Saturday, September 21, 2019

Audie Murphy's wife

Did you know? I didn't.
Audie Murphy's wife... What a beautiful Lady
Audie was 46 years old when he died in a helicopter crash into the Virginia Mts. He was bothered all his life from the war - it affected his life. He never got the medical help he should have.
Not many young people know who Audie Murphy was or what a big a war hero he was. Two or three of the medals he earned would make most service men proud, but to earn decorations in battle - truly unbelievable.
List of Decorations for Audie Murphy:

Medal of Honor Distinguished Service Cross
Silver Star (with oak leaf cluster) Legion of Merit
Bronze Star (with oak leaf cluster and Valor Device)
Purple Heart (with two oak leaf clusters)
U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal
U.S. Army Good Conduct Medal
Presidential Unit Citation (with First Oak Leaf Cluster)
American Campaign Medal
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine
Campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead (representing assault landing at Sicily and Southern France )
World War II Victory Medal
Army of Occupation Medal (with Germany Clasp)
Armed Forces Reserve Medal
French Fourrage in Colors of the Croix de Guerre
French Legion of Honor - Grade of Chevalier
French Croix de guerre (with Silver Star),
French Croix de guerre (with Palm)
Medal of Liberated France Belgian Croix de guerre (with 1940 Palm)
Additionally, Murphy was awarded:
The Combat Infantry Marksman badge with Rifle Bar ,
Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar
Isn't it sad the media tells us about the BAD that goes on, but ignores GOOD people? If a movie Star or politician stubs a toe we hear about it.
(From the Los Angeles Times on April 15, 2010)
Pamela Murphy,widow of Audie Murphy, died on April 8, 2010. She was the widow of the most decorated WWII hero - Audie Murphy, and established her own distinctive 35 year career working as a patient liaison at Sepulveda Veterans Administration hospital, treating every veteran who visited the facility as if they were VIP.
Any soldier/Marine who came into the hospital got the same special treatment from her. She'd walk the hallways with her clipboard making sure her boys saw the specialists they needed. If they didn't, watch out.
Her boys weren't Medal of Honor recipients but it didn't matter to Pam. They served their Country. That was good enough for her. She never called a veteran by his first name. It was always "Mister." Respect came with the job.
"Nobody could cut through VA red tape faster than Mrs. Murphy," said veteran Stephen Sherman, speaking for thousands of veterans she
befriended over the years. "Many times I watched her march a veteran who had been waiting over an hour right into the doctor's office.
She was even reprimanded a few times, but it didn't matter to Mrs. Murphy. "Only her boys mattered. She was our angel."
Audie Murphy died broke in a plane crash in 1971, squandering millions of dollars on gambling, bad investments, and other women. "Even with adultery and desertion at the end, he remained my hero," Pam told me.
She went from a ranch-style home in Van Nuys where she raised two sons to a small apartment - taking a clerk's job at the nearby VA to support herself and paying her faded movie star husband's debts. At first, no one knew who she was. Soon, word spread through the VA that the nice woman with the clipboard was Audie Murphy's widow. It was like saying General Patton just walked in the front door. Men with tears in their eyes walked to her and gave her a hug. "Thank you," they said, over and over.
The first couple of years, the hugs were more for Audie's memory as a war hero. The last 30 years, were for Pam.
One year I asked her to be the focus of a Veteran's Day news column for all the work she did. Pam shook her head no. "Honor them, not me," she said, pointing to a group of veterans. "They're the ones who deserve it."
The vets disagreed. Mrs. Murphy deserved the accolades, they said. In 2002, Pam's job was to be eliminated in budget cuts. She was considered "excess staff." "I don't think helping cut veterans' complaints and showing them the respect they deserve should be considered excess staff," she told me.
Neither did the veterans. They held a rally for her outside the VA gates. Pretty soon, word came from the top of the VA. Pam Murphy was no longer considered "excess staff."
She remained working full time at the VA until 2007 at age 87.
"The last time she was here was a couple of years ago for the conference we had for homeless veterans," said Becky James, coordinator of the VA's Veterans History Project. Pam wanted to see if there was anything she could do to help more of her boys. Pam Murphy was 90 when she died. What a lady.
Dennis McCarthy,
Los Angeles Times on April 15, 2010

Friday, September 20, 2019

Is Climate Change a Tool to Eliminate Democracy?

Is Climate Change a Tool to Eliminate Democracy? 


Is Climate Change a Tool to Eliminate Democracy?


COMMENT: Your view on denying climate change is supporting the capitalist model. This shows you have no credibility.
OD
REPLY: Climate is changing and it is part of the normal cycle – not human-induced. You are actually correct that I support capitalism and freedom and am against authoritarianism and totalitarian systems. What you fail to understand is that climate change is an agenda to eliminate your freedom. The entire argument is to support a move toward an authoritarian state. You better wake up. This is not truly about the climate change, it is all about controlling society, eliminating democracy, and changing the entire economic model that changes society. There is far more at stake here than most people realize.
Here is a piece that appeared in the Weekend Australian.


It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.
We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.
In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”
Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.
We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.
Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.
Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?
In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.
Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.
Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.
Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.
They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)
And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.
Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.
Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.
There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.
Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough

Google and Its Pals Are Worse than Anyone Thought

Google and Its Pals Are Worse than Anyone Thought


Google and Its Pals Are Worse than Anyone Thought

Is it true that Google suppresses conservative voices branding them as ‘conspiracy theories’?
- No, this is a conspiracy theory (an imaginary conversation with Google PR)
The liberal anechoic prison looks like an alternative reality (“AR”), created by Internet Gatekeepers – Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Apple. This is not the same as an old-style echo chamber, in which inhabitants were still aware that there are people with other views outside the chamber. The prisoners of the AR are not aware of their status. After all, it is confirmed by all their information sources: all the news channels (except for the vilified Fox News), Google searches, anti-social mediaWikipedia, and the fact checkers. Ironically, all these outlets continually espouse that Trump supporters are the ones living in an alternative reality.
Gatekeepers Cause Polarization
This goes a long way to explain the growing polarization in the country. The Gatekeepers seem to be the main cause of liberal self- delusion and of mass confusion for everybody else, in addition to their hate-mongering. They synchronize messaging among various left-liberal outlets and suppress or distort conservative views. I have been warning my readers as to the dangers of these Internet Gatekeepers for more than two years, but the recent revelation by Google whistleblowers exceeded all my worries. The MSM-Gatekeepers collusion is illuminated by the indifference and hostility that MSM and tech news media display toward Google whistleblowers. Instead of reporting on the bombshell material that Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies released, they aggressively smeared him. Google has not disputed the authenticity of the documents released nor anything Zach has said.
Google erased ‘COVFEFE’
The COVFEFE incident is mind-blowing. On May 31, 2017, following his visit to Saudi Arabia, President Trump tweeted “Despite constant negative press covfefe“. At this time, “covfefe” or “cov fe’fe” was recognized by Google Translate as an Arabic phrase and translated to mean “I will stand up”. Later, Trump confirmed that by tweeting “Who can figure out the true meaning of “covfefe” ??? Enjoy!” Many people already understood its meaning and those who didn’t, could easily find it in Google Translate. But that same day, the NY Times declared that the word doesn’t exist, and that Trump supporters had spread the conspiracy theory of its existence and meaning. On June 1, Google literally deleted this and another transliteration of “I will stand up” from its Arabic-English dictionary! Google chose the New York Times opinion over reality and secretly forced that opinion on an unsuspecting public.
This coincided with the time period in which Obama holdovers were plotting to declare Trump mentally ill. Trump’s enemies seized on the covfefe tweets as an opportunity to further their false accusations, and ordinary liberals saw those tweets as the president promoting conspiracy theories.
Gatekeepers Aid Coup Attempts
Remember the simultaneous deplatforming of Infowars and Alex Jones by Apple, Google, Facebook, and followed by Twitter, two weeks later? It was done for political reasons in response to a third-party request. This is how Facebook refugee Brian Amerige describes this incident: “a team of (human) employees [was] scouring months of Jones’ historical Facebook posts to find borderline content that might be used to justify a ban. In practice, the decision was made for political reasons...”
I wrote that de-platforming Infowars had been initiated by somebody close to the Mueller team as a means to pressure Dr. Jerome Corsi into giving false testimony against Trump. Dr. Corsi had been a long time Infowars editor and could defend himself on it, in the court of public opinion.
Gatekeepers Target the Central Subjects of Public Debate
Gatekeepers supposedly act against perceived hate speech, white nationalists, or conspiracy theories, and this injury to free speech is enough to cause controversy. However, in reality, the main casualties of Gatekeepers suppression are people and speech supportive of Trump and opposing strong left-wing agendas, which have recently become almost one and the same. The evidence of Spygate, the coup attempt (continuation of Spygate after Trump’s inauguration), climate realism, the racism and anti-Semitism of the Democrat-Socialist party, and the evidence of this collusive tech suppression itself are among the most suppressed topics.
The Gatekeepers suppress conservative opinions and evidence, under the pretense of fighting conspiracy theories and false news. In addition to direct deplatforming of the opposition, the Gatekeepers' behavior has a chilling effect on speech because speakers and publishers are afraid to associate themselves with people and views targeted by the Gatekeepers.
Gatekeepers Collude with MSM
The Gatekeepers work in tandem with the MSM. Most people have already figured out that MSM has become the Fake News, but the Gatekeepers continually prop them up my sending them web traffic and ad revenues and denying those same services to Trump supporting publications. In return, MSM provides the Gatekeepers with political support and guidance from the Democrat-Socialist establishment.
Did Gatekeepers’ Executive Intend to Go This Far?
I don’t know to what extent Gatekeepers’ executives are aware of what their companies are doing. They are under pressure from foreign governments and from leftist activists, both outside and inside their companies. Censorship decisions are frequently based on input from shadowy external organizations, who often clandestinely work with Gatekeepers’ employees. There are also cases in which the Gatekeepers themselves advise outside groups on the best ways to manipulate their systems. For example, Google refers to search terms, which return results that its far left allies don’t like, as data voids. It then teaches activists how to fill in these “voids” in order to bury unwanted results. Look no further than the Google’s search results for ‘Spygate’. Google employees also use their system access or knowledge to de-platform conservatives bypassing management at all.
Mission Impossible: Domestic and International Aspects
The Gatekeepers attempted to be everything for everybody, everywhere in the world. This is impossible, even if it were legal. Even within the U.S., they could operate either as common carriers, removing only content universally accepted as bad (malware, spam, maybe porn, etc.), or as publishers with editorial discretion and limited audiences.
Worse, they act as transnational entities operating a global informational space. In that space, Americans are not only a small minority, but also lack representation and are powerless before foreign governments, political parties, and even terrorist organizations. Further, Gatekeepers explicitly submitted to European Commission demands to act against what EC deems misinformation and hate speech. They then applied these foreign laws and policies here in the U.S. All these Gatekeeper platforms also expose the U.S. itself – consider how much information is available on the internet about our internal social mechanisms, institutions, and important individuals compared to what is available, for example, about Somali. Every country has equal access to the internet information but is not equally exposed by it. But it is another huge topic.
Gatekeepers Editorial Ambitions and Delusions
Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act grants the Gatekeepers broad immunities when they choose to act as interactive service providers (ISPs) rather than as speakers or publishers protected by the First Amendment. Contrary to popular belief, Section 230 isn’t a one-sided shield for the providers, but a tradeoff: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” As a means of protection, Section 230 compares to the First Amendment as glass to steel. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Even Gatekeepers’ broad privileges to moderate content are conditional on their actions being both voluntary and in good faith. Any other content manipulation without viewers-understood intent “to convey a particularized message” is not protected speech (the Supreme Court of the US, Texas v. Johnson, 1989). The Gatekeepers are liable for each and every lie or misrepresentation of their services.

By Its Own Definition Antifa is Fascist

By Its Own Definition Antifa is Fascist


By Its Own Definition Antifa is Fascist

Antifa’s founding can be traced back to 2007 in Portland and the Rose City Antifa group. Prior to 2016, the group’s activities were limited to harassing neo-Nazi gatherings and doxing white supremacists. But that changed in 2016 after the election of Donald Trump, when the group declared a national emergency.
Rose City Antifa has a website full of information about the group. In their FAQ (frequently asked questions) section, they admit that fascism can be difficult to define as all fascist movements do not have the same features. They utilize a definition of fascism that is based on a cluster of traits, so that a specific definition is never mentioned. While a movement may not have every one of these traits, if there is a preponderance (a specific number is never defined but we can believe that it’s two or more) then Antifa will classify that movement or group as fascist. By these criteria, Antifa clearly is fascist.
Seven of the traits of Fascism listed on their page are:
  • anti-Enlightenment
  • anti-reason
  • the creation of a vilified other
  • reliance on violence or threats of violence to impose views on others
  • anti-liberal
  • anti-conservative, and
  • portraying the current social and political situation as one of dire decay brought about by decadence and corruption.
Anti-Enlightenment and Anti-Reason: The core philosophy of the Enlightenment and the concept of reason can be traced to the Socratic Method of debate, where one side presents a case, a second side presents a counter argument, and the debate back and forth about the idea in front of a group where ideas are freely spoken and judged for their merit.
Antifa claims to be against racism and hate speech. In fact, most people are against racism and hate speech and when they hear it, they freely make up their mind and assume that speaker is an idiot. And in a free society, people can say and do stupid things freely without being stopped forcefully unless they’re inciting violence.
Antifa says that all fascists should be prevented from speaking. They are against the concept of free speech and have no problem violating the First Amendment rights of others. They are therefore anti-Enlightenment and anti-reason.
“Failing to stop fascists from speaking, that is, giving them the opportunity to organize and impose their agenda on the rest of us – makes you as bad as them.”
The Creation of the Vilified Other: By having a broad list of traits that can be used to label someone as a fascist and then shut them out of society Antifa itself is creating a vilified other.
Reliance on Violence or Threats of Violence to Impose Views on Others: Showing up to demonstrations and events in a ski mask with bats and mace to club those you define as “fascist” fits this criterion. Likewise, the assault on journalist Andy Ngo was meant to serve as a message to anyone who professed a negative view of the group.
Anti-Liberal: The United States of America is a liberal democracy that Antifa rejects because they claim, without proof, that the liberal democratically elected leaders “have more in common with fascism than they do with us” So, the elected leaders and voters must therefore be part of the vilified others. They also criticize the liberals that defend free speech.
Anti-Conservative: They have showed up to harass and attack participants at conservative gatherings that were not-alt right and did not have any ties to White Nationalism on the basis that conservatives are oppressive fascists.
Portraying the Current Social and Political Situation as One of Dire Decay Brought About by Decadence and Corruption: “Likewise, we reject the “right” of the government and police – who have more in common with fascists than they do with us – to decide for us when fascists have crossed the line by merely expressing themselves into posing an immediate threat.”
By rejecting the democratically elected law makers and law enforcers as corrupted fascists they are portraying the current situation as decayed by corruption where the only hope for healing is for them to take matters into their own hands.
By using Antifa’s own definition that one can be a fascist by having traits found in Fascist government, Antifa is fascist by their own logic. It’s clear that they believe the current liberal democracy government of the country has failed and what the people need are strong incorruptible leaders to take the reins and do what is needed to fix it in their image.
And while Antifa does not have a leader or spokesperson whose identity is publicly known, there is someone is running their official website and planning their protests. They might be keeping their identity secret for now out of fear of law enforcement, but they are likely out there.

'Climate Change': A Leftist Excuse to Redistribute Wealth and Destroy the West

'Climate Change': A Leftist Excuse to Redistribute Wealth and Destroy the West


'Climate Change': A Leftist Excuse to Redistribute Wealth and Destroy the West

The "Church of Climate Change" demands that Western nations impose restrictions on industrial CO2 emissions, encouraging them to squander billions on unreliable "green" technologies and renewable sources of energy.  They continue to ignore the one policy that has significantly increased atmospheric CO2 levels in the last few decades, generating hundreds of millions of metric tons of the stuff annually: mass third-world immigration (see Kolankiewicz and Camarota, 2008).
If the IPCC were objective, it would demand an end to mass immigration instead of more carbon taxes and emissions trading.  Such indifference in the face of the evidence shows that they care more about racially dispossessing whites than they do about "saving the planet."
So what is the ulterior motive?  To further understand what this may be, we must examine the career of Canadian businessman Maurice Strong (1929–2015).  Thanks to his tireless "lobbying behind the scenes," the U.N. has played a key role in forging a "consensus" on man-made global warming.  In a sense, he was the right man at the right time.  Besides his ability to manipulate others, Strong was aided by other factors, such as the collapse of Soviet communism in the early 1990s.  This helped pave the way for the emergence of a new leftist orthodoxy: environmentalism.
Strong was an ardent believer in the efficacy of state redistributive policies.  In 1976, Strong told Maclean's magazine: "I am a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology."  Like his socialism, his environmentalism was also pragmatic rather than ideological.  Its purpose was to advance his vision of global governance under the aegis of the U.N.  In a 1992 essay, he wrote: "It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful.  It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
Strong was the most active and influential member of the Brundtland Commission, established by the U.N. General Assembly in 1983.  The Commission's report, Our Common Future, was published in 1987.  Strong helped formulate the report's concept of "sustainable development."  This was a call for social and economic egalitarianism within a simple Marxist dialectical framework.  The antagonism between capitalist and proletarian worker mirrored the antagonism between industrialized and developing nations.  The First World was identified as the primary culprit behind third-world underdevelopment.  Its need for raw materials forced developing countries to over-exploit and deplete their natural resources, leading to more environmental degradation and underdevelopment.  The solution is more money to the developing world from rich Western nations.
Strong's participation in the Brundtland Commission ensured that man-made global warming and socialist redistribution would be incorporated into the report.  These would subsequently form the basis of U.N. environmental policy.  This would become so influential that Western governments would try reversing the effects of the Industrial Revolution in their own countries through restrictions on CO2 emissions and increasing dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies.
In 1988, Strong had convinced the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to agree to the formation of an "intergovernmental mechanism" to monitor anthropogenic global warming and suggest policy recommendations for the U.N. and Western governments.  This organization was the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
Through the IPCC and other U.N. bodies, enormous sums of money were transferred from the West to third-world countries.  In 2010, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established; its purpose was to further the U.N. goal of socialist redistribution in the name of sustainable development.  President Barack Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund in 2014, with the fund receiving a total of a $1 billion by 2017.
However, not all Western politicians subscribed to the false humanitarianism of the U.N.'s avowedly socialist redistributive aims.  President Donald Trump promised during his election campaign to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.  In his withdrawal speech on June 1, 2017, he criticized the GCF as a "scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States ... to developing countries."
Strong once posed the rhetorical question: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?  Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"  His advocacy of socialist redistribution reflected an open hostility to Western industrial society, which had (in his view) impoverished and underdeveloped third-world societies.  "If we don't change," he said, "our species will not survive[.] ... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."
Why else have so many globalists backed the outsourcing of the West's manufacturing base to the developing world?  In the Brundtland Report, Western governments were advised to pursue less energy- and capital-intensive productive activities to promote sustainable development.  The result, of course, would be the managed de-industrialization of the Western nations, with the aim of placing them on an equal footing with the developing world.  If social inequality and environmental degradation were the result of industrialization, then de-industrialization would return the West to the way it was before the Industrial Revolution.  This was the clandestine purpose of Maurice Strong and the  IPCC.
Strong's wish to dismantle industrial civilization was profoundly anti-Western.  As of 2019, China is responsible for over a quarter of all global CO2 emissions, making it the world's biggest polluter, yet the burden of reducing CO2 is shouldered entirely by the West.  This burden includes payment of carbon taxes, implementation of cap and trade policies, and development of green technologies and renewable sources of energy, all entirely white, Western endeavors.
Not only is the environmental movement anti-capitalist, but as Václav Klaus (2008) explains, it is profoundly misanthropic and life-denying:
If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology.  It sees the fundamental cause of the world's problems in the very expansion of homo sapiens.  Humans have surpassed the original scope of nature through the development of their intellect and their ability to reshape nature and make use of it.  Not coincidentally, many environmentalists refuse to place human beings at the center of their attention and thinking.
Research and development is necessarily energy- and capital-intensive; if fossil fuel consumption is drastically reduced by limiting CO2 emissions and encouraging dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies, how will man ever progress, scientifically and technologically, as a species? Environmental ideology demands the end of progress in the name of ecological sustainability.  If practiced on a large scale, it will lead to the abolition of Western civilization.  Environmentalists regard humans as subordinate to nature, investing the natural world with greater moral worth.  If taken to its logical conclusion, mass extinction of the human species would be the best possible outcome for the planet. 
At its core, environmentalism is a nihilist belief system that rejects humanity in favor of nature.  It is dangerous because it threatens the character of Western civilization, suppressing all deviation from leftist orthodoxy.  By limiting the sphere of discourse through political correctness, environmentalists create an atmosphere of intimidation where they can indulge their hatred of Western civilization under the guise of "saving the planet."
What environmentalists fail to understand is that man belongs to nature.  His impact on the environment is not at all different from the impact of other endogenous processes.  In nature, these are overcome through adaptation and divergence, not optimal or steady-state equilibrium.  This is why environmentalist aims are naïvely utopian.  If vast geological timescales reveal wide divergence in global temperatures, sea levels, atmospheric CO2, etc., then believing that one can turn the "climate knob" back to some ideal temperature through "sustainable development" is laughable.       
Man-made global warming is a non-issue.  Not only has it never been scientifically proven, but its purpose is to manipulate the masses, using alarmist rhetoric, into abandoning Western industrial society by fanning mass hysteria to a fever pitch.  Once this was done, getting the electorate on board with curtailing Western scientific and technological development would be a cakewalk.  As an ideology, environmentalism is just black-and-white moralizing within a simple Marxist dialectical framework.
The truth is that leftists have no interest in the environment; if they did, they would be neo-Malthusian advocates of zero population growth in places like Africa and the Middle East.

The Orwellian Universe of Linda Sarsour

The Orwellian Universe of Linda Sarsour


The Orwellian Universe of Linda Sarsour

A wide-ranging set of comments by Linda Sarsour -- the newly designated official surrogate for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders -- reveals the full extent of the Orwellian world in which she lives.  Her views are even more shocking than what we already know about her pathological fabrication of history, her abject anti-Semitism, her fanatical hatred of the Jewish state, and her growing leadership role in the Democratic Party.
“This sentiment of ending occupation in Palestine, of supporting Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), or at least at the minimum, the right for people to engage in Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, the idea that being a staunch critic of the state of Israel does not equal being anti-Semitic. This is just mainstream now,” Sarsour said in a rare February interview with Jacobin magazine’s podcast, “The Dig.
Since Sarsour claimed to divine what constitutes “mainstream,” the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel by a 398-17 vote
BDS is the campaign to coerce corporations and universities into boycotting or divesting investments in Israel, with the goal of eliminating the State of Israel.  A one-state solution that Sarsour advocates would accomplish just that, ending up with the destruction of Israel.
The lopsided House vote includes support from 93 percent of House Democrats. BDS, the resolution says, makes peace more difficult to achieve because it gives Palestinians hope that international pressure, not negotiations, is the best path to achieving their goals.
It specifically acknowledged that “the Global BDS Movement does not recognize, and many of its supporters explicitly deny, the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination.” That rejection meets the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile, a resolution filed by Ilhan Omar (D-Minn)., defending BDS by placing it in line with the American Civil Rights Movement and argued it was similar to  the boycott of apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.
During the interview, Sarsour reiterated her support for a supposed “binational” state for Israelis and Palestinians. But even the interviewer, Daniel Denvir, who supports this view, acknowledged that “it does presume that Israel as a Jewish state will no longer exist.” Yet Sarsour denies this, falsely claiming that Palestinians -- despite the pre-1948 Palestinian pogroms against Jews, the Arab wars dedicated to annihilating Israel, and nearly daily terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of Jews -- have always wanted to live in peace with Israel.   
“The Democratic Party has to make a choice,” she said, “like whose side are you on here?”
This question is indicative of Linda Sarsour’s vendetta against people who disagree with her black-and-white worldview. As co-chair of the Women’s March, Sarsour used her platform to declare that one cannot be both a Zionist and a feminist. (This past week, Sarsour and two other radicals were dropped from the Committee. Yet, Sarsour -- in what appears was a one for one substitution -- was replaced by an official of the Hamas front group CAIR, Zahra Billoo, who has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state, not to mention denouncing U.S. counterterrorism policies as similar to Nazism.) Yet during the Dig interview, Sarsour praised leaders within the women’s rights movement who are “not just preaching intersectionality, but in fact [are] implementing it in the larger movements we’re a part of.” For Sarsour, intersectionality means bridging diverse agendas -- as long as supporters of Israel are left out. “Palestinian rights are at the table because they’re part of a larger progressive agenda,” Sarsour declared. Israeli rights are not.
There is no room for nuance among U.S.-based Islamists. In an ISNA speech last year, Sansour promoted a modern-day blood-libel by claiming that Jews were behind police shootings of unarmed blacks. But despite Sarsour’s radical and anti-Semitic statements, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Hamas money laundering case in U.S. history (and described by an FBI agent as a “front group” for Hamas, continues to promote her at high-profile events.
This “othering” dimension to Islamist-speak is only fueling sectarian discord in the United States.
It is ironic to hear Sarsour purport to denounce anti-Semitic preacher Minister Louis Farrakhan during the February interview, as someone whose statements “do not align with our unity principles at the Women’s March.” But these views did not prevent Sarsour from speaking at a 2015 event organized by Farrakhan, essentially legitimizing the anti-Semitic leader’s conspiratorial and racist views.  Sarsour deleted a 2015 Instagram post in which she gushed that Farrakhan "does not age, God bless him." She once called the Nation of Islam an "integral" part of the history of Islam.
As expected, Sarsour rails against Israel’s military presence in the West Bank and its blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
“This is an illegal military occupation being paid for by taxpayer dollars. We must be unequivocal when we stand against the murder, the assassinations, the sniping of peaceful protesters in Gaza.”
Yet Sarsour provides zero nuance as to why Israel maintains military control over parts of Palestinian territories and its borders with Israel especially against   Palestinian terrorist organizations who openly state their aim to destroy Israel.    
The “sniping of peaceful protesters” is yet another disingenuous Islamist talking point embraced by mainstream U.S. media outlets. The vast majority of Palestinians killed during violent protests are operatives of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. This has been repeatedly confirmed by senior Hamas leaders. For years,  Hamas has orchestrated near-weekly violent riots,  staged lethal attacks at the border, while encouraging Palestinians to infiltrate into Israel to attack civilians. Other rioters throw pipe bombs and IED’s over the Gaza fence and deploy Molotov kites, sparking fires in Israeli fields near the border causing massive damage.
Meanwhile, Sarsour is silent when it comes to condemning Hamas or Fatah for the brutal suppression of  Palestinian demonstrators  within their borders who  are routinely repressed and tortured by their governing authorities.
In Sarsour’s world, “There has never been a person that I’ve come across in Palestine that has said to me, Linda, the only way for Palestinians to live in peace is to destroy the state of Israel. It never happened. No one has ever said that, because that’s not what the Palestinian people want.”
This assertion is not only misleading, it is categorically false, given overwhelming evidence that Palestinian society and organizations systematically incite violence against Israel and glorify Palestinian terrorists who kill Jews. Hamas, an organization that exists to bring about Israeli’s annihilation, continues to rule Gaza and remains disturbingly popular.
Palestinians convicted of attacking Israelis receive massive stipends  from the Palestinian Authority, totalling tens of millions of dollars. The amount paid to  terrorists depends on the length of sentence or on the number of Jews killed, which has become a source of pride in Palestine. Peaceful coexistence with Israel is rejected as traitorous.
Sarsour repeatedly denied that representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are anti-Semitic: “I know them both very personally and they get really hurt by these false accusations of anti-Semitism.” Really? But both Tlaib and Omar have a record of making anti-Semitic statements, including peddling accusations of dual loyalties by American supporters of Israel.
“So when you are supporting an anti-BDS legislation, which is anti the Constitution of the United States of America, which you swore to uphold as a member of the US Senate, then Rashida has every right to question, who are you for?” Sarsour said. But this argument precisely feeds into anti-Semitic tropes of dual loyalty. For American Islamists, one cannot be a patriotic American while opposing sanctions against the Jewish state -- one of the United States’ most staunch allies.
Towards the end of the interview, Sarsour had the audacity to defend anti-Semitic politicians like British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. She absolved him of responsibility for rampant anti-Semitism he has encouraged within Labour since he assumed leadership. For years,  Corbyn has praised Palestinian terrorists and supported the worst forms of anti Semitism.
Sarsour still claims she is “committed to calling out anti-Semitism in the progressive left. And I’ve done it many times before.”
No, Linda, you are the poster-woman of leftist anti-Semitism.

The Democratic Nomination Process: The Electoral College on Steroids

The Democratic Nomination Process: The Electoral College on Steroids


The Democratic Nomination Process: The Electoral College on Steroids

While most Democratic candidates for president clamor to abolish the Electoral College, they remain eerily silent about the Democratic nomination process.  But occasionally they let their hypocrisy slip.
Here, Pete Buttigieg unintentionally says every vote should count equally in the general election but not in the Democratic primaries:
I think when it comes to the general election, not primaries, but general elections, we ought to reform this so that one person gets one vote.  It does not matter where you live, big-city, small-town, where the state line is compared to where your houses (are).  You get a vote and every vote counts the same.
Buttigieg’s position is beyond curious, considering the Democratic nomination process is essentially the Electoral College on steroids.
The two processes start out quite similarly.  Candidates must win 270 of 538 electoral votes to gain the presidency, and 2,382 of 4,763 delegates to gain the nomination (in 2016).  For all intents and purposes, electoral votes and delegates are the same concept.
Electoral votes are allocated to the states via constitutional law and the Census Bureau.  The nomination process, created and controlled by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), literally uses the Electoral College in its formula of allocating delegates to states.
But the DNC’s formula is far more complex, even awarding bonus delegates to bordering states that hold simultaneous primaries later in the voting season.  Defying the laws of science, the DNC considers Maine as bordering Vermont, Hawaii as bordering Oregon, and Puerto Rico as bordering Guam. 
Resulting from such peculiarities, a different number of delegates is available each election cycle.  Even more bizarre, due to what the New York Times calls the “byzantine nature of the Democratic nominating process,” news organizations seldom agree on the delegate count as election season unfolds.
Most Americans have no idea that presidents and nominees are not formally elected by the voters, but by a group of representatives called Electors and Delegates.  The 538 Electors and 4,763 Delegates are fallible, persuadable humans.
In 2016, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College 306-232.  However, after the Electors met to deliver their state’s votes, the final tally was 304-227.  Seven faithless Electors thwarted the people’s will by casting votes for Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, John Kasich, Colin Powell, and Faith Spotted Eagle.
Though a handful of faithless Electors cast ridiculous protest votes that did not affect the outcome, hundreds of faithless delegates, also known as Superdelegates, exist to purposely tip the scales of the Democratic nomination.
In 2016, the delegation consisted of 4,051 Pledged Delegates bound to their state’s primary results, and 712 Superdelegates unbound to the results.  As just one example, Sanders defeated Clinton in West Virginia by 16 percent, winning all 55 counties in the process.  Yet Clinton delegates outnumbered Sanders delegates at the convention, thanks to some arm-twisting of Superdelegates by powerful West Virginian insiders.
At the time, Sanders spoke vehemently against these Superdelegate shenanigans.  In a public relations response, the DNC instituted window dressing to supposedly limit the influence of Superdelegates in 2020.  But the new rules greatly increase the likelihood of a brokered convention, where 4,051 Pledged Delegates would gain the unyielding power of Superdelegates.  Unsurprisingly, the 2020 race to schmooze delegates began long before the first debate, with Sanders ironically leading the charge.
Even without Superdelegates, Democratic candidates can, by design, win the popular vote but lose the state.  This happened to Jesse Jackson time and time again in the 1980s.
More recently in 2008, Clinton defeated Barack Obama in the Nevada caucus by 6%, but lost the pledged delegate count.  Pledged delegates are mostly won proportionally at the district level.  In a two-person race, a district with four delegates is guaranteed to be split 2-2 unless one candidate wins more than 63 percent of the vote.  Obama won the rural counties of Nevada by wide margins while losing the populous areas by smaller margins.
Eleven days earlier, Clinton defeated Obama in the New Hampshire primary by 3%, yet Obama again won more delegates.  This was due to John Edwards finishing a distant third but gaining a handful of delegates.  Though Clinton initially tied Obama in delegates, Edwards dropped out of the race two weeks later.  One Edwards delegate quickly supported Obama, and two more did the same in May when Edwards endorsed Obama for president.
Edwards garnered delegates by winning almost 17 percent of the New Hampshire vote.  In Democratic primaries, candidates are considered viable by clearing a 15 percent threshold.  Otherwise, the vote is discarded entirely.  Since 1988, 18 percent of New Hampshire Democratic Primary votes have been wasted
In the crowded 2020 field of over twenty candidates, it is plausible for the first-place finisher to win 16-15 percent and split the state’s delegates equally, or win 15-14 percent and gain all that state’s delegates.
Clearly, every vote is not equal during the Democratic nomination process.  Though the DNC has full authority to change the nomination rules, it has largely maintained the status quo for decades. 
Therefore, it is safe to assume that Democratic politicians are disingenuous in their disdain for the Electoral College.  Rather, their likely motivation is strictly political, a talking point designed to rally a base still reeling from Electoral College defeats in 2000 and 2016.
Yet even this political strategy is shortsighted.  Democrats could easily lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College in future elections.
This exact scenario almost occurred in 2004.  Despite losing the popular vote to George W. Bush by 3 million votes, John Kerry came 118,000 votes away from winning Ohio and the presidency.  Furthermore, Kerry was a combined 37,000 votes away from forcing an electoral tie in Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico.
Indeed, a 269-269 Electoral College tie is not out of the question in 2020.  For example, if Trump maintains his 2016 victories in all states except Pennsylvania and Michigan, the Democrat-controlled House would choose the next president.
It is fine for everyday Americans to sincerely believe in abolishing the Electoral College.  But if Democratic candidates for president are unwilling to demand an overhaul to the DNC-controlled primaries, they would be better served ceasing all hypocritical demagoguery about a constitutional bedrock of America.