Remember I promised that I wouldn’t hurl insults any more? This story tests my resolve:
The Rev. Gretta Vosper is a dynamic, activist minister with a loyal following at her Protestant congregation in suburban Toronto. She is also an outspoken atheist.
“We don’t talk about God,” Vosper said in an interview, describing services at her West Hill United Church, adding that it’s time the church gave up on “the idolatry of a theistic god.”
Some things cry out for a massive hurling of insults. This is one of them. But, I refuse…
Libertarians – there doesn’t seem to be much point to them – their VP candidate is saying that no one is more qualified than Hillary to be President. Allahpundit notes in the article that Governor Weld and Hillary Clinton have been friends since they worked together on the Watergate Committee. Keep in mind that Weld was an allegedly Republican governor – but with that kind of long-term friendship, just what would Weld ever do which would actually stop a Progressive thing from happening?
And that reminds me about the new President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. He’s a bit of an odd fellow. He won the election earlier this year with 39.01% of the vote. There were five major candidates for the office – one was the grandson of a previous President; one picked Ferdinand Marcos’ son as her VP; one was a former Vice President; one was an expatriate who only returned to the country when her father (a failed Presidential candidate) died. No wonder the outsider won. People will put up with Ruling Classes for quite a long time, but after a while as things just get worse and worse, they will turn towards anyone who will mix things up…even if his campaign pledge is to murder drug dealers (a campaign promise he is keeping). Perhaps Trump ends up flaming out – but if we keep getting this same old, same old Ruling Class BS over and over again, eventually the people will turn successfully to someone who will shake things up.
Ace goes on another rant. Quite a good one, too. Ace has some views I don’t agree with – but I’m 100% with him in having nothing but contempt for our “thought leaders” who first diligently surrendered on Conservative issues and now demand everyone help them elect Hillary because Trump says The Bad Words.
Trump is a sure loser! Perhaps. But the House is pretty much safe as it can be for the GOP and the Senate looks ever more likely to retain a GOP majority. The GOP is also crowing about the prospect of increasing their already record-high number of governorships…even Sanders’ Vermont might elect a Republican this year. For the GOP being a dying party, knifed in the back by Trump and his legions, it seems pretty electorally healthy at the State level.
As an aside, early voting in terms of ballot requests seems to favor Hillary in North Carolina, Trump in Florida. Of course, ballot requests are not a 100% predictor – if you’re registered as a Republican and plan to vote for Hillary, for instance, then your ballot request will sill be totaled up with the other Republican ballot requests and ditto for Democrats who are planning to vote Trump. Still, it is worrisome to Team Trump that Hillary seems to be getting a boost in NC…but it must be equally worrisome for Team Hillary that Trump is getting an apparent boost in FL.
The Obama Administration forgot that Jerusalem is in Israel, it would seem.
College kid chooses his pronoun – Your Majesty.
SOGI Laws: A Subversive Response to a Nonexistent Problem
Now is not the time for proponents of religious freedom to partner with proponents of sexual orientation and gender identity legislation in hopes of catching a few crumbs of liberty that fall from the table.
I read your linked article a couple days ago. The first sentence says everything you need to know about the topic:
If this was a two-way street, ie., the Left had a conscience that could be exploited, then ALL Conservatives would have to do is gain control of the courts, and we could give the Left a taste of its own medicine. Unfortunately, most true Liberals I’ve known do not have a conscience. It’s why their primary MO is “the ends justify the means.” But that still leaves us with a couple options.
First, the targeted person/couple/small business must ignore any law suits. They must ignore court summons. They must ignore fines. And when the storm troopers come to arrest them, they can go quietly and hope that enough people do the same to overwhelm the legal system (sort of Cloward-Piven in reverse) or they can go go out in a blaze of glory. Were I faced with such a decision, I believe I’d choose the latter as I don’t want to live in a society where my conscience is surrendered to people who work FOR me.
A second option that wouldn’t require breaking the law or winning back control of any aspect of our social or political structure would be the formation of a Madison Fund, something I would definitely donate to. Whichever direction this issue ends up going, it’s going to require a great deal of sacrifice to overcome, but overcome we must because the survival of our society as we know it hangs in the balance.
Yet “the Rev. Gretta Vosper” shows the need in the human heart for a church, and a minister. She may think she is subverting religion by working under its banner, but when you call yourself a “minister” and your organization a “church” you are acknowledging that this is what people crave, that they are looking for a special relationship with something they know can only be found in a church.
The people who go to whatever “services” she holds at West Hill United Church are still seeking something. They want and need “services” and they have chosen to go to a place identified as a “church” when they could easily have chosen to go to a meeting in a community center. Clearly the words “meeting” and “facilitator” or “leader” don’t meet the emotional needs of those people who know they want and need something and are just not quite sure what it is. But they are drawn to the words “church” and “minister” no matter how much they want to reject the concept of God.
I’m sure there is a little juvenile snickering at the belief that by calling something a “church” and then denying the existence of God they are being bold and darling and brave and irreverent, but still—–seeking out a church and a minister denotes a search for meaning and a relationship with something meaningful, no matter how much the attendees may deny that this means they want a relationship with God.
Note this from the story: “The United Church, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, has begun an extraordinary process that could end up stripping Vosper of her rights to continue as a minister. “
From the church’s web site: http://www.westhill.net/
“A MESSAGE FROM THE SUB-EXECUTIVE OF TORONTO CONFERENCE REGARDING THE REVIEW OF THE REV. GRETTA VOSPER
September 22, 2016 | By Susie Henderson
Background: On Thursday, September 15, 2016, the sub-Executive of Toronto Conference met to receive a report of the review of the Rev. Gretta Vosper and to consider the recommendations contained in the report.
The report from the Conference Interview Committee concluded that Ms. Vosper is not suitable to continue as an ordained minister in The United Church of Canada. The committee did not recommend any form of remediation because Ms. Vosper has been so clear and unequivocal about her beliefs.
The report states:
The Committee read the submissions and listened very carefully to determine whether Ms. Vosper’s beliefs are in essential agreement with the statement of doctrine of the United Church. This is a crucial question asked of all potential ordinands to determine whether they are suitable for ministry within The United Church of Canada.
We have concluded that if Gretta Vosper were before us today, seeking to be ordained, the Toronto Conference Interview Committee would not recommend her. In our opinion, she is not suitable to continue in ordained ministry because she does not believe in God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. Ms. Vosper does not recognize the primacy of scripture, she will not conduct the sacraments, and she is no longer in essential agreement with the statement of doctrine of The United Church of Canada.”
So it looks like a short-lived little thumb in the eye of Christians, without much impact. Some people are circulating a petition to have the Committee’s conclusions overturned, but the facts seem pretty straightforward.
Although…The United States has endured eight years of a president who isn’t that crazy about the country he is supposed to serve.
What made it “shout an insult” worthy thing, though, is that she thought it’d be cool to stay on! While it is impossible to happen, suppose I suddenly decided that the Catholic Church was fundamentally wrong…I wouldn’t stick around! For goodness sake, you either believe something, or you don’t…and if you don’t, why be there? Geesh!
Grrrrr…growl….hate living in the Age of Stupid…
Well here it is folks, The False Promise of Socialism as defined by Queen Hillary:
We should all be really understanding of that and should try to do the best we can not to be, you know, a wet blanket on idealism. We want people to be idealistic. We want them to set big goals… But those of us who understand this, who’ve worked in it know that it’s a false promise. But I don’t think you tell idealistic people, particularly young people that they’ve bought into a false promise.
This speech was given at a gathering of well to do’s in Virginia and the entire article is a must read. I hope the Trump team jumps on this, and makes it clear that while Democrats promise the moon, they know they can’t deliver.
Cluster, two paragraphs jumped out at me:
I can only imagine what Hillary said in those Wall Street speeches of course with the help of the media, none of us will ever know. Also, let’s not forget what Bill Clinton said of Obama back in 2008, that “just a few short years ago, he would have been carrying our bags”.
This would be an excellent thing for Trump to bring up if Hillary tries to get that “birther/racism” thing going again. “Was it racist when Sidney Blumenthal started the whole line of questioning about where Obama was born, and actually sent someone to Kenya to see what he could find? For that matter, was Bill Clinton being racist when he said that “just a few short years ago, (Obama) would have been carrying our bags”? It’s the responsibility of citizens to do what we can to make sure anyone running for office is legally qualified, and that doesn’t have anything to do with race. That’s just being smart.”
No matter what issue you pick, this is the kind of dishonesty we’re up against.
I’m glad the media is finally alerting the public to the most pressing issue facing this country: Whether Donald Trump called a chubby woman “Miss Piggy” twenty years ago.
And you all thought the press was dead.
If you want to know how dead, read Spook’s link.
In all seriousness though, what a bad week for Trump. He’s got to stop getting snookered into these ridiculous squabbles. If he doesn’t buckle down, stay on message, and properly prep for the next debates he deserves to lose. If he does all those things I think he wins.
As I said—take away his computer, install parental controls, make him wear mittens. Maybe a shock collar. Something.
So the guy you want to have run the United States needs parental controls and mittens, such is his lack of focus and self-control?
If that is the cost of keeping the Clinton Crime Family from occupying the White House, then 100% YES.
I wouldn’t put it that way Bob, but what’s your alternative?
The last time I saw an “alternative” from Bob it was to turn over everything to Hillary and instead wait out “a few election cycles” till some party that gets more than 15% of the vote can build itself up to take on the Big Two.
He’s been interested in the Libertarians. Here’s a take on them and on Gary Johnson, from NR, obviously not Trump fans so they seem pretty objective here. (emphasis mine)
“Some argue that one has a moral duty to vote for a candidate on the ballot rather than write in a name. Johnson will be on the ballot in all fifty states, but his participation in the general election will be no more sincere than his effort four years ago to secure the Republican nomination. Rather, he has repeatedly used the electoral process to enhance his personal standing and now seeks to use it to build a patronage machine. He claims that the machine pursues libertarian ends, but it does not restrict itself to them and has never achieved them.
Not only does Johnson’s faction seek the anti-libertarian objective of public campaign funding, but it tilts elections to Democrats. The potential negative impact of the Libertarian party can be clearly seen in the election for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008. Al Franken beat Norm Coleman by 215 votes, with the Libertarian party netting 13,916 votes for a candidate focused on economic issues, particularly drilling. A little more than a year later, Obamacare passed with 60 votes, Franken providing the 60th. With public funds and a professional ground game diverting votes, who knows what Congress might pass?”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives
But really, who cares, folks? It’s time to back away and work at building that 15% and beyond. What’s a “few election cycles” to a nation already on the brink? Instead of voting for one guy who’s not quite conservative and might be an idiot, well, let’s vote for another guy who’s not quite conservative and might be an idiot—and then let a crook step into the breach. It’s time for a bold move, and in this case that means boldly moving backward. Yayyyyy Libertarians!!
For hard line conservatives such as yourselves I think this election is a bitter pill. But I would think it’s better to just accept the change and rebranding Trump brings to your party and move on from there. There’s still the House and Senate to think about.
One thing that has been hard for me has been the need to get off my soapbox about “Identity Politics” and “Personality Politics” because Trump’s personality and identity just rub me the wrong way. Creep me out, to be quite blunt. But if I am going to practice what I preach, I have to step away from that and look at pure politics.
Yes, he is a loose cannon—but that goes back to a great extent to that Personality thing. Yes, his history has not been one of conservative politics. However, I don’t think it was necessarily Liberal politics, either, not from an ideological point of view. I think he did what he had to do to get along, get what he needed to get what he wanted.
I’ve come to think that if you want to define Trump, he is someone who, when focused on a goal, is totally focused on that goal. For thirty years or so that goal has been to get ahead in business. His approach has worked pretty well in that arena, and when it didn’t he could shrug it off and accept the losses. Now he has a completely different goal, which is to be a conservative president of the United States, and I think he will probably be focused on doing that very thing. What we are seeing now is the learning curve as it is starting to sink in (I hope) that what worked in his old arena will sink him in this one. He’s got to overcome thirty or more years of tactics and techniques that got him where he is today, and while he is smart I don’t think he is very, shall we say, nimble when it comes to changing old habits.
I don’t think we can or at least should conflate his blunders with his commitment to this goal. I may be wrong, but at this point there aren’t many choices so I am hoping I am not. I am hoping that his blunders are superficial, though a canny Left can certainly blow them up if he doesn’t catch on pretty quickly. But they are blunders of style, not substance. Sadly, most American voters don’t know the difference, so they could be fatal as far as election chances go, but they bother me only in that they might get in the way of him being elected. Aside from that I don’t think they mean anything.
And BTW, one of my fondest hopes and goals is to avoid having the Conservative Movement “rebranded” because of Trump’s nomination. He is the GOP nominee, not the Conservative nominee, and believe me, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that will start to move along after the election to position true conservatism in spite of the spinelessness of the GOP elites.
There is no alternative. Hillary is going to be elected President. Conservatives WILL be out of the next few election cycles, whether I like it or not.
I’m not going to place a vote antithetical to all my political views just to see that concession be for no reason. Maybe I’d concede my vote if Trump could win but he can’t.
He still might – but I’m looking at it like this: we need a Conservative Long March through the Institutions to undo the Progressive Long March. That means swallowing our pride and putting up with lots of stuff we don’t like…if we could but get two or three Under-Secretaries who are our guys, it’s long-term worth it. You see, it isn’t the President who really sets day to day policy. Neither does Congress or the Supreme Court. Fundamentally, because they government is so large, real policy is made at the Under-Secretary level and below…it is those people who decide how laws, court judgements and executive orders are to be applied. To be sure, if Congress, the Courts or the President take a direct interest in a particular thing, they can force action…but almost always, they just leave is to the lower-level people to figure it out. The Progressives have essentially taken over the bureaucracy so that no matter who is in charge, their ideas get advanced…so, let’s start putting some of our guys in there. An Under-Secretary can not only write the regs that enforce the law/order/judgement but they can also hire and promote people…and hiring and promoting bright, young Conservatives into the bureaucracy will go a long way towards our goals.
Ama, his blunders are indeed superficial but they may prove to be critical at this late stage of the game with a hostile media against him. He simply must overcome his need to respond to every personal slight and get back to hammering home his populist message. I’m sure there are people around him advising him of this. Are they free to speak and criticize him? Will he take their advice and discipline himself to stay on message? We’ll see. But I think he hasn’t been doing himself a lot of favors lately, and I must say I think a good president is one who can humble himself to listen and follow solid advice and strategy from his chosen team of experts. This is especially true of Trump, who isn’t exactly a scholar concerning the nuances of politics and world events.
Bob, I think your certainty of Trumps defeat is entirely unwarranted. The odds are looking that way at the moment but this is a crazy election cycle with major swings. There may be some October surprise which damages Hillary. As we’ve seen before, Trump is likely to adapt and dial in a strong debate performance or two. And traditional polling has been very flawed for a season or two.
Ok, I will be sure to vote for whatever Undersecretaries appear on my ballot.
Mark, you make an excellent point. The president doesn’t have that much to do with the day to day running of the nation. We would like to see the size as well as scope of the bureaucracy drastically reduced, but that is a long-term goal, and having the right people in what is essentially upper and middle management is key to getting things done in the meantime.
You are also right about needing a long range plan, but I don’t have high hopes for that, as we can’t even get a grip on basic messaging in the short term. People still don’t know what “conservative” means.
Yep – including, as we’ve discovered, plenty of Conservatives. I’m, of course, a bit of an odd duck, being Distributist, and all. But the fundamentals of Conservatism are pretty straightforward and a Distributist and a Capitalist can hold to them…
Yesterday during another Twitter rant I got a sub-tweet from a Trump fan who was convinced that Trump would do the primary Conservative thing of securing the border. I had to remind that the primary Conservative thing is actually defending the family. Next after that is defending property rights. Border security comes under the general rubric of Rule of Law…and if we have the tightest border imaginable but still have, say, senior execs of a major bank being let off because indicting them would “roil the markets”, then we really haven’t got anywhere. And Rule of Law is, in my view, the third most important thing for a Conservative to demand – because whatever protections we make for family and property aren’t worth a darn if the laws regarding such are not respected.
Al Franken beat Norm Coleman by 215 votes, with the Libertarian party netting 13,916 votes
What was the vote spread in Florida in 2000?
How many smugly “principled” people will it take to lose this election?
Mark, you make some good points, but your examples are still examples of conservative issues not Conservative governance.
Well, well, well, in one weekend the corpulent Press came up with two devastating hits on Trump.
Folks, they are never gonna let Trump up to breathe. They will relentlessly work until Hillary is elected. Election day is a month away but the die, it is already cast.
Obama and his merry band of progressives are now creating another group of victims, called MENA’s:
On Friday, the White House Office of Management and Budget advanced the proposal with a notice in the Federal Register, seeking comments on whether to add Middle Eastern and North African as a separate racial or ethnic category, which groups would be included, and what it should be called.
Under the proposal, the new Middle East and North African designation – or MENA, as it’s called by population scholars – is broader in concept than Arab (an ethnicity) or Muslim (a religion). It would include anyone from a region of the world stretching from Morocco to Iran, and including Syrian and Coptic Christians, Israeli Jews and other religious minorities.
I love the term “population scholars” – obviously a graduate level study at those Ivy League institutions where only the properly educated can see the nuance in race and ethnicity. The insanity of progressivism marches on.
Just what we needed. A NEW way to divide races. Thanks, Bojama.
Swell. A whole new racial category who will be eligible for government contract set asides and affirmative action to be funded by “privileged” Americans.
When President Barack Obama made his case to the American people for Obamacare, he promised that it would both lower health insurance premiums and not add to the national debt.
Neither has been true.
One way Obamacare has been adding to the deficit is through illegal bailouts of insurance companies operating Obamacare plans through the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Government Accountability Office highlighted one bailout scheme last week when it released a report finding that since 2014, HHS has been illegally sending billions of “reinsurance” fees to insurance companies instead of sending those dollars to the United States Treasury where they belong.
But that isn’t the only way the Obama administration is plotting to illegally funnel your money to insurance companies.
Mike Lee, John Barrasso, Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse are asking the DOJ and HHS to stop this latest illegal bailout. Barrasso is a doctor in Wyoming and has been described as the smartest man in the Senate, and here he is in good company. BTW, in addition to these guys joining to make this appeal, I see this as a harbinger of a coalescing of Conservative Senators.
At the risk of stirring up yet more outrage at the idea of a conflict between issues and governance, there is a very good article that links to a longer and more in-depth analysis of the same topic. I think this is really important to understand.
Americans should know about Rawls, because the way he would have us approach politics has been widely adopted, particularly by those on the left but also—often unwittingly—by many on the right. His influence has less to do with particular policies than it does with a systematic way of viewing constitutional government.
Though Rawls’ desire to preserve the principles of liberty and equality may at first blush remind us of the Declaration of Independence, in reality Rawls saw freedom as being good only to the extent that it does not lead to great inequalities of opportunity and wealth. This general approach has become popular in the academy and politics alike.
How do you give people freedom but prevent it from leading to unequal conditions? The answer is: The government, and specifically the judiciary, must take up the job of protecting those it feels are being treated unfairly.
In order for the judiciary to protect those it perceives as underprivileged, it has to view people not as Americans or individuals with rights, but as subgroups with particular identities associated with their race, class, or gender. In this way Rawls’ theory encourages identity politics, especially on the part of judges.
Rawls also asked the Supreme Court to base its decisions on the principle of justice as fairness for all, rather than the written text of the Constitution. This becomes important in reviewing legislation.
Normally, if the court is asked to decide whether a law is constitutional it looks to the specific powers listed in the Constitution. Rawls asked that it decide instead whether the law is motivated by a sincere desire to make things more equal and fair.”
From the longer article:
From the standpoint of the Founders, then, minority groups in danger of being harmed by unjust and discriminatory laws are to be protected by the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the institutional design of the Constitution. The principles make clear that all people, regardless of the group or groups with which they identify, possess rights that not only are to be respected, but also are to be protected by the government on an equal basis. These principles were appealed to by Abraham Lincoln to fight the spread of slavery and by Martin Luther King to oppose unjust discriminatory laws.
Added to these ideals and safeguards is the Bill of Rights, which was meant to ensure all individuals’ fundamental liberties and guarantee their access to a fair trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes plain the requirement of states also to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of all citizens. All citizens are assured as individuals the equal protection of law. This is the premise of American constitutional government (albeit one that America has not always embodied in practice).
Moving from a situation in which the government protects individual rights to one in which it grants groups political leverage undercuts the character of America’s Constitution. Moreover, this threatens to strengthen people’s affections for an abstract group rather than for their particular communities. Identity politics, exacerbated by Rawls’s idea of the original position, is thus a threat both to individual liberty and to the common good of the regime as a whole.”
There was an interesting development in American sports retail yesterday. Bass Pro shops bought out rival Cabela’s for $4.5 billion (not counting an addition $1 billion in debt). The most interesting aspect of the deal was not that one giant sports retailer bought out another, but how each got started.
This, my friends, is how American entrepreneurism creates wealth and jobs.
You can add Duck Dynasty to that list of American entrepreneurism success stories. I don’t watch the show so I don’t know the characters, but I once heard or read how the company got its product sold by Wal Marts. The partner took some duck calls to a local Wal Mart and convinced the manager to carry them. Then he did the same thing with other Wal Mart stores, personally carrying and selling his product to one store after another, until it finally came to the attention of the national buyer that some stores were selling this product. The national manager called the partner and was astounded to hear that he had just been going from store to store promoting his product, and placed orders for the duck calls to be carried in all the Wal Marts in the country.
A dream, a product, determination and a ton of very hard work, the secrets of the success of so many American businesses.
I believe Apple Computer Corp, and HP famously started in garages and Microsoft started in an adult motel in Albuquerque. Those companies have found some measure of success.
America is the greatest nation ever, creating more great products and providing more wealth for its people than any nation ever.
America is the greatest nation ever, creating more great products and providing more wealth for its people than any nation ever.
That is why we need to protect her, and unfortunately Trump is the only one who we can currently hang our hat on to do that.
An “adult” motel? Since when does “cheap” equate to being an “adult motel”? Or did you just mean the building was more than 18 years old?
“The cheap Albuquerque, New Mexico motel that Bill Gates and Paul Allen called home in the early days of Microsoft now has a new life as affordable housing.
The future billionaires checked into the Sundowner Hotel in 1975, the same year they founded Microsoft, but the once popular motor hotel was by then just a shadow of its former glory.
The motel officially closed five years ago when it was overtaken by squatters, prostitutes and drug users.”
Bill Gates described it as a place that could be rented by the hour in his book “The Road Ahead,” which I took to mean an adult motel. Maybe I read too much into that very minor point.
You are hanging your hat on a rack that is not there. Trump cannot win
The Press will never let him. Have you not noticed the cover of Newsweek? How about the NYT re: taxes. Hell, even Wikileaks Rick-rolled him in the same way he had Rick-rolled the Press a few weeks ago. Everyone is piling on Trump and giving Grandma Nixon a pass.
The die is cast
(I coined that phrase, which is why I repeat it)
(ok, maybe I didn’t create it but it is applicable to my point, so’s I’m using it.)
You do remember Brexit right? I am not saying you’re wrong, but I am pointing out that you are echoing the same sentiments the establishment in Britain believed. And they were the ones who were “rick-rolled”.
Yes, Brexit. And, once, a horse with 100-to-1 odds came in for the win.
Alia jacta est.
(I translated my original phrase that I totally made up into Latin, to be pretentious)
On the other hand, I have liked having both Bass Pro and Cabela’s as sources for my various outdoorsy needs. The Bass Pro up in Denver is an amazing store, and I think its facade is the facade of the sporting goods store in the show “Last Man Standing”. A show about a conservative, in Denver, featuring my favorite storefront—what’s not to like?
Here’s an interesting article with the following excerpt:
“The backlash against globalization is manifesting itself in increased nationalistic sentiment, against the outside world and in favor of increasing isolation,” said Louis Kuijs, head of Asia economics at Oxford Economics in Hong Kong and a former IMF official. “If we lose consensus on what kind of a world we want to have, the world will probably be worse off.”
The global push by our political and media elite in coordination with the UN and the world elite is the antithesis of capitalism and entrepreneurialism, and instead places wealth and power into the hands of well connected bureaucrats who will regulate the economy to the point that stories like Cabella’s and Bass Pro Shops will cease to exist.
And of course the focus is not on what kind of country we want, but on what kind of WORLD we want. How about a world with many different countries, where different peoples have reached different conclusions about what kind of country they want, a world in which people then have the choice of which kind of country call home? How about a vibrant world in which different nations have different cultures and identities? What about a world in which any given nation can decide what is important to it and its people? What about that scenario would mean “the world is worse off”?
Worse off from a totalitarian, egalitarian, characterless point of view, where every nation is just like every other nation and all people are the same, I guess. But from a human point of view, one which values the individual, it sounds pretty darned good to me.
And how does this smushing together of national identities comply with this whole DIVERSITY religion being preached by the Left? Like all other Leftist schemes, it creates an elite class which rules over a massive faceless voiceless population with few choices.
And of course the focus is not on what kind of country we want, but on what kind of WORLD we want.
Exactly. There is a real global push right now but on the heels of Brexit and the Trump wave, the elite are worried. The UN and George Soros vision of a borderless world and a centralized authority is being threatened, and in my opinion, I think Barack Obama sees himself as the head of a newly created world authority. Kind of a UN on steroids with more power.
Note the wording of the former IMF official—-the negative spin implied by the use of the word “isolation”. I haven’t seen anything indicating a desire for “isolation” in nationalistic sentiment, just one for individualism, national IDENTITY and self government.
All, of course, are anathema to the Left’s goal of world dominance.
Have you ever wondered just exactly what it is that drives movements like Climate Change?
It’s really nothing more than a convoluted redistribution of wealth scheme.
You seldom if ever hear the solar panel people talk about downstream issues with the panels. There are the ongoing maintenance, the failure rates due to sand scouring or vibrational damage from wind, the need to keep them clean, and the problems of matching output with need based on the hours of production vs the hours of maximum use. There’s been talk about the environmental impact of producing them in the first place, though this doesn’t seem to be addressed by the proponents. But what about dealing with the panels when they are just worn out?
“in my home country of France alone, 500 megawatts of solar panels are installed every year, representing 50,000 tons of potential future waste. In Europe as a whole, four million tons of panels are installed.
It is possible, through innovative technologies still being developed, to recycle more than 90 percent of a solar panel. But, given the volatility in the value of the resulting raw materials, this is a high-risk sector to develop, and research and development is lacking. Basic recycling schemes do exist, but often focus on two valuable components — the glass and aluminum frame, for instance — and discard the rest, including silver, silicon and tin, because it is not yet cost-effective to recycle them.”
Just like so many Leftist schemes, when you peel away the superficial layers that offer so much emotional gratification, you find things that are real problems. In this case, “green” isn’t really so green after all. And what about the cost of recycling? Is that factored into the cost of use?
The problem is much the same with wind turbines. There is currently no program for recycling the blades, and the cost to recycle the tower and the turbine is about the same as the scrap value of the materials. In our area in Northeastern Indiana we recently fought off an attempt to install a medium size wind farm. The clincher was when the county council passed a requirement that the company agree to remove the towers/turbines when they reached the end of their useful life.
The climate change folks are nuts but I’m sorry, a lawsuit (anyone can sue anyone for anything) filed by a blog editor claiming a TRILLION dollars a years was to be skimmed by Ceres, Ford, etc. doesn’t sound like a promising place to hang my hat.
How would a trillion dollars a year could possible get siphoned (by Ceres alone, God knows how much from the other defendants) from the U.S. economy without notice? Billions may get lost without notice but not a trillion a year.
I like DefyCCC.com’s moxie but they are tilting at windmills.
* “How would a trillion dollars a year could possible get siphoned”
I suck with words, lol. You know what I wuz trying to say…
“Siphoned” does not mean “lost”. It just means moved from one place to another. The issue is not that the money disappears, it is that it is moved into various accounts due to various frauds. The issue is not where the money is but how and why it got there.
Bob, I think you need to reassess your opinion on “climate change folks” as being nuts. The great environmentalist Leo DiCaprio has come down from the bow of his luxury yacht and proclaimed that the argument is over.
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio sat on the White House lawn on Oct. 3, and proclaimed that anyone who doesn’t not believe in climate change “should not be allowed to hold public office. The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over, if you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office,”
I am always impressed by the smug pomposity of those whose only talents in life consist of pretending to be other people.
Well, according to the suit (at least, according to the article about the suit) it is claimed that “attempted embezzlement of $18 Trillion from pension funds,” so “siphoned” is probably more on the mark than “moved.”
So, the lawsuit alleges (maybe) that a trillion dollars a year would be “moved” from pension funds or government coffers or whatever without notice? For 36 years?
C’mon, the lawsuit is crap. Lovely crap, but crap still.
As regards DeCaprio, whatever. He is welcome to his opinion and he is welcome to voice it whenever he likes. Murica! I disagree with his opinion. Who cares?
Looks like the posting genie placed this at the end of the thread instead of replying to Amazona’s post.
It was a joke Bob, but don’t you find it a little more than ironic that the people who claim to be all for the science, want to shut the scientific process down?
If, by “ironic,” you mean “repulsive,” then yes I do.
I am so glad I am not at that VP debate. I would march up that stage and shake Mike Pence till his pants fray, and tell him to man up and quit being Kaine’s bitch. Kaine lies, over and over, saying things like “Donald Trump said Mexicans are rapists and women are pigs” and Pence just sits there.
As for the “moderator”, when will we learn? We just got another shill for the Left.
Social media consensus is that Pence won it in a walk over, however…I guess Kaine is just such a jerk that people took an instant dislike to him.
I never knew much about Kaine before and definitely want to know less now. He’s a rude and creepy little man. Pence did well, came across as sincere and knowledgeable, I only wish Trump could do as well.
Hopefully Trump was watching closely…and Tweet of the night from Stephen Miller (@redsteeze):
Never knew much about either other than the bare bones of their biographies – but Pence did come off, in the small bits I watched, as a very decent, thoughtful man while Kaine was just a jerk.
And here’s the Tweet to your point – from Dr. Milton Wolf (@MiltonWolfMD):
I agree with all of this.
I decided to go to Netflix and watch a few episodes of The Ranch. Not a bad idea—-got to see full rearal nudity of Ashton Kucher and the set of the show is really authentically ranchy.
I was completely turned off by Kaine and while I was watching my show it occurred to me that his general nastiness is probably no surprise and it may have been a strategy to let him bellow and interrupt and attack and let Pence be the good guy. I was amazed at the sniping pettiness of Kaine. What an ass. He and Hillary between the two of them can’t come up with a teaspoon full of likability.
Even so, I was really wanting Pence to just step up and say “You know as well as I do that Donald Trump never said WOMEN are pigs, and he never said all Mexicans are rapists. Do you plan to just lie your way through the whole debate? “
I saw Pence speak at CPAC 2010 and was galvanized. He was so powerful, and so charismatic, he stole the show. I’m not seeing that energy now, but I still remember it, and would like to see him catch fire again.