December 03, 2016
Democrats have a choice: we can make the next four years productive for the American people, or we can choose obstruction.
George Washington’s recipe for eggnog
The author of this article is a descendant of Washington, got the recipe from his great-grandmother (his "Nonnie”), who swears it’s correct. The bourbon "cooks” the eggs and makes the resulting concoction safe to keep in the refrigerator.
7 eggs, separated
7 jiggers (1 1/3 cups) bourbon
2 cups milk
7 tbsp (heaping) sugar
1 pt. heavy cream
Nutmeg, grated, to float on top of each cup
Step 1: Using a standing or hand-held mixer with a whisk attachment, beat the egg yolks till they are a lemon color. "I grew up in an agricultural family in western Kentucky, so there was always integrity to our ingredients – a rural wholesomeness found in real eggs and nice fresh dairy from the farm, not the factory,” the author says.
Step 2: Gradually add the bourbon to the egg yolks, beating vigorously until the mixture is thick enough to coat the back of a spoon. At a lower speed, whisk milk into the mixture until it resembles loose custard.
"Although I don’t know the science, my family says the alcohol cooks the eggs (perhaps a benefit of Nonnie using the classic Wild Turkey at 101 proof). The finesse is how we add the bourbon. We pour it into a Pyrex measuring cup, then drizzle it into the yolks tablespoon by tablespoon, incorporating it very well with each addition.”
Step 3: In a separate bowl, beat egg whites till stiff. Add sugar. Continue beating. Add to yolk mixture. In another bowl, beat cream till stiff. Add to mixture, folding in gradually. Store in refrigerator until serving time.
"When the eggnog is done, we transfer it to a Tupperware pitcher and store it in the refrigerator until the next day. You can drink it the same day you make it, but the next day the eggnog will have a luscious density with a foamy, meringue-like top, easily reincorporated by stirring with a wooden spoon. Never add ice. Always nutmeg.”
About 8 servings
To look adequate in a silver punch bowl __ and to serve more friends __ you need two batches. Don’t just double the recipe. Make one batch, clean the utensils, then make a second.
Michael Savage famously called Liberalism a mental disorder, and he was absolutely correct; one cannot find sanity in a philosophy so convoluted and at odds with rationality or common sense. I would argue further that it is a violation of Nature and Nature's God, a system of thought that is anti-nature and anti-life.
The 1960's saw the back to the land movement among the hippie crowd, and the utopian Left denounced industrial civilization as an abomination and artificial, yet what exactly have they been doing? Let me explain.
What is Nature? Nature is the material world around us, and the natural is the obeisance of laws inherent in the material order. What do natural laws demand of us? Well, they push us to labor to survive, and to thrive. All creatures seek to survive and thrive, attempting to propagate their own kind and expand their own territory. This is, or should be, self-evident; anyone who lives in a house knows that bugs try to get in, as do rodents and other creatures, especially at the onset of winter when it gets uncomfortable outside. Why? Because they find in your house a place that is comfortably warm, has food, water, in short, the things they need and want to live and thrive and prosper. The bugs or rodents don't care that they didn't build the house, only that it suits their needs. In the end you wind up calling an exterminator to rid yourself of these nuisances.
See, nature is all about increasing your lifestyle. A mouse will prefer living in your walls to nesting outside in the cold and damp. That is because your walls are better constructed, and take less effort for the squatter tenant to utilize.
This is true of most creatures, I might add. Few actually enjoy discomfort. Man is nearly alone in finding some moral objection to comfort or wealth or increased living standards.
Most animals and plants seek to alter their environments to suite them. Plants did it first, changing the Earth's atmosphere from a largely anoxic brew of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor into the breathable air of today. They broke down the rocks and dust into soil, and helped to channel rivers and whatnot. We see this action today in places like Iceland where volcanoes create new land which is uninhabitable until lichens and mosses and whatnot break down the igneous rock into soil and grasses begin to grow. Eventually this rock in the sea becomes a true island and can be settled by animals, and eventually by Man.
Without the actions of living things the Earth would be more like Mars, rocky and dusty and barren.
And animals change their environment all the time. Anybody ever see a beaver pond? or a bear cave? I just found a huge hornet's nest on my cabin wall; some insects decided to change the environment and build their own home under the eaves of my cabin, to my sorrow. Mice and rats will chew up whatever is handy and pile it into a nest. And that is just a minor change; there are some creatures like locusts that will decimate the entire countryside. Bees, too, make profound changes to the environment by pollinating plants as they collect what they need.
Nature is all about building things. Yet the environmentalists tell us that Man is nothing but a destroyer, Shiva to the Natural World, rather than being a part of Nature.
There has been an anti-humanist streak in Liberalism for a long time, going back to the Romantic movement in the 19th century, certainly, and likely to the Enlightenment where a sort of worship of Nature became prevalent. There was the concept of the "Noble Savage" back in the 18th and early 19th century, the belief that it was better to be poor and unable to control one's environment than to be somehow "artificial". The early Liberals had some bizarre desire to be less comfortable, hungrier, colder, and more miserable. Why? It There has always been a strange estheticism in Man, and there have always been religious orders that emphasized poverty and discomfort. I don't understand it, but it is one of the quirks of human nature. I suspect it is a manifestation of psychological masochism, whereby the powerlessness of an individual over events is imbued with meaning by the person who sees his own lack of power. That is, you know you can't stop suffering so you embrace it to give the illusion of control. It's a weird quirk but it is present in most people to a degree. I suspect the Liberal embrace of Nature without embracing Nature's God led to this. It is very much the Sin of Adam and Eve insofar as they rejected the way God said it should be and placed themselves on the throne. Having done that they found themselves unhappy with being god (who wouldn't? It's a thankless job) and tried to restore that which was lost, but cannot because they reject the owner's manual.
So, by embracing Nature liberals have twisted and distorted it beyond all recognition, turning Man into a parasite on Nature rather than one of God's creatures acting according to the Divine Will.
Now, the environmentalists worship nature as god rather than as the medium in which they exist, and this new god is somehow transcendent insofar as Man is outside of it. Alienation, the motivating force for most liberals, comes from this purposeful divorce of the human from the natural world in which he lives. It is a bizarre situation; by embracing nature the liberal has divorced himself from her, and stands in horrible alienation.
Crazy, I know, but that is why liberalism is a mental disorder.
At any rate, the environmentalists seek to remove the hand of Man from nature because they think it somehow unnatural. They think that, say, a dusty desert is superior to a watered golf course, but most animals would disagree, and birds love to drop in on a well-watered lawn in Vegas or Death Valley or whatnot. See, THEY aren't crazy, and know a good thing when they see it. Man's control of nature is a boon to nonhuman species. Deer eat our gardens, so do rabbits. Many animals forage in dumpsters and whatnot. They know it's better to fill their bellies with our leftovers than to roam free in a pristine wilderness. A wilderness is a place for hunger and privation and want.
But the environmentalists have metastasized into a major force in human society, and they keep pushing to reduce our lives, to cut our power usage, to minimize our construction, to reduce our abilities to travel or to make things or to take steps to make life better for our poor. It is anti-life, a belief in the reversal of that which we have been doing all of our existence. From the moment we are born we seek to gain some measure of control over our environment, and over time we do. We benefit greatly from the control over our environment held by our parents and our neighbors, and children grow into adults who then bear that responsibility. But the environmentalists and indeed the Left want to reverse that.
Look, children used to die all the time in the "good old days" because we did not have adequate control of our environment. Couples would have ten kids hoping two would live. And often the mothers would die in childbirth, so a man \may have two or three wives in his life. That suffering stemmed entirely from a lack of proper control of the environment. Liberals want a return to that. Oh, they won't actually say that, focusing instead on cleanliness or health, but in the final analysis it comes down to that very thing.
Liberals are supporters of all manner of evils that are anti-natural. Abortion. Socialism, which provides plenty of poverty in the interest of "fairness". More people have died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, then under any system in history, and if you include Hitler, who was a leftist, you have quite a horrific tally. Liberals oppose cheap energy, meaning people are cold in winter and hot in summer. Pope Francis recently said air conditioning was a terrible blight on humanity. Huh? Air conditioning prevents people from dying from heat stroke, plus helps prevent mosquito-born illnesses. It is a wonderful invention, and something everyone should have. But Francis believes this Global Warming nonsense and so condemns it.
As Norman Rogers pointed out in an article at American Thinker:
"When Philip Kitcher said that some real pessimists think human extinction may be the result of failing to prevent global warming, a lady in the audience piped up with "they deserve it." One wonders why she didn't say, "We deserve it." Perhaps she views the Columbia community as separate from the human race."
And don't forget the vhemt.orgVoluntary Human Extinction Movement.. As I say, unnatural.
You have their support of unnatural practices. The modern liberal crusade is to normalize men who want to be women, and allowing them to use women’s bathrooms. This is a matter of insanity, yet they support this in the interest of "fairness”. Nature made them men, liberals told them they could be women. It is a usurpation of the godhead.
I could go on and on with the litany of evils the Left supports, but you get the gist; liberalism claims to be pro-human but it opposes the natural drive of humans to build, to create, to improve their lot in life. It is a philosophy that is anti-life and anti-natural. It is the true artifice.
Liberals even oppose the space program. If you go on liberal websites and read about, say, probes on Mars you will see a plethora of snarky comments about "now we're messing up a whole other planet" rather than cheering man's expansion of life to a dead, barren world. Liberals are all about pulling down, restricting, destroying. They hate the idea that we may build, create, expand. We have a number of planets or moons that can be settled by Man and by extension by other creatures from this world, and that should logically be a cause for rejoicing. Isn't it better to grown than to shrink, to live than to die? The Left says no. They are Shiva, the destroyer. In the end they are the ones who truly hate.
Michael Savage had no idea how correct he was when he called Liberalism a mental disorder. It is the child of the Marquis De Sade and Leopold Sacher Von Masoch. It is the warped, diseased view of anti-life.
Temperatures are expected to plummet in jolly ole' England this weekend - as low as -5* C, we are given to understand from the U.K. Met Office.
Now the Met is a yuuugge purveyor of Global Warming alarmism, and we were told that cold weather was a thing of the past, a relic of the time before Man destroyed the biosphere with carbon dioxide (boo, sssss!) Yet here we are, barely into Decemner, and a nice freeze is forecast. Gee, it's as though there weren't any warming at all!
I suppose this freeze is caused by Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Global Climate Flatulence. If a guy stubs his toe it is usually ascribed to AGW.
The NY Post reports that:
HGTV is standing by the hosts of its popular home renovation series "Fixer Upper.”
The channel issued a response after BuzzFeed reported earlier this week that Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church whose pastor has spoken out against same-sex marriage, and raised the question of whether gay couples would be welcome on the show.
"We don’t discriminate against members of the LGBT community in any of our shows,” the network said in a statement to The Post. "HGTV is proud to have a crystal clear, consistent record of including people from all walks of life in its series.”
As the site reported, "Fixer Upper,” which recently returned for its fourth season, has never featured an LGBT couple, though other HGTV series like "House Hunters” and "Property Brothers” have.
BuzzFeed’s initial report centered on the Gaineses being members of the Antioch Community Church, "a nondenominational, evangelical, mission-based megachurch” whose pastor, Jimmy Seibert, has been an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage. The story did not specifically confirm that the HGTV hosts shared that belief, only that Seibert has described them as "dear friends.”
END OF QUOTE
The left media has attempted to take "A Bridge Too Far" in condemning people for attending a church that believes in...gasp...the teachings of New and Old TestamentsThe argument that BuzzFeed made was essentially a repudiation of the protections of the First Amendment, which is something a teenager with no basic knowledge fo the Constitution might make - or knowledge of the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Apparently BuzzFeed believes they can wipe those laws off the books merely by saying they aren't "cool" or "acceptable." This was an argument more fitting for Stalinist Russia in the 1930s than for America. Although this isn't the last of such attempts to discriminate against people who believe in the Bible and do not advocate any hate or discrimination themselves, at least BuzzFeed has failed to take the stars of "Fixer Upper" off of the air at HGTV.
In his new article, my young Ugandan mentee Steven Lyazi makes a passionate appeal, asking that African and global leaders do much more to make fossil fuels and electricity available for poor families, nations and communities around the world. Only in that way, he convincingly argues, can the world’s poor improve their lives, living standards, health and life spans.
The world needs more energy!
Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us
Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?
Of all these resources, energy is the most important. Nothing happens without energy.
For most of mankind’s history, human or animal muscle, wood and animal dung, water power, and plant or animal oil provided our energy. But the amount and quality of that energy was limited, and therefore what people could do was also limited.
Then, almost suddenly, people began using coal, and then oil, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power. Our abilities, and our dreams, began to reach for the heavens – at least in many countries. Sadly, many other countries lagged far behind, and many still do.
They are held back, condemned to continued energy poverty – and thus to real poverty and the diseases, malnutrition and desperation that go with that absence of modern energy. This is partly because many nations are governed by incompetent, corrupt leaders, who care only about enriching themselves, their families, and their close friends, allies and supporters.
But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.
They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.
And when they talk about renewable energy, they mean the very limited energy – and economic growth – that come from wind and solar power, or from growing crops for energy instead of to feed our hungry people. They even oppose hydroelectric power for poor nations.
They are rich and well fed, enjoying amazing homes and jobs and technologies in their modern countries. But they tell us poor Africans (and other people) that we must limit our energy and dreams to whatever can come from expensive, insufficient kinds of energies to serve our large and growing populations. This is greedy and selfish, the kind of attitude of people who only think of themselves.
Yes, they use renewable energy, but only a little. Almost all their energy still comes from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydro power. Only a tiny amount comes from wind, solar or biofuels – that they say should be our only sources of energy.
They have money and power, and they can influence what happens to us. But they are causing massive poverty, disease, starvation and death in third world countries.
I support clean energy and don’t want to see dangerous global warming. I agree that everyone should help ensure that we live in a clean environment. Everyone wants that, and to see their children and grandchildren living in a clean environment.
But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.
It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.
Maybe they are right, and humans are warming the earth or changing the climate – a little. But our weather and climate have always changed, and the world was even warmer during the dinosaur era than it is today, and much colder during the ice ages, with no human activities. Climate change has been going on for millions of years ago, but that doesn’t mean today’s changes are because of humans or will be disasters.
Environmental agencies and groups say the world is changing and try to tell us what to do to prevent these changes, which they say will all be bad. But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.
We’ve all been scared to death by horror movies, especially films that are just plausible enough to make us think it could happen. But when these movies (or computer models) are used to scare us away from fossil fuels, that is wrong and we should not be frightened.
What these rich country movie actors, politicians, regulators, scientists and activists forget is that our planet and environment have existed for millions of years, have changed over and over, and will continue to exist either with or without human interference. But we humans have to live here too.
Denying people their right to use fossil fuels is the worst thing someone can do to a fellow human. Western powers developed massively due to cheap fossil fuels and today live like kings. They have no right to deny their living standards to people in developing countries.
Who invented the terms "developing countries” or "third world countries” anyway”? All countries have been developing at some point. In fact, they are always still developing, all the time.
The only wrong interpretation is to say "third world countries” do not have a God-given right to use all their energy, minerals and other resources to develop themselves, and get rich, create good jobs for their people, end poverty and disease, and grow enough food to make everyone well fed and healthy.
In fact, here is a thought for all African leaders: A collective mindset supporting development will make Africa as great as any other region on earth. We all just need to unite around this idea.
The recent United States elections disappointed many people, but made many others happy. To me, they may be a very good thing. They might mean the new President Trump will be a good leader for the entire world. He might make more people question these claims that fossil fuels cause dangerous global warming – and encourage everyone to use more oil, gas and coal to improve our lives, until smart people someday discover different energy sources that really do work.
We all desire to be healthy and live better lives, just like people in developed countries. Yes, we have had greedy, selfish leaders in the past who might have contributed to our status today. But we can and must learn from our mistakes, and Mr. Trump wants to correct his and Mr. Obama’s mistakes.
African and other countries need abundant energy for economic growth. They need all kinds of energy, especially fossil fuels, to become modern and make people’s lives better.
Anyone who tries to prevent us from using these energy resources is denying us our right to improve our lives, and even our right to live, which is the most fundamental right of any human. That is wrong and immoral, and we will no longer tolerate it.
Steven Lyazi is a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda. He served as special assistant to Congress of Racial Equality-Uganda director Cyril Boynes, until Mr. Boynes’ death in January 2015.
If it wasn’t for hypocrisy and lying, liberals/Democrats wouldn’t have a redeeming trait.
This sounds like genuine Hope and Change and we have the sacred Book instead
of Rules for Radicals.
This from Dave Kistler
> At the moment, I am traveling home from three incredibly impacting days in
> our nation's capital. Thankfully, I have a a dear pastor friend driving,
> which allows me the occasion to draft this post.
> The title of our three days on "the Hill" was "Congressional Clergy Town
> Hall"--an opportunity for 20 of the most committed Christians in Congress
> to speak to us regarding what is now happening in Washington after the
> historic elections of November 8.
> What was slated as a town hall developed into much more, I believe. From
> the "after hours" tour of the United States Capitol, to the amazing
> service last evening in Capitol room H 137, the entire three days had the
> breath of God on it. Most memorable for me was the Tuesday evening prayer
> and praise time in the Senate chamber and the same last night in the
> Capitol Rotunda. To hear prayers being offered up "with strong crying" in
> both locations was astounding. Then, to follow those intense times of
> supplication with unrestrained strains of "God Bless America" was beyond
> This was the first of many future pastor/ministry leader/legislator events
> in Washington, DC in the days ahead. The 14 pastors/committed believers
> who made the trip with me were moved, challenged, and forever changed.
> NEVER have I seen congressional leaders so enthused at what God has
> done/is doing! For the last eight years, a dark cloud has hovered over
> Washington--a darkness that could be felt. But, these last three days, I
> sensed a totally different spirit. Truly "enthuse"/enthusiastic (en=in,
> Theos=God--literally meaning "God within") is the fitting term(s) to
> describe what I saw and sensed.
> Congressman Louie Gohmert, Senator Jim Inhoffe, Congresswoman Marsha
> Blackburn, Senator Ted Cruz, Senate Chaplain Barry Black, and others, were
> among the many to whom we were able to listen and with whom we had
> occasion to interact. Though Chaplain Barry Black is always spot on, my
> favorite was Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert. In all candor, I think he's
> missed his calling, for he didn't speak, he PREACHED, and powerfully! I
> love his favorite expression--"To hide behind the sovereignty of God,
> using it as an excuse to do nothing, is like leaning on a shovel and
> expecting a hole to appear." No, we need to trust God, but also ACT.
> Capping off the three days, was last evening's stellar worship service in
> the Capitol. To hear shouts of praise and Spirit-inspired singing IN THE
> CAPITOL was, well, over the top! For the first time, it was my delight to
> speak briefly to a gathering of approximately 100 legislators, pastors,
> ministry leaders, and committed followers of Christ.
> As I reflect, all I can utter are the words of Mordacai to Esther--"For
> such a time as this!" Stay tuned for ongoing updates on all that God is
> doing and doors He is opening through our "HOPE To The Hill" ministry.
> One final comment. Senate Chaplain Dr. Barry Black evidently concurs with
> my assessment--that a revival is on the way. His added thought is that
> the revival will commence in the halls of Congress. If what I saw over the
> last three days is any indication, he may well be right! Now is NOT the
> time for any kind of retreat. Rather let us ADVANCE in repentance,
> earnest prayer, determined obedience and enthusiastic expectation of
> another Great Awakening in our land.
> Dave Kistler
> President, HOPE Ministries International/HOPE To The Hill
> President, North Carolina Pastors Network (NCPN)
> Co-host, Stand In The Gap Radio
December 02, 2016
When Martha Stewart was on trail in 2004, New York papers made a point of mentioning that the former contributor to Hillary Clinton brought a fancy Hermes Birkin designer purse to court, something estimated to have cost anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37117-2004Jan21.html Martha thought it would impress jurors - and she was right. But that impression did not work the way Martha wanted and she was found guilty and was sent to prison in West Virginia.
Now both Democrats and Republicans are rejoicing as Nancy Pelosi has been re-elected House Minority Leader. Pelosi, a wealthy resort hotel owner from San Francisco who has hired non-union help at her properties, has presided over YUGE (to borrow a Trump phrase) losses of Democrats in the House and, by extension, elsewhere in the country's legislatures. She represents the bicoastal elitist wing of the Democratic Party. And I would bet she owns a few $6,000 purses, whether she flaunts them or not.
As for Pelosi's level of non-concern for American citizens finding work, it also extends beyond her own jobsites. In 2009, Pelosi told a bunch of illegal aliens that work site immigration raids were illegal. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/pelosi-tells-illegal-immigrants-work-site-raids-american.html Yes, there's nothing like encouraging illegal immigrant and non-union help to drive voters to the polls - to vote for Republicans.
So I will join the chorus and congratulate Nancy Pelosi on her being named, once again, the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. I think she is doing a great job in inspiring Americans to vote for Republicans both now and hopefully in the future.
Perhaps Martha Stewat can cater Ms. Pelosi's victory party. Martha can prepare a fine dish of crow and make it look and taste like pheasant under glass (ceiling).
I posted this at American Thinker a few years ago, when Keith Ellison was first perjured, er, sworn in to Congress. I think it is pertinent now, as the Democrats are going to make him the Sheik of their party.
The Oath that Binds
Bookworm recently made the case against Keith Ellison`s swearing on the Koran:
" All of which gets us back to Keith Ellison and his originally stated intention to take the oath of office relying solely on his Koran. Although there is often a vast chasm between theory and practice, theory, as I understand it, says that a true Muslim cannot simultaneously believe in the Koran's dictates and swear an oath to protect a Western legal document such as the Constitution. The two documents (the Koran and the Constitution) envision entirely antithetical laws and the Koran mandates that its believers, as part of their faith, bend every effort to ensuring the Koran's ascendancy over all other forms of government and faith.
In other words, Prager was wrong about Ellison's using the Koran at his swearing-in, not because it represented an act of multiculturalist self-obsession, but because a really religious man cannot do both acts at the same time. That is, as a devout Muslim, one cannot swear to support any political system other than Shari'a, and one certainly can't do so using the very same Koran that proscribes all other systems."
This was followed today by Alamgir Hussain, who makes a solid case that the Koranic view of "infidels" (such as the citizens of the United States) necessitates that he take his oath not on the Bible but the Koran-at least from Ellison`s perspective.
Of course, there is no reason to believe that a Muslim would feel bound by an oath on the Bible, but will he honor his vow on the Koran?
[Bukhari:V7B67N427] "The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'"
In short, the Koran commands Ellison to break any vow to a secular government when that vow becomes inconvenient.
Do we really want this guy swearing at all?
The modern Left and their party of record, the Democrats, are nothing but oathbreakers and liars, and putting Ellison in the position of Party Boss Hog is probably proper. Islam and Leftism have been flirty friends since the time of Jean Jacques Rousseau, and are now in a concubinal relationship, so why not simply stop the pretense and embrace the inner Ayatollah?
Alahu Akhbar can be their next slogan; Stronger Together just didn't pan out.
No surprise here.
In an interview in that reprehensible wad of trash called Rolling Stone, President Obama pinpointed why Democrats lost the election. He blamed it on the prevalence of Fox News.
Saw an open letter on Drudge by Congressman Keith Ellison, I pulled a quote and translated a sentence for better clarity.
"As Democrats we want the millions of young activists — the Dreamers, Black Lives Matter, young labor organizers, environmentalists and everyone — to see the Democratic party as the place where they can organize for a better future for their families and neighborhoods.”
Funny wording, allow me to translate:
Dreamers= Illegal aliens
Black Lives Matter= Black version of National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the Nazis.
Young labor organizers= Thugs and authoritarians
Environmentalists= Totalitarian theocrat
And best of all;
Everyone= Everyone but White Americans, especially Jews
The Clintonistas just can't believe they made key mistakes, and ran a flawed candidate. As far as Russia maybe hacking the emails, whose fault was it that the server was unsecured?
The wounds from one of the fiercest election campaigns in American history were still raw Thursday as the campaign teams for President-elect Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton clashed while offering their behind-the-scenes perspectives at a Harvard University forum.
Good choice? I think so.
President-elect Donald Trump said Thursday night that he expected congressional Democrats to join Republicans in helping his planned programs through Congress.
Here are a few quotes from "Mad Dog" Mattis:
"I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.”
"You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”
"No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
"I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f*** with me, I’ll kill you all.”
"The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.”
A NOTE FROM TIM:
I looked at his Wikipedia page and he looks o.k. although I am a bit worried about anyone appointed by Obama to anything. Also, he supports a two state solution in Israel, which is a dreadful idea. But he seems like our kind of guy otherwise. He is a member of the Hoover Institute, for what that's worth.
December 01, 2016
Kellogg's lost another dollar in stock value today. If you read the Yahoo stock board Converstations for Kellogg's, you see people saying things like the summer camp they own will no longer buy Kellogg's cereals. Someone suggested that Donald Trump will urge school systems that take federal money to not buy cereal from a company that uses child labor and supports racists like Black Lives Matter. I wonder if various conservative states will urge the stopping of purchases of Kellogg's cereals in their school breakfast and lunch programs.
What's that line about don't fight with people who buy (laserjet) ink by the barrel? Yes, I bet Kellogg's marketing dept. at least realizes they don't need these problems or exposure on the part of Breitbart. A boycott by conservatives and news of child labor usedfor making vegetable oil for Kellogg overseas wasn't enough. Now they have this.
The W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which maintains strong financial ties to the Kellogg Company, has provided at least $930,000 in support of the controversial work of the Black Lives Matter organization.
The financing is listed on the Foundation’s website. It includes a June 1, 2016 grant to the International Development Exchange, which is in a contractual relationship with Black Lives Matter to process donations for the group.
The Associated Press reported the International Development Exchange, also known as IDEX, "has been acting as a mostly unseen financial arm of Black Lives Matter, with the ability to receive grants and tax-deductible donations on the group’s behalf.”
"More recently, the relationship evolved into a contractual partnership that will run through at least mid-2017,” the AP reported.
It appears former president Jimmy Carter, now 92 years old, has yet to meet a tyrant he doesn’t admire.
His continuing embrace of terrorist regimes makes some wonder when we will see the cessation of his continual self-exhumations from political burial in order to once again resume his prophetic declamations on behalf of odious regimes, past and present. Carter’s latest declamation on the demise of the pitiless tyrant Fidel Castro reveals once again his lifelong empathy for totalitarian regimes:
"Rosalynn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country. We wish the Cuban citizens peace and prosperity in the years ahead.”
Just as bad, if not worse, Carter wants Obama to recognize a Palestinian state before Barack Obama leaves office. His love for brutal despotism does not end with his affection for Castro, but extends to leaders who wish to exterminate Israel and the Jews.
Newsweek’s Eddie Mullholland reports:
"Carter has now stepped into the debate with an op-ed for the New York Times on Monday.
‘It has been President Obama’s aim to support a negotiated end to the conflict based on two states, living side by side in peace. That prospect is now in grave doubt,’ he [Carter] wrote. ‘I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short.
‘The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on January 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine as 137 nations have done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership.’
The fact of the matter is this: there has never been a Palestinian leader, including Mahmoud Abbas, who has not denied Israel’s right to exist; and who has not wanted to eliminate Israel the nation from the map. Education follows policy. It is well known that Harper Collins publishes textbooks with illustrations of the Middle East completely erase Israel from the map. http://politicaloutcast.com/harpercollins-unmakes-israel-middle-east-customers/
As Frontpage magazine’s Ari Lieberman reported in February of 2016:
"Palestinian Authority incitement and outright anti-Semitism are all but ignored by the Obama administration as is the fact that 6% of the PA’s budget is earmarked toward paying the salaries of convicted terrorists or their families. Since a substantial portion of that budget is subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer, it places the administration of being in the odd position of being an accessary to terror.
The incidents and examples of Palestinian Authority incitement are too voluminous to note in this piece but there are a few recurring themes. Jews (and sometimes Christians) are routinely referred to as apes, pigs or monkeys. Ancient blood libels accusing Jews of kidnapping Arab children for the purpose of using their blood in preparing Passover Matzah are regurgitated with regularity and lastly, those who engage in terrorism and murder are extolled as heroes or Shahids. They or their families are often rewarded with cash payments or lucrative job opportunities. Some have even had public places named after them.”
But the prospect of openly endorsing those with genocidal impulses toward the Jews has never deterred Carter from consistently embracing the world’s most vicious terrorists, including the odious Yasser Arafat, who had more blood on his hands than in his veins.
One only has to recall the New York Times article written in 1990 http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/carter-meets-arafat-in-paris-praises-him-as-peacemaker.html, which reported Carter’s meeting with Arafat in Paris. Carter, who laid a wreath at Arafat’s tomb in 2008, praised him as a "peacemaker” even though Arafat the "peacemaker” as head of the Palestinian Liberation Front, was responsible for countless gruesome acts of terrorism. After all, it was Arafat who once said, "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/jimmy-carter-lays-wreath-arafats-tomb
Arafat meant his words, as do Palestinian leaders today, regardless of what some more moderate Palestinians may believe.
Carter has even endorsed Hamas, a terrorist organization, as a "legitimate political actor,” causing Alan Dershowitz to ask if the former president was guilty of a "criminal offense.” http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/08/12/does-jimmy-carter-s-support-for-hamas-constitute-criminal-offense-under-us-law/
Ari Leberman writes of Hamas’ implacable hatred of Israel:
"The Palestinian Authority is only half the problem. In the south, Israel must contend with the spawn of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas. In the summer of 2014, Israel fought a 50-day war with the terror group and during the course of that conflict, uncovered a vast network of tunnels constructed for the ghoulish purpose of carrying out mass terror attacks and kidnapping. Some of these tunnels actually targeted kindergartens as well as schools. Incidentally, much of the building material used to construct these tunnels were donated by the EU, the United States or NGOs financed by the West. Since Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and internal controls are virtually non-existent, it was relatively easy for the terror group to divert funds earmarked for civilian use.”
In view of the constant antipathy toward Israel by the Palestinians and Hamas; and given his supposedly peace-loving nature, how did Carter arrive at his anti-Semitism?
For one thing, Carter is a believer in replacement theology; that is, that the Christian church replaces Israel and that Israel no longer holds a special place in covenant theology. Israel is just another nation and people. This false doctrine has been the basis of deleterious and sometimes fatal foreign policy involving Jews and Israel. Carter’s realpolitik favors current demographics and the global order embraced by the U.N., which partly explains his appeal to President Obama to recognize Palestine. Carter’s globalist vision and belief in supra-national entities as the way for the future replace the Christian vision of the kingdom of God.
Those who insist politics and religion never mix need to re-examine their thinking. Replacement theology has dangerous, even fatal implications for Israel and the Jews. Certainly, replacement theology has contributed to anti-Semitism, including Carter’s implacable hatred of Israel.
On the other hand, there is hope. Certainly, not every Christian leader believes as Carter believes.
Many Christians, particularly American evangelicals and members of the Reformed denominations in the U.S., reject replacement theology entirely, believing in the inseparable link between Judaism and Christianity; and believing in the unity of the Old and New Testaments. Evangelicals and those of the Reformed faith hold with St. Paul, who as a Jew believing in Christ as the long-promised Messiah, taught that the Jews still had a covenantal bond with God; and that Christianity, far from being an entirely new sect, owed its genesis to Judaism. Christians, Paul, and other apostles wrote, regard Christ as the fulfillment of all that went before and as the promise of the future. They were and are merely grafted into the older vine that was Judaism.
The above is why so many evangelicals and those of the Reformed faith support Israel and her right to exist and flourish as a nation. They will not sever their spiritual roots. Nor will they embrace a secular globalist vision at the expense of Israel and the Jews.
Let us hope and pray the incoming Trump administration strengthens America's alliance with Israel, repudiating Carter’s and the Left’s onus toward her; and may it also cherish and reinforce the priceless heritage Western civilization has in both Judaism and Christianity.
Erick Erickson pushes back against BuzzFeed's singling out a Christian church and family for believing in the teachings of the...Christian (and Jewish) Bible. Erickson agrees with U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia who calls for a national law protecting the rights Christians. Such a law would most probably also protect the religious practices of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus as well.
This article was followed by a second one in which Erickson details how BuzzFeed attacked Chip and Joanna Gaines of HGTV and their church, two organizations (the Gaines family and the church) that have limited power to defend themselves against a national campaign. Erickson includes an analysis of the pathetic defense by BuzzFeed of their muddled, bigoted statements. That article's link and major segments appear below. In the conclusion, they also make reference to the phrase "you will be made to care" which a reference to the title of the book "You Will Be Made to Care: The War on Faith, Family, and Your Freedom to Believe" by Erick Erickson and Bill Blankschaen.
Ben Smith Goes into Damage Control Over BuzzFeed’s Bigoted Attack on Christians. But His Defense Is Bullcrap.
By Erick Erickson | November 30, 2016, 09:43pm | @ewerickson
As Gabriella noted earlier today, BuzzFeed is running an attack against Chip and Joanna Gaines, two orthodox Christian evangelical believers who dare to have a show on HGTV.
Ben Smith, the Editor of BuzzFeed, is trying to defend the attack on Chip and Joanna Gaines by claiming the piece is not about them, but about HGTV.
Here is the headline of the article:
Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage
That references a Bible believing Christian church. It never mentions HGTV.
What about the subtitle. That reads:
Their pastor considers homosexuality to be a "sin” caused by abuse — whether the Fixer Upper couple agrees is unclear.
That references the couples’ pastor and the couple. It never mentions HGTV. In fact, it makes the story expressly about the couple, not HGTV.
So let’s review the story. The first paragraph opens this way:
Chip and Joanna Gaines’ series Fixer Upper is one of the most popular shows on HGTV. The couple…
That makes the first paragraph about the couple, only referencing HGTV to describe the couple is worth covering because they have a popular TV show on HGTV.
What about the second paragraph? It begins
They have built a small empire, and they are not done yet.
Again, that’s about the couple, not HGTV. Third paragraph? It begins
They are also, as they detail in The Magnolia Story, devout Christians — Joanna has spoken of and written about her conversations with God.
Oh, so now not only is it not about HGTV, it focuses on the couple’s faith and then goes into their church’s beliefs, which are shared by thousands of mainstream churches across the country. You get the sense of where this is headed by the opening of the fourth paragraph.
So are the Gaineses against same-sex marriage? So are the Gaineses against same-sex marriage? And would they ever feature a same-sex couple on the show, as have HGTV’s House Hunters and Property Brothers? ever feature a same-sex couple on the show, as have HGTV’s House Hunters and Property Brothers?
Wait. I thought Ben Smith says this is about HGTV. That paragraph starts again about the Gaineses and then asks if they, not HGTV would have a gay couple on the show.
Maybe the next paragraph will make this about HGTV and not the couple. Let’s see. The next paragraph begins
Fixer Upper has fans of all stripes: Christians, feminists, and LGBT viewers have all found something to love in the Gaineses. So in the absence of a response from them or their representatives, it’s worth looking at the severe, unmoving position Seibert and Antioch take on same-sex marriage.
That’s the full paragraph.
If the story is about HGTV, why not look at the copious examples of HGTV putting homosexuals on HGTV. The network is inarguably inclusive. If the story is about HGTV, why look at the "sever, unmoving position” of orthodox Christianity.
And that’s where we get to the bigotry of Buzzfeed.
END OF QUOTE
Not only is Kellogg's losing business for its p.c. attack on Breitbart, but Breitbart is organizing a boycott and Amnesty International is claiming - and Breitbart is reporting - that one of Kellogg's ingredients is produced with child labor overseas.
Kellogg's stock has been going steadily down from a mid-July high of $87. Today, as word of their boycott of Breitbart got out, the stock lost $1.62 a share to close at $72. Nothing like alienating more than half the country's voters to not help sales.
#DumpKelloggs: Breakfast Brand Blacklists Breitbart, Declares Hate for 45,000,000 Readers
Kellogg Co. announced on Tuesday its decision to pull ads from conservative media giant Breitbart.com because its 45,000,000 monthly conservative readers are not "aligned with our values as a company.” In response, Breitbart News, one of the world’s top news publishers, has launched a #DumpKelloggs petition and called for a boycott of the ubiquitous food manufacturer.
Yes, Kellogg's has opened a can of worms (or Pringles) and found the sweat of eight year old children inside. According to Amnesty Int'l, Kellogg's uses palm oil from Indonesia that is made by child labor. So much for the "values" of Kellogg's politically correct company. And Breitbart is more than happy to spread the word in the U.S. to liberal and conservative alike. Now Kellogg's has both the left and the right hating them. I guess Kellogg's doesn't like Trump because he doesn't use child labor...
SHOCK: Amnesty International Blasts Kellogg’s for Using Child Labor-Produced Ingredients
The international human rights organization Amnesty International is slamming Kellogg’s and other companies that it says are profiting from child labor and other exploitative practices.
November 30, 2016
Dr. McConnell and Mr. Trump (Part I)
by Daren Jonescu · Published · Updated
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to say "I told you so,” but….
Alright, enough of the false modesty. Let’s start again.
AHEM! What was that I was saying eight months ago about Donald Trump being the Republican Party establishment’s perfect front man in this year of strong challenges to its powerfrom the grassroots conservative movement? A totally unprincipled cipher ready to be jerked around like a marionette by the only people he knows in Washington — the progressive establishmentarians (left and right) — all the while appealing, with his "brash” and "blunt” (read vulgar and moronic)manner to a certain kind ofgrassroots voter, namely oneso blinded by anger against the status quothat he’s ready totake advice from Roger Stone, to find wisdom in Alex Jones, to make excuses for bigots and "nationalists,” and generally to renege on all his former principles in the name of a few cleverbut disingenuousslogans from the mouth of a megalomaniacal blowhard (who happens to be a TV star).
When I looked at Trump’s political donation history, I found that his three biggest beneficiaries since he started donating to Republicans had been Mitch McConnell (up to just a few months before announcing his presidential run), Karl Rove, and John Boehner. The Trump cultists said "Pshaw!”
READ THE REST!
OK. So the fact that Michigan has certified Trump's win apparently does not rule out a recount.
I saw in another article that Wisconsin, while allowing the recount, does NOT intend to perform one statewide. That appears to be good news.
And of course, Pennsylvania is good news.
28 queries taking 0.0077 seconds, 84 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.