— Larry Elder (@larryelder) February 3, 2017
“At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming.”
By Marc Morano:
WASHINGTON, DC — A climate of change! Perhaps the most stark contrast between the Obama administration and the Trump administration is on “global warming”. The climate differences were visible today as the White House website was scrubbed of all references to “climate change” at exactly noon today just as President Donald Trump was sworn in.
Climate Depot statement: “Climate skeptics are thrilled that one of the very first visible changes of the transition of power between President Obama and President Trump is the booting of “climate change” from the White House website. Trump is truly going to make science great again and reject the notion that humans are the control knob of the climate and UN treaties and EPA regulations can somehow regulate temperature and storminess. Welcome to the era of sound science! Read the rest HERE.
— Dave Markowitz (@davemarkowitz) August 15, 2016
Hat tip: twitchy.com
Conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza takes questions from a persistent freshman at Amherst College and expertly sets him straight about white privilege. After all, the young man is there for an education.
According to Wikipedia, Amherst College is a private liberal arts college located in Amherst, Massachusetts. It is an exclusively undergraduate four-year institution and enrolled 1,792 students in the fall of 2014. As you will see in the video below, the operative word in its description is liberal.
Barack Obama burned thousands of gallons of jet fuel on Air Force One as he traveled to Alaska to lecture the nation once again about climate change. Just before he left, and just for good measure, he renamed America’s tallest mountain. First, some history: In 1896, William Dickey, a New Hampshire gold prospector in Alaska, named the peak for William McKinley, who supported the gold standard and had just won the Republican nomination for president. Never mind that the Athabascan people called the mountain Denali for thousands of years prior. The name change wasn’t official, however, until 1917, when Congress designated the surrounding area as a national park. And McKinley’s Ohio roots meant he had an important delegation in Washington telling Alaskans what to call their mountain. The Alaskan delegation to Congress introduced legislation in February to change the name to Denali, but it was doubtful to overcome the opposition of Ohioans. (Ain’t our republic grand?) In 1980, the surrounding national park was renamed Denali, but the mountain kept its name — until Obama said otherwise. In announcing the change, the Obama Interior Department said, “In changing the name from Mount McKinley to Denali, we intend no disrespect to the legacy of President McKinley. We are simply reflecting the desire of most Alaskans to have an authentically Alaskan name for this iconic Alaskan feature.” If only the Obama administration showed such deference to states in more important matters. Perhaps he only wanted to tweak John Boehner one more time. Or perhaps he thought it was his destiny to rename the mountain because Denali is an Athabascan word meaning “the great one.” What’s Athabascan for “narcissism”? This first appeared at thepatriotpostus.
So Pres Obama can see first hand the Global Warming damage in Alaska this week, the round trip will only take 42,750 gallons of jet fuel.
— WH PRESS SECRETARY (@weknowwhatsbest) August 31, 2015
A partial transcript of the video: “We have a long way to go but I still believe in our system of justice and in the end justice will prevail. She doesn’t get the final say in this. She knows she’s not going to be able to prove all these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. This is George Zimmerman and the Duke lacrosse case all over again. A politically active district attorney or state’s attorney; You can tell the emotion in her voice. She almost did this with glee and that’s why I believe like they do when I say they, the officers union and the attorney that we just heard from. She needs to remove herself from this case. I hope this state’s attorney general gets involved in this and sees the error of her ways. The smart thing for her to do is to recuse herself and name a special prosecutor.”
On Thursday, Fox News reporter Leland Vittert confrontated Al Sharpton and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. He asked the officers who were present why they were protecting the mayor from simple questions, and not protecting businesses from rioters.
Post continues below video.
On Monday, Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., penned an open letter to the mayor, admonishing her for coddling the rioters. Alveda King get’s it:
My dear Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.
Your invitation to “give space for those who want to destroy” is unbelievable. This interpretation of rights to free speech is dangerous Ma’am.
In 1963, my father Rev. AD King, after the firebombing of our home in Birmingham, Alabama, urged hostile protestors to abandon violence and turn to God in prayer instead. Thank God they listened to him, and the even greater voice of his brother, my Uncle MLK, during those turbulent days.
Now, you are inviting violence to your city? Who, Ma’am, will incur the moral and economic costs of picking up the pieces? The innocent taxpayers?
We at www.restorethedream2015.com are very concerned. Ma’am, people are not entitled to pillage and destroy. That is just plain wrong. Our affiliates on the ground in Baltimore are willing to help quell the violent tide. And make no mistake about it; something must be done to save our cities.
How did we get here? Where do we go now? Think about this: Baltimore 1965 vs. Baltimore 2015, compare and contrast:
1. Money spent on public schools then vs. now.
2. Amount spent on social welfare payments then vs. now.
3. The size of Government Bureaucracy then vs. now.
4. The number of black elected officials then vs. now.
5. Number of black children born in Baltimore to an intact nuclear family.
6. Number of Black lives MIA by abortion and incarceration.
If you look at all six questions/comparisons what you will see is the only statistics to have decreased (1965 to 2015) is the number of black children born in intact nuclear families.
Something is wrong. We must stop the killing and advance the healing now!
DIVORCE AGREEMENT – WRITTEN BY YOUNG COLLEGE STUDENT
First published May 28th, 2012 – 30 star rating. The person that wrote this is a college student. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
–Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
–We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.
–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.
–We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood
–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
–You can have the peaceniks and Occupiers. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.
–We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
–We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
–You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
–We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”
–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.
–We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.
read more at teapartytribune.com.
Hat tip: JC
For those who may still be unsure about the whole Net – Neutrality issue or just want more information to solidify that it is a terrible thing, please click on the link below for a great article about PRIVATE PROPERTY and Government control. It is a little long but very worth while. As a matter of fact, please forward it on to your email lists.
By Raymond C. Niles-
Net neutrality advocates such as Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig liken the Internet to a “commons”—to “public property,” akin to state-owned highways and municipal parks. They call for the Internet to be treated as if it were “public property,” managed by the government in accordance with the “public welfare.” On these grounds, they advocate that the Internet remain a “neutral platform” where “the network owner can’t discriminate against some [data] packets while favoring others.” Plainly stated, net neutrality is the idea that the Internet is “public property”; thus, the government must ensure that online content is delivered in a “neutral,” non-preferential fashion.
But delivered by whom? To hold that the Internet is a “commons” or “public property” is to evade its actual nature; the Internet is a network of privately owned personal computers, servers, and cable. Ignoring this fact and pretending to themselves that the Internet is “public property,” proponents of net neutrality seek government control over private property—specifically that of Internet service providers.
In order to achieve net neutrality, its advocates hold that the Internet must remain, as they put it, a “stupid network,” meaning unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content.11 But because data is transmitted through the private property of ISPs—the expensive cables, computers, and other infrastructure that make the Internet possible—what they actually advocate is denying ISPs the right to manage their own property. The “stupid” Internet that net neutrality advocates desire is one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain largely passive with regard to how data flows through their lines and over their networks. An ISP’s role, according to net neutrality advocates, is to pay for and then provide a “stupid network” of “dumb pipe” (i.e., bandwidth capacity) to customers, who can use it however they please.12 Fearing the decisions that ISPs might make with respect to their own property, net neutrality advocates seek to impose their conception of how the Internet should work—via government force.
In essence, beneath their calls to preserve “economic innovation” and “free speech online,” net neutrality proponents advocate government control of the privately owned infrastructure that makes the Internet possible. To what types of controls will adherence to net neutrality lead, and how will these affect Internet service providers and their customers?
Unions: The more things change, the more they stay the same. “We’re trying to use the power of persuasion, and if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the use the persuasion of power.” – Andy Stern, President of SEIU.
By D.J Biers, December 19th, 2014
Three more members of Ironworkers Local 401 in Philadelphia pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges of conspiracy, extortion, and racketeering in an ongoing RICO case against the labor union. They join eight others who have pleaded guilty in recent months to charges related to arson, sabotage, and violent intimidation of contractors who used non-union labor.
Ironworkers 401 is a large and influential union, responsible for constructing many of Philadelphia’s landmarks, such as Lincoln Financial Field, the Eagle’s football stadium, and the Comcast Center, the city’s tallest building. But this year has brought a series of indictments and revelations that continue to produce serious fallout for the labor group and its allies.
The latest hit came on Tuesday, when union member Richard Ritchie and business agents William O’Donnell and Christopher Prophet entered plea agreements admitting to their role in a conspiracy to coerce non-union construction sites into using “unwanted, unnecessary, and superfluous union labor.” Read more at breitbart.com.
Note in the above video clip, that while Obama is talking about not smashing car windows, etc., the mob in Ferguson is trashing a police car.
Obama just gave his response to the grand jury saying Wilson has violated no law. His response was infuriating, typical, and race baiting just like usual. At one point, he even said he wants to “seize the moment” to push his racial agenda.
Barack Obama is the Divider in Chief. His goal is to divide Americans to keep some demographics strong for the Democrat party for political gain. It’s a typical liberal strategy and it’s sickening.
Let’s look at the points he made:
1. Refused to Say Wilson’s Name.
Perhaps the first sign it was going to be a racially dividing speech was the first few sentences when he refused to mention Officer Wilson by name. Instead, he referred to it as the ruling regarding the death of Michael Brown.
2. Brought Up the “Rule of Law.”
Really? Really, you total fraud?
3. Used Dramatic Language to Describe Protesters.
He said, “There are Americans who agree with it and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry.” Note the different tone he uses describing both groups. It’s obvious that Obama is against Wilson.
4. Said He “Joins” Michael Brown’s Family.
Obama literally said, “I Join Michael Brown’s Family.” This was completely unnecessary and wrong. Instead of simply calling for peace, he wants to make it clear which side he’s on. This is NOT a federal issue, but of course, he couldn’t care less.
Read more at conservative tribune.com. (Includes video of Obama’s full nine and one half minute statement)
I have been a Washington Redskins fan for more years than I care to remember although I thank God every day that I still have the mental capacity to do so. Therefore, one might say that I’m biased and that I can’t speak objectively on this topic – NOT TRUE. These heavy handed and so-called politically correct attempts to get the ‘Skins to change their team name have nothing to do with football, but rather they are an example of an out of control government once again putting its boot on the throats of We the People. And like the obstinate and spoiled child that it is, the more it gets away with, the more it attempts. And the more it attempts, the more it gets away with – ADB
RedState.com: The Washington Redskins have had their trademark yanked by the US Patent and Trademark Office because white liberals who feel guilty about their privilege were offended.
That is the actual fact. Most American Indians . . . errrr . . . Native Americans could care less. In fact, on Indian Reservations around the country there are kids’ sports teams called the Redskins.
The logo itself had the collaboration of Indians at its conception.
What is really going on here is that a bunch of overeducated white guys who cry during Love Actually feel they have too much privilege and are thus guilty. So they have gone out and found things to be offended about on behalf of others less privileged than themselves. Continue reading at redstate.com.