singer, the late Frederick Seitz, Freeman Dyson, David Bellamy, Piers Corbin, Richard Lindzen, Phillip Stott, Sally Baliunis, William Happer, Willie Soon, David Legates, Nicollo Scafetta, George Taylor, and a host of others. Strange that this caller couldn't seem to locate any. But then, he attended climate conferences where the livelihood of everyone present was utterly dependent on the money flowing into climatology. Climatology was a sleep poor cousin to meteorology until the 1980's when this War of the World's scare took off.
And yes, Roger Revelle, the creator of this, did indeed disavow it later. Revelle understood that at best this was a curiosity, with a minimal warming of at most 2* (thanks to the logarithmic nature of energy absorption as the IR wavelength would become saturated). This is as important as the Pope saying there is no God. While he may have been senile or whatnot, it still is a very damaging claim.
I wish Larry Elder would have said all that.
As I said earlier, I suspect the caller was a "seminar caller", a guy armed with talking points. Elder should have been ready for him; after all, his call was screened.
This issue should be dead by now. They Gang Green have been caught with their paws in the cookie jar repeatedly, and the average person can see that there is no major changes occurring. You can only cry wolf so often.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1056 words, total size 7 kb.
July 06, 2017
Penn State or State Pen?
Wil Wirtanen
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. He deserves what's coming.
http://www.newscats.org/?p=10216
Written by John O’Sullivan
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a "hoax.â€
Read it all!
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. He deserves what's coming.
http://www.newscats.org/?p=10216
Written by John O’Sullivan
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a "hoax.â€
Read it all!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:35 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
A. Coulter: Bronx shooter not a med doctor & was Nigerian
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2017/07/05/ann-coulter-immigrant-week-henry-bello-obotetukudo/
Ann Coulter: Immigrant of the Week: Henry Bello (Obotetukudo)
by Ann Coulter5 Jul 2017950
Last Friday, Nigerian immigrant Henry Williams Obotetukudo, aka Henry Bello, opened fire with an AM-15 rifle at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, killing one doctor and injuring a half-dozen others. I would prefer to leap right in and offer my ideas for stopping these immigrant shooting rampages, but first I’ll have to tell you the facts the media won’t.
The New York Times, still unaware there’s an internet, is trying to pass off the Nigerian as a Californian, the non-doctor as a doctor, and Mr. Obotetukudo as "Dr. Bello.â€
In the Times’ major biographical profile of Bello the next day, he was described as a "sharp dresser from California.†The only other reference to the shooter’s provenance came several paragraphs later: "Dr. Bello lived in California off and on from 1991 until 2006.â€
ABC News had reported on the day of the shooting that Bello was a "Nigerian national†— so the cat was already out of the bag, New York Times. Local New York station PIX11 also reported that he was a Nigerian. Even newspapers in Ohio knew that Bello was a Nigerian.
But as we go to print, the Times still has not identified Bello as a Nigerian immigrant. It issued a "correction,†but only to clarify the exact street of a homeless shelter where Bello had lived. No correction to the "California†bit.
Sadly, the Times didn’t allow any comments to the online version of its story, but CBS did. There were four comments, two about the incident ("rot in hellâ€) and two about CBS’s report:
"Where was Bello born?â€
and:
"Where is he from? Where did he receive his medical degree? Worthless reporting.â€
You’re not fooling anyone, media.
Having misled readers about Bello’s nationality, the Times professed utter bafflement about the shooter’s motive, saying it was "marked with as many questions as answers.â€
If the Times simply reported facts, instead of strategically constructing news stories to protect favored groups, it might have noticed that there have been a LOT of mass shootings by certain types of immigrants.
Read the rest.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2017/07/05/ann-coulter-immigrant-week-henry-bello-obotetukudo/
Ann Coulter: Immigrant of the Week: Henry Bello (Obotetukudo)
by Ann Coulter5 Jul 2017950
Last Friday, Nigerian immigrant Henry Williams Obotetukudo, aka Henry Bello, opened fire with an AM-15 rifle at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, killing one doctor and injuring a half-dozen others. I would prefer to leap right in and offer my ideas for stopping these immigrant shooting rampages, but first I’ll have to tell you the facts the media won’t.
The New York Times, still unaware there’s an internet, is trying to pass off the Nigerian as a Californian, the non-doctor as a doctor, and Mr. Obotetukudo as "Dr. Bello.â€
In the Times’ major biographical profile of Bello the next day, he was described as a "sharp dresser from California.†The only other reference to the shooter’s provenance came several paragraphs later: "Dr. Bello lived in California off and on from 1991 until 2006.â€
ABC News had reported on the day of the shooting that Bello was a "Nigerian national†— so the cat was already out of the bag, New York Times. Local New York station PIX11 also reported that he was a Nigerian. Even newspapers in Ohio knew that Bello was a Nigerian.
But as we go to print, the Times still has not identified Bello as a Nigerian immigrant. It issued a "correction,†but only to clarify the exact street of a homeless shelter where Bello had lived. No correction to the "California†bit.
Sadly, the Times didn’t allow any comments to the online version of its story, but CBS did. There were four comments, two about the incident ("rot in hellâ€) and two about CBS’s report:
"Where was Bello born?â€
and:
"Where is he from? Where did he receive his medical degree? Worthless reporting.â€
You’re not fooling anyone, media.
Having misled readers about Bello’s nationality, the Times professed utter bafflement about the shooter’s motive, saying it was "marked with as many questions as answers.â€
If the Times simply reported facts, instead of strategically constructing news stories to protect favored groups, it might have noticed that there have been a LOT of mass shootings by certain types of immigrants.
Read the rest.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.
Women’s advocate: Pay for my IUD
Jack Kemp
A significant part of this "woman's advocate's" argument of wanting the U.S. Govt. to pay for her personal birth control expenses appears to also be a desire for the government to act as her High Priest, to absolve her of all sin. This would make her recreational sex totally, multidimensionally free of costs, both financial and moral-guilt-shame related. Basically, this is a demand for taxpayer supported indulgences for her church or synagogue.
Jack
http://theresurgent.com/womens-advocate-pay-for-my-iud-so-i-can-have-sex/
Women’s advocate: Pay for my IUD so I can have sex
By Tim Thomas | July 5, 2017, 08:12pm | @AReasoningFaith
Emma Apkan is a self-professed reproductive rights advocate. In plain English, that means that she thinks US taxpayers should bear the economic burden for her birth control. The opening line from her recent column "The GOP health bill is an attack on our sexual rights†reads:
"When the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the bill to repeal the current health-care law, passed the U.S. House, my first thought was: [expletive deleted], would I have to stop having sex?â€
Not "Will I have to pay for my own birth control?â€
Not "Should I use some other form of birth control?â€
Not even "Should I reevaluate my budget to see where that extra $30 will come from?â€
No, it was "Would I have to stop having sex?â€
Apparently Ms. Apkan doesn’t realize that the only logical conclusion to be reached from her statement is that she expects the US government to subsidize her desire to have sex. Either that, or she’s perfectly fine with a government entity – and by extension, US taxpayers – subsidizing her personal desire.
Read the rest!
A significant part of this "woman's advocate's" argument of wanting the U.S. Govt. to pay for her personal birth control expenses appears to also be a desire for the government to act as her High Priest, to absolve her of all sin. This would make her recreational sex totally, multidimensionally free of costs, both financial and moral-guilt-shame related. Basically, this is a demand for taxpayer supported indulgences for her church or synagogue.
Jack
http://theresurgent.com/womens-advocate-pay-for-my-iud-so-i-can-have-sex/
Women’s advocate: Pay for my IUD so I can have sex
By Tim Thomas | July 5, 2017, 08:12pm | @AReasoningFaith
Emma Apkan is a self-professed reproductive rights advocate. In plain English, that means that she thinks US taxpayers should bear the economic burden for her birth control. The opening line from her recent column "The GOP health bill is an attack on our sexual rights†reads:
"When the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the bill to repeal the current health-care law, passed the U.S. House, my first thought was: [expletive deleted], would I have to stop having sex?â€
Not "Will I have to pay for my own birth control?â€
Not "Should I use some other form of birth control?â€
Not even "Should I reevaluate my budget to see where that extra $30 will come from?â€
No, it was "Would I have to stop having sex?â€
Apparently Ms. Apkan doesn’t realize that the only logical conclusion to be reached from her statement is that she expects the US government to subsidize her desire to have sex. Either that, or she’s perfectly fine with a government entity – and by extension, US taxpayers – subsidizing her personal desire.
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
Jewish Girls School Forced to Teach Gay Propaganda
Jack Kemp forwards this:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/annatimmis/2017/07/05/untitled-n2350901?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
Jewish Primary School Could Close for Not Teaching LGBT Issues
Anna Timmis
|
Posted: Jul 05, 2017 8:00 PM
An Orthodox Jewish girls’ school in London may be shut down because its preschool to early elementary-aged students do not learn about sexual orientation in the classroom.
Vishnitz Girls’ School, with 212 students, ages 3-11, did not pass three inspections by Ofsted, or the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. According to a report dated May 10, the quality of education is good, the students are safe and healthy, the teachers are qualified and have necessary tools, and the students are enthusiastic about learning. However:
"…Leaders were not able to show that pupils are taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles.â€
The report states earlier on, "Schemes do not pay enough regard to developing respect and tolerance for those who may have protected characteristics as set out in the 2010 Equality Act.â€
Read the rest.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/annatimmis/2017/07/05/untitled-n2350901?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
Jewish Primary School Could Close for Not Teaching LGBT Issues
Anna Timmis
|
Posted: Jul 05, 2017 8:00 PM
An Orthodox Jewish girls’ school in London may be shut down because its preschool to early elementary-aged students do not learn about sexual orientation in the classroom.
Vishnitz Girls’ School, with 212 students, ages 3-11, did not pass three inspections by Ofsted, or the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. According to a report dated May 10, the quality of education is good, the students are safe and healthy, the teachers are qualified and have necessary tools, and the students are enthusiastic about learning. However:
"…Leaders were not able to show that pupils are taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles.â€
The report states earlier on, "Schemes do not pay enough regard to developing respect and tolerance for those who may have protected characteristics as set out in the 2010 Equality Act.â€
Read the rest.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:32 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.
CNN Gestapo Tactics
Dana Mathewson forwards this:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18261/backlash-cnnblackmail-trends-grassroots-boycott-john-nolte
CNN's terrifying decision to threaten to personally destroy HanAssholeSolo, the person who created the epic WWE video President Trump tweeted out last week, CNN's chilling move to go the full-Brownshirt against some nobody goofing on the Internet, does not surprise me at all. What is a little shocking is how open the leftwing network was about its mafia tactics. A threat, an actual threat, a warning to others, right there in print! On CNN! [emphasis added]
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo’s†name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Hey, that's a nice life you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
In other words, CNN, a multi-billion dollar, mega-media corporation will be watching the behavior of a private citizen (all of us, really) and should this person (all of us, really) ever be discovered behaving in a way that this multi-billion dollar, mega-media corporation disapproves, this multi-billion dollar, mega-corporation will ruin this person's life (all of our lives, really) — will reveal YOUR name, will see to it that you lose your job, are harassed out of your home, and whatever other horrors CNN's fascist SJW Army can come up with.
Read the rest!
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18261/backlash-cnnblackmail-trends-grassroots-boycott-john-nolte
CNN's terrifying decision to threaten to personally destroy HanAssholeSolo, the person who created the epic WWE video President Trump tweeted out last week, CNN's chilling move to go the full-Brownshirt against some nobody goofing on the Internet, does not surprise me at all. What is a little shocking is how open the leftwing network was about its mafia tactics. A threat, an actual threat, a warning to others, right there in print! On CNN! [emphasis added]
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo’s†name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Hey, that's a nice life you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
In other words, CNN, a multi-billion dollar, mega-media corporation will be watching the behavior of a private citizen (all of us, really) and should this person (all of us, really) ever be discovered behaving in a way that this multi-billion dollar, mega-media corporation disapproves, this multi-billion dollar, mega-corporation will ruin this person's life (all of our lives, really) — will reveal YOUR name, will see to it that you lose your job, are harassed out of your home, and whatever other horrors CNN's fascist SJW Army can come up with.
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
July 05, 2017
Duke University's in the news again
Dana Mathewson
And, just as in the rape-case-that-wasn't, not in a very good way.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/04/epa-funded-lab-faked-research-results-on-respiratory-illnesses-whistleblower-lawsuit-claims.html
Duke University has admitted that one of its lab technicians falsified or fabricated research data on respiratory illnesses that were used to get large grants from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The admission came Sunday in legal filings that respond to a federal whistleblower lawsuit, which the school tried to get dismissed, by former lab analyst Joseph Thomas, according to the Durham Herald-Sun. Thomas claims in his lawsuit that the allegedly fake research data of Erin Potts-Kant, who worked eight years at a Duke medical school lab, was used by the prestigious university and some of its professors to fraudulently obtain federal grants. Thomas also claims Duke tried to hide the alleged fraud.
Well, I should think so.
And, just as in the rape-case-that-wasn't, not in a very good way.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/04/epa-funded-lab-faked-research-results-on-respiratory-illnesses-whistleblower-lawsuit-claims.html
Duke University has admitted that one of its lab technicians falsified or fabricated research data on respiratory illnesses that were used to get large grants from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The admission came Sunday in legal filings that respond to a federal whistleblower lawsuit, which the school tried to get dismissed, by former lab analyst Joseph Thomas, according to the Durham Herald-Sun. Thomas claims in his lawsuit that the allegedly fake research data of Erin Potts-Kant, who worked eight years at a Duke medical school lab, was used by the prestigious university and some of its professors to fraudulently obtain federal grants. Thomas also claims Duke tried to hide the alleged fraud.
Well, I should think so.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
Wimbledon Tennis: Women Preach Equality While Enjoying Inequality
Selwyn Duke
Could you imagine lightweight boxers complaining they don’t get the money and exposure of the heavyweights, calling the different treatment "staturism�
This is essentially the situation at the Wimbledon tennis championships this week, with, for example, Hannah Wilks at the Guardian writing,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/04/wimbledon-tennis-sexism-tournament-female-players
"A new analysis of matches scheduled on Centre and No 1 courts shows that Wimbledon organisers routinely favour male tennis players over their female peers.â€
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jul/03/wimbledon-tournament-serves-grand-slam-gender-discrimination
She calls this "sexism†and "sex discrimination.â€
Actually, it’s called marketing.
Here’s a question for Hannah and her feminist sisters: Female fashion models command markedly more on average than male models, and the top 10 women in the business earned 10 times as much in 2013 as their male counterparts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2013/10/08/the-worlds-highest-paid-male-models-2013-oprys-1-5m-still-far-from-giseles-42m/#42856d074a2e Is this "sexism� Are you going to write about it, kvetching while everyone else is retching? I have a feeling we’re going to hear crickets.
Wilks also opined, "It’s hard to understand the kind of court assignments Serena and Venus Williams have received over the years†and also complains that the BBC devotes far more of its airtime to men’s tennis. Perhaps we can deepen her understanding.
Just consider what journalist Katie Hopkins wrote in her 2016 piece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3502987/KATIE-HOPKINS-Sorry-Serena-s-not-grunting-women-underpaid-tennis-s-men.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 "Sorry, Serena, it's not the grunting women who are being underpaid in tennis — it's the men!â€: The 2015 Men's Wimbledon Final between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer "took three hours to play and was watched by 9.2 million people. Less than half that tuned in to see Serena Williams…beat Garbine Muguruza in straight sets.â€
Moreover, Serena Williams said herself in 2013, "If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutesâ€; moreover, years ago she did lose to the 203rd ranked man in the world, Karsten Braasch, 6-1 (and he was taking it easy). So here’s another question:
Why would anyone think an inferior product should receive the exposure of a superior one?
The answer is that thinking has nothing to do with it. This is about emotion.
Interestingly, though, I doubt Wilks and womynhood would have trouble grasping market principles in the case of the fashion models, even though the men are every bit as capable in this area. This brings us to the wholly misunderstood notion of "equal work.â€
The relevant work of a model isn’t donning clothing or walking up and down a runway, activities which, I suspect, men can do as well as women. The relevant work is satisfying a market. And since female models have a larger market than male ones, they command more money. The same is true of tennis players, mind you, except it’s the men with the larger market.
It’s only ignoramuses who don’t understand this and Marxists who won’t accept it. Today, however, there’s an interesting phenomenon: There are individuals among us who alternatively prefer the market or Marxism, depending on which one happens to benefit their agenda or special-interest group in the given situation. Thus, market forces are peachy keen in fashion. Tennis? Well, not so much.
In fact, not only has Hannah and her feminazi sisters managed to finagle equal prize money for the female players at the four major championships, but they also forced the resignation last year of a tennis director who pointed out that the women "ride on the coattails of the men.†http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/15039381/indian-wells-ceo-raymond-moore-resigns-remarks-drew-outrage
The kicker here is that there’s a simple way to end all this controversy: true equality. Consider: What would your answer be to the lightweight pugilist complaining of staturism? Perhaps, "Hey, if you want the heavyweights’ purses and preferential treatment, compete in their category — and succeed. It’s that simple.â€
This brings us to an area where feminists may certainly have surpassed men: unmitigated gall. For they are using equality arguments to derive benefits within the context of supporting — and enjoying — an inherently unequal system: namely, having a separate, protected (from the best competition) little tour for women. It’s akin to the players in a Caucasian-only basketball league complaining that they don’t get the NBA’s money and airtime.
So what say you, Wilks and womynhood? Will you support true equality and lobby to have the sexes compete together in sports? Isn’t sex segregation "sexist†and demeaning? Besides, this idea would eliminate the problem presented by the so-called "transgender†athletes.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for such a lobbying effort, however. Talk about equality is just that — talk. No one who has thought deeply about the principle really believes in it. Equality™ is just a ruse, a con, pulled out of the hat to gain advantages and then quickly put away lest already existing ones be lost.
Could you imagine lightweight boxers complaining they don’t get the money and exposure of the heavyweights, calling the different treatment "staturism�
This is essentially the situation at the Wimbledon tennis championships this week, with, for example, Hannah Wilks at the Guardian writing,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/04/wimbledon-tennis-sexism-tournament-female-players
"A new analysis of matches scheduled on Centre and No 1 courts shows that Wimbledon organisers routinely favour male tennis players over their female peers.â€
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jul/03/wimbledon-tournament-serves-grand-slam-gender-discrimination
She calls this "sexism†and "sex discrimination.â€
Actually, it’s called marketing.
Here’s a question for Hannah and her feminist sisters: Female fashion models command markedly more on average than male models, and the top 10 women in the business earned 10 times as much in 2013 as their male counterparts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2013/10/08/the-worlds-highest-paid-male-models-2013-oprys-1-5m-still-far-from-giseles-42m/#42856d074a2e Is this "sexism� Are you going to write about it, kvetching while everyone else is retching? I have a feeling we’re going to hear crickets.
Wilks also opined, "It’s hard to understand the kind of court assignments Serena and Venus Williams have received over the years†and also complains that the BBC devotes far more of its airtime to men’s tennis. Perhaps we can deepen her understanding.
Just consider what journalist Katie Hopkins wrote in her 2016 piece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3502987/KATIE-HOPKINS-Sorry-Serena-s-not-grunting-women-underpaid-tennis-s-men.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 "Sorry, Serena, it's not the grunting women who are being underpaid in tennis — it's the men!â€: The 2015 Men's Wimbledon Final between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer "took three hours to play and was watched by 9.2 million people. Less than half that tuned in to see Serena Williams…beat Garbine Muguruza in straight sets.â€
Moreover, Serena Williams said herself in 2013, "If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutesâ€; moreover, years ago she did lose to the 203rd ranked man in the world, Karsten Braasch, 6-1 (and he was taking it easy). So here’s another question:
Why would anyone think an inferior product should receive the exposure of a superior one?
The answer is that thinking has nothing to do with it. This is about emotion.
Interestingly, though, I doubt Wilks and womynhood would have trouble grasping market principles in the case of the fashion models, even though the men are every bit as capable in this area. This brings us to the wholly misunderstood notion of "equal work.â€
The relevant work of a model isn’t donning clothing or walking up and down a runway, activities which, I suspect, men can do as well as women. The relevant work is satisfying a market. And since female models have a larger market than male ones, they command more money. The same is true of tennis players, mind you, except it’s the men with the larger market.
It’s only ignoramuses who don’t understand this and Marxists who won’t accept it. Today, however, there’s an interesting phenomenon: There are individuals among us who alternatively prefer the market or Marxism, depending on which one happens to benefit their agenda or special-interest group in the given situation. Thus, market forces are peachy keen in fashion. Tennis? Well, not so much.
In fact, not only has Hannah and her feminazi sisters managed to finagle equal prize money for the female players at the four major championships, but they also forced the resignation last year of a tennis director who pointed out that the women "ride on the coattails of the men.†http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/15039381/indian-wells-ceo-raymond-moore-resigns-remarks-drew-outrage
The kicker here is that there’s a simple way to end all this controversy: true equality. Consider: What would your answer be to the lightweight pugilist complaining of staturism? Perhaps, "Hey, if you want the heavyweights’ purses and preferential treatment, compete in their category — and succeed. It’s that simple.â€
This brings us to an area where feminists may certainly have surpassed men: unmitigated gall. For they are using equality arguments to derive benefits within the context of supporting — and enjoying — an inherently unequal system: namely, having a separate, protected (from the best competition) little tour for women. It’s akin to the players in a Caucasian-only basketball league complaining that they don’t get the NBA’s money and airtime.
So what say you, Wilks and womynhood? Will you support true equality and lobby to have the sexes compete together in sports? Isn’t sex segregation "sexist†and demeaning? Besides, this idea would eliminate the problem presented by the so-called "transgender†athletes.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for such a lobbying effort, however. Talk about equality is just that — talk. No one who has thought deeply about the principle really believes in it. Equality™ is just a ruse, a con, pulled out of the hat to gain advantages and then quickly put away lest already existing ones be lost.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 787 words, total size 6 kb.
July 04, 2017
What does it mean to be an American?
by Timothy Birdnow
What does it mean to be an American?
This question is asked often and rarely answered correctly. Few understand what the question even means in post-modern America, yet there it is, like the jagged edge of a broken tooth, endlessly bothering us. Ask an Indian and he will tell you HE is an American, the first and most authentic. Ask a blue blood and he will tell you he is the true American because his were the first civilized people to come. A black man claims to have some sort of ancestral connection, too, and will claim the work of his slave ancestor made this country and so HE is the real American. The Latino will claim first Spain then Mexico owned much of the land long ago and this makes them the true American. The Irishman, the German, the Italian, the Jew, the Protestant, the Catholic, all will tell you they are the authentic American and the other is a cheap knock off.
They would all be wrong.
What does it mean to be an American?
Is it enough to have been born here? Is Americanism some quality imparted by having drawn your first breath inside the geographical boundaries of the United States?
That too is wrong. America is so much more than a place, a location. It is not just a relationship of convenience. Those who push the notion of birthright citizenship as making "Americans" may as well say a child born in water is an amphibian; it just doesn't make all that much difference whether the child is born in a hospital bed or a swimming pool.
What does it mean to be an American?
Is it enough to be rich and live better than the rest of the world? Is that the operative definition?
No.
Is it enough to say we speak English? Many people speak English, the British having a prior claim.
Is it that we have a republican form of government? That our was born in a military revolution? That our people are industrious, or inventive?
Again, no.
Some say America is whatever we want it to be; that would be poppycock. America was not and is not a chimera. It has a definite existence, a real, concrete reality. But what is it? If one wanders these United States one hears many definitions yet few are accurate or give a true picture. This is especially true of academics who understand a whole lot of things that just aren't so.
America is more than place, more than a state of mind, more than a collection of people. It is a concept that was unknown to the world prior to her formation. America was a novel idea, that people could associate freely and run their own lives in peace. They could be free to worship in the manner they see fit. They could find suitable employment in a manner they see fit. They can associate with whosoever they choose, say whatsoever they think, and yet all the while they were to be guided by a higher law, one ordained by God. America was not just anarchy or libertinism, the fruits of other philosophical systems that would be tried in other nations. It was a place where we were free to do what we ought, not whatsoever we desire. America is a solution to a terrible, age old dilemma; how to balance freedom with social order. Most civilizations fail at that, either descending into anarchy or becoming despotic. Both of those solutions wind up being the only one available because people ultimately can not or will not govern themselves properly. America was fundamentally different, because she imposed a standard of morality that came from the Bible while allowing the individual the freedom to make his or her own choices. As has been attributed (misattributed, probably) to Alexis de Tocqueville "America is great because America is good." That pretty much sums up the heart and soul of Americanism; America is a place where government is more of a helper than a ruler, and that because Americans have accepted the most basic duty, that of self-government. Every American is his own President, his own Congress, his own Supreme Court. The first and foremost legislative act is the one chosen by our citizens to rule over themselves with the guidance of the Great Immortal God.
That is ultimately what it means to be an American. All of the rest of the American experience - the wealth, the opportunity, the comfort and ease, stem from this simple idea.
It is what gave America a sense of community, because with self control comes amicable relations with others. It is what makes Americans the most charitable people on Earth; with self control comes control of greed, of selfishness, which leads to a desire to help others and (if it should come to it) to be helped by others. It is what gives America purpose. It's what makes us belong.
In short, Americans own themselves. This was a startling idea when it was first conceived, for it was always believed the individual was the property of others. He was a member of a tribe, or a city, or a state. He was the worker who served the great lord. He was always under obligation to others. America broke that, making the individual his own master.
Liberals will denounce this as "laissez Faire capitalism" or "selfishness" and will argue that this leads to atomization and alienation. But did it? Communities were stronger in America than in most parts of the world, and that because a person who is his own overlord need not fight for status. And the man who owns himself is then responsible for his own thoughts and actions.
THIS is what it means to be an American.
Many have come to these shores over the years with a gross misunderstanding of that fundamental worldview, and our nation has suffered under it. The Irish and Italian mobsters came here thinking America was just another old world country. They operated in the fashion of the old country, where men seek e3ternal dominance over their brethren and wealth is something to be seized, not created. Truly free men create wealth as they create happiness and decency. Those who are enslaved or fighting not to be take it.
And so did the many eastern Europeans who came here, from Russia, from Poland and Romania and the Balkans. They came and brought with them alien concepts like socialism and revolution, which some have passed along to their children. America is now in crisis because she has forgotten who she is, and that is in no small part because many came here but never understood it. Barack Obama, despite being born here, is a prime example, having been raised abroad and tutored by radicals. HE never saw America! As a result, he thinks America is a bad place, an unjust, uncaring hellhole. It is not so, but what doses Obama know? He never walked the byways and country roads, never met the people in the small towns and on the farms. He never SAW America. And this is true of most liberals, who live in their intellectual bubbles and never leave the narrow confines of their academic counting houses.
Freedom, liberty, justice for all - these are all aspects of America, but in the end they are but manifestations of the real heart of America, a place where God rules in the souls of men and men rule their passions and bodies. Truth is important to America because without it our Congress-of-one cannot make informed choices. Freedom is important because without it we cannot build the proper character in ourselves, Justice is important lest we turn from magistrates to tyrants.
Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that society should be driven by a Collective Will, and he believed freedom was to surrender one's own will to the majority. That has been the thinking of people in Europe for some time, and many Americans believe that now, too. But in the end, he is wrong, and America's success proves it. In Star Trek; the Wrath of Khan Spock is fond of a Vulcan saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Vulcan, it should be pointed out, is overshadowed by the Earth people in the Federation, who are apparently much better suited to exploration and advancement. After Spock's death and resurrection, he asks why Kirk did so much for his friend and was told "because sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many". That is the essence of America.
We are all precious, like extremely rare diamonds or black pearls. Our uniqueness and our special relationship to God is what is celebrated and nurtured in America, and if God sees us as priceless and grants us free will who are we to disagree? America celebrates this, and promotes it. We are not cogs in a machine.
Sadly, many wish we were.
So, I ask one final time - What does it mean to be an American?
It means to be a child of God, and to act like it!
What does it mean to be an American?
This question is asked often and rarely answered correctly. Few understand what the question even means in post-modern America, yet there it is, like the jagged edge of a broken tooth, endlessly bothering us. Ask an Indian and he will tell you HE is an American, the first and most authentic. Ask a blue blood and he will tell you he is the true American because his were the first civilized people to come. A black man claims to have some sort of ancestral connection, too, and will claim the work of his slave ancestor made this country and so HE is the real American. The Latino will claim first Spain then Mexico owned much of the land long ago and this makes them the true American. The Irishman, the German, the Italian, the Jew, the Protestant, the Catholic, all will tell you they are the authentic American and the other is a cheap knock off.
They would all be wrong.
What does it mean to be an American?
Is it enough to have been born here? Is Americanism some quality imparted by having drawn your first breath inside the geographical boundaries of the United States?
That too is wrong. America is so much more than a place, a location. It is not just a relationship of convenience. Those who push the notion of birthright citizenship as making "Americans" may as well say a child born in water is an amphibian; it just doesn't make all that much difference whether the child is born in a hospital bed or a swimming pool.
What does it mean to be an American?
Is it enough to be rich and live better than the rest of the world? Is that the operative definition?
No.
Is it enough to say we speak English? Many people speak English, the British having a prior claim.
Is it that we have a republican form of government? That our was born in a military revolution? That our people are industrious, or inventive?
Again, no.
Some say America is whatever we want it to be; that would be poppycock. America was not and is not a chimera. It has a definite existence, a real, concrete reality. But what is it? If one wanders these United States one hears many definitions yet few are accurate or give a true picture. This is especially true of academics who understand a whole lot of things that just aren't so.
America is more than place, more than a state of mind, more than a collection of people. It is a concept that was unknown to the world prior to her formation. America was a novel idea, that people could associate freely and run their own lives in peace. They could be free to worship in the manner they see fit. They could find suitable employment in a manner they see fit. They can associate with whosoever they choose, say whatsoever they think, and yet all the while they were to be guided by a higher law, one ordained by God. America was not just anarchy or libertinism, the fruits of other philosophical systems that would be tried in other nations. It was a place where we were free to do what we ought, not whatsoever we desire. America is a solution to a terrible, age old dilemma; how to balance freedom with social order. Most civilizations fail at that, either descending into anarchy or becoming despotic. Both of those solutions wind up being the only one available because people ultimately can not or will not govern themselves properly. America was fundamentally different, because she imposed a standard of morality that came from the Bible while allowing the individual the freedom to make his or her own choices. As has been attributed (misattributed, probably) to Alexis de Tocqueville "America is great because America is good." That pretty much sums up the heart and soul of Americanism; America is a place where government is more of a helper than a ruler, and that because Americans have accepted the most basic duty, that of self-government. Every American is his own President, his own Congress, his own Supreme Court. The first and foremost legislative act is the one chosen by our citizens to rule over themselves with the guidance of the Great Immortal God.
That is ultimately what it means to be an American. All of the rest of the American experience - the wealth, the opportunity, the comfort and ease, stem from this simple idea.
It is what gave America a sense of community, because with self control comes amicable relations with others. It is what makes Americans the most charitable people on Earth; with self control comes control of greed, of selfishness, which leads to a desire to help others and (if it should come to it) to be helped by others. It is what gives America purpose. It's what makes us belong.
In short, Americans own themselves. This was a startling idea when it was first conceived, for it was always believed the individual was the property of others. He was a member of a tribe, or a city, or a state. He was the worker who served the great lord. He was always under obligation to others. America broke that, making the individual his own master.
Liberals will denounce this as "laissez Faire capitalism" or "selfishness" and will argue that this leads to atomization and alienation. But did it? Communities were stronger in America than in most parts of the world, and that because a person who is his own overlord need not fight for status. And the man who owns himself is then responsible for his own thoughts and actions.
THIS is what it means to be an American.
Many have come to these shores over the years with a gross misunderstanding of that fundamental worldview, and our nation has suffered under it. The Irish and Italian mobsters came here thinking America was just another old world country. They operated in the fashion of the old country, where men seek e3ternal dominance over their brethren and wealth is something to be seized, not created. Truly free men create wealth as they create happiness and decency. Those who are enslaved or fighting not to be take it.
And so did the many eastern Europeans who came here, from Russia, from Poland and Romania and the Balkans. They came and brought with them alien concepts like socialism and revolution, which some have passed along to their children. America is now in crisis because she has forgotten who she is, and that is in no small part because many came here but never understood it. Barack Obama, despite being born here, is a prime example, having been raised abroad and tutored by radicals. HE never saw America! As a result, he thinks America is a bad place, an unjust, uncaring hellhole. It is not so, but what doses Obama know? He never walked the byways and country roads, never met the people in the small towns and on the farms. He never SAW America. And this is true of most liberals, who live in their intellectual bubbles and never leave the narrow confines of their academic counting houses.
Freedom, liberty, justice for all - these are all aspects of America, but in the end they are but manifestations of the real heart of America, a place where God rules in the souls of men and men rule their passions and bodies. Truth is important to America because without it our Congress-of-one cannot make informed choices. Freedom is important because without it we cannot build the proper character in ourselves, Justice is important lest we turn from magistrates to tyrants.
Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that society should be driven by a Collective Will, and he believed freedom was to surrender one's own will to the majority. That has been the thinking of people in Europe for some time, and many Americans believe that now, too. But in the end, he is wrong, and America's success proves it. In Star Trek; the Wrath of Khan Spock is fond of a Vulcan saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Vulcan, it should be pointed out, is overshadowed by the Earth people in the Federation, who are apparently much better suited to exploration and advancement. After Spock's death and resurrection, he asks why Kirk did so much for his friend and was told "because sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many". That is the essence of America.
We are all precious, like extremely rare diamonds or black pearls. Our uniqueness and our special relationship to God is what is celebrated and nurtured in America, and if God sees us as priceless and grants us free will who are we to disagree? America celebrates this, and promotes it. We are not cogs in a machine.
Sadly, many wish we were.
So, I ask one final time - What does it mean to be an American?
It means to be a child of God, and to act like it!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:14 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1537 words, total size 9 kb.
Claire McCaskill Colluded with the Russians
Timothy Birdnow
"Air Claire" McCaskill, the Senior Senator from Missouri and ethically challenged candidate for yet another term, has stepped in it again, this time with her own Russian collusion. Turns out that not only did she meet with the Russian ambassador (then lying about it) but her husband cut the man a check.
From Gateway Pundit:
"
Claire McCaskill Lied: Not Only Did She Meet with Russians, Her Husband Cut a Check to Ambassador at Dinner Party
Jim Hoft Jul 3rd, 2017 9:50 pm Leave a Comment
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) made news in March with her claim that as a member of the Armed Services Committee she never had a meeting with or called the Russian Ambassador – "ever.â€
Claire lied.
McCaskill met with the Russian ambassador in 2013.
McCaskill called the Russian ambassador in 2015.
She even tweeted about it.
And there’s even a photo of Claire’s meeting with the Russian ambassador.
Now this…
Liberal Democrat Claire McCaskill attended a party at the Russian Embassy and her husband’s foundation paid the Russians at the dinner.
The Free Beacon reported:
Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) used a personal foundation to pay for a dinner she attended at Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s Washington, D.C., residence. The senator had failed to disclose her role in the foundation until earlier this month…
…CNN reported that McCaskill also attended a black-tie reception at Kislyak’s D.C. residence in November 2015.
McCaskill’s attendance at the dinner was accompanied by an $873 payment to the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation, where Kislyak serves on the board of directors as honorary chairman.
The payment to Kislyak’s foundation was not made directly by McCaskill—it was made through a foundation, the Shepard Family Foundation, that she set up with her husband Joseph Shepard in 2013 but failed to disclose in filings to the Senate ethics committee until three weeks ago."
End excerpt.
The trouble with making up something like the Russian collusion story is that it can come back to bite you. Claire has, yet again, exposed her posterior, turned around, and offered a big meaty bite.
Gotta sting!
"Air Claire" McCaskill, the Senior Senator from Missouri and ethically challenged candidate for yet another term, has stepped in it again, this time with her own Russian collusion. Turns out that not only did she meet with the Russian ambassador (then lying about it) but her husband cut the man a check.
From Gateway Pundit:
"
Claire McCaskill Lied: Not Only Did She Meet with Russians, Her Husband Cut a Check to Ambassador at Dinner Party
Jim Hoft Jul 3rd, 2017 9:50 pm Leave a Comment
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) made news in March with her claim that as a member of the Armed Services Committee she never had a meeting with or called the Russian Ambassador – "ever.â€
Claire lied.
McCaskill met with the Russian ambassador in 2013.
McCaskill called the Russian ambassador in 2015.
She even tweeted about it.
And there’s even a photo of Claire’s meeting with the Russian ambassador.
Now this…
Liberal Democrat Claire McCaskill attended a party at the Russian Embassy and her husband’s foundation paid the Russians at the dinner.
The Free Beacon reported:
Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) used a personal foundation to pay for a dinner she attended at Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s Washington, D.C., residence. The senator had failed to disclose her role in the foundation until earlier this month…
…CNN reported that McCaskill also attended a black-tie reception at Kislyak’s D.C. residence in November 2015.
McCaskill’s attendance at the dinner was accompanied by an $873 payment to the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation, where Kislyak serves on the board of directors as honorary chairman.
The payment to Kislyak’s foundation was not made directly by McCaskill—it was made through a foundation, the Shepard Family Foundation, that she set up with her husband Joseph Shepard in 2013 but failed to disclose in filings to the Senate ethics committee until three weeks ago."
End excerpt.
The trouble with making up something like the Russian collusion story is that it can come back to bite you. Claire has, yet again, exposed her posterior, turned around, and offered a big meaty bite.
Gotta sting!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.
Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:21 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1481 words, total size 10 kb.
Muslim 'refugee' called integration success – then slit his boss's throat
Selwyn Duke
You can't make this stuff up. In a news article, migrant hairstylist Mohammad Hussain Rashwani was hailed as a shining example of integration in Germany. Ten months later, which was just a few days ago, an article bore the headline "Herzberg: Syrian hairstylist slits boss's throat."
Yeah, it was Mohammad.
He apparently didn't go the full Mohammad, since his boss is still alive. But here's the title and crux of the first piece:
http://www.lr-online.de/regionen/elbe-elster/herzberg/Syrischer-Friseur-findet-Anstellung-in-Herzberg;art1056,5579224
Syrian Hairstylist finds employment in Herzberg
Salon owner Ilona Fugmann is amazed by his skills [Yes, he was especially adroit with a straight-edge razor.]
August 31, 2016
In early September, Ilona Fugmann will give the Syrian Mohammad Hussain Rashwani a permanent position in her hair salon in Herzberg. The 38-year-old's skills immediately convinced her. Mohammad Hussain Rashwani is an example of how well integration can work out.
The article, all of which can be found at Gates of Vienna http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/06/mohammad-will-style-your-hair-and-slit-your-throat/, goes on to explain Mohammad's sterling qualities. He "had an excellent command of his craft" and "gets along well with the two female colleagues[.] ... 'The chemistry is right. Admittedly, Mohammad is a proud person, but very attentive and prudent. He even helps with the clean-up,' says Ilona Fugmann."
Of course, "proud" is a euphemism for "prideful," which reflects a sin (though Muslims don't see it that way) and basically means that Mohammad had more ego than brains and was easily "triggered." Speaking of which...
Fugmann is quoted as mentioning the difficulty in finding good help and asking, "Why shouldn't I give him a chance?" I'm guessing her question has been answered, which brings us to the second piece:
http://www.lr-online.de/regionen/elbe-elster/herzberg/Syrischer-Friseur-schneidet-Chefin-in-den-Hals;art1056,6061969
Herzberg: Syrian hairstylist slits boss's throat
... June 29, 2017
HERZBERG A bloody deed horrified Herzberg (Elbe-Elster) on Wednesday. A salon owner was attacked by her Syrian employee, and gravely injured.
He was regarded the paramount example of successful integration. The Syrian Mohammad H. (39), a master hairstylist who had fled his homeland, started a new life and found work in Herzberg. He was appreciated and popular in the salon of Ilona F. (64). This makes what happened yesterday, Wednesday, even stranger.
Yes, strange, unfathomable, unprecedented! Who could've seen this coming? And if you suggest otherwise on social media, the German government will arrest you and fine the "Islamophobia" out of the social media company. You will be absorbed.
In fact, the only successful integration going on is that of many Germans, who've been integrated into delusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A&spfreload=10 All people are the same, you see, and our strength lies in our diversity, I tell ya. "I'm smart! Not like everybody says...like dumb...!"
Except it is dumb believing that all people – and peoples – are the same. We can argue the reasons for the differences, but we ignore them at our peril. As Col. Ralph Peters put it in the excellent little piece, "Taliban from Outer Space":
http://nypost.com/2009/02/03/taliban-from-outer-space/
In my years as an intelligence officer, I saw colleagues make the same blunder over and over: They rushed to stress the ways in which the Russians, the Chinese or the Iranians were 'just like us.' It's the differences that kill you, though.
He later wrote:
[W]e still hear the deadly cliché that 'all human beings want the same basic things, such as better lives and greater opportunities for their children.' How does that apply to Afghan aliens who prefer their crude way of life and its merciless cults?
What's deadly here is something I often warn of: projection. This is when we ascribe our mindset, priorities, and sense of virtue to others. It's natural. We behave in certain ways because we think it makes sense to do so, so it must make sense to others, too. Thus are the self-serving cynical, believing that everyone is just "out for himself"; thus are innocent little children gullible, thinking everyone well-meaning – and thus do secular Westerners believe that, well, of course these new arrivals will embrace secular "values."
That's the ideological chauvinism lurking in the hearts of the oh, so open-minded, who once warned of "ethnocentrism." But why would others adopt "secular Western 'values,'" including confusion over marriage, sex, and right and wrong (Truth) itself? Because they're so self-evidently true?
Realize that some people have an alien sense of virtue (Western leftists are a good example). Some really do believe that slaughtering innocents in Allah's name is good – that burning people alive, baking them in ovens, drowning them in cages, and feeding children into a dough kneader win you Paradise. http://nypost.com/2016/10/26/isis-kills-250-kids-in-dough-kneader-burns-adults-alive/
Remember, our weakness lies in our diversity.
You can't make this stuff up. In a news article, migrant hairstylist Mohammad Hussain Rashwani was hailed as a shining example of integration in Germany. Ten months later, which was just a few days ago, an article bore the headline "Herzberg: Syrian hairstylist slits boss's throat."
Yeah, it was Mohammad.
He apparently didn't go the full Mohammad, since his boss is still alive. But here's the title and crux of the first piece:
http://www.lr-online.de/regionen/elbe-elster/herzberg/Syrischer-Friseur-findet-Anstellung-in-Herzberg;art1056,5579224
Syrian Hairstylist finds employment in Herzberg
Salon owner Ilona Fugmann is amazed by his skills [Yes, he was especially adroit with a straight-edge razor.]
August 31, 2016
In early September, Ilona Fugmann will give the Syrian Mohammad Hussain Rashwani a permanent position in her hair salon in Herzberg. The 38-year-old's skills immediately convinced her. Mohammad Hussain Rashwani is an example of how well integration can work out.
The article, all of which can be found at Gates of Vienna http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/06/mohammad-will-style-your-hair-and-slit-your-throat/, goes on to explain Mohammad's sterling qualities. He "had an excellent command of his craft" and "gets along well with the two female colleagues[.] ... 'The chemistry is right. Admittedly, Mohammad is a proud person, but very attentive and prudent. He even helps with the clean-up,' says Ilona Fugmann."
Of course, "proud" is a euphemism for "prideful," which reflects a sin (though Muslims don't see it that way) and basically means that Mohammad had more ego than brains and was easily "triggered." Speaking of which...
Fugmann is quoted as mentioning the difficulty in finding good help and asking, "Why shouldn't I give him a chance?" I'm guessing her question has been answered, which brings us to the second piece:
http://www.lr-online.de/regionen/elbe-elster/herzberg/Syrischer-Friseur-schneidet-Chefin-in-den-Hals;art1056,6061969
Herzberg: Syrian hairstylist slits boss's throat
... June 29, 2017
HERZBERG A bloody deed horrified Herzberg (Elbe-Elster) on Wednesday. A salon owner was attacked by her Syrian employee, and gravely injured.
He was regarded the paramount example of successful integration. The Syrian Mohammad H. (39), a master hairstylist who had fled his homeland, started a new life and found work in Herzberg. He was appreciated and popular in the salon of Ilona F. (64). This makes what happened yesterday, Wednesday, even stranger.
Yes, strange, unfathomable, unprecedented! Who could've seen this coming? And if you suggest otherwise on social media, the German government will arrest you and fine the "Islamophobia" out of the social media company. You will be absorbed.
In fact, the only successful integration going on is that of many Germans, who've been integrated into delusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A&spfreload=10 All people are the same, you see, and our strength lies in our diversity, I tell ya. "I'm smart! Not like everybody says...like dumb...!"
Except it is dumb believing that all people – and peoples – are the same. We can argue the reasons for the differences, but we ignore them at our peril. As Col. Ralph Peters put it in the excellent little piece, "Taliban from Outer Space":
http://nypost.com/2009/02/03/taliban-from-outer-space/
In my years as an intelligence officer, I saw colleagues make the same blunder over and over: They rushed to stress the ways in which the Russians, the Chinese or the Iranians were 'just like us.' It's the differences that kill you, though.
He later wrote:
[W]e still hear the deadly cliché that 'all human beings want the same basic things, such as better lives and greater opportunities for their children.' How does that apply to Afghan aliens who prefer their crude way of life and its merciless cults?
What's deadly here is something I often warn of: projection. This is when we ascribe our mindset, priorities, and sense of virtue to others. It's natural. We behave in certain ways because we think it makes sense to do so, so it must make sense to others, too. Thus are the self-serving cynical, believing that everyone is just "out for himself"; thus are innocent little children gullible, thinking everyone well-meaning – and thus do secular Westerners believe that, well, of course these new arrivals will embrace secular "values."
That's the ideological chauvinism lurking in the hearts of the oh, so open-minded, who once warned of "ethnocentrism." But why would others adopt "secular Western 'values,'" including confusion over marriage, sex, and right and wrong (Truth) itself? Because they're so self-evidently true?
Realize that some people have an alien sense of virtue (Western leftists are a good example). Some really do believe that slaughtering innocents in Allah's name is good – that burning people alive, baking them in ovens, drowning them in cages, and feeding children into a dough kneader win you Paradise. http://nypost.com/2016/10/26/isis-kills-250-kids-in-dough-kneader-burns-adults-alive/
Remember, our weakness lies in our diversity.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 6 kb.
Transgenders set to steal all 2018 Women's Olympic Gold Medals
Jack Kemp
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/heres-what-the-2018-olympic-gender-regulations-look-like/
Here’s What The 2018 Olympic Gender Regulations Look Like
Grace Carr
2:28 PM 07/03/2017
The International Olympic Committee (IOC), in charge of making the rules for the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in South Korea, said that there will be no sex or gender testing required for the upcoming games.
"With regard to Hyperandrogenism in female athletes, there were no regulations in place at the Olympic Games Rio 2016 and there will be no regulations in place at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 as we are still awaiting the resolution of the Dutee Chand case,†the IOC wrote in a June email in response to an inquiry into how it would regulate the upcoming Olympics.
The response follows controversy that sparked after 800-meter South African runner Caster Semenya won gold at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil. Semenya’s intersex condition causes her to produce more testosterone (hyperandrogenism) than most women, prompting questions about whether she had an unfair biological advantage.
"These kind of people should not run with us,†Italian middle-distance runner Elisa Cusma said. "For me, she is not a woman. She is a man.â€
In the past, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the world’s governing body for track and field, sought to preserve the male-female division by administering gynecological exams, chromosome tests, or hormone tests to ensure fair competition.
Before the Rio Olympics, women like Semenya whose functional levels of the hormone are higher than 10 nmols/L were barred from international competition. Between 2011 and 2015, the IAAF ruled that any woman with less than 10 nanomoles of testosterone per liter of blood could compete in women’s events. Sex testing was not required of any athletes at the Rio Olympics, however, meaning intersex track athletes could compete with their natural testosterone levels.
Prior to IAFF regulations, Semenya dominated the 800m race at the world championships in Berlin, but she failed to move beyond the semifinals in Beijing after testosterone limits were implemented. When the testosterone rule was suspended in 2015, she returned to form, winning the 400m, 800m, and 1500m races at the African Championships — all on the same day — and an olympic gold the following year.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended the IAAF’s testosterone rule in 2014, citing a lack scientific evidence to suggest that women with high levels of the hormone have a significant competitive advantage. The IAAF argued that testosterone is the most important boost to athletic performance, but the court stated that unless it could prove an average performance gap of 10 to 12 percent between male and female runners, there was not sufficient "evidence about the degree of the advantage.â€
Read the rest!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/heres-what-the-2018-olympic-gender-regulations-look-like/
Here’s What The 2018 Olympic Gender Regulations Look Like
Grace Carr
2:28 PM 07/03/2017
The International Olympic Committee (IOC), in charge of making the rules for the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in South Korea, said that there will be no sex or gender testing required for the upcoming games.
"With regard to Hyperandrogenism in female athletes, there were no regulations in place at the Olympic Games Rio 2016 and there will be no regulations in place at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 as we are still awaiting the resolution of the Dutee Chand case,†the IOC wrote in a June email in response to an inquiry into how it would regulate the upcoming Olympics.
The response follows controversy that sparked after 800-meter South African runner Caster Semenya won gold at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil. Semenya’s intersex condition causes her to produce more testosterone (hyperandrogenism) than most women, prompting questions about whether she had an unfair biological advantage.
"These kind of people should not run with us,†Italian middle-distance runner Elisa Cusma said. "For me, she is not a woman. She is a man.â€
In the past, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the world’s governing body for track and field, sought to preserve the male-female division by administering gynecological exams, chromosome tests, or hormone tests to ensure fair competition.
Before the Rio Olympics, women like Semenya whose functional levels of the hormone are higher than 10 nmols/L were barred from international competition. Between 2011 and 2015, the IAAF ruled that any woman with less than 10 nanomoles of testosterone per liter of blood could compete in women’s events. Sex testing was not required of any athletes at the Rio Olympics, however, meaning intersex track athletes could compete with their natural testosterone levels.
Prior to IAFF regulations, Semenya dominated the 800m race at the world championships in Berlin, but she failed to move beyond the semifinals in Beijing after testosterone limits were implemented. When the testosterone rule was suspended in 2015, she returned to form, winning the 400m, 800m, and 1500m races at the African Championships — all on the same day — and an olympic gold the following year.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended the IAAF’s testosterone rule in 2014, citing a lack scientific evidence to suggest that women with high levels of the hormone have a significant competitive advantage. The IAAF argued that testosterone is the most important boost to athletic performance, but the court stated that unless it could prove an average performance gap of 10 to 12 percent between male and female runners, there was not sufficient "evidence about the degree of the advantage.â€
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.
July 03, 2017
Nationalism is Un-American
Timothy Birdnow
Nationalism is a concept that is antithetical to the American experiment.
With the rise of Donald Trump many good conservatives have bandied about the term Nationalism and spoken of a desire to "return to" this concept without really understanding what it is and where it came from. Nationalism is not patriotism, nor is it promoting your own country first. It is not even a chauvinism that promotes national exceptionalism. Nationalism was the creation of the philosophy that also created socialism, and it was intended not to promote any one nation so much as to break the old social order and the power of the Church in favor of a new and strange god, a mystical worship of the Nation as the embodiment of the Collective Will and as such it was and is a rejection of individualism and Free Will.
When Jean Jacques Rousseau published The Social Contract he sent an earthquake through the political and social order of the day. Rousseau, a man who believed in the "noble savage" concept that Man was inherently good and in a state of nature was happy - a direct contradiction of the Christian concept of Original Sin - believe d that science and culture were a part of the repressive nature of modern society. It was vanity, he believed, that led to progress in those fields and this vanity caused friction and social discord. Rousseau thought that the social order was inherently unfair, a trick played by the rich and powerful on the proletariat.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica has this entry under Nationalism:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism
"Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities; but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history. Because of its dynamic vitality and its all-pervading character, nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour"
The New World Encyclopdia entry on Rousseau states that Rousseau argued in Discourse on Inequality :
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau
". As humans were forced to associate together more closely, by the pressure of population growth, they underwent a psychological transformation and came to value the good opinion of others as an essential component of their own well being. Rousseau associated this new self-awareness with a golden age of human flourishing. However, the development of agriculture and metallurgy, private property and the division of labor led to increased interdependence and inequality. The resulting state of conflict led Rousseau to suggest that the first state was invented as a kind of social contract made at the suggestion of the rich and powerful. This original contract was deeply flawed as the wealthiest and most powerful members of society tricked the general population, and thus instituted inequality as a fundamental feature of human society"
[…]
"According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law. While Rousseau argues that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between sovereign and government. The government is charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller group of citizens, known as magistrates."
Rousseau argues in The Origins of Inequality:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm
"But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops.â€
In short, the ascent of Man led to the creation of almost all social ills.
"It now became the interest of men to appear what they really were not. To be and to seem became two totally different things; and from this distinction sprang insolent pomp and cheating trickery, with all the numerous vices that go in their train. On the other hand, free and independent as men were before, they were now, in consequence of a multiplicity of new wants, brought into subjection, as it were, to all nature, and particularly to one another; and each became in some degree a slave even in becoming the master of other menâ€
He then provided a solution in the Social Contract:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm
""Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."
IF the State is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of its cares is the care for its own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling force, in order to move and dispose each part as may be most advantageous to the whole. As nature gives each man absolute power over all his members, the social compact gives the body politic absolute power over all its members also.â€
You see where this is going. Man can only be free if He subsumes himself into the collective. And the institutions that made the West what it became were oppressive, abusive, and created for the benefit of the rich and their parasites. Doesn't this sound like any modern Democrat?
Rousseau wanted to empower the Collective Will and break the powers of the day; the aristocracy, the Church, the men of letters and science. To do that he had to create a substitute, a new church to compete with the old, a new god, a new Man. From this vision came Nationalism, the rise of the worship of the State, all glory be upon her! Rousseau couched it in terms of "civil religion†and even accepted God and an afterlife, but he was clearly interested in creating something that served his dream of the collective rather than God and absolute Truth.
He was echoed by Jean Bodin in France and Hobbes in England. (It is interesting to note that many of the Nazi party members belonged to the Thule Society, a pagan Theosophist order which emphasized Monism.)
The German J. G. Fichte, in his effort to undo concepts of Natural Law and human reason, promoted Nationalism https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/nationalism-and-racialism-in-german-philosophy/ and was followed by other Germans, including Hegel, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer.
Indeed, Ernest Gellner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Gellner, the British-Czech social anthropologist, considered it a political construct and described it as:
"the general imposition of a high culture on society, where previously low cultures had taken up the lives of the majority, and in some cases the totality, of the population. It means the general diffusion of a school-mediated, academy supervised idiom, codified for the requirements of a reasonably precise bureaucratic and technological communication. It is the establishment of an anonymous impersonal society, with mutually sustainable atomized individuals, held together above all by a shared culture of this kind, in place of the previous complex structure of local groups, sustained by folk cultures reproduced locally and idiosyncratically by the micro-groups Thomas Hylland Eriksen
and Thomas Hylland Eriksen lists the following as the principle points of Gelner:
* Shared, formal educational system
* Cultural homogenization and "social entropy"
* Central monitoring of polity, with extensive bureaucratic control
* Linguistic standardization
* National identification as abstract community
* Cultural similarity as a basis for political legitimacy
* Anonymity, single-stranded social relationships And
Notice how little of this applied to the American experiment; America had no standardized education until John Dewey and the Progressive era, and even not then; Common Core is the first truly national effort in this regard. America shared common culture to a point, but allowed for some rather large differences (which were settled by the cultural imperialism of the North in the aftermath of the Civil War). Until Reconstruction America had no central bureaucratic control, and even then it was largely dismantled until the Progressives rebuilt it. America has never had a national language and the dialects are many and varied in our common language - English.
America was not founded with a common national identy in many ways; prior to the Civil War we were a nation of nations, with people identifying themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, etc. first. And cultural anonymity was clearly not an early American value; America was rooted in the local community, in the churches, in the social clubs and the saloons and other such institutions. Our local nature was the antithesis of anonymous, single stranded social relationships. In fact, it was a bit much for some, who often fled to the big cities to escape having all their neighbors in their business in rural America.
The philosophers whose work fostered the American revolution were not the same as those who created Nationalism. America was built on John Locke, Edmund Burke https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/ (whose advocacy for Natural Law was sharply at odds with Rousseau), Francis Bacon's scientific method and David Hume's "synthetic" and "analytic" truths (self-evident). The Americans adopted older British enlightenment thinking, before the Enlightenment turned malevolent.
And Christianity was a critical part of the American model. Where the later French Enlightenment thinkers sought to weaken the power of religion America was predicated on it in many ways. It was enshrined in our Constitution and the "wall of separation betweeen Church and State†was intended not as a way to weaken religion but to weaken government.
At the core of the American belief system were a number of things antithetical to Nationalism as it would later be constructed. Property rights loom large; in more Nationalistic societies property can only be held at the pleasure of the State because the collective is supreme. Rousseau famously stated:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm
"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!â€
Indeed, for The People to be sovereign the individual must surrender his right to property. The end result is either overt socialism (where property is wholly owned by the State) or fascism (where the State controls the use of property while permitting the image of private ownership.) America was built on the view that property is a sacred thing, one that one owns by virtue of improving it from a state of nature or by the agreement to transfer ownership. God gives property to Man to "subdue the Earthâ€. The thinking is very different in Nationalistic societies.
Rousseau also stated:
"I feel an indescribable ecstasy and delirium in melting, as it were, into the system of being, in identifying myself with the whole of nature.."
This illustrates the subordination of the individual or the small group to the collective, something that is required under a nationalistic order. Again, it is grossly at odds with the American spirit, which says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". The individual has rights over the group.
Indeed, the idea of Natural Law is pretty much dismissed by the progenitors of Nationalism as human inventions.
America celebrated true multiculturalism (not the nonsense modern leftists promote which is designed to destroy the cohesion of the community) where friends and neighbors create their own support systems and develop their own customs. America was a network of free peoples engaged in life as they saw best. Nationalism makes a nation a net to ensnare people. The Progressives have largely succeeded in doing precisely that.
They have created laws to force association where none is desired. For instance, requiring Christian bakers to make cakes (and serve them) for gay weddings. They have created endless laws to force acceptance rather than opportunity. Corporations are forced to hire people on a quota system rather than the best suited, for their needs. Private clubs are forced to accept members they do not want. There are laws against maintaining private communities. Long gone are the days of singles apartments, for example; there are laws against discrimination based on marriage status. A landlord has to rent to a drunk by law. He has to get permission before he rents to anyone, too. And there is always the threat of being accused of "creating a hostile work environment†if you don’t like your affirmative action hire and don’t treat him as a buddy. They gave us school busing and public housing in what were once strong communities.
And the most galling thing about this is that the Leftists - the creators of Nationalism - have managed to tar the Right with ownership of it. After the spectacular fail of Fascism and Nazism the Left immediately accused Conservatives of being the root of this evil and most people believe it because they created the national educational system which promotes the lie.
So many good conservatives attempt to reclaim their heritage by using the redefined term. It is a mistake: it was redefined by the Left to use as a blood libel and it remains so. We need to point out that we are NOT Nationalists, that America was never a Nationalistic enterprise, and that the true bloody monsters of the metastasized Nationalism of Germany and Italy were clearly, unequivocally, men of the Left.
They own it; it's time we make them with it.
Nationalism is a concept that is antithetical to the American experiment.
With the rise of Donald Trump many good conservatives have bandied about the term Nationalism and spoken of a desire to "return to" this concept without really understanding what it is and where it came from. Nationalism is not patriotism, nor is it promoting your own country first. It is not even a chauvinism that promotes national exceptionalism. Nationalism was the creation of the philosophy that also created socialism, and it was intended not to promote any one nation so much as to break the old social order and the power of the Church in favor of a new and strange god, a mystical worship of the Nation as the embodiment of the Collective Will and as such it was and is a rejection of individualism and Free Will.
When Jean Jacques Rousseau published The Social Contract he sent an earthquake through the political and social order of the day. Rousseau, a man who believed in the "noble savage" concept that Man was inherently good and in a state of nature was happy - a direct contradiction of the Christian concept of Original Sin - believe d that science and culture were a part of the repressive nature of modern society. It was vanity, he believed, that led to progress in those fields and this vanity caused friction and social discord. Rousseau thought that the social order was inherently unfair, a trick played by the rich and powerful on the proletariat.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica has this entry under Nationalism:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism
"Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities; but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history. Because of its dynamic vitality and its all-pervading character, nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour"
The New World Encyclopdia entry on Rousseau states that Rousseau argued in Discourse on Inequality :
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau
". As humans were forced to associate together more closely, by the pressure of population growth, they underwent a psychological transformation and came to value the good opinion of others as an essential component of their own well being. Rousseau associated this new self-awareness with a golden age of human flourishing. However, the development of agriculture and metallurgy, private property and the division of labor led to increased interdependence and inequality. The resulting state of conflict led Rousseau to suggest that the first state was invented as a kind of social contract made at the suggestion of the rich and powerful. This original contract was deeply flawed as the wealthiest and most powerful members of society tricked the general population, and thus instituted inequality as a fundamental feature of human society"
[…]
"According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law. While Rousseau argues that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between sovereign and government. The government is charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller group of citizens, known as magistrates."
Rousseau argues in The Origins of Inequality:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm
"But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops.â€
In short, the ascent of Man led to the creation of almost all social ills.
"It now became the interest of men to appear what they really were not. To be and to seem became two totally different things; and from this distinction sprang insolent pomp and cheating trickery, with all the numerous vices that go in their train. On the other hand, free and independent as men were before, they were now, in consequence of a multiplicity of new wants, brought into subjection, as it were, to all nature, and particularly to one another; and each became in some degree a slave even in becoming the master of other menâ€
He then provided a solution in the Social Contract:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm
""Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."
IF the State is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of its cares is the care for its own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling force, in order to move and dispose each part as may be most advantageous to the whole. As nature gives each man absolute power over all his members, the social compact gives the body politic absolute power over all its members also.â€
You see where this is going. Man can only be free if He subsumes himself into the collective. And the institutions that made the West what it became were oppressive, abusive, and created for the benefit of the rich and their parasites. Doesn't this sound like any modern Democrat?
Rousseau wanted to empower the Collective Will and break the powers of the day; the aristocracy, the Church, the men of letters and science. To do that he had to create a substitute, a new church to compete with the old, a new god, a new Man. From this vision came Nationalism, the rise of the worship of the State, all glory be upon her! Rousseau couched it in terms of "civil religion†and even accepted God and an afterlife, but he was clearly interested in creating something that served his dream of the collective rather than God and absolute Truth.
He was echoed by Jean Bodin in France and Hobbes in England. (It is interesting to note that many of the Nazi party members belonged to the Thule Society, a pagan Theosophist order which emphasized Monism.)
The German J. G. Fichte, in his effort to undo concepts of Natural Law and human reason, promoted Nationalism https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/nationalism-and-racialism-in-german-philosophy/ and was followed by other Germans, including Hegel, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer.
Indeed, Ernest Gellner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Gellner, the British-Czech social anthropologist, considered it a political construct and described it as:
"the general imposition of a high culture on society, where previously low cultures had taken up the lives of the majority, and in some cases the totality, of the population. It means the general diffusion of a school-mediated, academy supervised idiom, codified for the requirements of a reasonably precise bureaucratic and technological communication. It is the establishment of an anonymous impersonal society, with mutually sustainable atomized individuals, held together above all by a shared culture of this kind, in place of the previous complex structure of local groups, sustained by folk cultures reproduced locally and idiosyncratically by the micro-groups Thomas Hylland Eriksen
and Thomas Hylland Eriksen lists the following as the principle points of Gelner:
* Shared, formal educational system
* Cultural homogenization and "social entropy"
* Central monitoring of polity, with extensive bureaucratic control
* Linguistic standardization
* National identification as abstract community
* Cultural similarity as a basis for political legitimacy
* Anonymity, single-stranded social relationships And
Notice how little of this applied to the American experiment; America had no standardized education until John Dewey and the Progressive era, and even not then; Common Core is the first truly national effort in this regard. America shared common culture to a point, but allowed for some rather large differences (which were settled by the cultural imperialism of the North in the aftermath of the Civil War). Until Reconstruction America had no central bureaucratic control, and even then it was largely dismantled until the Progressives rebuilt it. America has never had a national language and the dialects are many and varied in our common language - English.
America was not founded with a common national identy in many ways; prior to the Civil War we were a nation of nations, with people identifying themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, etc. first. And cultural anonymity was clearly not an early American value; America was rooted in the local community, in the churches, in the social clubs and the saloons and other such institutions. Our local nature was the antithesis of anonymous, single stranded social relationships. In fact, it was a bit much for some, who often fled to the big cities to escape having all their neighbors in their business in rural America.
The philosophers whose work fostered the American revolution were not the same as those who created Nationalism. America was built on John Locke, Edmund Burke https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/ (whose advocacy for Natural Law was sharply at odds with Rousseau), Francis Bacon's scientific method and David Hume's "synthetic" and "analytic" truths (self-evident). The Americans adopted older British enlightenment thinking, before the Enlightenment turned malevolent.
And Christianity was a critical part of the American model. Where the later French Enlightenment thinkers sought to weaken the power of religion America was predicated on it in many ways. It was enshrined in our Constitution and the "wall of separation betweeen Church and State†was intended not as a way to weaken religion but to weaken government.
At the core of the American belief system were a number of things antithetical to Nationalism as it would later be constructed. Property rights loom large; in more Nationalistic societies property can only be held at the pleasure of the State because the collective is supreme. Rousseau famously stated:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm
"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!â€
Indeed, for The People to be sovereign the individual must surrender his right to property. The end result is either overt socialism (where property is wholly owned by the State) or fascism (where the State controls the use of property while permitting the image of private ownership.) America was built on the view that property is a sacred thing, one that one owns by virtue of improving it from a state of nature or by the agreement to transfer ownership. God gives property to Man to "subdue the Earthâ€. The thinking is very different in Nationalistic societies.
Rousseau also stated:
"I feel an indescribable ecstasy and delirium in melting, as it were, into the system of being, in identifying myself with the whole of nature.."
This illustrates the subordination of the individual or the small group to the collective, something that is required under a nationalistic order. Again, it is grossly at odds with the American spirit, which says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". The individual has rights over the group.
Indeed, the idea of Natural Law is pretty much dismissed by the progenitors of Nationalism as human inventions.
America celebrated true multiculturalism (not the nonsense modern leftists promote which is designed to destroy the cohesion of the community) where friends and neighbors create their own support systems and develop their own customs. America was a network of free peoples engaged in life as they saw best. Nationalism makes a nation a net to ensnare people. The Progressives have largely succeeded in doing precisely that.
They have created laws to force association where none is desired. For instance, requiring Christian bakers to make cakes (and serve them) for gay weddings. They have created endless laws to force acceptance rather than opportunity. Corporations are forced to hire people on a quota system rather than the best suited, for their needs. Private clubs are forced to accept members they do not want. There are laws against maintaining private communities. Long gone are the days of singles apartments, for example; there are laws against discrimination based on marriage status. A landlord has to rent to a drunk by law. He has to get permission before he rents to anyone, too. And there is always the threat of being accused of "creating a hostile work environment†if you don’t like your affirmative action hire and don’t treat him as a buddy. They gave us school busing and public housing in what were once strong communities.
And the most galling thing about this is that the Leftists - the creators of Nationalism - have managed to tar the Right with ownership of it. After the spectacular fail of Fascism and Nazism the Left immediately accused Conservatives of being the root of this evil and most people believe it because they created the national educational system which promotes the lie.
So many good conservatives attempt to reclaim their heritage by using the redefined term. It is a mistake: it was redefined by the Left to use as a blood libel and it remains so. We need to point out that we are NOT Nationalists, that America was never a Nationalistic enterprise, and that the true bloody monsters of the metastasized Nationalism of Germany and Italy were clearly, unequivocally, men of the Left.
They own it; it's time we make them with it.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 2373 words, total size 15 kb.
Zuckerberg says Facebook’s mission is to replace church
Jack Kemp
There are no words for this stupidity. But a Baptist senior paster takes on Zuckerberg's assinine comment.
John Lennon said in 1966 that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus." In 1970, the Beatles broke up. By 1980, Lennon either met Jesus or Satan face to face.
Zuckerberg is an atheistic nominal Jew. There are between 13 to 15 million Jews in the world. There are over one billion Christians. Another Harvard jerk who knows how to alienate his customers. I would have a few choice words for Zuckerberg in Hebrew and then translated into English. But the Aviary would not post such raw language. I'll just say that Zuckerberg is a total egomaniac jerk.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/02/mark-zuckerberg-says-facebooks-mission-is-to-replace-church-a-christian-pastor-responds/
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook’s mission is to replace church, a Christian pastor responds
Carlos Garcia Jul 2, 2017 7:40 am
Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the social media network’s new mission is to provide the community that churches once fulfilled. Pastor Robert Jeffries, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, responded Friday with Martha MacCullum on Fox News.
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg declares a new mission for his creation,†MacCullum explined, "suggesting that his virtual social network will seek to take the place of some real life communities, like churches for example.â€
"So he’s suggesting that the kind of community that people find in places like Facebook perhaps replaces what they used to find when they went to church,†she told Jeffries.
"Look, God created the church, Zuckerberg created Facebook, my guess is God and the church are gonna around a lot longer than Zuckerberg and Facebook are,†he responded./r
Read it all!
There are no words for this stupidity. But a Baptist senior paster takes on Zuckerberg's assinine comment.
John Lennon said in 1966 that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus." In 1970, the Beatles broke up. By 1980, Lennon either met Jesus or Satan face to face.
Zuckerberg is an atheistic nominal Jew. There are between 13 to 15 million Jews in the world. There are over one billion Christians. Another Harvard jerk who knows how to alienate his customers. I would have a few choice words for Zuckerberg in Hebrew and then translated into English. But the Aviary would not post such raw language. I'll just say that Zuckerberg is a total egomaniac jerk.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/02/mark-zuckerberg-says-facebooks-mission-is-to-replace-church-a-christian-pastor-responds/
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook’s mission is to replace church, a Christian pastor responds
Carlos Garcia Jul 2, 2017 7:40 am
Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the social media network’s new mission is to provide the community that churches once fulfilled. Pastor Robert Jeffries, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, responded Friday with Martha MacCullum on Fox News.
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg declares a new mission for his creation,†MacCullum explined, "suggesting that his virtual social network will seek to take the place of some real life communities, like churches for example.â€
"So he’s suggesting that the kind of community that people find in places like Facebook perhaps replaces what they used to find when they went to church,†she told Jeffries.
"Look, God created the church, Zuckerberg created Facebook, my guess is God and the church are gonna around a lot longer than Zuckerberg and Facebook are,†he responded./r
Read it all!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
Joy Behar "speaks for Jesus"
Jack Kemp
Joy Behar, an Italian-American once married to a Sephardic Jew named Behar (now divorced), kept his last name, also now wants to claim she knows what Jesus would do concerning wedding cakes for gays. A woman who made a living as a snarky insulting comedienne now believes she can speak for Jesus! We could ask her what would Jesus do about insulting people for a living. The Hebrew term "poostema" meaning "stupid girl" comes to mind in connection with Behar.
UPDATE: Lest I forget, in the 1990s, Joy Behar was a host of a talk radio program on WABC in New York City. Joy constantly attacked Joey Buttafuoco, the exploiter of the underage "Long Island Lolita," Amy Fisher - and Joy was right. But one day, when station manager Robert Mainelli revealed that Joy Behar was off working on a Woody Allen film. Woody, at the time, was in the process of marrying his unofficial stepdaughter, 17 year old Soon Yi. Talk about hypocrisy. As I called into the station and said that if Joey Buttafuoco had a movie part for Joy Behar, she would have kept her mouth shut about his affairs.
http://theresurgent.com/joy-behar-jesus-would-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake/
Joy Behar: Jesus Would Bake A Gay Wedding Cake
By Jason Hopkins | July 2, 2017, 11:25am | @thejasonhopkins
Joy Behar of The View knows exactly what Jesus would have done if he was asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
In an exclusive interview that aired Friday, Jack Phillips and his lawyer spoke to the panel about his case. The interview, which lasts a little over 11 minutes, centered mostly around the philosophy of Christianity and a "What Would Jesus Do?†debate.
Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. He is challenging a Colorado law that said he was wrong to turn down the gay couple’s request. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on Monday. Oral arguments will more than likely be heard in the court’s fall term.
Surprisingly, Phillips and his lawyer Kristen Waggoner chose The View as an outlet to make their case in the court of public opinion.
However much I disagree with the chosen program, Phillips did a great job presenting his argument and – more importantly – his faith. He clearly stated that he does not judge anyone. He said he was more than happy to sell them anything else that is offered in his store. Phillips even stressed that there are many other functions he would refuse to cater to: Halloweens, adult-themed parties, anything that would be disparaging to anybody, etc. His faith simply disallows him from baking a gay wedding cake.
The members of The View apparently know Jesus well and were certain he’d bake the cake.
Read the rest!
Joy Behar, an Italian-American once married to a Sephardic Jew named Behar (now divorced), kept his last name, also now wants to claim she knows what Jesus would do concerning wedding cakes for gays. A woman who made a living as a snarky insulting comedienne now believes she can speak for Jesus! We could ask her what would Jesus do about insulting people for a living. The Hebrew term "poostema" meaning "stupid girl" comes to mind in connection with Behar.
UPDATE: Lest I forget, in the 1990s, Joy Behar was a host of a talk radio program on WABC in New York City. Joy constantly attacked Joey Buttafuoco, the exploiter of the underage "Long Island Lolita," Amy Fisher - and Joy was right. But one day, when station manager Robert Mainelli revealed that Joy Behar was off working on a Woody Allen film. Woody, at the time, was in the process of marrying his unofficial stepdaughter, 17 year old Soon Yi. Talk about hypocrisy. As I called into the station and said that if Joey Buttafuoco had a movie part for Joy Behar, she would have kept her mouth shut about his affairs.
http://theresurgent.com/joy-behar-jesus-would-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake/
Joy Behar: Jesus Would Bake A Gay Wedding Cake
By Jason Hopkins | July 2, 2017, 11:25am | @thejasonhopkins
Joy Behar of The View knows exactly what Jesus would have done if he was asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
In an exclusive interview that aired Friday, Jack Phillips and his lawyer spoke to the panel about his case. The interview, which lasts a little over 11 minutes, centered mostly around the philosophy of Christianity and a "What Would Jesus Do?†debate.
Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. He is challenging a Colorado law that said he was wrong to turn down the gay couple’s request. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on Monday. Oral arguments will more than likely be heard in the court’s fall term.
Surprisingly, Phillips and his lawyer Kristen Waggoner chose The View as an outlet to make their case in the court of public opinion.
However much I disagree with the chosen program, Phillips did a great job presenting his argument and – more importantly – his faith. He clearly stated that he does not judge anyone. He said he was more than happy to sell them anything else that is offered in his store. Phillips even stressed that there are many other functions he would refuse to cater to: Halloweens, adult-themed parties, anything that would be disparaging to anybody, etc. His faith simply disallows him from baking a gay wedding cake.
The members of The View apparently know Jesus well and were certain he’d bake the cake.
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.
Times hires chimpanzees to report news
Jack Kemp
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/02/new-york-times-says-crime-occurred-in-downtown-arkansas-promptly-gets-mercilessly-mocked/
New York Times says crime occurred in ‘downtown Arkansas’ — promptly gets mercilessly mocked
Chris Enloe
The New York Time was widely mocked Saturday after they claimed a recent mass shooting occurred in "downtown Arkansas." That shooting actually occurred in downtown Little Rock, the capital city of Arkansas. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
The New York Times was widely mocked on Saturday after they posted a tweet claiming a mass shooting occurred in "downtown Arkansas†— which, of course, doesn’t exist.
"Dozens of people were wounded by gunfire at a nightclub early Saturday morning in downtown Arkansas,†the Times wrote on Twitter.
The crime the news outlet was referring to happened early Saturday morning in downtown Little Rock, the state capital of Arkansas.
SECTION OMITTED
Needless to say, many Twitter users mercilessly mocked the Times when they caught the Twitter error:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/02/new-york-times-says-crime-occurred-in-downtown-arkansas-promptly-gets-mercilessly-mocked/
New York Times says crime occurred in ‘downtown Arkansas’ — promptly gets mercilessly mocked
Chris Enloe
The New York Time was widely mocked Saturday after they claimed a recent mass shooting occurred in "downtown Arkansas." That shooting actually occurred in downtown Little Rock, the capital city of Arkansas. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
The New York Times was widely mocked on Saturday after they posted a tweet claiming a mass shooting occurred in "downtown Arkansas†— which, of course, doesn’t exist.
"Dozens of people were wounded by gunfire at a nightclub early Saturday morning in downtown Arkansas,†the Times wrote on Twitter.
The crime the news outlet was referring to happened early Saturday morning in downtown Little Rock, the state capital of Arkansas.
SECTION OMITTED
Needless to say, many Twitter users mercilessly mocked the Times when they caught the Twitter error:
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
July 02, 2017
WW II vet recalls how he tricked 15,000 German soldiers
Dana Mathewson
... into surrendering. I like stuff like this!
By
April 1945, Capt. T. Moffatt Burriss, then 24,had helped liberate
Wobbelin Concentration Camp, participated in Operation Market Garden
and fought in the deadly battles ofAnzioandSalernoin Italy
Littledid he know that another harrowing moment was just around the corner.
The
Allies were nearing victory in Berlin when, he recalled, orders came in
from Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, who later became president, to stand down
and allow Russians take control.
"But
I said: ‘I can’t stand this any longer.’ I got in my Jeep with the
lieutenant and sergeant and said, ‘Let’s go across the river and see
what we can see, see if there are some crowds still over there,'" he
said.
Burriss
ended up stumbling head-on with a 15,000-man German Panzer Corps. That
did not stop him from going straight to German unit's leader. Burris
informed the three-star German general that he was there to accept the
German unit’s surrender.
The
general, Burriss recalled, looked at him as if he was crazy –
especially because he was accompanied by only two men and a Jeep.
Read the rest here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/30/wwii-vet-recounts-how-tricked-15000-german-soldiers-had-flutter-inside-my-body.html
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 4 kb.
Monumental, unsustainable environmental impacts
Paul Driessen
It’s not just that climate cataclysms aren’t happening in the Real World, or that the junk science used to convict carbon dioxide and promote renewable energy is often downright disingenuous. It’s that the environmental impacts associated with going 100% wind, solar and biofuel are likely to be horrendous.
However, no one has ever examined, much less quantified those impacts. The United States alone has spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars delving into every conceivable, imagined or imaginary effect of CO2-driven climate change. But it has spent virtually nothing assessing the raw material needs, energy demands or land, water, wildlife and human health impacts of replacing fossil fuels (which provided 80% of the world’s energy) with supposedly renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly alternatives.
This article offers a glimpse into those impacts, and a template for the rigorous, honest, transparent, peer-reviewed analyses we need to conduct now, ASAP – before we spend tens of trillions of dollars on renewable energy schemes that end up having monumental, unsustainable impacts on our lives, budgets, health and environment
Monumental, unsustainable environmental impacts
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage
Paul Driessen
Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by manmade global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws.
1) In the Real World outside the realm of computer models, the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with temperatures, rising seas, extreme weather or other alleged problems.
2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. It ignores fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, oceanic currents and multiple other powerful natural forces that have controlled Earth’s climate since the dawn of time, dwarfing any role played by CO2. It ignores the enormous benefits of carbon-based energy that created and still powers the modern world, and continues to lift billions out of poverty, disease and early death.
It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and fall hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries.
3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the land and raw material requirements, and associated environmental impacts, of wind, solar and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards.
We properly insist on multiple detailed studies of every oil, gas, coal, pipeline, refinery, power plant and other fossil fuel project. Until recently, however, even the most absurd catastrophic climate change claims behind renewable energy programs, mandates and subsidies could not be questioned.
Just as bad, climate campaigners, government agencies and courts have never examined the land use, raw material, energy, water, wildlife, human health and other impacts of supposed wind, solar, biofuel and battery alternatives to fossil fuels – or of the transmission lines and other systems needed to carry electricity and liquid and gaseous renewable fuels thousands of miles to cities, towns and farms.
It is essential that we conduct rigorous studies now, before pushing further ahead. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and Interior Department should do so immediately. States, other nations, private sector companies, think tanks and NGOs can and should do their own analyses. The studies can blithely assume these expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent alternatives can actually replace fossil fuels. But they need to assess the environmental impacts of doing so.
Renewable energy companies, industries and advocates are notorious for hiding, minimizing, obfuscating or misrepresenting their environmental and human health impacts. They demand and receive exemptions from health and endangered species laws that apply to other industries. They make promises they cannot keep about being able to safely replace fossil fuels that now provide over 80% of US and global energy.
A few articles have noted some of the serious environmental, toxic/radioactive waste, human health and child labor issues inherent in mining rare earth and cobalt/lithium deposits. However, we now need quantitative studies – detailed, rigorous, honest, transparent, cradle-to-grave, peer-reviewed analyses.
The back-of-the-envelope calculations that follow provide a template. I cannot vouch for any of them. But our governments need to conduct full-blown studies forthwith – before they commit us to spending tens of trillions of dollars on renewable energy schemes, mandates and subsidies that could blanket continents with wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel crops and battery arrays; destroy habitats and wildlife; kill jobs, impoverish families and bankrupt economies; impair our livelihoods, living standards and liberties; and put our lives under the control of unelected, unaccountable state, federal and international rulers – without having a clue whether these supposed alternatives are remotely economical or sustainable.
Ethanol derived from corn grown on 40,000,000 acres now provides the equivalent of 10% of US gasoline – and requires billions of gallons of water, and enormous quantities of fertilizer and energy. What would it take to replace 100% of US gasoline? To replace the entire world’s motor fuels?
Solar panels on Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde’s output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.
Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana’s 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.
Delving more deeply, generating 20% of US electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75-80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.
Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 teraWatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials – all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products and shipped around the world.
Assuming 25 acres per turbine, the turbines would require 4,585,000,000 acres (1,855,500,000 hectares) – 1.3 times the land area of North America! Wells adds: Shipping just the iron ore to build the turbines would require nearly 3 million voyages in huge ships that would consume 13 billion tons of bunker fuel (heavy oil) in the process. And converting that ore to iron and steel would require 473 billion tons of coking coal, demanding another 1.2 million sea voyages, consuming another 6 billion tons of bunker fuel.
For sustainability disciples: Does Earth have enough of these raw materials for this transformation?
It gets worse. These numbers do not include the ultra-long transmission lines required to carry electricity from windy locations to distant cities. Moreover, Irina Slav notes, wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce high enough heat to melt silica, iron or other metals, and certainly cannot generate the required power on a reliable enough basis to operate smelters and factories.
Wind turbines (and solar panels) last just 20 years or so (less in salt water environments) – while coal, gas and nuclear power plants last 35-50 years and require far less land and raw materials. That means we would have tear down, haul away and replace far more "renewable†generators twice as often; dispose of or recycle their component parts (and toxic or radioactive wastes); and mine, process and ship more ores.
Finally, their intermittent electricity output means they couldn’t guarantee you could boil an egg, run an assembly line, surf the internet or complete a heart transplant when you need to. So we store their output in massive battery arrays, you say. OK. Let’s calculate the land, energy and raw materials for that. While we’re at it, let’s add in the requirements for building and recharging 100% electric vehicle fleets.
Then there are the bird and bat deaths, wildlife losses from destroying habitats, and human health impacts from wind turbine noise and flicker. These also need to be examined – fully and honestly – along with the effects of skyrocketing renewable energy prices on every aspect of this transition and our lives.
But for honest, evenhanded EPA and other scientists, modelers and regulators previously engaged in alarmist, biased climate chaos studies, these analyses will provide some job security. Let’s get started.
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.
It’s not just that climate cataclysms aren’t happening in the Real World, or that the junk science used to convict carbon dioxide and promote renewable energy is often downright disingenuous. It’s that the environmental impacts associated with going 100% wind, solar and biofuel are likely to be horrendous.
However, no one has ever examined, much less quantified those impacts. The United States alone has spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars delving into every conceivable, imagined or imaginary effect of CO2-driven climate change. But it has spent virtually nothing assessing the raw material needs, energy demands or land, water, wildlife and human health impacts of replacing fossil fuels (which provided 80% of the world’s energy) with supposedly renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly alternatives.
This article offers a glimpse into those impacts, and a template for the rigorous, honest, transparent, peer-reviewed analyses we need to conduct now, ASAP – before we spend tens of trillions of dollars on renewable energy schemes that end up having monumental, unsustainable impacts on our lives, budgets, health and environment
Monumental, unsustainable environmental impacts
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage
Paul Driessen
Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by manmade global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws.
1) In the Real World outside the realm of computer models, the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with temperatures, rising seas, extreme weather or other alleged problems.
2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. It ignores fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, oceanic currents and multiple other powerful natural forces that have controlled Earth’s climate since the dawn of time, dwarfing any role played by CO2. It ignores the enormous benefits of carbon-based energy that created and still powers the modern world, and continues to lift billions out of poverty, disease and early death.
It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and fall hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries.
3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the land and raw material requirements, and associated environmental impacts, of wind, solar and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards.
We properly insist on multiple detailed studies of every oil, gas, coal, pipeline, refinery, power plant and other fossil fuel project. Until recently, however, even the most absurd catastrophic climate change claims behind renewable energy programs, mandates and subsidies could not be questioned.
Just as bad, climate campaigners, government agencies and courts have never examined the land use, raw material, energy, water, wildlife, human health and other impacts of supposed wind, solar, biofuel and battery alternatives to fossil fuels – or of the transmission lines and other systems needed to carry electricity and liquid and gaseous renewable fuels thousands of miles to cities, towns and farms.
It is essential that we conduct rigorous studies now, before pushing further ahead. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and Interior Department should do so immediately. States, other nations, private sector companies, think tanks and NGOs can and should do their own analyses. The studies can blithely assume these expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent alternatives can actually replace fossil fuels. But they need to assess the environmental impacts of doing so.
Renewable energy companies, industries and advocates are notorious for hiding, minimizing, obfuscating or misrepresenting their environmental and human health impacts. They demand and receive exemptions from health and endangered species laws that apply to other industries. They make promises they cannot keep about being able to safely replace fossil fuels that now provide over 80% of US and global energy.
A few articles have noted some of the serious environmental, toxic/radioactive waste, human health and child labor issues inherent in mining rare earth and cobalt/lithium deposits. However, we now need quantitative studies – detailed, rigorous, honest, transparent, cradle-to-grave, peer-reviewed analyses.
The back-of-the-envelope calculations that follow provide a template. I cannot vouch for any of them. But our governments need to conduct full-blown studies forthwith – before they commit us to spending tens of trillions of dollars on renewable energy schemes, mandates and subsidies that could blanket continents with wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel crops and battery arrays; destroy habitats and wildlife; kill jobs, impoverish families and bankrupt economies; impair our livelihoods, living standards and liberties; and put our lives under the control of unelected, unaccountable state, federal and international rulers – without having a clue whether these supposed alternatives are remotely economical or sustainable.
Ethanol derived from corn grown on 40,000,000 acres now provides the equivalent of 10% of US gasoline – and requires billions of gallons of water, and enormous quantities of fertilizer and energy. What would it take to replace 100% of US gasoline? To replace the entire world’s motor fuels?
Solar panels on Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde’s output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.
Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana’s 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.
Delving more deeply, generating 20% of US electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75-80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.
Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 teraWatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials – all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products and shipped around the world.
Assuming 25 acres per turbine, the turbines would require 4,585,000,000 acres (1,855,500,000 hectares) – 1.3 times the land area of North America! Wells adds: Shipping just the iron ore to build the turbines would require nearly 3 million voyages in huge ships that would consume 13 billion tons of bunker fuel (heavy oil) in the process. And converting that ore to iron and steel would require 473 billion tons of coking coal, demanding another 1.2 million sea voyages, consuming another 6 billion tons of bunker fuel.
For sustainability disciples: Does Earth have enough of these raw materials for this transformation?
It gets worse. These numbers do not include the ultra-long transmission lines required to carry electricity from windy locations to distant cities. Moreover, Irina Slav notes, wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce high enough heat to melt silica, iron or other metals, and certainly cannot generate the required power on a reliable enough basis to operate smelters and factories.
Wind turbines (and solar panels) last just 20 years or so (less in salt water environments) – while coal, gas and nuclear power plants last 35-50 years and require far less land and raw materials. That means we would have tear down, haul away and replace far more "renewable†generators twice as often; dispose of or recycle their component parts (and toxic or radioactive wastes); and mine, process and ship more ores.
Finally, their intermittent electricity output means they couldn’t guarantee you could boil an egg, run an assembly line, surf the internet or complete a heart transplant when you need to. So we store their output in massive battery arrays, you say. OK. Let’s calculate the land, energy and raw materials for that. While we’re at it, let’s add in the requirements for building and recharging 100% electric vehicle fleets.
Then there are the bird and bat deaths, wildlife losses from destroying habitats, and human health impacts from wind turbine noise and flicker. These also need to be examined – fully and honestly – along with the effects of skyrocketing renewable energy prices on every aspect of this transition and our lives.
But for honest, evenhanded EPA and other scientists, modelers and regulators previously engaged in alarmist, biased climate chaos studies, these analyses will provide some job security. Let’s get started.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1590 words, total size 11 kb.
Bronx-Lebanon Hospital previously scandal plagued
Jack Kemp
This July 4th celebrate that you are far removed from Bronx-Lebanon Hospital.
http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/corruption-ran-rampant-at-bronx-hospital-before-shooting/
Corruption ran rampant at Bronx hospital before shooting
By Melissa Klein
July 1, 2017
It’s New York’s sickest hospital.
Long before a deranged doctor opened fire inside Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, the place was under an ongoing federal corruption probe, mobsters controlled the construction of its new outpatient center, executives were enjoying million-dollar pay packages and fat bonuses, doctors were allegedly offered per-patient bounties to drum up clinic business, and whistleblowing staffers sounded the alarm about poor patient care but were ignored.
Friday’s bloodbath was the latest black mark on a sprawling medical center that mainly cares for the poor and receives most of its funding from taxpayers in the form of state Medicaid.
Even its hiring of Dr. Henry Bello, the former resident who returned to Bronx-Lebanon on Friday to gun down the people who had once been his colleagues, is being held up at the latest — and most tragic — example of questionable recruitment. Bello, 45, had a criminal conviction for a 2004 sex attack on a 23-year-old.
Bronx-Lebanon has been headed for decades by Miguel Fuentes, who some describe as an imperious CEO who rarely leaves his office at the hospital’s Fulton Avenue campus to visit the main hospital facility on the Grand Concourse. When he does travel, he has a hospital-funded car and driver.
"This isn’t the Mayo Clinic,†one hospital observer bitterly noted.
Read the full article.
This July 4th celebrate that you are far removed from Bronx-Lebanon Hospital.
http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/corruption-ran-rampant-at-bronx-hospital-before-shooting/
Corruption ran rampant at Bronx hospital before shooting
By Melissa Klein
July 1, 2017
It’s New York’s sickest hospital.
Long before a deranged doctor opened fire inside Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, the place was under an ongoing federal corruption probe, mobsters controlled the construction of its new outpatient center, executives were enjoying million-dollar pay packages and fat bonuses, doctors were allegedly offered per-patient bounties to drum up clinic business, and whistleblowing staffers sounded the alarm about poor patient care but were ignored.
Friday’s bloodbath was the latest black mark on a sprawling medical center that mainly cares for the poor and receives most of its funding from taxpayers in the form of state Medicaid.
Even its hiring of Dr. Henry Bello, the former resident who returned to Bronx-Lebanon on Friday to gun down the people who had once been his colleagues, is being held up at the latest — and most tragic — example of questionable recruitment. Bello, 45, had a criminal conviction for a 2004 sex attack on a 23-year-old.
Bronx-Lebanon has been headed for decades by Miguel Fuentes, who some describe as an imperious CEO who rarely leaves his office at the hospital’s Fulton Avenue campus to visit the main hospital facility on the Grand Concourse. When he does travel, he has a hospital-funded car and driver.
"This isn’t the Mayo Clinic,†one hospital observer bitterly noted.
Read the full article.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.
128kb generated in CPU 0.0547, elapsed 0.2318 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.2166 seconds, 221 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.2166 seconds, 221 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
