Jack Kemp

A black (her race is a significant factor here) woman has decided to accuse Hobby Lobby of racism for selling a decorative artificial cotton stalk. To reply to one  Tweet's question, no this story is not from The Onion. But it may well be from the anti-religious Left.

The NY Post reports:
http://nypost.com/2017/09/18/woman-freaks-out-over-hobby-lobbys-raw-cotton-display/

A Texas woman has been getting ridiculed online for being "too sensitive” after she blasted the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby for selling faux raw cotton stalks — which she found offensive.

"This decor is WRONG on SO many levels,” Daniell Rider posted on Facebook this past Thursday, along with a photo of the phony textile plants.

"There is nothing decorative about raw cotton…A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American slaves,” she said. "A little sensitivity goes a long way. PLEASE REMOVE THIS ‘decor.'”

Rider, who is black, appeared to take the picture of the cotton herself after spotting it at a Hobby Lobby in Killeen, TX.

END OF QUOTE

One has to question the sanity and sincerity of this woman who "just so happened" to pick Hobby Lobby for her accusations. As many readers know, Hobby Lobby won a Supreme Court case which decided the closed corporation had no legal obligation to provide birth control coverage to their employees. The article also mentions that a college president at Libscomb University felt compelled to send an apology letter to black students who visited his home and saw decorative cotton plants.

Now about two years ago, I had two pairs of jeans that had seen better days. Looking in the newspaper one day, I saw that an idealistic group of people, in connection with the Cotton Council, were collecting old cotton clothing items such as jeans in New York's upscale Bloomingdale department store. The cotton items collected would be recycled into home insulation for poor people, making winter less brutal for many low income families. In appreciation for those that donated cotton items, the Cotton Council would hand out cotton shoulder bags (essential student or small mail carrier bags) to each donator. After going to Bloomingdale's, I received my bag complete with Cotton Boll logo on it - how "racist." I've carried this very bag in public in New York City and not one black person (wearing a cotton shirt or blouse) has come up to me saying I was glorifying oppression of blacks. Although that might change. As is, I've recently switched to a fancier half-backpack shoulder bag. But one wonders why there weren't black people standing outside Bloomingdale's with picket signs. I believe the reason for that is most black people have a life filled with much better things to do than get freaked out over a decorative cotton boll symbol, one seen on television commercials for decades along with a nice song praising cotton as "The fabric of our lives."

So will black people now start boycotting blue jeans? Or insisting white people who wear cotton clothes such as blue jeans are racist? Only the hard leftist blacks or the insane. But I repeat myself.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Dana Mathewson

For all you "word buffs." Well, it's not a word, exactly, it's an abbreviation. And I got a kick out of the fact that it was originally coined by someone of whom I'm a bit of a fan: British Admiral Lord "Jacky" Fisher, a colorful and talented officer in the WW I era.

I found this on Tammy Bruce's site.

http://tammybruce.com/2017/09/happy-100th-birthday-to-omg.html

Kudos to the lexicographers at the Oxford English Dictionary for tracking down the earliest usage of OMG.

And no, it’s not the invention of a texting teen.

Via WSJ.>

Let us now put down our smartphones to mark a peculiar anniversary. One hundred years ago, on Sept. 9, 1917, a retired admiral of the British navy fired off a letter to Winston Churchill, the future prime minister. The letter was shockingly prescient in one curious way: the admiral abbreviated "Oh my God!” in a most millennial fashion, as "OMG.”….

In his letter, Lord Fisher complained to the much younger Churchill, then serving as minister of munitions, about Britain’s cautious naval strategy against Germany. In a sarcastic tone, he closed the letter by writing, "I hear that a new order of Knighthood is on the tapis—O.M.G. (Oh! My God!)—Shower it on the Admiralty!!” ("On the tapis” meant "under consideration.”)

Lord Fisher’s letter went unnoticed for nearly a century until it was unearthed by lexicographers at the Oxford English Dictionary, when they added an entry for "OMG” in March 2011. The OED makes a point of tracking down the earliest known example of every word or phrase, and initial research had taken the interjection "OMG” back to 1994, in an online forum for soap-opera fans ("OMG! What did it say?”).

The editors asked one of the OED’s longtime library researchers, Jon Simon, formerly a research librarian at the Library of Congress, to track down another mid-’90s example of "OMG” that cropped up in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. But Mr. Simon didn’t stop there: He looked carefully through the Google Books database of digitized texts until he found the surprising 1917 letter, included in Lord Fisher’s memoirs published two years later….

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I just found this at Tammy Bruce's website: http://tammybruce.com/2017/09/chelsea-manning-calls-u-s-police-state-after-harvard-fellowship-revoked.html

Note to Chelsea: A "police state” would have dealt with you differently. And would have involved a rope. Or a bullet.

Via Newsweek.

Chelsea Manning has condemned Harvard after the university revoked her visiting fellowship following criticism from CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other agency officials.

"This is what a military/police/intel state looks like,” Manning tweeted early Friday, adding she thinks the Ivy League university’s reaction is akin to the CIA determining "what is and is not taught at Harvard.”….

Manning was imprisoned in 2010, and in 2013 she was sentenced under the Espionage Act to 35 years in prison for leaking nearly 1 million classified and sensitive diplomatic cables and documents about the Iraq War to the transparency group WikiLeaks. But she was released from a military jail in May after her sentence was commuted by former President Barack Obama….

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Hillary Clinton donated big time to Antifa terrorists. According to Gateway Pundit:

"Hillary, who long during the campaign trail condemned "dark-money” Super-PACs, has funneled over 800K from her Campaign over to one of these very same outfits. It has been revealed that the failed presidential candidate’s Super-PAC, "Onward Together”, is heavily backing "resistance” and Alt-Left extremist groups such as ANTIFA.

Hillary, who long during the campaign trail condemned "dark-money” Super-PACs, has funneled over 800K from her Campaign over to one of these very same outfits. It has been revealed that the failed presidential candidate’s Super-PAC, "Onward Together”, is heavily backing "resistance” and Alt-Left extremist groups such as ANTIFA.

In building investigations, Daily Caler first discovered that Hillary transferred a mass sum of money from her campaign over to Onward Together:

Clinton transferred $800,000 from her failed 2016 presidential campaign to Onward Together shortly before announcing the group’s launch in May, documents the campaign filed with the FEC reveal.

Now, today, it has been revealed by Offended America exactly where that money is going:

Daily Caller reached out to five different Antifa linked groups, and only one was willing to deny donations from Onward Together. Soros-linked group, Indivisible, denied receiving financial support from Clinton or Onward Together"

End excerpt.

Antifa is a terrorist organization according to the Department of Homeland Security.  Hillary is a sponsor of terrorism.



Now 18 U.S. Code § 2339C - Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism states quite clearly that the punishment for funding terrorist organizations consist of:

(d) Penalties.—
(1)Subsection (a).—
Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
(2)Subsection (c).—
Whoever violates subsection (c) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

End excerpt.

Whatever happened to "lock her up!" Now more than ever Hillary should be brought to justice.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 3 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Jeff Jacoby, in Townhall, recounts a time when our military was concerned about more important diversity than the kind of "social experimentation" that seems to occupy so much of its time these days.

https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2017/09/17/above-the-arctic-circle-a-cold-war-rosh-hashana-n2382702

It was early September 1956, the High Holidays were approaching, and Elihu Schimmel was in the Cold War's coldest theater.

The young internist, an Orthodox Jew, had graduated from Yale Medical School in the spring of 1954 and gotten married the following year. A week after his wedding, he'd entered the Navy with the rank of lieutenant. Now he was the medical officer on the USS Lindenwald, a dock landing ship steaming in the Arctic Ocean as part of a squadron charged with supplying the DEW Line — the far-flung Distant Early Warning network of radar stations built to detect incoming Soviet bombers in case of an attack on North America. For three months each summer, before polar ice made the seas impassable, multitudes of military personnel brought construction materials, communications equipment, and fuel to the web of northern bases stretching across Canada.

As the only Navy doctor in the Arctic Ocean that summer, Schimmel was responsible for the medical care of men on dozens of ships. Often he had to be transported — by helicopter, by launch, by seaplane — from the Lindenwald to another vessel to see a patient. But with Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) just around the corner, Schimmel was wondering whether a few men could be moved in the other direction. Specifically, a few Jewish men: enough to assemble a minyan, a quorum of 10, so that services could be held on the most sacred days of the Jewish year.

There were a few other Jews on the Lindenwald. One was an Army private named Sam Levin, who was assigned to the 588th Transportation Company. Hundreds of men from the 588th were serving on ships throughout the area, and Levin knew quite a few of them, including several who were Jewish — enough, he told Schimmel, to make a minyan. If they could get those guys aboard the Lindenwald by sundown on Sept. 5, they could hold proper Rosh Hashana services — perhaps the first ever to be held in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.

But would the Navy and Army be willing to indulge a few Jewish service members? Would it go to the trouble of transporting men to the Lindenwald and let them temporarily skip their regular duties for religious reasons? Schimmel didn't know, but — nothing ventured, nothing gained — decided to ask.

He approached the Lindenwald's executive officer, Lieutenant Commander Paul Hurry. Without hesitating, Hurry told Schimmel that he and Levin could count on the Navy's support, assuming there was no objection from the Army. So Schimmel went to the Army colonel commanding the 588th. Recounting the story to me last week, he couldn't recall the colonel's name, but he's never forgotten his response: "Done. Absolutely. I'll have the orders drawn up."

They were as good as their word. By the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 5, a handful of Jewish troops from other Navy vessels in the Arctic were aboard the Lindenwald. That day's shipboard "newspaper" — a mimeographed handout called "DEW Line Daily" — matter-of-factly listed "the schedule of Jewish Services for the High Holidays," to be held in the Crew's Lounge that evening. For the benefit of curious readers, it went on to explain the significance of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur in Jewish culture ("days of repentance and of rededication ... called collectively the Days of Awe ... according to tradition, everyone is judged ... ends with a final sounding of the ram's horn").

At 1900 hours (7 p.m.), an announcement was broadcast over the public-address system: "Attention all hands: Jewish divine services are beginning in the crew's lounge. The smoking lamp is now out in all parts of the ship." In Navy jargon, it was a directive banning anyone from smoking anywhere on the Lindenwald: a gesture of reverence for the tiny group of High Holiday worshipers.

After Rosh Hashana ended, Schimmel dashed off a quick letter home. "We had 100% attendance, which fortunately was just 10 boys," he wrote. "Only one other boy read Hebrew . . . so we had services mostly in English. Took 2-2½ hours both days. . . . Ship & Army personnel were very cooperative and interested in the services — Commodore (via chaplain) came through with an official dispatch to release all Jewish personnel for services — I really never expected any airborne lift to assemble us! I'm very grateful."

Schimmel's Navy stint ended the following July, and he went on to a distinguished medical career in Boston. Now 87, he is still grateful at how readily the military accommodated his religious needs. "I never encountered the least whiff of negative reaction," he told me. Having grown up in an America where casual antisemitism was widespread and bigotry toward minorities far from taboo, he'd had no reason to think the Navy would be particularly enlightened.

In reality, the U.S. military establishment is remarkably broadminded about religion. As far back as the Spanish-American War, thousands of Jewish troops were granted furloughs to attend High Holiday services. During World War II, with more than half a million American Jews in uniform, military commanders authorized High Holiday services and Passover seders, many of which were attended by hundreds of service members. Some of those services ached with poignance: In 1945, some 500 Jewish GIs assembled on Rosh Hashana to pray in Verdun, France — a city from which every Jew had been eliminated during the Nazi reign of terror.

Gathering a minyan aboard the Lindenwald from ships throughout the Arctic took some operational doing. But according to Jonathan Sarna, the prominent Brandeis University historian, such "non-trivial logistical exercises" advanced two goals important to US policymakers.

One was displaying America's commitment to religious liberty, reinforcing the contrast with the Soviet Union, where religion was banned and believers were cruelly persecuted. The other was strengthening cohesion within military units by refusing to countenance anti-Semitic (or anti-Catholic) prejudice, and by bending over backward to treat religious minorities with courtesy.

To this day, Elihu Schimmel glows when he recalls the respect with which he and his fellow Jews were treated as they prayed aboard the Lindenwald in 1956. When the High Holidays begin at sunset next Wednesday, Jewish soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines on duty around the world will again gather in prayer, with the full support of the US military. May those men and women, and the grateful nation they serve, be blessed with a safe and sweet new year.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1130 words, total size 11 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Steven Hayward, in Power Line, contrasts Donald Trump with Ronald Reagan. This gets quite analytical and I think it's very instructive. I've added a few emphases to point up some of what I think is "the good stuff."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/09/whats-happening-with-trump.php

I stayed up late last night because I couldn’t reconcile myself to Stanford’s bizarre loss to San Diego State, and decided to tune in to Boob Tube News—I mean, CNN—which was running a documentary called "The Reagan Show,” described thus: "Made up entirely of archival news and White House footage, this documentary captures the pageantry, absurdity, and mastery of the made-for-TV politics of Ronald Reagan.” Supposedly we were going to see "behind the scenes” for some candid footage of Reagan in action.

It started off promising enough, with clips of Reagan going through three takes to tape a TV campaign spot for John Sununu’s campaign for governor of New Hampshire, but the otherwise smooth Reagan keeps stumbling over the pronunciation of "Sununu.” Finally Reagan quips, "Oh hell, why can’t his name be John Smith?”

But before long the film becomes a parade of what CNN no doubt thinks will be a damning portrait of the old clichés about Reagan—that he was an out-of-touch figurehead president. But ironically the effect is just the opposite, as it amounts to a perfect highlight reel of the media’s relentless hostility to Reagan. We see clips of a lot of "journalists” (or "Democrats with bylines,” to be more accurate) who are still on the scene today, such as Chris Wallace and Brian Ross, asking question after question with premises drawn wholly from liberal orthodoxy. "The Reagan Show” could be a clinic in media bias.

But one other aspect of it reminds me of the present moment. To be sure, Reagan’s White House had lots of factional infighting, and often had to clarify mis-statements from Reagan or contradictory messages coming from different nodes of the administration. Kind of reminds me of the Trump Administration. The story the Wall Street Journal flacked over the weekend that Trump was reversing course on the Paris Climate Accord, which was quickly and firmly disavowed by the White House, reminds me of nothing so much as the contradictory messages that came out of the Reagan Administration on arms control and US-Soviet relations. These often arose from competing factions in the State and Defense departments, and inside the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and National Security Council. (I do worry, though, that with Bannon gone the internal balance of power may have shifted to the pro-Paris, pro-climate alarmists near the president.)

At the end of the day, though, the Reagan Administration knew what it was doing. I suspect the Trump Administration is not nearly as chaotic as the media portray.

Which is not to say that there isn’t quite a bit of chaos inside the White House, proceeding ultimately from Trump himself. What’s up with his recent deals with Chuck and Nancy? I have a theory: Chuck and Nancy are easier to buy off than, for example, the House Freedom Caucus. He’s been doing it for years in New York City.

But one wonders about Trump’s vaunted deal-making ability. He appears to have bit on the first offer from Chuck and Nancy on the debt ceiling and on DACA. Here the contrast with Reagan is most instructive. Tip O’Neill used to say he hated negotiating with Reagan because Reagan always got 80 percent of what he wanted. Reagan’s strategy was patience and firmness. Most of his deals on taxes or the budget took months, not days or weeks, to achieve. (Also true for arms control—remember how he won the "zero option” on European missiles, which everyone hooted at when he proposed it; it just took six years to get.) He’d say to Tip, "Gosh, you know, I won 49 states, and I have a mandate to fulfill.” He’d stand firm until Tip reached yet another level of concessions, at which point he’d say, "Done!” And Tip would walk away fuming that he’d been had again. A Soviet official once compared Reagan to a lion, sitting calmly in the underbrush watching tempting things go by, and then suddenly reaching out with a big paw and swiping the prize that most appealed to him.

Maybe this is just craven political triangulation from Trump, Bill Clinton-style, which can be good politics, though probably bad policy. Or maybe this is the real, unprincipled or liberal Trump that we feared would emerge eventually. Maybe it is something in-between, in which case we’ll have the confusing spectacle of conservative judicial appointees and center-left policy on everything else.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 825 words, total size 6 kb.

Paul Driessen

Western state forest acreage equivalent to Minnesota is at risk. Already this year, more acres than in New Jersey have disappeared in wildfires – 1.1 million acres in Montana alone. The infernos exterminate habitats, immolate wildlife that can’t run fast enough, leave surviving animals to starve, and incinerate organic matter and nearly every living creature in the thin western soils. Many areas will not recover their biodiversity for decades.

Far more horrific, the conflagrations destroy people’s homes – and kill fire fighters and families that cannot get away quickly enough, or get trapped by sudden walls of flames. Radical environmentalists naturally blame "dangerous manmade climate change” for the death and destruction.

Thankfully, the Interior and Agriculture Departments have proposed long overdue policies to manage our western forests properly, remove dead and diseased trees, and prevent the horrible fires that have destroyed so many forests and killed so many people and animals in recent years.

Finally, some commonsense western fire policies

New DOI and DOA policy to cut overgrown, diseased, dead and burned trees is long overdue

Paul Driessen

President Trump promised to bring fresh ideas and policies to Washington. Now Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are doing exactly that in a critically important area: forest management and conflagration prevention. Their actions are informed, courageous and long overdue.

Westerners are delighted, and I’ve advocated such reforms since my days on Capitol Hill in the 1980s.

As of September 12, amid this typically long, hot, dry summer out West, 62 major forest fires are burning in nine states, the National Interagency Fire Center reports. The Interior Department and Ag Department’s Forest Service have already spent over $2 billion fighting them. That’s about what they spent in all of 2015, previously the most costly wildfire season ever, and this season has another month or more to go. The states themselves have spent hundreds of millions more battling these conflagrations.

Millions of acres of forest have disappeared in smoke and flames – 1.1 million in Montana alone. All told, acreage larger than New Jersey has burned already. However, even this hides the real tragedies.

The infernos exterminate wildlife habitats, roast eagle and spotted owl fledglings alive in their nests, immolate wildlife that can’t run fast enough, leave surviving animals to starve for lack of food, and incinerate organic matter and nearly every living creature in the thin soils. They turn trout streams into fish boils, minus the veggies and seasonings. Future downpours and rapid snowmelts bring widespread soil erosion into streambeds. Many areas will not grow trees or recover their biodiversity for decades.

Most horrifically, the conflagrations threaten homes and entire communities. They kill fire fighters and families that cannot get away quickly enough, or get trapped by sudden walls of flames.

In 2012, two huge fires near Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, Colorado burned 610 homes, leaving little more than ashes, chimneys and memories. Tens of thousands of people had to be evacuated through smoke and ash that turned daytime into choking night skies. Four people died. A 1994 fire near Glenwood Springs, CO burned 14 young firefighters to death.

These are not "natural” fires of environmentalist lore, or "ordinary” fires like those that occur in state and privately owned and managed forests. Endless layers of laws, regulations, judicial decrees and guidelines for Interior and Forest Service lands have meant that most western forests have been managed like our 109 million acres of designated wilderness: they are hardly managed at all.

Environmentalists abhor timber cutting on federal lands, especially if trees might feed profit-making sawmills. They would rather see trees burn, than let someone cut them. They constantly file lawsuits to block any cutting, and too many judges are all too happy to support their radical ideas and policies.

Thus, even selective cutting to thin dense stands of timber, or remove trees killed by beetles or fires, is rarely permitted. Even fire fighting and suppression are often allowed only if a fire was clearly caused by arson, careless campers or other human action – but not if lightning ignited it. Then it’s allowed to burn, until a raging inferno is roaring over a ridge toward a rural or suburban community.

The result is easy to predict. Thousands of thin trees grow on acreage that should support just a few hundred full-sized mature trees. Tens of billions of these scrawny trees mix with 6.3 billion dead trees that the Forest Service says still stand in eleven western states. Vast forests are little more than big trees amid closely bunched matchsticks and underbrush, drying out in hot, dry western summers and droughts – waiting for lightning bolts, sparks, untended campfires or arsonists to start super-heated conflagrations.

Flames in average fires along managed forest floors might reach several feet in height and temperatures of 1,472° F (800° C), says Wildfire Today. But under extreme conditions of high winds and western tinderboxes, temperatures can exceed 2,192° F (1200° C), flame heights can reach 165 feet (50 meters) or more, and fires can generate a critter-roasting 100,000 kilowatts per meter of fire front. Wood will burst into flame at 572° F. Aluminum melts at 1,220 degrees, silver at 1,762 and gold at 1,948° F!

Most of this heat goes upward, but super-high temperatures incinerate soil organisms and organic matter in thin western soils that afterward can support only stunted, spindly trees for decades.

These fires also emit prodigious quantities of carbon dioxide, fine particulates and other pollutants – including mercury, which is absorbed by tree roots from rocks and soils that contain this metal, and then lofted into the sky when the trees burn.

Rabid greens ignore these hard realities – and divert discussions back to their favorite ideological talking points. The problem isn’t too many trees, they insist. It’s global warming and climate change. That’s why western states are having droughts, long fire seasons, and high winds that send flames past fire breaks.

Global warming, global cooling and climate change have been part of the Earth and human experience from time immemorial. Natural climate fluctuations brought the multi-decade Anasazi drought, the Dust Bowl and other dry spells to our western states. To suggest that this summer’s heat and drought are somehow due to mankind’s fossil fuel use and related emissions is deliberately delusional nonsense.

Neither these activists nor anyone in Al Gore’s climate chaos consortium can demonstrate or calibrate a human connection to droughts or fires. Rants, rhetoric and CO2-driven computer models do not suffice. And even if manmade (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide does play a role amid the powerful natural forces that have always controlled climate and weather, reducing US fossil fuel use would have zero effect.

China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam alone are building 590 new coal-fired power plants right now, on top of the hundreds they have constructed over the past decade. Overall, more than 1,600 new coal generators are planned or under construction in 62 countries. People in developing countries are also driving far more vehicles and making great strides in improving their health and living standards. They will not stop.

Western conflagrations jump fire breaks because these ferocious fires are fueled by the unprecedented increase in combustibles that radical green policies have created. These monstrous fires generate their own high winds and even mini tornados that carry burning branches high into the air, to be deposited hundreds of feet away, where they ignite new fires. It has nothing to do with climate change.

Remove some of that fuel – and fires won get so big, hot, powerful and destructive. We should also do what a few environmentalist groups have called for: manage more areas around buildings and homes – clearing away brush that federal agencies and these same groups have long demanded be left in place.

Finally, we should be using more of the readily available modern technologies like FireIce from GelTech Solutions. They can suppress and extinguish fires, and protect homes, much better than water alone.

The last bogus eco-activist claim is that "fire isn’t destruction; it’s renewal. It creates stronger, more diverse ecosystems.” That may be true in managed forests, timber stands in less tinder-dry states, and forests that have undergone repeated, non-devastating fires. For all the reason presented above, it is not true for government owned and mismanaged forests in our western states.

Over 50 million acres (think Minnesota) are at risk of catastrophic wildfires, says Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), whose Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 would codify many of these essential regulatory changes. Right now, we are spending billions of dollars we don’t have, should not have to spend fighting all these monstrous killer blazes, and should have available to improve forests and parks and fund other vital programs.

Over 50 million acres (equal to Minnesota) are at risk of catastrophic wildfires. Right now, we are spending billions of dollars we don’t have, should not have to spend fighting all these monstrous killer blazes, and should have available to improve forests and parks and fund other vital programs.

These forests could and should create jobs and generate revenues in states where far too many lands, timber, oil and minerals have been placed off limits – primarily by urban politicians, judges and radical activists who seem determined to drive people off these western lands, turn them into playgrounds for the wealthy, and roll back other Americans’ living standards and well-being. Cleaning out dead, diseased, burned, overgrown trees would bring countless benefits. It would make our forests healthy again.

Above all, the new Interior-Agriculture approach would demonstrate that Rural Lives Matter.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1603 words, total size 11 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Brian seems to have struck a nerve with the good Leonard Pitts Jr. Here is more back and forth between them:

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Leonard Pitts <lpitts@miamiherald.com> wrote:

My columns contain absolutely no "anti-white sentiment." Never have. They do frequently contain painful historical fact and anti bigot sentiment that some white people find uncomfortable, probably because it strikes too close to home To avoid their own discomfort, they usually process what I've said as "anti-white sentiment" and project it on to me.

The problem with that, however, is that it doesn't account for the literally millions of white readers who seem to think I'm an okay guy. So are they too dumb to recognize this terrible "anti-white sentiment" of mine that you see so clearly? Or are you just using that as a lame cover to escape truths you find too hard to deal with in any other way?

Take your time...

LP


> Mr.. Pitts,
> Since you are now delving into the world of psychology, I would have to say that self-knowledge is certainly not one of your virtues. I don't know the millions of white readers who think you are an okay guy, and wonder whether you've actually counted them, but I suppose that my incredulousness on this score is "...just a lame cover to escape truths you find hard to deal with in any other way." Yes sir, when all else fails, like a certified liberal, you engage in spiteful, churlish personal attacks. You still have not addressed my central point. Do you deny that America has been a good country for you? How, then do you account for your success?
>
> Regards,
> B. Birdnow
> St. Louis, Mo.


Your "incredulousness" notwithstanding: I've been writing this column for 23 years. It appears in somewhere north of 225 newspapers. The vast majority of newspaper readers in this country are older and white. Do the math. Or, just come out to any of my speaking engagements and see for yourself.

What you will find – and I hate to say this, because I know how much you dislike being psychologically diagnosed – is that you have been projecting your own small mindedness and fear on to a whole bunch of other people who do not share it.

As for America: yes, the country has been good in some ways, but bitterly oppressive in too many others. That is yet another example of the effects of the white racism that I've been talking about. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how my supposed "racism" has impacted you.


End

Notice how Pitts fails to see that there are millions of Americans who think he is a jackass; he bases his conclusions about being loved on turnouts by liberals at his speeches. Newspaper readers are older and white? Perhaps - my father is - but that hardly means they love HIM. My dad reads the leftist Post-Dispatch primarily for the sports scores.

And Pitts is back to his "projection theory, which is his OWN progection, quite frankly. He's the one who sees racism behind every tree and around every corner. I hate to break it to him, but the average white person doesn't think much one way or another about black people; they are just there, like everybody else. White people may be perturbed on occasion by black people but largely for cause; they are worreid about crime, or about noise, or about property values dropping. It is not because these are funny looking people (to them) or any of the other ridiculous theories Pitts puts forward. I would like to point out that whites aren't alone in this; in my job as property manager I encountered many black people who made it quite plain they didn't want to live in black communities and for the exact same reason that whites would give. It is not about the color of skin but the content of character. Remember when Jesse Jackson said he was always releived to see a white person walking up behind him in a dark street? Pitts pretends that isn't the case.

See the complete exchange here.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 703 words, total size 4 kb.

Jack Kemp

Paul Dreissen at Townhall.com has written a detailed article about the Trump Administration's changes to woodland management and its pending effects on the raging forest fires we have experienced in Western States these past years. https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/09/16/finally-some-commonsense-western-fire-policies-n2382319?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Now Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are doing exactly that in a critically important area: forest management and conflagration prevention. Their actions are informed, courageous and long overdue.

SECTION OMITTED

These are not "natural” fires of environmentalist lore, or "ordinary” fires like those that occur in state and privately owned and managed forests. Endless layers of laws, regulations, judicial decrees and guidelines for Interior and Forest Service lands have meant that most western forests have been managed like our 109 million acres of designated wilderness: they are hardly managed at all.

Environmentalists abhor timber cutting on federal lands, especially if trees might feed profit-making sawmills. They would rather see trees burn, than let someone cut them. They constantly file lawsuits to block any cutting, and too many judges are all too happy to support their radical ideas and policies.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

Dana Mathewson

We often, on this site, report on the idiocy which has gripped the Left. This is why I have included this post. If any of you think it has gone beyond the bounds of good taste, well, I got it from the PJ Media site. NOT The Onion, and NOT from a porn site. I grant you, much of what comes from the Left these days is indistinguishable from porn. (And I think it must be terribly difficult to write for The Onion these days!)

We hear a lot -- too much, perhaps -- these days about how girls are under-represented as students of the sciences. This article (from our friends down under) attempts to analyze that. I think they may have missed the target, but not for lack of trying to hit it with an interesting weapon.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2017/09/16/patriarchy-alert-standing-pee-gives-boys-unfair-advantage-physics/

Yes, you read the headline correctly. In the latest example of identity politics taken to its absurd end, three Australian college professors believe that "Playful urination practices – from seeing how high you can pee to games such as Peeball (where men compete using their urine to destroy a ball placed in a urinal) – may give boys an advantage over girls when it comes to physics."

The three professors didn't publish their thoughts on a satirical website like The Onion. Instead, they published on Tes, a website that provides "Educational materials, jobs, news, and courses from the world's best community of teachers and school leaders."In the article, Anna Wilson, Kate Wilson, and David Low argue with a straight face that peeing standing up provides an advantage for boys over girls in learning physics.

Explaining what prompted their musings that led to their conclusion about the advantages peeing standing up gives boys, the professors write, "The gender gap in physics, and other related subjects including engineering, has long been a cause for concern.... Therefore we have to ask: why don’t young women perform as well in physics?"

That seems like a semi-reasonable question, I think. Except Professors Wilson, Wilson, and Low live and ask questions in the land of identity politics.

After casually going through a list of possible explanations for why young women might not perform as well in physics as do young men — things like lack of female physics teachers, cultural pressure and expectations, and gender bias in the teaching materials — they conclude: "there may be another reason, too."

After noting that girls lag in areas of physics that deal with projectile motion, the article reveals that "Like many parents of small (and not-so-small) boys, two of us (KW and DL) have observed the great delight young males take in urination, a process by which they produce and direct a visible projectile arc."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 4 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Riots break out in St. Louis over the acquittal of a police officer involved in shooting a suspect in 2011.

This was inevitable. The rioters planned this well in advance of the verdict, and George Soros has been spending like a sailor to bring professional rioters into town. The media covered the march of a few paltry dozen marchers, who were allowed to block traffic in downtown in violation of the law. Cameras and hours of coverage swelled the crowds to high levels and rioting ensued. Is anyone surprised?

Lyda Krewson, St. Louis' limousine liberal mayor, is largely to blame for allowing the people to block the streets. They said they would shut st. Louis down and they tried to close the interstates but were simply pushed back by law enforcement rather than arrested. You have to start arrests early and strictly enforce the law to stop this sort of thing. They knew it was coming.

A pox upon the Democrats who run the city!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

This dovetails with Brian's arguement with Leord Pitts Jr. Daren M. Williams penned a great piece about the fallacy of "white privilege" and points out that blacks actually are the ones who profit from it.

From American Thinker:

"Unbeknownst to many, blacks in America are the major beneficiaries of the uniquely American phenomenon commonly known as "White Privilege". And they have enjoyed those privileges for decades, nay (dare I say it?), for over a century now. "

[...].

I conclude with two points. First, there is no such thing as "White Privilege." If there is any privilege, it is the privilege of being born in or immigrating to an advanced, free, and open capitalist society. At most, there might be the appearance of a "majority privilege"; that is, any majority ethic group existing in an ethnically diverse country or society will appear to have greater privilege than its minority counterparts simply because of its sheer populousness, because of its longevity in the community, and so on. To wit, blacks enjoy a large degree of "Black Privilege" in all African countries under the Sub-Sahara. And Asians enjoy a disproportionately large degree of "Asian Privilege" in their countries of origin. And even Muslims enjoy an overriding degree of "Muslim Privilege" in comparison to other religious groups in predominantly Muslim countries.

And second, in an advanced, free, and open capitalist society, everyone, whether through birthright, citizenship, or legal immigrant status, has the ability to enjoy the "privileges" of that society’s accomplishments if they so choose -- be it in the field of sports, entertainment, science, business, medicine, etc., or one of their own creation."

End excerpt. h

And indeed there are a great many privileges associated with being black in modern America. Blacks get preferences in hiring for government jobs and generally in private sector ones, too. Affirmative action and "race norming" of civil servant tests give blacks a disproportionate number of civil service jobs. Colleg admissions are skewed to give lesser qualified black candidates a spot at major universities, many of whom have not developed competitive scholastic skills and wind up failing or being passed through to maintain a quota. The nation's social safety net was designed primarily with black people in mind (although others can take advantage as well) and such things as Section housing and other social programs help the black community where many whites are denied similar aid. Blacks are over6represented in sports, as the author points out, but also in music and entertainment. Some would argue that is because the people want, say, rap music or whatnot. True, but it was promoted heavily by record companies and entertainment moguls and this frnkly proves my point; there is a postive pressure, a sense of good will that promotes African Americans and their culture. If America were so racist and whites have so much privilege why are they flocking to black culture? In point of fact, nobody in their right minds would seek out anything associated with the black community if it was so detrimental to your life. That young white kids are forever acting out as gangsta rappers or whatnot speaks volumes.

White males are declining in colleges. White males are seeing their life expectancy decline - the only class in America to do so. Unemployment rates for white males are unusually high. That bespeaks a culture of black and female privilege, not the other way around.

And Antifa or Black Lives Matter can show up wearing ski masks and toting baseball bats and bash in the heads of white nationalist protesters who were lawfully assembled and the white guys get the blame for everything from the media. Black crimes go unreported on the news regularly (and some of them have been horrendous) because there is a black privilege that says they are allowed leeway because of their historical oppression. See White Girls Bleed Alot. If the situation were reversed a black people were treated in a similar way there would be 24/7 coverage on the news and a DOJ and Congresional investigation launched. When it's black on white crime, nothing.

Privilege.

Black people can cut lines, disturb the peace, and annoy people around them and get away with it because "that's their culture" while whites are held to a higher standard. Go into any black neighborhood on a Saturday night and see for yourself; there is shouting and gunfire and tires screeching and blaring music and trash strewn about. That is not tolerated in a white community. In many places building standards are different for whites and blacks, with black areas being largely exempt from condemnations because they are inhabited by black folks while whites are held to a stricter account. Privilege.

By so many metrics it can be shown that there is a black privilege that is not extended to whites. The business of "white privilege' may have been true a hundred years ago, but it is long past and the pendulum has swung the other way. Now whites are the ones treated as second class.

I dare anyone who disagrees to make a solid argument against that assertion. At best we'll hear platitudes and microaggressions and that is about it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 871 words, total size 6 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

My brother Brian is in an argument with Leonard Pitts Jr., Miami Herald writer and Pulitzer Prize winner. Pitts, whose primary occupation is bemoaning his mistreatment by white people in America, has cried his way to the bank, and yet continues to demand reparations for wrongs he has never himself endured. Brian took umbrage with a recent column by Pitts, and here is an e-mail exchange (with perhaps a bit of commentary from me.)

Dear Mr. Pitts,
Regular readers of your column are, by now, used to a diatribe of anti-white racism in place of reasoned debate, but you may have hit bottom with your column last week entitled, "America, a Land of Liberty and Justice for Some". You defend NFL players for demonstrating against the flag, and their own country, which comes as no surprise. You excoriate the Cleveland Police Department for taking exception to the demonstrations, which also comes as no surprise. What does come as a surprise, if not a logical fallacy, is your line, which reads, ""But America steals from us, then tells us we're thieves."

What sir, has America stolen from you? You are given a well-paid sinecure at a major metropolitan newspaper, thus, you have a privileged position from which to bash the country that has given you so much. Can you back up your assertion that America has "stolen" from you? From here it seems that this country has been very good to you, but your anti-white racism combined with an unbalanced rage has blinded you to that fact.

Best regards,
Brian E. Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo.


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Pitts, Leonard <lpitts@miamiherald.com> wrote:

The very fact that you need to ask the question argues strongly that you’ll never understand the answer. But here it is anyway.

First of all, I said that America has stolen from "us.”

As to what it has stolen:

It stole our bodies.

It stole our labor.

It stole our names and family histories.

It stole our children.

It stole our land.

It stole our ballots.

It stole our money.

It stole our peace of mind.

It stole our health.

It stole our lives.

To a greater or lesser degree, much of that theft is still ongoing.

That said, I have a question for you. You seem so overwrought about this chimera you call "anti-white racism.” I’m just curious: what, if anything, did that ever steal from you?

Yours Truly,

(FRom Tim: None of that happened to Pitts personally but to his ancestors, and that by ancestors of SOME white Americans. In point of fact every ethnic group in the world can make the same claim against some other. Certainly the Irish have plenty to lament, from their treatment by the British "to hell or Barbados" or the discrimination in America where they were denied jobs and housing and whatnot. Ditto the Italians. Most especially ditto the Jews, who have been mistreated by virtually everyone and yet don't use it as a crutch to excuse any failure or demand special privileges.)

From Brian:

Dear Mr. Pitts,
Are you saying that "anti-white racism" does not exist? If that is correct, then would it be proper to label your anti-white diatribes as racial hatred? Just wondering!

Brian Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Leonard Pitts <lpitts@miamiherald.com> wrote:

What I am saying, sir, is that I answered your question and would now appreciate the same courtesy.

LP

Dear Mr. Pitts,
I never claimed that anti-white racism has stolen anything from me, therefore I cannot answer a question based on your presumption. I stand by my contention that anti-white racism, or racial hatred, if you prefer, animates your work, and blinds you to the fact that this country has been very good to you.

Regards,
Brian Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo.


(From Tim: Brian told me he didn't want to get into a genital measuring contest so did not make a laundry list, but there is certainly things that discrimination FOR black people has stolen from Brian and myself and many others. How many jobs have Brian or I been turned down for because it was reserved for minorities? How many white kids have been denied college admission for lesser qualified blacks? How much have we all paid in extra taxes to fund the welfare state, a backdoor reparations plan for slavery? How much crime have we endured because of black racism and the willingness to excuse criminality and violence by the black community and their white liberal partners? How about the "knockout game" where black kids punch white or Asiam people as hard as they can? Is that not an act of black racism? What of the refusal by black kids to get an education because that would be "acting white"? We wind up supporting these people, through welfare or SSI, or the prison system, And we wind up supporting their copuous children, who then go on to do the same thing.

Pitts is using a sneaky trick; claiming blacks don't have power so can't be racist. That is a lie and has been for some time as blacks have had disproportionate power since they vote as a block for the Democrats and have had all manner of laws giving them special status. If I am denied an apartment and I suspect it's based on race I can do little, but a black applicant can file a complaint and woe unto the landlord! For that matter, Brian was denied a position in a predominantly black college and that was because of his race - nothing else. He's used to that, being in academia.)


This supposed anti-white racism apparently has no impact on you. If a thing has no impact what, then, is your proof of its existence? And if it has no impact on you, why are you whining about it?

LP

Mr.. Pitts,
We can play this game by your rules. Your columns usually contain a significant amount of anti-white sentiment which I labelled "anti-white racism". You deny that such a thing exists. Therefore, I suppose that we must label your diatribes of racial hatred, as exactly that, "racial hatred". You seem to be a very bitter and spiteful man...and, to return to my original point, you are ungrateful to a nation that has given you much to be thankful for.

Best Regards,
B. Birdnow

(Please note it has no impact on Mr. Pitts personally either. This is a sneaky answer.)


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Leonard Pitts <lpitts@miamiherald.com> wrote:

My columns contain absolutely no "anti-white sentiment." Never have. They do frequently contain painful historical fact and anti bigot sentiment that some white people find uncomfortable, probably because it strikes too close to home To avoid their own discomfort, they usually process what I've said as "anti-white sentiment" and project it on to me.

The problem with that, however, is that it doesn't account for the literally millions of white readers who seem to think I'm an okay guy. So are they too dumb to recognize this terrible "anti-white sentiment" of mine that you see so clearly? Or are you just using that as a lame cover to escape truths you find too hard to deal with in any other way?

Take your time...

Mr.. Pitts,
Since you are now delving into the world of psychology, I would have to say that self-knowledge is certainly not one of your virtues. I don't know the millions of white readers who think you are an okay guy, and wonder whether you've actually counted them, but I suppose that my incredulousness on this score is "...just a lame cover to escape truths you find hard to deal with in any other way." Yes sir, when all else fails, like a certified liberal, you engage in spiteful, churlish personal attacks. You still have not addressed my central point. Do you deny that America has been a good country for you? How, then do you account for your success?

Regards,
B. Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo.

That is all for now in this exchange. I'll post any more if it comes. One thing is clear; Leonard Pitts has made a good living off of the cries of racism and the resentment he can gin up from it. Why, pray tell, is America so bad when black people come from Africa regularly to be a part of it? They are often thankful to be here (excpt maybe the Somalis) and can't understand the sullen resentment of people like Pitts, who was given great privilege by being born here in America and who urges many to throw it awayin a quixotic search for some mythical social justice.

How does Pitts think his brand of racial resentment will benefit anyone? Neither white nor black, Asian nor Hispanic nor Native American has any hope of any profit from this - except a few race hustlers who will make a fine living off of the despair and anger and division they sew. Leonard Pitts Jr. is truly one of those.

When he stands before his Maker he will have to give an account. I doubt those white people who love him will influence the Great Judge when the day comes.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1551 words, total size 10 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I've recently become a fan of WorldNetDaily's Bill Federer. Quite a historian, he is. Here's an article on our 27th president, which I commend to your attention.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/william-taft-big-president-big-ideas/?cat_orig=education

He was the only U.S. president to be appointed Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. His name was William Howard Taft, born Sept. 15, 1857. After the Spanish-American War, Taft was appointed by President McKinley as the first governor of the Philippines, 1901-04. President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Taft as Secretary of War in 1904, then in 1906 appointed him provisional governor of Cuba.

After defeating Democrat candidate William Jennings Bryan, Taft was elected the 27th president. The largest president, Taft weighed over 300 lbs. A bathtub was installed in the White House for him large enough to hold four men.

In his inaugural address, President William H. Taft stated, March 4, 1909: "I invoke the considerate sympathy and support of my fellow citizens and the aid of the Almighty God in the discharge of my responsible duties.”

President Taft stated in a national day of thanksgiving proclamation, Nov. 15, 1909: "The people of the United States are wont to meet in their usual places of worship on a day of thanksgiving appointed by the Civil Magistrate to return thanks to God for the great mercies and benefits which they have enjoyed. During the past year we have been highly blessed. … It is altogether fitting that we should humbly and gratefully acknowledge the Divine Source of these blessings. … I hereby appoint … a day of general thanksgiving, and I call upon the people on that day, laying aside their usual vocations, to repair to their churches and unite in appropriate services of praise and thanks to Almighty God.”

President William H. Taft proclaimed, Nov. 5, 1910: "These blessings have not descended upon us in restricted measure, but overflow and abound. They are the blessings and bounty of God. … In accordance with the wise custom of the civil magistrate since the first settlements in this land and with the rule established from the foundation of this government … do appoint … a day of National Thanksgiving and Prayer, enjoining the people upon that day to meet in their churches for the praise of Almighty God and to return heartfelt thanks to Him for all His goodness and loving-kindness.”

Taft stated, as recorded in Donald F. Anderson’s "William Howard Taft: A Conservative’s Conception of the Presidency” (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973): "The President can exercise NO power which cannot fairly be traced to some specific grant of power in the Constitution or act of Congress.”

In 1912, Taft created the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to counterbalance the labor movement. President Taft met with Booker T. Washington and encouraged his program for uplifting Black Americans through education and entrepreneurship. Ten years before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was formed, Booker T. Washington had founded the National Negro Business League in 1900, growing it to 600 chapters.

Harvard President Charles W. Eliot spoke at Tuskegee’s 25th anniversary in 1906, stating: "By 1905, Tuskegee produced more self-made millionaires than Harvard, Yale and Princeton combined.” [emphasis added]

Booker T. Washington’s views distinguished him from W.E.B. Du Bois, who promoted reparations and dependence on government entitlements.

[...]

Back when he was campaigning for President, William H. Taft spoke at a missionary conference, Aug. 5, 1908: "Until I went to the Orient, until there was thrust upon me the responsibilities with reference to the extension of civilization in those far distant lands, I did not realize the immense importance of foreign mission. The truth is we have got to wake up in this country. We are not all there is in the world. … No man can study the movement of modern civilization from an impartial standpoint and not realize that Christianity, and the spread of Christianity, are the only basis for hope of modern civilization in the growth of popular self-government. The spirit of Christianity is pure democracy; it is the equality of man before God. The equality of man before the law, which is, as I understand it, the most Godlike manifestation that man has been able to make. …”

Taft continued: "I am here to speak of … the advancement of modern civilization, and … how dependent we are on the spread of Christianity for any hope we may have of uplifting the people whom Providence has thrust upon us for our guidance. I suppose I ought not to go into a discussion here of our business in the Philippines, but I never can take up that subject without pointing the moral … conviction that our nation is … charged with the obligation to help the unfortunate peoples of other countries that are thrust upon us by faith onto their feet to become a self governing people. … What there is in the Constitution of the United States is a breathing spirit that we are a nation with all the responsibilities that any nation ever had and … it becomes the Christian duty of a nation to assist another nation.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Maybe it's just me, but since National Review took its Never Trump stance last year during the campaign, I've found less to interest me on its site. Less... but certainly not nothing. The estimable Jonathan S. Tobin contributes this article, with which I am in full agreement. If you are not, please, please comment!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451404/trump-should-decertify-iran-nuclear-deal-ignore-experts

Among the many factors that led to Trump’s unexpected victory last November was a deep and abiding skepticism among many voters about the wisdom of experts. To his supporters, Trump, the ultimate non-expert on most policy issues, had the savvy to do the right thing even on topics to which neither he nor they had ever previously given much serious thought. While that cynicism is not always wise, the groupthink in the foreign-policy establishment and among nonproliferation professionals is proof that Trump’s instincts are not always wrong.

[...]

Trump should ignore their arguments and those inside the administration who are echoing them. It’s wise to have some skepticism about experts’ opinions; their consensus can have little to do with achieving the goals they’re tasked with accomplishing. But the problem is not only that the deal was a bad one. It’s also that plenty of experts place more value on diplomacy per se — getting a piece of paper signed and then defending its value — than on the conviction that diplomacy will stop Iran from getting a bomb. The agencies that monitor the deal all agree that Iran has kept to its terms. But their certification of Iran’s compliance vindicates Obama’ critics, who warned that once in the deal was in place, the signatories’ desire to preserve it would lead them to ignore a host of small violations. Over the past three years, the IAEA and Washington have routinely ignored reports about a variety of problems, including obstruction of inspections, illegal attempts to purchase nuclear and missile technology, and exceeding the limits on uranium enrichment and production of heavy water. Viewed in isolation, each violation is insufficient to justify threatening Iran with new sanctions or an end to the deal. So the signatories ignore or rationalize the infractions. In the negotiations that led to the deal, Obama and the secretary of state jettisoned their demand that Iran end its nuclear program and stop advanced nuclear research, and that it concede it had no right to enrich uranium, They always saw getting an agreement on any terms as more important than the details. The same applies to keeping it in place despite multiple violations. That’s why the arms-control community wound up endorsing a deal that did not put an end to the Iranian threat; at best, it kicked the can down the road for a few years on proliferation. But the point of isolating the Islamist republic via sanctions wasn’t to "reduce the risk” of a nuclear Iran; it was to end the risk altogether. Even if Iran is complying with the terms of the JCPOA, it allows them to go on working toward a bomb. Moreover, the JCPOA expires within a decade, so the deal can’t be said to be doing much to make the world safer.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

Dana Mathewson

With all the noise about Hillary's book, and how she's blaming everyone but herself for her loss last November (I haven't seen the book but wouldn't be surprised to see MY name in it -- well, not really), there have been a number of good articles written about her loss.

This is one of the best, in my estimation. By David Harsanyi, writing on Townhall.

https://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2017/09/15/yes-hillary-the-media-did-help-trump-win-so-did-you-n2381754

. . . When supporting Trump seemed advantageous, the media -- not only left-leaning outlets like CNN or the Washington Post but also rating chasers like NBC's Joe Scarborough -- did much to help lift the fortunes of the soon-to-be president. This was obvious to anyone observing coverage of the primaries. But for those who need confirmation, a study by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Trump "in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers -- a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump's rise in the polls."

[...]

Although Bush was a concern, most Democrats seemed to fear Sen. Marco Rubio. Not that their takes would have swayed many conservative voters, but it's worth remembering that left-wing pundits played the same cynical game, which makes their histrionics today unconvincing. "Why I'm More Worried About Marco Rubio Than Donald Trump," read a Vox headline. "Donald Trump Is Actually a Moderate Republican," wrote Slate. "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" read one headline by The New York Times' Paul Krugman. "Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination" was New York Magazine's contribution to this genre.

The major media outlets, the Clinton campaign and the liberal punditry all got what they wanted: Trump. The problem was they also got Clinton. The media did cover the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails and server. "It was a dumb mistake," Clinton now says. "I think it was a dumber scandal, but it hurt." This kind of attitude speaks to the entitlement she carried around with her.

Attempting to bolster the chances of an opposing candidate who is perceived to be the weakest isn't a unique strategy. The problem is -- and I understand that many people disagree with me -- Clinton probably would have lost to virtually any Republican candidate, and probably by even larger margins. But the bigger question now is: Why did Clinton's campaign prop up Trump, "the most dangerous White House candidate in modern history"? It seems irresponsible and selfish to put Americans in such a precarious position for personal gain. Maybe someone with access will take a break from sitting shiva and ask her.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

Dana Mathewson

One can always find good reading at the Conservative Columnists section of the Townhall website. One reason for that is the presence of writers such as L. Brent Bozell III. Here, he writes about the new movie about the event that -- lucky for the country -- kept Ted Kennedy from the White House.

Consider it a minor miracle. Some brave souls in Hollywood have made a movie about then-Sen. Ted Kennedy's actions in the car accident that left Mary Jo Kopechne dead and abandoned on Massachusetts' Chappaquiddick Island in the summer of 1969. It even stars well-known actors like Bruce Dern, Ed Helms, Kate Mara and Jim Gaffigan. It just debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival.

At this moment, one could imagine it as a counter-reaction to taking down Confederate statues. If there's anything in our modern history that needs a reassessment -- or just a reality check -- it's the hidebound mythology around Kennedy, that noble "Lion of the Senate."

Some predictable protests broke out from the mythmakers. Former Washington Post reporter Sharon Waxman complained on The Wrap News Inc. website: "I'm not entirely sure why anyone chose to make this movie right now. We hardly lack in narratives that debunk the Kennedy mystique. Indeed, the Kennedys' moral failings are hardly what ails our democracy at this time. Many of us wish there was a Kennedy-esque figure to offer leadership in place of the moral chasm that faces the nation right now."

It is always so when it's a Democrat. Throughout 2016, we were told that Hillary Clinton's past scandals were irrelevant. Then-President Obama's scandals? A thing of the past. Former President Bill Clinton's imbroglios? We needed to move on. Indeed, that's why the MoveOn group was born.

In this case, it's even worse. The liberal-media establishment -- comprised of the ones who proclaimed from the rooftops that it was mandatory for Donald Trump to abandon his presidential campaign for having boasted to "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush off camera that he could grab women in the crotch because he was a "star" -- has always believed that leaving a woman behind in an overturned car to drown wasn't at all immoral or disqualifying for the presidency ... when you're "Kennedy-esque."

[...]

For more than half a century, the media elite has presented the Kennedys in oozy, honorific terms as a gallant band of devout Irish Catholic public servants. And they wonder why people denounce them for spreading "fake news."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Dana Mathewson

This is from FrontPageMag, by Daniel Greenfield. I found it in Lucianne.com. It's a shocker. As is my practice, I will quote parts of it and hope that entices you to read the entire article, which is found here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267873/did-susan-rice-spy-trump-officials-muslim-daniel-greenfield

After months of denials, the pretext for Susan Rice’s eavesdropping on Trump officials has finally been made public. It had been widely known that Obama’s former National Security Adviser had contrived to unmask the names of top Trump officials who had been spied on by the administration. And the same media that still treats Watergate as the Great American Scandal had claimed that there was nothing "improper” in an Obama loyalist eavesdropping on members of the opposition party.

Every time Obama Inc. was caught eavesdropping on opposition politicians, it presented its spin in a carefully packaged "scoop” to a major media outlet. This time was no different.

When Obama Inc. spied on members of Congress to protect its Iran nuke sellout, it packaged the story to the Wall Street Journal under the headline, "U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress”. The idea was that Obama Inc. was "legitimately” spying on Israel, that it just happened to intercept the conversations of some members of Congress and American Jews, and that the eavesdropping somehow meant that its victims, Jewish and non-Jewish, rather than its White House perpetrators, should be ashamed.

The White House had demanded the conversations between Prime Minister Netanyahu, members of Congress and American Jews because it "believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu's campaign." This was domestic surveillance carried out under the same pretext as in the Soviet Union which had also accused its dissident targets of secretly serving foreign interests.

Obama and his minions had used the NSA to spy on Americans opposed to its policies. Including members of Congress. They did this by conflating their own political agenda with national security.

Since Obama’s spin was that the Iran Deal was good for national security, opponents of it were a "national security” threat.

And its fig leaf for domestic surveillance was that a "foreign leader” was involved.

Now get ready for a flashback.

Susan Rice’s excuse for unmasking the names of top Trump officials in the Obama eavesdropping effort was that they were meeting with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates. The carefully packaged CNN story, which reeks of the Goebbelsian media manipulations of "Obama whisperer” Ben Rhodes, tries to clumsily tie the whole thing to the Russians. But for once it’s not about Russia. It’s about Islam.

[...]

It is as unlikely that Susan Rice will be held accountable for pulling off a crime that makes Watergate into the gold standard of governmental ethics as it is that Hillary will ever go to jail for abusing classified information. The network, which some dub the swamp, has excelled at defending its own. That’s why current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster protected Susan Rice’s access to classified information and nurtured all the Obama holdovers behind the leaks while purging those who tried to expose them.

It is also why Susan Rice’s testimony did not leak until CNN was able to roll out its carefully packaged spin.

Conservatives excel at zeroing in on abuses like Hillary’s email account, the Rice unmasking and the Benghazi cover-up, but falter when it comes to exposing the motives behind them. And so the investigation of the abuses quickly vanishes into a thorny thicket of alibis, technical legalities, cover-ups and licenses. And a baffled public reads about hearings that delve into acts rather than motives.

It is vital that we understand not only what Rice did, but why she did it. It is important that we expose the pattern of misconduct, not just the individual act.

Susan Rice’s eavesdropping would have remained hidden if Flynn and his appointees hadn’t temporarily obtained the keys to the kingdom. And the network quickly worked to have Flynn forced out and replaced with McMaster. And McMaster has steadily forced out Flynn’s appointees so that there are no more leaks like the one that exposed the Rice eavesdropping. The swamp looks after its own.

Unless there are fundamental changes at the NSC and beyond, we will never know the full scope of the Obama eavesdropping operation. But we still do know a great deal about what motivated it.

Susan Rice and the White House didn’t just eavesdrop on the political opposition. There was an agenda so urgent that they were willing to pull out all the stops to protect it.

Even right down to committing what has become the ultimate crime in the White House.

It was the same agenda that dragged us into a war in Libya. The same agenda that was at the heart of the diplomatic efforts of the administration over eight years. That agenda was empowering Islamists.

The Obama edition of Watergate wasn’t committed merely for domestic political gain. It was carried out for a reason that was encompassed in his address to the United Nations after the Benghazi massacre.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

This foul slogan led to the first arrest of a filmmaker for political speech in almost a century. It led to the sordid betrayal of our national security and our allies. And to domestic espionage against Americans.

The future must not belong on those who spy on Americans to protect Islamism.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 7 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

a judge has found a St. Louis police officer accused of murder innocent.Black Lies Muttered are threatening riots, street closures, and general thuggery and rude behavior in a planned temper tantrum.

Officer Jason Stockley fatally shot a criminal fleeing from police after consummating a drug deal. The officer's dash cam caught him on tape exclaiming in frustration that he would "kill that guy" when he caught him. Investigations led to no charges for several years, but Obama Truth Squad member, Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce, filed charges as her last offical act before leaving office.

Stockley was charged with murder and planting evidence.

The officer waived his right to a jury trial (a wise decision since he was likely to wind up with BLM sympathizers on the jury) and the judge hearing the case took considerable time making his decision, largley because of threats by BLM to riot and loot.

St. Louis is on edge.

But we are not in the position we were during the "Gentle Giant" Mike Brown riots; Barack Obama and Eric Holder are no longer in office. They pushed hard to prevent the necessary crackdown on protesters/rioters that would have stopped the ensuing violence. And the Governor in Missouri is ERic Greitens, a former Marine and Republican, who has already called out the National Guard. During the Brown riots Governor Jay Nixon went into seclusion and issued orders to stand down. Things are different now.

We shall see how this plays out.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kemp

Traitor "Chelsea" Manning never went to college. I understand why Berkeley hired "The True Believer" author Eric Hoffer as a mature man in his late middle age after authoring a classic book, but this punk at Harvard? Next thing you know, Harvard will hire a phony Indian as a law school prof...err...wait.


Harvard makes convicted spy Chelsea
Manning a ´fellow,´ igniting firestorm

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell on Thursday announced his resignation as a senior fellow at Harvard after the university named U.S. Army soldier-turned-convicted felon Chelsea Manning a visiting fellow. Manning will take on the role at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, the school said on its website. "She speaks on the social, technological and economic ramifications of Artificial Intelligence,” the Harvard announcement said. "As a trans woman, she advocates for queer and transgender rights as @xychelsea on Twitter.” Morell, a former CIA deputy director who twice served as acting director, announced his resignation from Harvard´s Belfer Center was a

Read it all!

UPDATE: Under an intense backlash, Harvard has withdrawn its offer of a Fellowship to "Chelsea" Manning.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.