Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2. Meanwhile, German citizens are due to pay a penalty of billions of dollars to an unelected agency of UN appointees because Germany did not meet its agreed target for reducing CO2 this past year.
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
US Geological Services released these “before and after” satellite photos of the recent volcanic eruption here on Big Island Hawaii.
“Wherever the revolutionary left has triumphed, its triumph has meant economic backwardness and social poverty, cultural deprivation and the loss of political freedom for all those unfortunate peoples under its yoke. This is the real legacy of the left of which you and I were a part. We called ourselves progressives; but we were the true reactionaries of the modern world.” ~ socialist David Horowitz wrote in his letter to English socialist Ralph Miliband entitled, “The Road to Nowhere,” reproduced in chapter 2 “The Fate of the Marxist Idea” in Horowitz’s book “The Politics of Bad Faith.”
The theme of the book is the refusal of radicals to accept the implications of the collapse of communism for the future of socialism. Socialists are running away from their embarrassing history and the name of their ideology.
“For radicals, it is not socialism, but only the language of socialism that is finally dead. To be reborn, the left had only to rename itself in terms that did not carry the memories of the insurmountable defeat [including tens of millions of dead comrades], to appropriate a past that could still be victorious. Thus leftists now call themselves “progressives,” “post-modernists,” and even “liberals.””
After much introspection he shares with us in his books, essays and speeches, David Horowitz reformed and became a conservative. He explains, “The divisive crusades of the left and its failed ‘experiments’ must be seen for what they are: bloody exercises in civil nihilism; violent pursuits of empty hopes; revolutionary actes gratuites [gratuitous acts] that were doomed to fail from the start.”
In the introduction to the Horowitz’s book “Left Illusions,” Jamie Glazov explains that David “argues that the negative result of two hundred years of socialist efforts means that from its beginnings the moden revolutionary left cannot be regarded as a “progressive” force, but one that is destructive and reactionary.”
Actions have consequences: IF Dr. Ford’s so far factless story cannot be corroborated, and IF Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed to SCOTUS, or worse if Kavanaugh’s career at the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in D.C. is harmed or ended, doubtless there will be a civil case of slander and libel brought against Dr. Ford. The case will reach a quick verdict. The case will be heard under the laws of trial by jury, rather than an attempted public lynching by leftist political hacks. Dr. Ford’s assets and future income will be awarded to Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Dr. Ford will have destroyed her life and her family’s life. In addition to injuries to Judge Kavanaugh, in the eyes of a judge and jury, Dr. Ford will have caused traumatic injuries to Judge Kavanaugh’s wife and daughters which in the eyes of a real jury will exceed by far any alleged damage done to teenage Dr. Ford. In Dr. Ford’s words, she was more concerned about telling her parents she was drinking alcohol at a party, and whatever she alleges happened to her was not significant enough to warn her girl friends at the party. Dr. Ford’s lawyers and political hacks probably neglected to advise her of these likely consequences. Dr. Ford has one week to come up with verifiable facts. The lady prosecutor who questioned Ford said there was not enough evidence to obtain a search warrant.
P.S. Note the lady prosecutor who questioned Dr. Ford said there was not enough evidence to obtain search warrant. https://freebeacon.com/politics/prosecutor-enough-evidence-even-obtain-search-warrant-kavanaugh-case/
It is truly bizarre and history will record that so-called “social justice” and “progressives” who claim to fear the imposition of a Nazi regime by President Trump, are the same people who work to disarm Americans of the weapons that would be needed to protect our nation from a Nazi regime, and are the same people actively working to implement national socialist (i.e. Nazi) policies such as nationalized healthcare (Obamacare), and are the same people promoting tolerance of intolerable islamic sharia even though islamic countries were Nazi allies in WWII, and are the same people who want to control the media to prevent transparency or criticism of their policies and actions even though Nazis violently implemented this policy, and are the same people who support hundreds of millions of dollars of government funding for abortion knowing it is resulting in disproportional deaths of black babies by the millions, which is identical to Nazi eugenics practice, and are the same people calling for “resistance” while they force their political opponents out of restaurants and shout them down in public places, which is identical to Nazi brown shirt tactics leading up to Kristalnacht. Except for the radicals at the top, they are unaware or in denial of these glaring contradictions.
One person’s statement or belief about a fact (for example an alleged event) is not the fact itself. Another person’s statement or belief about a fact is not the fact itself. The two statements are offsetting. He said. She said. Then credibility of the two people can be compared.
Two people can and often do witness the same event/fact and report it differently. For example, assuming an event did in fact occur, I may have done or said something that hurt you, but I may be unaware that I hurt you. (Especially true if no one said anything about it for 36 years.) In that case, our respective recollection of the event would be different, and truthfully reported by both parties though different, assuming the event in fact occurred. A polygraph may confirm only what you believe, it cannot confirm the fact/event itself. The event/fact itself must be established as evidence before any legitimate trial: Where and when did it happen? What happened exactly? Is there any evidence from the alleged event? Can other people prove that they witnessed the alleged event?
In America (except possibly New Orleans where Napoleonic code may still exist) a person is innocent until proven guilty. And, there is no trial unless and until verifiable facts are submitted in evidence. Normally, courts and Congress hold evidentiary hearings in closed chambers to protect the parties involved when the charges are potentially injurious.
Allegations which are not supported by factual evidence and which injure another person are legally defined as slander or libel. Such allegations should be heard in closed chambers. Courts and juries award substantial payments to defendents who have been injured by slander or libel, but the damage done may be permanent.
The alleged abuse victim may have legitimate cause against Senator Feinstein or whomever leaked the victim’s letter. The federal judge being tried in a public hearing probably does have legitimate damage claims against the alleged victim, unless facts are finally revealed. But so far there are no facts, no evidence except the victim’s statement, and the victim’s statement is contradicted by the judge. The judge’s credibility is corroborated by over 60 people, many of them women who knew him around the time of the alleged event. As far as I know, the victim’s credibility is not supported by anyone who knew her or the judge around the time of the alleged event.
Where’s the beef? The U.S. Senate is charged by the Constitution with the duty to advise and consent with a U.S. President’s nominations to certain high offices. The Constitution and laws do not specify this be done in public, much less in highly politicized show trials before the media and public. Once again, the U.S. Congress has acted irresponsibly, in a dis-service to their constituents. Many of the Senators have acted deplorably and should be censured or removed, especially Feinstein, Schumer, Hirono, Booker, Durban, Harris and Gillibrand. These Senators are playing at partisan politics without regard for their victims or their constituents.
“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” –George Washington’s farewell address (Sept. 19, 1796)
The call of Obama, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Maizie Hirono and other “social justice” radicals “to define what kind of country we are” is an ominous agenda for America.
“The idea that creates the identity ‘American’ is summarized in America’s de facto motto E pluribus unim – out of many, one.” The idea is for the people in the great American melting pot to meld together, to assimilate as one nation, one language, and one culture under God. It is the antithesis of multiculturalism. The idea is not to “fundamentally transform” the nation or to melt the pot itself, which was Obama’s fundamentally destructive political rhetoric. Studies reported last week that over 50% of the people living in America’s largest cities do not speak English in their homes, and almost all of those cities are being run into the ground by Democrats, are sanctuaries for criminals, and are being destroyed by violence.
“It took a Civil War and two hundred years of sacrifice and struggle to achieve a polity that approached this ideal. If one political faction were now able to redefine the ideal to conform to its own sectarian beliefs, the country we have have known would cease to exist. But that is what the current creed of the Democratic Party – “identity politics” – entails; and it is why the current divisions in our political life seem so intractible.”
“Identity politics is, in fact, the antithesis of the American idea. It is a reversion to tribal loyalties. It regards diverse origins – colors, ethnicities, genders and classes – as primary, and proposes a hierarchy of privilege based on them, which it justifies as a reversal of past oppressions.”
“It is not the proper role of an opposition party in a democracy to mount a “resistance” to a duly elected government and press for its overthrow at the very outset of its tenure. But that is precisely what the Democrats have done in the first months of the Trump administration.”
“For the second time in its history, the Democratic Party has opted to secede from the Union and its social contract. The first time was over the issue of slavery; now it is over the issue of whether Americans are to be divided by race, gender, sexual orientation and class. This time there is not going to be an actual civil war because the federal government is so powerful that whoever controls it will decide the outcome. The passions of an irreconcilable conflict are still present, but they are channeled into a political confrontation over the executive power.”
“The theory behind “identity politics” is an ideology the political left refers to as “cultural Marxism.” This perspective takes Marx’s view that society is divided into warring classes, and extends it to encompass races, genders, and ethnicities. It is a vision that regards one group’s success as another group’s oppression. “Social Justice” – the proposed remedy for inequality and division – proposes to punish oppressor groups by redistributing their incomes and privileges to the “underrrepresented,” “marginalized” and otherwise oppressed. It is a vision that disregards the accountability of individuals and ascribes to group identities the inequalities that are alleged to be unjust.”
“The left has created a term of art – “people of color” – to promote its collectivist views on ethnicity and race. “People of color” is not grammatical English; we do not refer to “crayons of color” or “televisions of color.” It is a French construction, reflecting the way French people speak (gens de couleur). “People of color” is an invention of ideologues; its purpose is to organize the world into the basic dichotomy of Marxism, oppressors and oppressed.”
“I am convinced that the fault-line in American society is not racial but political, and that the great obstacle to a constructive approach to these issues is a leftist agenda that is hostile to America’s democracy.”
All of the quotations above are from David Horowitz in The Black Book of the American Left; Volume IX: Ruling Ideas. http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/
Examples of hostile communists:
“Whatever eventually happens, Kavanaugh was clearly a smarmy, smirking, entitled and mercenary guy; the odds that he had some kind of skeleton in his closet were pretty good 2/”. Paul KrugmanVerified account @paulkrugman
U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D, California): “Now, I am aware that some people would say that what I just said is plain “identity politics.” But, I have a problem, guys, with that phrase, “identity politics.” ‘Cause let’s be clear, when people say that, it’s a pejorative. That phrase is used to divide and it is used to distract. Its purpose is to minimize and marginalize issues that impact all of us. It is used to try and shut us up. Because, think about — think about when you’ve heard it raised: when we’re talking about race, when we’re talking about gender, when we’re talking about sexual orientation, when we’re talking about civil rights. And, yes, we’re talking about those issues. And we won’t be shut up. And we won’t be silenced. We won’t be silent about immigrant rights. We won’t be silent about a woman’s right to control her own body. We won’t be silence about equal opportunity and equal justice under the law.” https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4743566/kamala-harris-attacks-identity-politics
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” …”I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions,” Sotomayor said. “The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” …”Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. … I am … not so sure that I agree with the statement.”
“In a released statement, Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative nonprofit, said, “Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.” …Previously, we have looked at the issue of Sotomayor’s statement about judges making policy . Here we look at the claim that Sotomayor thinks “that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”
David Horowitz explains, “Americans generally do not think of themselves as racists or oppressors, and there is no reason they should. America was a pioneer in ridding the world of African slavery, and in establishing the first multi-racial society in human history. During the last half-century, Americans have voted equal equal rights to African American citizens and supported massive compensations to African Americans and others who have lagged behind. To be indicted after such efforts is offensive and unjust. The reparations claim can only be understood as a hostile, historically ignorant and racially motivated assault on America and its heritage. Its divisive message and fallacious history can only have a profoundly adverse effect on those African Americans who embrace it, making it impossible for them to see the past clearly, or to find their way to an American future.”
“The present reparations movement in Africa – fully supported by its American counterparts – is thus directed at the very parties who righted the wrong, and did not initiate it in the first place.” (ref 1 p.120)
“Thomas Sowell [an African American history and economics professor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution] has pointed out that the victims of the reparations movement are actually blacks themselves”: “Is anyone made better off by being supplied with resentments and distractions from the task of developing the capabilities that pay off in a booming economy and a high-tech world? Whites may experience a passing annoyance over the reparations issue, but blacks – especially young blacks – can sustain more lasting damage from misallocating their time, attention and efforts.”(2) and (ref 1 p. 124)
The left has determined “…to make race function the way class had in the traditional Marxist paradigm. White males were demonized as an ersatz ruling class responsible for every social disparity between racial groups and genders.” (3)
References:
(1) David Horowitz in The Black Book of the American Left; Volume IX: Ruling Ideas. http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/
(2) Thomas Sowell, “Reparations for Slavery,” Jewish World Review, July 7, 2000. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell071700.asp quoted in reference (1) above on page 124.
(3) David Horowitz in Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes. and ref (1) page 206.
America must rid itself of the neo-con idea that America should “make the world safe for democracy.” This is imperial dogma. America must bring its troops and weapons home and prepare to defend our homeland. All republics have ended by over-extension, by stretching their finite resources to try to further extend their empire. Poland, Hungary, the Czechs and others are and can be great allies in the fight for liberty. The best thing America can do is to teach them to fish for themselves. Russia is NOT the U.S. enemy in this battle. And NATO is NOT a U.S. ally in this battle.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.