October 16, 2018
Ohhhhh KAY! For one thing, I doubt CNN's polling is that accurate except among hard-core Democrats. For another, I don't see Hillary's name in there anywhere, with any percentage numbers after her name or none. Does that mean anything? And please read on about the "cringeworthy" interviews that Hillary recently gave. Might they affect her "loveability quotient?"
Top Democrats close to Hillary Clinton are reportedly telling her to keep her 2020 options open in case former Vice President Joe Biden passes on challenging President Donald Trump.
On Monday’s Hardball on MSNBC, Steve McMahon, a top Democratic strategist, said that "some people close to the Clintons and close to Hillary Clinton who look at the field and think if Joe Biden doesn’t run, it’s an awfully weak field and someone like Hillary Clinton could get back in.”
He added that some of these confidants are "whispering in her ear” that she might be able to win the nomination if Biden decides not to run.
CNN’s most recent national poll of potential 2020 Democratic contenders had Biden with a 20-point lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Biden got 33% in the poll while Sanders received 13%. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was next with 9%, followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with 8% and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 5%.
Yep, I'd say that's exactly the case. Which may be the reason that the donkeys are so annoyed that Lizzie has brought up the subject at this particular time. Yes, it is taking focus off the midterm elections, but it may well do more than that. If it strips their one and only weapon -- identify politics -- from their arsenal, Lizzie may well get launched on her very own Trail of Tears.
Paul and Scott have joined in the general hilarity over Elizabeth Warren’s disclosure that she might be something like 1/1,000 Native American. (Then again, she might not be. There is so little Native American DNA in the database that several Latin American countries, including Mexico, are used as proxies. Warren may have a better claim to being Hispanic than Indian.) It turns out that Warren likely has less Native American blood than the average white American. Not to mention the wag who noted that she has more bourbon in her blood than Warren has Indian. But Warren doggedly sticks to the one-drop rule that her Democratic forbears promulgated in the antebellum South. Good for her!
Here’s the point: Warren’s defense of her claim to being Native American is good for America. Because if Warren is an Indian, then so are most of the rest of us. And most of us are also African-American or Hispanic. If everyone is an Indian, then no one is an Indian. This logic is fatal to the whole corrupt affirmative action enterprise.
Harvard Law School billed Elizabeth Warren as the first "woman of color” on its faculty. On the contrary, if Warren’s 1/1,000 Native American ancestry counts, the law school has probably had any number of "women of color,” both before and after her. Most of us qualify.
Affirmative action is teetering on the brink. Trial of the Asian students’ race discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University commenced today, I believe. Harvard’s denial that it discriminates against Asian applicants is transparently false, yet the academic world has rallied around the university in what likely will prove to be a vain effort to uphold the discriminatory regime in which nearly all are complicit.
Why does the edifice of racial categorization and discrimination persist in spite of its obvious irrationality and unfairness? Because many billions of dollars turn on it. And, perhaps equally important, it provides endless opportunities for virtue signaling. After all, if the Democrats didn’t have race, what would they have? That question is, no doubt, frightening to them.
Nothing comes out of a vacuum. Ideas, like germs, infect and grow and move from place to place, body to body. Sometimes these ideas are good, like the concept of Inalienable Rights, or free markets, or that slavery is an evil thing (most people in history would have strongly disagreed with that last.) As with viruses there are many that are neither good nor bad, simply that exist. And then there are very bad ones, which cause untold damage to society. Those last are usually embraced by the Progressives and the radical Left.
And they don't just go away. like viruses, they mutate into new forms and assert themselves in ways we cannot imagine at the time.
Take the concept of subjective reality. Western philosophy (and Eastern as well) began embracing this notion a long time ago based on a number of key observations about the imprecision of human senses. more...
From the Federalist:
One plausible answer might be that her family had lied to her, or were also misled about their heritage, and that Warren truly believed she was Cherokee. This happens relatively often, I suppose. Then again, few people exhibit as much certitude, and gain as many benefits, over a claim that's so obscure and unverifiable.
The second is that Warren herself lied or exaggerated her heritage, knowing full well that her contention to Cherokee ancestry was likely nothing more than lore. She then latched on to this negligible history to gain traction in an academic field that was searching for more diversity in their candidates.
We now know that the second option is more probable after the prospective presidential candidate decided to make a huge deal out of taking a DNA test, that, in reality, only proves she is as white as I am. A ludicrously unskeptical Boston Globe story about Warren's dramatic decision to take the test begins by contending that there's "strong evidence" of Warren's Native American's ancestry dating back 6 to 10 generations”which creates the impression that she has Native American family littered over the past 100 years.
Read the entire article; it's well worth your time.
October 15, 2018
PA Dem Forced to Resign After Facebook Posts Deemed Offensive
There's more. My question is, why is this Salvas, who obviously is a thoroughly decent, patriotic man, affiliated in any way with the Democrat Party?
A top Democrat in Pennsylvania said that he was forced to resign due to past Facebook posts that were deemed controversial.
Mark Salvas told CBS 2 Pittsburgh that he was asked by the chair of the Allegheny County Democratic Party to resign, largely because of a photo from last year that showed him and his wife with the words "I stand for the flag, I kneel at the cross."
Democrats in Allegheny County were reportedly offended by his patriotic post, as well as another by his wife that asked to support an officer charged in the fatal shooting of an African-American teen in June.
"I’m not ashamed of my patriotism, not one bit," said Salvas, a Gulf War veteran. "I fought for this country. I think I have a right to have a voice and be patriotic."
Now they're coming for your lawn.
A pair of urban ecologists, one from Australia, the other Sweden, suggests in a Perspective piece published in the journal Science that it might be time to rethink the idea of the modern lawn. In their paper, Maria Ignatieva and Marcus Hedblom note that the natural benefits of green lawns are far outweighed by negative environmental consequences, and because of that, new forms of groundcover need to be explored.
The expanse of cut green grass that surrounds many houses and serves as a draw to parks and other outdoor places is not as green as it might look. The modern lawn requires not only a lot of water, but fertilizer. It also requires mowing, in most cases using gas-powered machines that spew carbon monoxide and other toxins into the air. Ignatieva and Hedblom note that it is true that lawns offer some positive benefits such as pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, but the negative aspects of lawn care far outweigh their benefits. They note that globally, lawns currently occupy land space equivalent to England and Spain combined. Lawns also currently require an enormous amount of water—in arid regions, lawns account for 75 percent of water consumption. They also note that weed killers and fertilizers wind up in the water table. And artificial turf, they note, is not a likely solution. It doesn't contribute to carbon sequestering, causes problems with water runoff, and might be poisoning local water tables.
Because of the obvious drawbacks, the researchers suggest that it is time for the world to rethink the idea of a lawn
Of course, grass acts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but that doesn't matter.
Well, the final solution to this is to ban yards entirely and force everyone into housing projects like Pruitt-Igo, the St. Louis house of horrors. (Yes it really was that bad; I grew up in St. Louis and remember that hell-hole well.)
High rise housing with open green spaces is an integral concept in U.N. Agenda 21/30. Crabbing about the grass is a way of backdooring the idea.
Go to the webpage link to see accompanying online videos.
Police Department Confirms What Gun Owners Already Know: Suppressors Limit Hearing Damage
Kowabunga, Sen. Elizabeth Warren now only talks with forked tongue about where the money will come for all her giveaway programs. She really is a small part Indian.\
But this "champion of the people" benefited greatly at the expensive of the poor when she exploited their situation, using forced into bankruptcy situations to flip their homes for a quick markup profit of up to seventy percent. This was reported in 2012 at the UK Daily Mail website
To quote the Daily Mail, more...
Dr. Ileana Johnson gives us the lowdown on U.N. Agenda 21/30. It's nothing new to Aviary readers, but it certainly bears repeating.
Here is a taste:
Each year U.N. Agenda 21 which has morphed into 2030 Agenda is imposed on the participating countries, including U.S., at the local, state, and federal level under the infamous Sustainable Development (SD).
Wealth redistribution is not the entire U.N. Agenda 2030. They want to control population size, to engineer where we live through high-rise mixed-use urban settlements and forced mass migration (Europeans are already experiencing a dose of this forced migration and so are Americans), eliminating borders, and nudging governments to seize control of the means of production, directly or through fascistic decrees. U.N. is telling us clearly, "We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services.”
Who is going to decide what is "sustainable patterns of consumption and production” and what will the consequences of non-compliance be?
Alex Newman described Agenda 2030 as a "the UN plot …aimed at ‘transforming’ the world. The program is a follow-up to the last 15-year UN plan, the defunct "Millennium Development Goals,” or MDGs. It also dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But the combined Agenda 2030 goals for achieving what is euphemistically called "sustainable development” represent previous UN plans on steroids — deeper, more radical, more draconian, and more expensive.”
Do read the whole thing; it shows what a deceptive, devious plot this whole "sustainability" movement really is.
Read the U.N. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform for the information on what they are demanding.
Here is the preamble:
This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.
And the document calls for unrestrained international migration, welfare programs for all, heavy regulation of private property ownership, you name it.
The FBI handles crime inside the U.S. and rarely interferes with foreign affairs except in the case of domestic espionage. That is why this story from the Gateway Pundit is so interesting. It seems that Robert Mueller, the man who is investigating the Trump Administration for collusion with the Russians, was chosen by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama to deliver a sample of Georgian uranium to the Russians.
From the article: more...
Recently I argued the Democrats were going to change their minds on the value of the Supreme Court. As power slips through their fingers they were going to decide the Court had way too much authority, and would seek to limit its' influence.
Well, here is something that buttresses that position. Radical Leftist Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) had this to say in a recent interview with Deconstructed Live. Here is the pertinent quote:
Sen. Jeff Merkley:
Absolutely and we really have to wrestle with the court because, here is the situation – the court is no longer a panel of wise, individuals weighing the provisions of the constitution against each other. It is now the most powerful legislative body and it is a legislative body controlled by and for the powerful rather than by and for the people. And if we don’t take on the issues of gerrymandering, if we don’t take on the issues of voter suppression, dark money in campaigns, then we’re going to lose forever more to the one percent and the court’s right at the heart of all those key issues
When SCOTUS was promoting abortion or gay marriage we were told they were the final authority and could not be questioned. Now the Left isn't so enthused. A sword with both sides sharpened cuts both ways, and the Left doesn't like it.
Despite the horrible nature of the gang rape of Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh, it may yet serve a useful purpose. If respect for the courts is reduced, if we are restored to a more Constitutionally proper role for them, a great good will be served. Oh, and it may well have cost the Democrats the Blue Wave they believed they were going to get next month.
SCOTUS and the other courts were never supposed to have the kind of power they have held since Roosevelt. They have gone from interpreting laws and advising on them to making laws on their own. Clearly both the examples I gave - abortion and gay marriage - were unconstitutional law making by activist courts. These pseudo-laws need to be rolled back, and that can only happen if a.we have Constitutionalists on the Court and b.people stop listening to the courts so much. The latter appears to be poised to happen.
Some day we may thank God for the terrible thing done to Kavanaugh. But in the meantime we need to smite the Amalekite donkey horde. As with spoiled brats, the key to maintaining order and civility is in swift punishment. The Dems have to lose, and suffer, for their crimes in the Kavanagh case. And there actually were crimes; at least one example of an attempt to suborn perjury and probably a lot of others. If Jeff ZZZessions would ever poke his head out of its hole and actually do his job we could start fighting back against this stuff. Right now the Dems and the media are getting away with it because there are no repercussions. That must change.
Writing at Conservative HQ, Jeffrey Rendall makes a great case for nationalizing the upcoming elections and taking it to the Donkeys as the Party of hate and snarling. He also rips the GOP for the cowards that they are. He's right, and I left the following comment on the article:
Great piece Jeff!
You're right; politics ISN'T that complicated. What makes it so is the fact that the monied class is at odds with the majority of voters and the GOP is caught in a quandary, trying to fool the voters to please the financiers. Oh, and the media, we cannot forget them. Republicans fear being destroyed by the media through scurrilous charges and liberlous slander. So they walk on eggshells all the time. But victory would be easy if they would grow a spine and speak Truth to Power aka tell the liberals to go stuff it. But they won't because they don't think that way. They want to be everything to everybody.
Oh, by the way, the fact that every hill is now one worth expiring upon is evidence that we are winning, as the Left is growing increasingly frantic in their efforts to maintain power. It means we have to be willing to die on those hills ourselves, or at least fight on them. Too bad so many in the GOP want to play patty-cake with the opposition instead.
In point of fact politics is much like handling unruly children. You don't try to reason with them, and you don't try to mollify them. You set rules and you stick with them - and you punish them when they break the rules. This is especially true of the Democrats, none of whom ever grew past early adolescence. They throw temper tantrums. They steal from others. They insult people, yell at them. They do not try to make reasonable arguments, or at least don't try after their arguments have been shot down. They try to shout down their opposition. They just want what they want and will scream until they get it. more...
The NY Post reports that:
A writer whose name appeared on an online list of "Sh–ty Media Men” accused of sexual misconduct is seeking $1.5 million damages from the creators, claiming libel and emotional distress...
"The list contained false information and unsubstantiated allegations, including untrue statements alleging Plaintiff engaged in criminal sexual conduct,” read the suit filed in US District Court in New York.
Contributors to the list included multiple women anonymously claiming sexual misconduct by men.
Actually, I believe there were a lot more face-to-face accusations at the Salem trials than we see in this story, even though the accusations were often just as unsubstantiated here as they were in Eighteenth Century Massachusetts.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the Left. Just because you put libelous gossip in a spreadsheet doesn't make it magically transform into an immune-to-libel-charges reality, as the author of this online list has just found out. As an online writer myself, there are many factual claims in my pieces that both my editors and myself have demanded outside verification for (read: my own proof or using citing other outside reputable sources as responsible) before they could be posted online by me. This woman being sued appears to be engaging in Mean Girls Junior High School Click lunchroom and restroom accusations as "The New Journalism." Actually, in print (online or on paper) it is only the Old Libel.
October 14, 2018
Pope Francis, or, as I like to call him, Pope Francisstein, is a, well, a man who prefers to do what he wishes to following Church teachings, and he often promotes near heresy and then walks it back with vague statements and confusing rhetoric. (He clearly doesn't remember or care that Satan is the father of confusion and misunderstanding.) Francis has been systematically dismantling the protections the Church has put in place to avoid being engulfed by the post-modern system of things. He fired all of the top Conservatives in the hierarchy, replacing them with Progressives. He has whittled down the Church's condemnation of homosexuality, first saying it is not his place ot judge (?!) when asked about it, then offering token chastising but largely excusing it. The eternal deaths of many poor souls will be on his hands for that one; it was his duty to come out boldly and proclaim what has been traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. That teaching is that latent homosexuality is not a sin but practicing homosexuality is a Mortal Sin, the kind that gets you sent to the nether regions. His silence on the matter is tacit approval.
Francis, a good Peronista, turns all of his anger on free market systems and promotes socialism - a scheme that was soundly condemned by Pope Leo XIII in QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS.
In 1878 Pope Leon wrote: more...
Grocery store refuses to sell Pepsi until they remove NFL logo
Pepsi's slogan may have once been "The Choice of a New Generation" but one grocery store owner has chosen to no longer sell its products because they feature the NFL logo.
A Facebook post from S&Z Grocery in Athens, Alabama, stated the store would not sell the products until the logo is removed.
"This may cause me to lose some business, but here goes. S&Z supermarket currently will not be selling 20 ounce Pepsi or Diet Pepsi. These two items are currently produced with the NFL logo on them. I refuse to sell the product until the logo is removed. I will not bow down in order to make a dollar as long as the athletes are allowed to bow down and disrespect the flag and country I love" the Facebook post stated.
Phillip Stewart, the owner of the store, told WAFF he pulled the bottles off the shelf himself, saying it felt wrong to sell the products with the logo.
Twin Towers engineer blamed himself after 9/11
From the article:
"In 1945, a military plane accidentally crashed into the Empire State Building. There were 14 casualties and $1 million in damage, but the 1,250-foot-tall structure stayed upright. So when structural engineer Leslie Robertson was working on the World Trade Center, which would trump the Empire State by 100-plus feet, he considered jet impact.
"The towers were designed [to withstand a] 707", the largest commercial airliner that existed in the 1970s, Robertson, 90, told The Post. "A low-flying, slow-flying 707 heading for Idlewild" But on 9/11, two fully-fueled 767s sparked fires that weakened the Twin Towers' support systems beyond anticipation.
The World Trade Center was destroyed, and so was Robertson.
"He lost a lot of his joy and spirit. He had to defend himself, because he was attacked, criticized and pressed by other engineers, by architects, by clients,â€ says architect A. Eugene Kohn in a documentary about his colleague Robertson, "Leaning Out", premiering Tuesday at the Architecture and Design Film Festival."
Read the entire article.
A few days ago, the United Nations climate agency released a new report that makes even more hysterical claims about imminent climate disasters – and William Nordhaus was awarded half of a Nobel Prize for his work on carbon taxes and other pricing mechanisms for fossil fuels. People would be justified in suspecting that both were timed to influence US elections in November and the UN climate meeting in Poland this December.
My op-ed this week challenges the IPCC pseudo-science, offers alternative sources for much more credible information on climate and energy, analyzes the shortcomings in Dr. Nordhaus’s work – and offers guidelines for more responsible and productive approaches to natural and manmade climate problemsmore...
Among other things, this is why it is so important that the Republicans retain control of the Senate in next month's elections.
Republicans are ecstatic and Democrats are livid about Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. But while the Supreme Court is important, many Americans tend to exaggerate its powers.
Democrats still firmly control the nation’s district courts and circuit courts of appeals, where virtually all federal judicial decisions are made.
Even if Republicans keep control of the Senate in the Nov. 6 midterm elections, the balance of power on these courts isn't going to change in the next two years.
By contrast, the circuit courts of appeals handled 51,832 cases in the 12-month period ending March 31.
Consequently, the circuit courts – not the Supreme Court – have the final word on 99.75 percent of all cases. The lower-level district courts handled 363,000 cases.
Whether you care about immigration, gun control, abortion or other hot-button issues, the circuit courts and district courts are where most of the work occurs.[...].
Of the 13 circuit courts of appeals, Democratic appointees control eight and Republican appointees control four. One is evenly split. So far, most of President Trump's appointees (62 percent) have been replacements for retiring conservative judges.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is often referred to as the nation’s second-highest court. Because all federal agencies are headquartered in and around the nation’s capital, this court oversees their decisions. Democratic appointees have a 7-3 majority on the D.C. Circuit Court, with one vacancy due to Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over California and eight other Western states that together represent over 20 percent of the U.S. population – more than any other circuit court. Again, Democratic appointees are firmly in control, with 16 judges, compared to seven appointed by Republicans.
If President Trump were to fill all existing vacancies on the circuit courts of appeals, the only circuit that he could move from the control of Democratic appointees to even a tie would be the 3rdCircuit Court of Appeals.
If Democrats take control of the Senate following the midterm elections next month, they are promising to bring judicial confirmations to a halt.
Five of the Democratic appointees on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are over 70 years old, but to flip the court Trump would have to fill all of the current vacancies and four of these older judges would have to retire.
Nine circuit court judges who were nominated by Democrats are over 75 years old. In a second Trump term, Republicans might be able to flip one of the circuit courts – the 4th Circuit.
October 13, 2018
Reading Mollie Ziegler Hemingway's essay Trump's Kavanaugh Apology Showed True Presidential Leadership it occurred to me that the Democrats have seriously damaged confidence in the courts, especially the Supreme Court. Talk of an "asterisk" beside Kavanaugh's name, for instance, makes people doubt the virtue of an unelected person having the kind of power the Democrats have sought for the courts. They may seriously regret having vilified Kavanaugh, and by extension the entire SCOTUS.
Oh, and by the way, what is this "asterisk" nonsense? Nothing is different about Kavanaugh than any other Associate Justice. This is, of course, a sports metaphor; a record in a short season, for instance, gets an asterisk. So too does the use of performance enhancers; Mark McGuire, the famous Cardinals home run titan, has such an asterisk since it turns out his home run record was purchased with pharmaceuticals. But you can stick whatever modifying glyph you please, but in the end Brett Kavanaugh's rulings and reasoning will have an immediate effect and will be used by future Courts, and tough toenails to the liberals who want to somehow impeach his credibility. Future SCOTUS Justices are not going to ignore him based on a bunch of crybabies who won't accept his being on the Court.
And it's not like Kavanaugh is being rejected for his legal reasoning or whatnot. It's over an accusation stemming from a completely unverifiable incident when he was a high schooler. That and the fact he got mad when he was accused of being a would-be rapist by his opponents in the Senate as a last-ditch effort to keep him off the Court.
The fact is, Kavanagh would have sailed right through if he wasn't going to be the swing vote. He'd have had an easier time of it than Neil Gorsuch, who came through largely unscathed because the Dems weren't willing to die on that particular hill. They had to wait until it REALLY mattered, then try to destroy a man to save their power.
But did they? In point of fact this is going to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and likely all other courts.
Alexander Hamilton said that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch of government because it had no enforcement powers of it's own, and no money. SCOTUS derives all of it's power from moral authority and from the power given it by the other branches of government. During the Obama era President Obama routinely ignored court rulings - especially lower court rulings - that got in his way. He could do this because he knew the GOP wouldn't hold him accountable out of fear of being seen attacking the first black President, and he knew the courts couldn't stop him for lack of actual power.
For example, Obama ignored the Fifth Circuit ruling against his policy of amnetizing illegal aliens. He also ignored a SCOTUS ruling and went after Texas for requiring voter identification. He told SCOTUS to go jump in the lake over affirmative action, ordering colleges to use race as a basis for admissions despite the Court ruling against him. He simply ignored a subpoena to appear in a Georgia courts over eligibility questions. He ignored court rulings against secret wiretapping and instructed the FISA courts to continue the program.
There are many more examples of Obama following the law only when it was convenient.
Now the Left is going to demand that SCOTUS be ignored because of Kavanaugh. Well, I won't complain overmuch at that; it will be deuced difficult to reinstate the kind of reverence the Left needed for the Court in order to use it to advance their nefarious agenda. remember, abortion was created from whole cloth by the Court. There was never a vote by the public. Ditto gay marriage. Ditto school busing. And if the courts are to be ignored, then two can play at that game.
So the Left may well have outsmarted themselves with this Kavanagh temper tantrum. It's mighty difficult to put that mushroom cloud back in that shiny uranium sphere....
35 queries taking 0.2415 seconds, 127 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.