November 26, 2014
EDITOR OF REDSTATE
Ezra Klein’s House of White Privilege Explains the News
t is unbelievable.I mean that in the literal sense of the term: "difficult or impossible to believe.” But I want to be clear here. I’m not saying Wilson is lying. I’m not saying his testimony is false. I am saying that the events, as he describes them, are simply bizarre. His story is difficult to believe.
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has always been low-keyed as the state's chief Executive. The secret to his political success is to boldly venture forth with a no-comment, or to disappear when controversy swirls. As a Democratic governor in a purple state that is increasingly red (the Republicans just extended what was already a supermajority in both the state House and Senate) Nixon's hand off approach has served him well, keeping him in office by virtue of a sense of "cleanness". The Governor simply has no record that he must defend.
He can run but he can't hide at this point; Ferguson is a direct challenge to his leadership skills, and his failure to act decisively to stop rioting and looting may cost him dearly.
Calls have been going up since Monday's riots for the Governor to resign from office; he called out the National Guard but placed them in a supporting role, then failed to deliver them Monday night at the heighth of the riots.
Former Ferguson Mayor Brian Fletcher called for the Missouri Governor to step down. According to KMOV:
"Former Ferguson Mayor Brian Fletcher expressed his disappointment with how the National Guard and Governor Nixon handled the grand jury decision’s release Monday.
"The governor did not prepare for the worst, he failed this city,” Fletcher said.
Fletcher said the city should have been sealed off by the National Guard to prevent anyone who does not live in the city to enter the area.
Fletcher also criticized the timing of the release of the grand jury decision. He said it should have been released in the morning hours, which would give law enforcement "a whole day of daylight” to prepare.
When asked if he was satisfied with the National Guard’s response to the situation he said they were "a day late and a dollar short.” He also called for Nixon to resign."
And it has been suggested Nixon did this to punish Ferguson for failing to fire Daren Wilson and for the refusal of the Ferguson Police Chief to resign - key demands of the And, after initially talking tough he went squishy, promising to allow "protests" to go unimpeded (doubtlessly a result of a phone call from a dirty white washed house back east.) Vacillation is the quickest way to cause a mutiny, as students of such rebellion will tell.
Republican Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder was livid
According to Breitbart:
"On Fox News on Tuesday morning, Kinder told anchor Martha MacCallum that Nixon kept the National Guard away as Ferguson burned—and questioned whether he did so in coordination with top officials from President Barack Obama’s administration. At a Tuesday press conference in response to a question from Breitbart News’ Kerry Picket, Nixon said that Kinder’s questions were "false and absurd” and that "politics has nothing to do with what anyone up here is doing.”
Kinder, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News early on Tuesday evening after the Nixon presser, said that Nixon owes the people of Missouri and specifically Ferguson an explanation as to why he held back the National Guard from stopping the looting, rioting, and burning of businesses and terrorizing of people.
"All I did was ask the question, and he says it’s false. Well, okay, then explain yourself, governor,” Kinder said. "Explain why you gave the order that I supported a week ago to mobilize the guard, to declare a state of emergency, and then at the critical moment you’re nowhere to be found by the mayor of Ferguson who’s desperately calling me in the wee hours of this morning, desperately calling the Speaker of the Missouri House and the floor leader of the Missouri House, Tim Jones and John Diehl, and asking for somebody in state government to stand up and give him some help. All executive power and all command of the Missouri National Guard rests with the Missouri chief executive so none of us could do anything as Ferguson burned. So this mayor made this desperate call as he was watching from his back porch as his city burned.”
Kinder said that Ferguson Mayor James Knowles and Nixon haven’t spoken since the first riots broke out in August.
"Why has he not talked to Mayor James Knowles not twice since this broke on the ninth of August, in 100 plus days?” Kinder said. "Mayor Knowles, we elect non-partisan mayors in Missouri, but if you asked he’d be a Republican in a sort of marginal way. He’s an arm’s length friend of mine and the other legislators I mentioned, but we don’t know him well. I don’t know if that’s why Nixon is pushing him away? But he told me in August when we were three weeks into this, I said, ‘have you spoken to the governor?’ He said ‘I spoke to him for like a minute and a half, when there were like 40 other people in the room but he won’t take my calls.’ He didn’t take his call last night. And not only did he not take his call, but he wouldn’t have his adjutant general of the National Guard take his call. He wouldn’t have his chief of staff take the call. He wouldn’t have his director of public safety call him back. He got nothing. That’s what all of us get.”
Kinder said, too, that Nixon has failed to provide information to even others in state government like himself."
Nixon's inaction is baffling, unless one assumes he was being pressured from higher up. But who is higher than the governor of the sovereign state of Missouri in Missouri? Well....
"The question I put out on Martha MacCallum this morning is that is so inexplicable that the only thing I can think of is that the Holder Justice Department, the Obama administration and Valerie Jarrett demanded that he not deploy the Guard,” Kinder said. "None of them are the commander in chief of the Missouri National Guard. Jay Nixon is. He’s elected by the people to be the commander in chief of the Missouri National Guard. I have it on background that the National Guard up to the top, Adjutant General Steve Danner, wanted to go in. I don’t know that, but I have it on background that he wanted to send his men in and was told not to.”
Governor Jay "18 and a half missing minutes of tape" Nixon has angrily denied the allegations:
"In a phone conference call with reporters, he was asked if it was his ultimate responsibility how any protests are policed. This is what he said: "We're, um, you know, it a, you know, our goal here is to, is to, keep the peace and allow folks' voices to be heard. And in that balance, attempting, you know I am, using the resources we have to be predictable. ... I don't spend a tremendous amount of time personalizing this vis-a-vis me."
PHOTO: People raise their hands in the middle of the street as police wearing riot gear move toward their position trying to get them to disperse, Aug. 11, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.
Jeff Roberson/AP Photo
PHOTO: People raise their hands in the middle of the street as police wearing riot gear move toward their position trying to get them to disperse, Aug. 11, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.
"I prefer not to be a commentator on it. I'm making decisions, as, in a, you know, to make sure we are prepared for all contingencies," Nixon added.
Asked again if any one official or agency is ultimately in charge in terms of a response, he said: "Well, I mean, it a, clearly, I mean, I, I feel good about the, we worked hard, to establish unified command, to allied responsibilities and now with the additional assets provided by my order htoday, with the National Guard, you know, we have worked through a number of operational issues." '
Sometimes hiding from responsibility can bite you on the posterior.
Nixon owes us answers, and the Republican supermajority in Congress must demand them. It's time he stop hiding from his responsibilities. These riots need never have happened, or at least they could have been contained, had Nixon acted decisively. But he's a Democrat first and foremost, and if the White House put pressure on him he would cave.
This whole Ferguson affair is a disgrace; none of it need never have happened. It has been mismanaged from the start by authorities in high places. By the way, those authorities have all been Democrats.
Turns out the stepfather of Michael Brown - the Gentle Giant - incited the riot, saying to protesters "let's burn this B**** down!" after the decision not to indict Officer Daren Wilson. Louis Head, who turns out to be a former Blood gangster, apparently has failed to heed his stepson's mother's public admonition for peaceful protest. But then, she beat up her own ex-mother-in-law so one must take her calls for peace with a grain of salt as well.
Here are the fruits of Head's suggestion. Most of the looters and rioters were locals, especially from the Ferguson apartments that are now considered "projects". (I knew people who lived in them when they were just decent apartments for working people.)
Strangely, Charles Johnson, New York Times writer who was permitted to publish the home address of a police officer who shot a black man in New York, had his Twitter account shut down after reporting the Head incitement story.
November 25, 2014
He was scheduled for a biopsy at an animal hospital in Bridgeton for this morning, but last night he seemed to crash, lolling out his tongue and making a rasping sound when he breathed. He was limp as a rag doll. We scooped him up and ran him out to the facility early (it is a twenty four hour emergency hospital) and they admitted him right away.
The doctors came in at 9 and did a C-T scan. Turns out he was riddled with cancer; in his lungs, in his muscles, on his spine, in his hips. We had three options - chemotherapy (which simply wasn't going to work given the nature of these tumors), bringing him home and giving him pain killers until he died, or helping him pass on. He had suffered far too much in the last month; we said our goodbyes and held him as he passed from this world.
He was a joy to us; a friendly, polite little cat who loved nothing more than to sit on our laps and be petted. Having survived the other two, we were stunned that he passed away like that. Our world is a darker place without him.
He was a fighter, having survived a severe bout of bladder stones three years ago. He had to have three operations then, and we did not think he would make it. But he did, and so it made us think he would pull through this time as well. It was not to be.
It's strange to be in an empty house. For over ten years now we have heard the pitter patter of cat paws on Wthe hardwood floors, or the scratching of paws in the litter box. Now it is silent, a lonely sound.
Elliott will join his brothers in the china cabinet where first Blackberry then Goccia wound up, with his favorite toy, a sock monkey we bought for him. Some day we'll bury all three of them, or put them in a permanent urn, perhaps, but we have still not gotten the heart to make a final ending. A beautiful part of our lives are there, an era that has now ended.
Sleep well old friend.
Great take away line, "A theory that predicts everything, predicts nothing.”
The Grand Jury delivered a No True Bill last night in the police shooting death of "Big Mike" Brown, and now St. Louis is burning.
There were 82 arrests made last night as mobs rioted and looted. St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar called it "worse than the worst night we saw a couple of months ago".
And, thanks to the "kinder, gentler" approach favored by the Feds and local Democrats, the police were woefully under manned.
According to the Gateway PUndit:
Police Chief Jon Belmar told reporters after a dozen businesses were burnt to the ground on Monday that they needed 10,000 officers to prevent the disaster that just hit Ferguson.
"I don’t think we were underprepared. But I’ll be honest with you. Unless we bring 10,000 policemen in here I don’t think we could prevent folks that really are intent on just destroying a community. It doesn’t take very long to throw some kerosene in a building and burn it as you’re running past.”
Last night was a riot of opportunity and of politics. It had nothing to do with the slain youth Michael Brown.
A police officer in University City was shot and St. Louis had to close Lambert Airport.
This was little more than a temper tantrum, much like any spoiled child would throw, except that the individuals involved were criminally minded and adult enough to be effective. Most spoiled children can only scream and kick their feet.
What happened in St. Louis last night illustrates perfectly why you do not negotiate "rules of engagement" with people threatening violence if they don't get their way. The police did not come in riot gear. The National Guard was NOT on the streets, ready to shoot looters. There was every effort to avoid provocation. And the result? Looting, attacks on police, destruction of private property, and provocation aplenty by vicious thugs.
Any parent knows not to give in to a child's temper tantrum, and yet the authorities gave in here. What didn't they understand about this?
Here is an essay from Ebony magazine from August 14 illustrating the childish view of the aggrieved black community in this whole Ferguson business. The author - an attorney no less - blames everything on the evil whites who somehow magically suck up all the wealth and leave nothing but crumbs. She never once, not once, considers that there may be a shred of culpability in the black community. There is no mention of broken homes, no mention of black crime - both black on black and black on white (which is what led to "white flight" in the first place.) She fails to realize that Ferguson was bringing white pioneers back to their community, that Ferguson was becoming a trendy place, a community that is EXACTLY WHAT SHE PRETENDS TO WANT. So many blacks (such as this author) revile "gentrification" which is precisely what their communities need, to bring money back in. Ferguson was moving in that direction until a "whites stay out" sign was hung from every burned business along West Florissant Avenue. And so many of the looted businesses were black owned; makes perfect sense! Complain about a lack of funding for schools and then burn down the businesses and chase away the taxpayers who could turn that around.
Poverty is not caused by lack of wealth but but a poverty of values. If you do not want to work you should not expect to live well. But too many in the black community think the American Dream is a birthright, something that should be given to them because they exist. They refuse to work in their communities to end the destructive trends that make poverty endemic. They think nothing of out-of-wedlock births, for example. That is the number one cause of poverty. They are comfortable with levels of violence (last night proves it) that makes stability and social order difficult. They tolerate criminality; stores in black neighborhoods have to impose draconian anti-theft measures or close. They do not value work as the key to success, prefering to demand wealth as a right, something to be taken and not earned. Education is bad in many black communities, granted, but why? There is a tendency to think of education as a "white thing" while gangsta rap, welfare, drugs and sex are being genuinly black. That in itself is telling; blacks refuse to see themselves as part of the larger America in many instances. This obsession with their roots and the color of their own skins keeps them imprisoned in a slew of despond, and the worse things become the more they double down on their black rage.
And of course this makes them the perfect Democratic voters.
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, it can be said the black community is touched with madness. They continue to support the very policies that keep them in poverty and destroy their lives.
I would say to all the rioters, looters, and those angry that a white cop shot a black thug - grow up! Stop blaming others for problems you yourselves have made.
(Why did a white cop shoot a black kid, by the way? If the cops stop sending patrols into black communities they would be excoriated for racism in not patrolling there.)
The Aviary has been added to the blogroll of the prestigious publication The Gateway PUndit.
Many thanks to Jim Hoft for honoring us with a "favorite blog' status.
While I would like to say it is our cutting edge reporting, wisdom, great humor, serious intellectual inquiry, and our list of top conservative writers who contribute to this site that led to this great honor, I must admit I begged like a little girl asking Santa for a pony, and Jim likely caved to my pleas just to get me to leave him alone.
Still, like the Dungeon Master of the high school D&D club getting a cheerleader to go out with him by doing her math homework and then bragging about it, I am most proud of this great honor. Thanks Jim!
In all seriousness, I am very proud of this website. We DO have a stable of some of the best and brightest conservative writers in the field, and I have always felt especially honored that such luminaries would bother to submit their work to little old me. I've become friends with so many of them. I sometimes feel like a dime novelist who somehow managed to talk his way into the circle of Lord Byron and Shelley and company.
And, although our readership is small, we do have quite a bit of influence. I often hear our writing echoed elsewhere, sometimes echoed in a very large auditorium. I happen to know of some serious guys who read this website. I like to think of us as the intellectual generator for the pamphleteers.
Blogging can be a lonely pasttime when readership is apparently small. It is good to know that we exert a more powerful influence over events, and that our seemingly inconsequential efforts may play a major role in the course of our national conversation.
But it sure is nice to get some public recognition on occasion.
Thanks again, Jim!
November 24, 2014
Jack Kemp directs our attention to this insightful piece by Bill Kassel about the Cosby rape allegations. I recently asked the question "why now" after these allegations lay dormant for many years.
Well, Mr. Kassel has perhaps found the answer:
"Whether or not Cosby is guilty -- and, once again, he may very well be (I’m certainly not equating him with Pius XII) -- it strikes me as interesting that we should be hearing so much about his purportedly vicious antics just now.
While certainly no Tea Party icon, Bill Cosby has been a highly vocal, highly visible exponent of parental responsibility, youthful rectitude, and all-around self control.
What we’re hearing about him lately rather weakens his message, to say the least. And that’s very much to the point. Eliminating Bill Cosby as a dissident voice in the lefty atmosphere of Hollywood -- where it’s an article of Received Truth that the solutions to all social problems, and especially to the woes of black people, lie in government -- no doubt brings satisfaction to those who consider Cosby a right-wing pawn.
But let’s go a step farther.
Isn’t there another prominent figure who’s emerged from the African-American community with a similar personal-integrity message -- someone, moreover, who’s recently changed his party affiliation to Republican and is gaining traction as a possible presidential or vice-presidential nominee?
A certain retired neurosurgeon comes to mind: one Ben Carson."
Wellll, why didn't I think of that!
Remember, Herman Cain was destroyed by similar accusations when HE ran for President a few years ago. That was a disgraceful display, and yet it made Republicans wary of him. The Democrats fear a black conservative Republican for good reason; a drop in the percentage of the black vote their candidate receives will be curtains. The historic nature of woman running at the top of the ticket - especially a disagreeable woman like Hillary Clinton - would be offset by a black conservative - especially after the historic failure of Obama. People will want a mulligan for a black president. Ben Carson must be dissuaded from running (along with any other black conservative.)
While I do not know what Cosby did or did not do, I do think the accusations are a bit difficult to square with logic. Why would a man as powerful as Cosby stoop to a date rape drug? He could have women - even young ones - just by asking. Some have suggested he likes the sense of power, and that would be sensible if the victims were, uh, actually under his power. But a drugged woman is nothing but a physical object, unaware of what is happening. Rape as an act of dominance makes no sense if the dominated party is unaware. That's not to say there aren't rapists who drug women, but they largely do it to have sex with a woman out of their league, one they couldn't have otherwise. A powerful man like Cosby wouldn't need to stoop to such levels.
It may be Cosby harbors necrophilic desires, but I rather doubt it. That is most uncommon.
As Jack Kemp pointed out, Cosby probably feared bringing home a venereal disease and so went after young aspiring actresses and models. But again, he had no reason to rape them; plenty would willingly go to his bed for the favors he could bestow. And the stories told by these women just don't square; repeated visits, Cosby in a robe in one woman's motel room (why did HE have a robe there?) etc.
But we will probably never know. Suffice it to say Cosby is a dirty old man and likely a dirty young one. He should never have cheated on his wife in the first place. The wages of sin...
But does that make him a rapist?
The black rapist meme is an old and vile stereotype, and the Left has used it repeatedly to destroy conservative black men. Remember Clarence Thomas? Cosby is no conservative, but he does espouse certain conservative values such as family, work, and decency. That cannot be allowed to stand on the black plantation. But Cosby was excused as long as he did not stray too far.
Now it may be time to make Cosby pay, especially as a warning to others. Ben Carson needs to be shown what will happen if he dares to go against them. And don't forget the "war on women" which the Democrats think is a winning strategy for them.
That is classic Saul Alinsky tactics; pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Intimidation and personal destruction are the stock-in-trade of the modern Left.
Guilty or not, Cosby is the casualty of a bitter war of extermination being waged by liberals. He should have know better.
A pregnant man has been charged with stalking his ex-wife.
Thomas Beatie made big news when "he" became pregnant back in 2008 when he and his then "wife" Nancy had their first child, conceived through artificial insemination.
Beatie has only had a partial sex change; "his" female organs are still in tact.
The perplexed preggo booted his wife out of the house but continued to stalk her, showing up where she was and quizzing her about her activities. A police officer who stopped to assist her with a flat tire found a GPS tracking device installed on the underside of her car.
Beatie is being charged with Stalking in Arizona.
Beatie has had a hard time of it (no pun intended); his divorce isn't going through since, by law, he was never really married. His wedding in Hawaii is considered by the judge a same-sex affair, something not recognized by Arizona. He can't get divorced because, in the eyes of the law in AZ, he was never legally married.
And those stretch marks are a real drag...
A bill before the Russian parliament calls for mandatory fingerprinting and DNA profiling for every Russian citizen. According to Russia Today:
"MPs from the populist nationalist party LDPR have prepared and drafted a motion requiring universal fingerprinting and DNA profiling of all Russian citizens for reasons of security.
The main sponsor of the bill is Roman Khudyakov, known for previously wanting the urban population of the country, including visitors and foreigners, to be fingerprinted. This time the lawmaker opted for the "biometrical registration” of all Russians, which essentially means fingerprinting and DNA-profiling of everyone. The information would be held in a central government database and each citizen would be provided with the details on a so called "bio-card.” The bill suggests the setting up of a special federal agency in charge of the biometrical scanning, reporting either to the Interior Ministry or to the Federal Security Service, the FSB.
In comments to the popular daily Izvestia, Khudyakov urged his plan be put into practice as soon as possible saying that it would help law enforcers and society. The politician said that in the near future the program would allow the scrapping of other forms of ID and significantly cut red tape. In addition he assured reporters that ordinary Russians should not fear over the security of their personal data.
"All information will be protected. It is like a bank card. We will also toughen the criminal responsibility for officials who have access to the data. When people face three years in prison for leaking the data no one would be tempted to do this,” he said.
Khudyakov also suggests keeping the data for 150 years from the date of collection, and then it would be destroyed. The biometric cards of the dead could be kept by state agencies for the same period of time and then disposed of."
Welcome to the new Soviet Union, bigger and better than the old! Of course America isn't far behind; Edward Snowden is going to wish he had stayed here before long.
Governments that keep databases of citizens's information are not free. Yes, it may be convenient to know who everyone is and what they are doing, but at what cost? Stalin wished he had a tool like the modern computer and DNA profiling.
Over at American Thinker Thomas Lifson chronicled a curious development in public opinion about the Daren Wilson grand jury proceedings.
According to a Washington Times column, a recent poll showed:
" Only 1 in 4 Americans believe that white police officer Darren Wilson should be charged with murder by the grand jury in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, according to a poll released Friday.
With the St. Louis County grand jury expected to render its verdict at any time, the Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 23 percent of those surveyed said Mr. Wilson should be indicted for the Aug. 9 murder of Mr. Brown, whose death touched off riots in Ferguson, Missouri.
Another 39 percent of Americans said that Mr. Wilson acted in self-defense, up from 26 percent when the same question was asked in a mid-August poll. Another 38 percent are undecided, compared with 51 percent who were undecided three months ago. (snip)
The vast majority — 81 percent — said they expect to see violent protests if the grand jury does not indict the officer on murder charges, while just 10 percent said such a reaction was not likely."
This is a strange result; how can 39% think Wilson acted in self-defense and yet 23% think he should be charged with a crime? A full 61% do NOT think this was self-defense or are unsure, so why do 67% of respondents NOT think he should be indicted? If it was not self-defense it was clearly a criminal act.
I get it; many are unsure and won't support indictment. But that makes little to no sense; a Grand Jury is not trying Officer Wilson but merely deciding whether he should be indicted, to face trial. If you don't think it was self-defense then you MUST support an indictment. There is no other logical conclusion. Bear in mind this all still depends on the evidence presented, which at this point remains secret.
What this says is that most Americans are completely ignorant of civics, do not understand the grand jury process. Undoubtedly the large number who do not think this was self-defense think there isn't enough evidence to support convicting Wilson. They do not understand that this is about something very different than proving guilt or innocence. Grand juries are supposed to determine if there is enough evidence to charge a suspect with a crime. A regular jury decides guilt or innocence. So if you think it was not self-defense then you should support indictment.
It's frightening that so few of our fellow citizens have an even basic understanding of how America works. This is what public school education has wrought; a populace that does not understand it's own legal protections. How can we discuss the Constitutionality of an issue with people who do not even know a Grand Jury is nothing but a referring body?
Schools used to teach civics. It was required that every school child pass a course in civics to graduate from high school. Not anymore; it has been replaced by "Social Studies", a course that preaches multiculturalism and America-hating. People do not even know what it is they are supposed to hate but they know they are supposed to hate it. Makes sense; how can anyone hate the United States if they know what it is, what it is about, and know how it is outside of this country? The public must be kept ignorant of the truth about the great gift that is America. Progressivism cannot flourish with an informed public. The Progs cannot build their brave new world if Americans understand their own system.
And I wonder how 10% could think there will be no violence, after we have already witnessed weeks of rioting. We are having random acts of violence in St. Louis NOW, before the announcement of the verdict. People cannot be that dense.
I agree with Thomas Lifson that this is good news in that Americans aren't buying the media spin or the race hustlers. It is still disturbing, though.
Americans aren't stupid, despite what Jonathan Gruber believes , but they are ill-informed. Imagine trying to explain, say, Obamacare to a Medieval era scholar; he may well have the intuitive sense that something is seriously wrong with it but he would lack a basic understanding of the entire concept. Too many aspects of health insurance, government authority, medical technology, would be beyond his experience. The American People are like that; poorly educated, they intuitively grasp a problem but can't put their fingers on it. This poll suggests to me that the public senses something is amiss but does not understand enough to say exactly what.
These are the fruits of a century of Progressive control of the educational system. And now with Common Core it will only get worse.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly assure us that today’s climate change computer models are "highly sophisticated” and able to predict global temperature and climate events with "amazing accuracy.” In reality, they are ridiculously off the mark. They don’t even come close to forecasting what has actually been happening in the real world. And no wonder.
The assumptions and algorithms built into the computer software focus almost entirely on carbon dioxide – and almost entirely ignore the numerous, powerful, interrelated NATURAL forces that drive climate change.
My article with climatology professor David Legates explains why the models are defective, how this came about (follow the money), and what should be done to fix the problem before we spend more money and promulgate more energy-strangling, job-killing laws and regulations based on the current crop of useless and misleading computer models.
Needed: Accurate climate forecasts
Focusing on carbon dioxide (because that’s where the money is) threatens forecasts, and lives
Paul Driessen and David R. Legates
President Obama’s agreement with China is about as credible as his "affordable care” pronouncements.
Pleistocene glaciers repeatedly buried almost half of the Northern Hemisphere under a mile of ice. The Medieval Warm Period (~950-1250 AD) enriched agriculture and civilizations across Asia and Europe, while the Little Ice Age that followed (~1350-1850) brought widespread famines and disasters. The Dust Bowl upended lives and livelihoods for millions of Americans, while decades-long droughts vanquished once-thriving Anasazi and Mayan cultures, and flood and drought cycles repeatedly pounded African, Asian and Australian communities. Hurricanes and tornadoes have also battered states and countries throughout history, in numbers and intensities that have been impossible to pattern or predict.
But today we are supposed to believe climate variability is due to humans – and computer models can now forecast climate changes with amazing accuracy. These models and the alarmist scientists behind them say greenhouse gases will increasingly trigger more "severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people, species and ecosystems,” a recent UN report insists.
In reality, carbon dioxide’s effect on devastating weather patterns is greatly overstated. We are near a 30-year low in hurricane energy (measured by the ACE index of "accumulated cyclone energy”), and tropical cyclone and storm activity has not increased globally over that period. In fact, as of November 18, it’s been 3,310 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland – by far the longest stretch since records began in 1900. This Atlantic hurricane season was the least active in 30 years.
Moreover, there has been no warming since 1995, several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, the 2013-14 winter was one of the coldest and snowiest in memory for much of the United States and Canada – and the cold spell could continue.
Accurate climate forecasts one, five or ten years in advance would certainly enable us to plan and prepare for, adapt to and mitigate the effects of significant or harmful climate variations, including temperatures, hurricanes, floods and droughts. However, such forecasts can never be even reasonably accurate under the climate change hypothesis that the IPCC, EPA and other agencies have adopted. The reason is simple.
Today’s climate research defines carbon dioxide as the principal driving force in global climate change. Virtually no IPCC-cited models or studies reflect the powerful, interconnected natural forces that clearly caused past climate fluctuations – most notably, variations in the sun’s energy output.
They also largely ignore significant effects of urban and other land use changes, and major high-impact fluctuations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Niño and La Niña) and North Atlantic Oscillation. If we truly want reliable predictive capabilities, we must eliminate the obsession with carbon dioxide as the primary driver of climate change – and devote far more attention to studying all the powerful forces that have always driven climate change, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them.
We also need to study variations in the sun’s energy output, winds high in the atmosphere, soil moisture, winter snow cover and volcanic eruptions, Weatherbell forecaster Joe D’Aleo emphasizes. We also need to examine unusual features like the pool of warm water that developed in the central Pacific during the super La Niña of 2010-2011 and slowly drifted with the wind-driven currents into the Gulf of Alaska, causing the "polar vortex” that led to the cold, snowy winter of 2013-2014, he stresses.
"The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is tremendous,” says Colorado State University analyst Bill Gray, who has been studying and forecasting tropical cyclones for nearly 60 years. Among the reasons he cites for grossly deficient models are their "unrealistic model input physics,” the "overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques,” and the fact that decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans "are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to be realistically included in the climate models.”
Nor does applying today’s super computers to climate forecasting help matters. NOAA, the British Meteorological Office and other government analysts have some of the world’s biggest and fastest computers – and yet their (and thus the IPCC’s and EPA’s) predictions are consistently and stupendously wrong. Speedier modern computers simply make the "garbage in, garbage out” adage occur much more quickly, thereby facilitating faster faulty forecasts. Why does this continue? Follow the money.
Billions of dollars are doled out every year for numerous "scientific studies” that supposedly link carbon dioxide and other alleged human factors to dwindling frog populations, melting glaciers, migrating birds and cockroaches, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions. Focusing on "dangerous human-induced” climate change in research proposals greatly improves the likelihood of receiving grants.
American taxpayers alone provide a tempting $2.5 billion annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA, Global Change Research Program and other government agencies. Universities and other institutions receiving grants take 40% or more off the top for "project management” and "overhead.” None of them wants to upset this arrangement, and all of them fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles might imperil funding from sources that have their own reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy or antipathy toward fossil fuels. Peer pressure and shared views on wealth redistribution via energy policies, also play major roles.
When Nebraska lawmakers budgeted $44,000 for a review of climate cycles and natural causes, state researchers said they would not be interested unless human influences were included. The "natural causes” proposal was ultimately scuttled in favor of yet another meaningless study of human influences.
The result is steady streams of computer model outputs that alarmists assure us accurately predict climate changes. However, none of them forecast the 18-years-and-counting warming pause, the absence of hurricanes, or other real-world conditions. Nearly every one predicted temperatures that trend higher with every passing year and exceed recorded global temperatures by ever widening margins.
The constant predictions of looming manmade climate disasters are also used to justify demands that developed nations "compensate” poor and developing countries with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in annual climate "reparation, adaptation and mitigation” money. Meanwhile, those no-longer-so-wealthy nations are implementing renewable energy and anti-hydrocarbon policies that drive up energy costs for businesses and families, kill millions of jobs, and result in thousands of deaths annually among elderly pensioners and others who can no longer afford to heat their homes properly during cold winters.
Worst of all, the climate disaster predictions are used to justify telling impoverished countries that they may develop only to extent enabled by wind and solar power. Financial institutions increasingly refuse to provide grants or loans for electricity generation projects fueled by coal or natural gas. Millions die every year because they do not have electricity to operate water purification facilities, refrigerators to keep food and medicine from spoiling, or stoves and heaters to replace wood and dung fires that cause rampant lung diseases. As Alex Epstein observes in his new book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:
"If you’re living off the grid and can afford it, an installation with a battery that can power a few appliances might be better than the alternative (no energy or frequently returning to civilization for diesel fuel), but [such installations] are essentially useless in providing cheap, plentiful energy for 7 billion people – and to rely on them would be deadly.”
By expanding our research – to include careful, honest, accurate studies of natural factors – we will be better able to discern and separate significant human influences from the powerful natural forces that have caused minor to profound climate fluctuations throughout history. Only then will we begin to improve our ability to predict why, when, how and where Earth’s climate is likely to change in the future. Congress should reduce CO2 funding and earmark funds for researching natural forces that drive climate change.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-Earth money machine. David R. Legates, PhD, CCM, is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, USA.
November 23, 2014
Over at Canada Free Press Judi McLeod chronicles the big bucks the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have received to support amnesty for invaders.
Here are some of the highlights:
" "In the case of the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston, $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health and Human Services for "Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of "Refugee and Entry Assistance”. (Eric Odom, Liberty News July 10, 2014)
"Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for "citizenship and education training” with a program description of "citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for "Citizenship Education Training” for "refugee and entrant assistance.”
It is no coincidence that the vice president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is his Eminence Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and that the Conference Treasurer is the Most Reverend Kevin J. Farrell, Bishop of Dallas.
Nor do protestants get a free ride in the bankrolled by Obama category with the Baptists taking government grants:From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for "Unaccompanied Alien Children Program”. (Liberty News)
In coming to Obama’s aid in erasing forever America’s 238-year-old borders, the bishops sold the USA out, including its Catholics, for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver.
Indeed Obama’s biggest boost to power came courtesy of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic compliance that propelled Obama from the streets as a malcontent community organizer to the Oval office begins and continues with the Catholic Church.
No one has documented the trail more effectively than spunky Michael Voris, of ChurchMilitant.TV.
Who ever would have thought that the road to America’s destruction would be made a grim possibility through a host of Catholic priests and bishops?
It’s a story that should make you shudder because it’s how Barack Obama captured America like the proverbial fox in the henhouse.
Long in the telling, and made obscure through the passing of time, it should not only be dragged out of mothballs, but shouted from the rooftops:
"In the 1930s, Alinsky met the Meegan brothers, Joseph and Peter. Joseph introduced him to the Chicago Bishops and to his brother, Fr. Peter Meegan, who in turn introduced Saul to Aux. Bishop Bernard Sheil. Meegan and Sheil introduced Alinsky to the inner workings of the Catholic Church.” (Colorado Coalition for Life/Michael Voris, Feb. 18, 2012). "During this time, Saul organized his first community project called the "Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council”. At this point, Alinsky pulled off his greatest coup and garnered the Bishops’ public seal of approval. He convinced Aux. Bishop Sheil to join John L. Lewis, the head of the CIO (eventually known as the AFLCIO), on stage. At that moment the Catholic Church and the labor unions entered into an unholy partnership.
"Msgr. Jack Egan teamed up with Alinsky, and in time, Egan was affectionately known by the Chicago press as "Alinsky’s priest intern”. Egan promoted Alinsky so well that he was more popular among Catholics than the bishops. Through the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s, Egan and Alinsky developed a well oiled network of priests and bishops throughout the United States. In 1968, newly appointed Cardinal Cody realized that what Msgr. Egan was doing was not in line with Catholic doctrine and closed his office.
"Fr. Ted Hesburgh invited Msgr. Egan to Notre Dame for a sabbatical. He remained at Notre Dame for the next 14 years where he continued to develop his priest’s network. Egan periodically brought priests to the Catholic Mecca for conferences under the liberal eye of Hesburgh. Egan was now in mainstream Catholic life.
During Egan’s time at Notre Dame in the late ‘60s, race riots broke out around the country. A document called Black Manifesto was published which called for reparations for African Americans. The Catholic Church chose Msgr. Jack Egan and his network of priests to come up with plans to alleviate poverty. All of Egan’s priests, save one, were personally trained by Saul Alinsky in the tactics laid out in his book, Reveille for Radicals. This opportunity allowed Egan’s network of priests to implement Saul Alinsky’s radical community organizing tactics of gaining power and strength from the people and using it to empower and enlarge government.
"In a few months, the network created the "National Crusade Against Poverty” (NCAP) and committed to raise 50 million dollars over several years. The campaign should have raised the money and dissolved. It did not, and in fact, it is still in existence today under the name of the "Catholic Campaign for Human Development”. The CCHD has raised over $289,000,000 in 40 years, and by donating to the radical left, they have gained immense power in the abortion and homosexual communities.”
Anyone reading this who doesn’t feel a shiver down the spine when recalling that Obama successfully had authorities at Georgetown cover all religious symbols when he made his 2009 commencement speech there, isn’t awake.
"He was there to pay tribute to his mentors in community organizing. To pay tribute to those who helped put him in office. In his speech he mentioned his high regard for Cardinal Bernardin, who spoke at one of the first organizing meetings he ever attended.” (Michael Voris).
This is the real, little known trajectory Obama took into the Oval Office.
After four years living in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer. He worked for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago’s far South Side. During his three years as the DCP’s director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization in Altgeld Gardens. Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute. (Wikipedia)"
And of course Pope Francis comes from a background of Peronism and Liberation Theology, and "Social Justice" is big in his neck of the woods.
What is missing from Francis and the USCCB? Nobody seems concerned about the salvation of souls, but rather about the corporal works of mercy as some sort of basic civil right. News flash guys; they are called WORKS OF MERCY not rights, and, as I have pointed out before, forcing people to perform such acts for others through the force of law robs the opportunity of the giver to perform a good spiritual act. Charity is as much for the giver as the recipient. It must be freely given to have any value, otherwise it becomes a heavy yoke on both.
God created nations. The will to empire has always been in Man's heart, the desire for an international order, for a world under a single potentate. The Book of Genesis makes it clear that God wants individual nations; He scattered the peoples at Babel to make that happen. God does not disdain national boundaries, nor does He demand we allow our nation to be invaded and outbred. We have a right, in fact a duty, to take steps to maintain and protect our national culture. We are not required to accept every individual who seeks to come to our nation.
And it is also true that our charity in this matter does cruelty to those who stay behind. Mexico is a rotting socialist hellhole, and refuses to change because we bail them out. Our "charity" has made Mexico as dependent as any welfare queen, dependent on America to take her excess population and in return to accept remittances from the sojourners. This is equally true of Central Americans who come from equally rotten hellholes run by leftist dictators. As long as we bail them out they will never reform. They must face their own problems.
A parent who does not discipline his child is said to hate his child, according to the Bible. Our acceptance of these invaders is doing no favors for anyone. And it will destroy the very thing these people have come here to enjoy - America's freedom and wealth.
In the end there is no way to justify this as a moral imperative as the Catholic Bishops are trying to do. They need to remember their mission is to save souls.
Way to go, Brother Cosby. Ride the politically correct bus - and find out your seat has a trap door...
"Bill Cosby says those who oppose Obama are racist"
By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Monday, March 4, 2013
Comedy and television icon Bill Cosby slammed Republicans who failed to stand for President Obama’s State of the Union speech, likening them to racists who opposed desegregation.
"I think we have people sitting there,” he said, referring to the president’s SOTU speech, during a CNN television interview reported by Mediaite, "who are as bad as the people who were against any kind of desegregation.”
His comments came in context of a discussion about racism and the 1965 Bloody Sunday march across Selma, Ala., Mediate reported. Rep. Connie Mack said "it’s just hard to believe,” and
"it’s unbelievable,” in reference to the level of racism that marked that decade, Mediate reported.
"I don’t think so,” Mr. Cosby said, Mediate reported. "Not when you look at the president’s speech recently.”
That’s when he made the remarks about those who failed to stand for Mr. Obama’s speech. He didn’t say Republicans — but it was members of the Republican Party, not Democratic Party, who failed to stand.
"And then in place of a better America, they want their own sick feelings put across and … it isn’t a good time,” he said, as Mediate reported. "But I think, also on our part as professors and presidents of colleges all over, and in public schools, we need to get the education of the correct history that happened so people can say, ‘Yes, this really did happen.’ "
Image courtesy of thenextright.com
Some of the lowlights:
"The President’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions will help secure the border, hold nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable, and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. Acting within his legal authority, the President is taking an important step to fix our broken immigration system.
These executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay their fair share of taxes as they register to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation."
Who "broke" the immigration system? Was it not Mr. Obama and his cohorts in Congress, who simply refused to enforce the laws on the books?
And how is anyone being held "accountable"? Seems to me they are being given a free pass after breaking the law. playing by the same rules? Huh?
I work with a legal immigrant from Eritrea who spent years trying to get his Eritrean wife to join him here. It took years and tons of money, and he was nearly desperate at the end. He should have just dropped her in Matamoros and let her walk across the border. There is no "playing by the same rules" in this instance.
The second paragraph illustrates one of the ambitions of Obama and the Democrats; more tax money.
Let us continue with the White House white wash (or is it People of Non-Color Wash?)
" * Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border: The President’s actions increase the chances that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally will be caught and sent back. Continuing the surge of resources that effectively reduced the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally this summer, the President’s actions will also centralize border security command-and-control to continue to crack down on illegal immigration.
* Deporting Felons, Not Families: The President’s actions focus on the deportation of people who threaten national security and public safety. He has directed immigration enforcement to place anyone suspected of terrorism, violent criminals, gang members, and recent border crossers at the top of the deportation priority list.
* Accountability – Criminal Background Checks and Taxes: The President is also acting to hold accountable those undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for more than five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. By registering and passing criminal and national security background checks, millions of undocumented immigrants will start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time."
I'm all for cracking down on invaders at the border, but it's not the border that is drawing them, and we should crack down on people who employ them. It should also be pointed out that Congress authorized money to build a border fence years ago and only a few lousy miles of it were ever constructed. This is pure gamesmanship by the BHO; he can stack as many people as he likes on the border and simply issue a stand down order.
It's like laws against jaywalking; the only time police enforce them are when a jaywalker causes an accident or whatnot. You can have all the laws you want on the books, but if the authorities refuse to act on them they may as well not be there.
A fence at least imposes a physical barrier which, coupled with even reasonable enforcement efforts, may stop a few invaders.
It has been argued that a fence is worthless, that it won't stop anyone. Really? When Attila the Hun tried to invade China he was stopped by the Great Wall, which was constructed (at great cost) for that very purpose. It worked; Attila turned his army around and headed back toward Rome, which had no such wall. The Emperor Hadrian constructed such a wall himself in Britain, and it did a fine job of keeping the Scotts and Picts from invading Roman territory. It should also be pointed out that the wall in Berlin posed a substantial barrier to Germans; had the Soviets not constructed it all of East Germany would have been stuffed in the wester Berlin district.
Criminal background checks on "undocumented" people makes a lot of sense! It's like running a police check on an armadillo wandering in the forest.
The off-white house document continues:
"For more than a half century, every president—Democratic or Republican—has used his legal authority to act on immigration. President Obama is now taking another commonsense step. As the Administration implements these executive actions, Congress should finish the job by passing a bill like the bipartisan Senate bill that: continues to strengthen border security by adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents; cracks down on companies who hire undocumented workers; creates an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pay a fine and taxes, pass a background check, learn English and go to the back of the line; and boosts our economy and keeps families together by cutting red tape to simplify our legal immigration process."
Really? Every President has used Executive Orders to enforce laws duly passed by Congress, not to change them. Congress has passed immigration laws and this President doesn't like them, so he refuses to enforce them. Now he simply changes the law in his own mind, and expects Congress to pass a law that comports with his enforcement. He has this 180* out of phase.
All of these wonderful benefits he promises from his new imperial decree are things HE WAS ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE DOING; crack down on employers, increase the number of agents on the border, etc. The rest of this is purest sophistry.
Emperor Obama tries to claim credit for reducing the number of illegals coming to this country. Actually, he is indeed responsible - the economy is so bad here that fewer migrants are showing up. Now we are getting the total dregs. And it begs the question; if Obama's actions have been so good at reducing the rate of migration here, why does he need to issue an executive amnesty at all? The reality is there are more people pouring across the border than ever. This is a monumental lie. And he's been settling these "children" all over the country.
I could continue with a line-by-line dissection of this document, but I'll leave that for the readers.
The point of this is that it will cost lots and lots of money, money not earmarked by Congress. He's passed his own law and expects Congress to simply bankroll it. This is precisely why we have a government that is partitioned in the American fashion; when the Executive branch oversteps it's authority Congress - which holds the purse strings - can cut off the money. But the GOP is terrified of being blamed for a "mpgovernment shutdown" and will not act, even though the last such "shutdown" seemed to boomerang in their favor with an unprecedented political tidal wave in their favor. Seems to me they should be shutting the government down on a regular basis.
But they won't, because they listen to each-other and to the media and do not mingle with the pleibs out in flyover country.
A nation that does not restrict non-nationals is not a nation at all and is destined to die. At best it is an empire, a polyglot of nations grafted together by force of arms and perhaps some mutual commerce. In the end empires are not stable, because the people do not have enough in common. Where is the Austro-Hungarian Empire? It couldn't hold together past the First World War because the member nations had too little in common. Where is the Ottoman Empire? The British? Great Britain almost dissolved recently when Scotland held a vote on secession, and that on the main island of Britain itself. The Soviet Union was unable to stay together despite a massive internal security apparatus. Empires simply lack cohesion. Nation states, on the other hand, are quite resiliant because the people share a common culture and heritage. Spain, the first modern nation-state, remains solid despite considerable historic ups and downs (and a separatist movement or two from some ethnic groups - like the Basques - inside their country). The U.S., a nation composed of many peoples who have united as one (E Pluribus Unam) and share a common history, culture, tradition, and beliefs, is sliding into imperial status as a result of a generation raised on Progressive ideas of multiculturalism, a concept t hhat says we should allow numerous cultures to coexist inside our our nation. Multiculturalism is about division, about fracturing the essence of our nation, creating a kind of Balkan-like empire. The Balkans have always been fractured because they are multicultural. Ditto the caucasus. In fact, there are few examples of countries that fare well with even two cultures. Canada is one such, yet Canada has a devil of a time remaining united and it may split apart at any time.
America is becoming an empire, and Mr. Obama, by usurping the lawmaking powers of Congress, is introducing imperial political machinery that will, if allowed to stand, give the next would-be emperor a platform to expand imperial power. America as a nation is nearly dead.
By Alan Caruba
November 22, 2014
Rebels in Ferguson forced a car off the road, causing it to crash into a telephone
This when there hasn't been a decision by the Grand Jury yet.
Someone I work with told me a friend of his had his car surrounded by a gang of black thugs who began shaking and kicking the vehicle while he - a white man - was inside. There was no provocation for this act.
What the law has succeeded in doing is shackling good people who would act in their own self-defense - and the defense of others, while liberating the lawless and the evil. Ferguson is a triumph of the multicultural dynamic; the rebels are free to make mayhem because of the color of their skin.
In other Ferguson news, rebels used mace on police after blocking traffic.0
That sort of thing CANNOT be allowed to stand; the police must always the upper hand when dealing with mobs. If this is the case the cops need to go to more aggressive tactics. Rubber bullets, salt in shotguns, water hoses. I know they fear the last, since the rebels want the imagery, reminiscent of the civil rights era. I think, given the cool weather, hoses could be shot upward, giving the rioters a nice bracing shower. Let's see them continue to raise hell in soaking wet clothes in 3* temperatures!
Whatever course they choose the police must not allow this kind of tit-for-tat. As Obama said "if they bring a knife we'll bring a gun". The Bible states that the authorities are given "the power of the sword" to "punish evildoers" and they cannot be overwhelmed by such evildoers. These "protesters" are not there because of Mike Brown; he was just a catalyst. They are there because they seek revolution. Many of them are black supremacists, dreaming of a horrible vengence on the white community that they believe represses them. That this "repression" is not at all the fault of the white community but rather their own failings never occurs to them. If they would play by the rules and devote their energy to success in life rather to hatred and rage they would do very well in America. Most immigrants do precisely that.
They would rather loot and raise hell; it's more fun than working.
Booker T. Washington, a man among men, once said;
"Nothing ever comes to one, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.
Yet this is lost on the gang in Ferguson. Another point they should ponder from Washington:
"No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem."
A fact lost on the hip-hop generation, who seem to find satisfaction in writing clumbsy, vicious, racist and misogynistic poetry but despise honest labor.
More from Washington:
"I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him." and "Character is power."
Martin Luther King understood that last, and his was excellent character which shamed the nation into changing her ways. The rebels in Ferguson are just thugs trying to bully people.
Dr. King would be very disappointed with what his successors have done.
I received this e-mail from Senate Conservative Action. Tought it worth sharing; Cuccinelli calls for a provision in the budget explicitly forbidding Obama from using money for amnesty.
The president just announced his plan to unilaterally grant amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants.
UrgentWe must stop him!
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to defund the president's executive order, and that's exactly what Congress must do.
Please make an urgent contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more to help us force Congress to take a stand.
Winning this fight requires a well-executed plan that reaches millions of Americans and mobilizes them to make their voices heard.
We also need to be prepared to run hard-hitting ads that shine a light on specific politicians who refuse to listen to we the people.
This goes for Republicans too.
If they refuse to defend the Constitution, their records should be exposed and they should be challenged in their next primary by a true conservative.
Take a stand right now and make a contribution to help us mobilize Americans across the country to stop this unlawful amnesty.
Stop the AmnestyRepublicans in Congress need to include a provision in the upcoming spending bill that prevents the administration from using taxpayer money to carry out this executive order.
It's not unusual for Congress to defund executive actions. Even Democrats like Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) have admitted that it "happens all the time."
Republicans used this strategy to stop the president from closing Guantanamo Bay, and they must use it to stop his unlawful amnesty.
If the president vetoes a government spending bill to protect his unlawful amnesty, it is he – not Congress – who will be responsible for any government shutdown.
Republicans MUST NOT capitulate and allow themselves to be bullied by this lawless president. That's not why Americans voted for them this year.
Will you help us send Congress a message?
Some Republicans will surrender to the president unless they fear a fight with the voters more than they fear a fight with the president.
But if we work together to make our voices heard, we can unite Republicans and put enormous pressure on the Democrats to abandon the president.
Americans just rejected the president's liberal policies in the past election and Democrats who side with him on amnesty do so at their own peril.
Please don't sit this one out. We can't let the president succeed in enacting such a bad policy in such an unlawful way.
Help us put maximum pressure on these politicians by making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more right now.
There's no time to waste. We need to respond quickly.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you for supporting the principles of freedom that make this country great.
Ken Cuccinelli II
Ken Cuccinelli II
Senate Conservatives Action
November 21, 2014
Photo courtesy of 9link=http://realityinred.wordpress.com/category/politics/political-cartoons/0Reality in Red.
His Pissant, er, Puissant Majesty Barack Hussein Soetero Obama has officially claimed the imperium by openly violating the Constitution and his oaf, er oath of office by proclaming amnesty for illegal invaders.
Strange; Mr. Obama has said previously that he did not have the authority to do this, and that he was not an emperor. What does that mean? He now believes he IS an emperor? That is certainly the conclusion one must draw from this. He just crowned himself tyrannus.
Here is his speech, with my editorial commentary:
2:09 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. This morning, Secretary Napolitano announced new actions my administration will take to mend our nation’s immigration policy, to make it more fair, more efficient, and more just -- specifically for certain young people sometimes called "Dreamers.”
(No, it is NOT a good afternoon. And this isn't "immigration policy" as these are not immigrants but colonists who have invaded the country illegally.)
These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents -- sometimes even as infants -- and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license, or a college scholarship.
(No, they live in largely hispanic neighborhoods, play with other invaders, and dishonor the U.S. flag. The whole problem is that the illegals are not enculturating, and see themselves as displaced Meixcans/Guatamalans/Hondurans etc. And American students at a mixed school were forced to rid themselves of American flag tee shirts after illegal children raise hell about it - and assaulted some of the American kids. What of MecCha Mr. President? They are a separatist Hispanic student group seeking to create Aztlan, a new Hispanic country in the "occupied territories".)
Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you’ve done everything right your entire life -- studied hard, worked hard, maybe even graduated at the top of your class -- only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country that you know nothing about, with a language that you may not even speak.
(Horsepoop. The children of illegals all speak Spanish, or just about. Furthermore, I'm sorry, but their parents knew exactly what they were doing, knew the risks. This is akin to saying we cannot arrest someone because it's tough on the kids.)
That’s what gave rise to the DREAM Act. It says that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here for five years, and you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, you can one day earn your citizenship. And I have said time and time and time again to Congress that, send me the DREAM Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away.
(Tough luck; people do not have the right to colonize our country and stay here just because they managed to make it in. And you do not have the right to compel Congress to give you legislation you want.)
Now, both parties wrote this legislation. And a year and a half ago, Democrats passed the DREAM Act in the House, but Republicans walked away from it. It got 55 votes in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it. The bill hasn’t really changed. The need hasn’t changed. It’s still the right thing to do. The only thing that has changed, apparently, was the politics.
As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans -- they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this country -- to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents -- or because of the inaction of politicians.
(This will American citizens go unemployed. This plan will cancel out every job created during your tenure of office.)
In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places. So we prioritized border security, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history -- today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the past 40 years. We focused and used discretion about whom to prosecute, focusing on criminals who endanger our communities rather than students who are earning their education. And today, deportation of criminals is up 80 percent. We've improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. Well, today, we're improving it again.
That lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is --
THE PRESIDENT: -- the right thing to do.
Q -- foreigners over American workers.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, sir. It's not time for questions, sir.
Q No, you have to take questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Not while I'm speaking.
Precisely because this is temporary, Congress needs to act. There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments. And we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our 21st century economic and security needs -- reform that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty about the workers that they'll have. Reform that gives our science and technology sectors certainty that the young people who come here to earn their PhDs won't be forced to leave and start new businesses in other countries. Reform that continues to improve our border security, and lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.
(A Nation of Laws? Huh? He's breaking it in a monumental way and he dares speak of laws!!!)
Just six years ago, the unlikely trio of John McCain, Ted Kennedy and President Bush came together to champion this kind of reform. And I was proud to join 23 Republicans in voting for it. So there’s no reason that we can’t come together and get this done.
And as long as I’m President, I will not give up on this issue, not only because it’s the right thing to do for our economy -- and CEOs agree with me -- not just because it’s the right thing to do for our security, but because it’s the right thing to do, period. And I believe that, eventually, enough Republicans in Congress will come around to that view as well.
And I believe that it’s the right thing to do because I’ve been with groups of young people who work so hard and speak with so much heart about what’s best in America, even though I knew some of them must have lived under the fear of deportation. I know some have come forward, at great risks to themselves and their futures, in hopes it would spur the rest of us to live up to our own most cherished values. And I’ve seen the stories of Americans in schools and churches and communities across the country who stood up for them and rallied behind them, and pushed us to give them a better path and freedom from fear --because we are a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids.
And the answer to your question, sir -- and the next time I’d prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question -- is this is the right thing to do for the American people --
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t ask for an argument. I’m answering your question.
Q I'd like to --
THE PRESIDENT: It is the right thing to do --
THE PRESIDENT: -- for the American people. And here’s why --
Q -- unemployment --
THE PRESIDENT: Here’s the reason: because these young people are going to make extraordinary contributions, and are already making contributions to our society.
(The President's oath is not to "do the right thing" as he sees it but to uphold the law.)
I’ve got a young person who is serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom. The notion that in some ways we would treat them as expendable makes no sense. If there is a young person here who has grown up here and wants to contribute to this society, wants to maybe start a business that will create jobs for other folks who are looking for work, that’s the right thing to do. Giving certainty to our farmers and our ranchers; making sure that in addition to border security, we’re creating a comprehensive framework for legal immigration -- these are all the right things to do.
We have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants, as well as a nation of laws, and that’s going to continue. And my hope is that Congress recognizes that and gets behind this effort.
All right. Thank you very much.
Q What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?
2:17 P.M. EDT
America has become an Empire with this. All hail Barack I!
31 queries taking 0.0089 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.