► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Bill Whittle: Obama’s black skin privilege

by 1389AD ( 13 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Political Correctness, Racism at December 12th, 2014 - 3:30 pm

On YouTube:

Published on Dec 5, 2014 TruthRevoltOriginals
Everyone knows it is true, and no one has the courage to say it. The American people are letting Barack Obama destroy this country through illegal executive orders for one reason and one reason only. In his latest FIREWALL, Bill Whittle has the courage to speak out and make the case that no one else will make.

TruthRevolt has the transcript.

Anonymous supporter attacks a Fox News camera

by Rodan ( 213 Comments › )
Filed under Fascism, Politics at November 25th, 2014 - 9:22 pm

Last night’s riots in Ferguson was the result of an alliance of various groups. One of the main organizers of the disturbances was the online Anarchist group Anonymous. They ordered a general mobilization of their supporters and helped to coordinate the various protests across the country. In Ferguson, the Anonymous supporters wore Guy Fawkes masks and were at the forefront of the riots. They even attacked a Fox News camera!

Update: Here is another Anonymous rioter standing outside a looted store.

Anonymous Ferguson

The protestors and rioters are really an eclectic mix of Leftists and Rightists who have jumped on the Michael Brown situation to further their own pet causes. The media is not reporting this because they want a racial angle, when clearly this has evolved beyond race.

MULTICULTURALISM? …first define “culture”

by 1389AD ( 137 Comments › )
Filed under immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness at November 20th, 2014 - 5:00 pm
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Harry Richardson at The Pickering Post has the story:

All of today’s Australians (even the Aboriginal people) are either migrants, or descended from people who migrated here from overseas. From the founding of the modern Australian State at Federation, until the early 1970’s, the basis of our immigration policy was more or less the same as that of the United States.

This was articulated clearly in the following letter from Theodore Roosevelt to the American Defense Society:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here.

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

This policy worked because our earliest immigrants worked hard to become Australians. The great majority were from Europe and the UK, whose cultures were quite similar to ours. Cultural harmony is no problem with harmonious cultures. Children of immigrants were almost indistinguishable from their school mates.

These immigrants turned Australia into one of the most prosperous and successful countries in the world. Sometime between the early 1970s and the early 1990s however, every “Western” nation around the world (excluding wealthy “non Western” countries such as Japan) decided to implement a previously unheard of doctrine known as multiculturalism.

In Australia, this policy was introduced in 1973 by controversial Whitlam Minister and suspected Mafia collaborator Al Grassby. The public was never consulted about this policy, and the concept of “culture” was never defined.

If you have ever been to a “cultural” festival or celebration, you would most likely have found it full of exotic spicy foods, ethnic people doing lively, interesting dances and wearing unusual and brightly coloured clothing. When we hear the term “culture,” these days, this is what immediately springs to mind.

If this were all that was meant by the term “culture,” then a multicultural human society might exist in peace and harmony. What is there NOT to like about that?

However, the flaws in this policy come into stark relief when we understand the deeper meaning of the word “culture”. This meaning is far less visible and will never be on display at any “cultural” festival, but is in fact, far more important. Culture in its deepest sense, refers to the set of values which are used by a society to determine its ethics. It is those things which a society, as a whole, considers to be right or wrong.

An example: Hindus consider it very wrong to kill a cow, whereas most Westerners are happy to enjoy a nice rump steak. For this reason, India may have laws outlawing the killing of cows, whilst we have no such law.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity or race. If you or I had grown up in a Hindu family in India then we would also probably consider killing a cow to be morally wrong. This is the basis of any culture, a set of shared beliefs in what constitutes right and wrong which are shared by one group but not another.

These values are passed on from one generation to the next by parents, religious institutions, media, schools, peers and other institutions.

Each of the different cultures has its own concept of right and wrong. There is no universal definition of what is right and what is wrong. We in the West tend to rather arrogantly assume that the Ten Commandments’ principles of not to kill, steal, cheat, or lie etc. exist in every culture but this is demonstrably not true.

In the past (and probably even today in remote areas) there have been warrior societies where killing was considered a rite of passage for all males. The Vikings were somewhat famous for glorifying rape, pillage and plunder and there are numerous examples of cultures which considered particular Western (Judeo/Christian based) “sins” to be virtues.

Going back to our original example, we cannot say that all Westerners will agree to killing cows for food, or that no Hindus will ever have a sneaky t-bone steak. However most Hindus would consider eating beef to be “wrong” and for most Westerners it is “OK”.

The doctrine of “multiculturalism” as opposed to “multi ethnicity,” dictates that groups of people with different cultures will live in one society and retain their culture, rather than trying to assimilate into the culture of the host nation.

The first problem with this lies in the fact that the laws which a society makes, and agrees to be governed by, are simply an extension of the culture of that society.

Continue reading…

You’re Stupid!

by Iron Fist ( 158 Comments › )
Filed under Politics, Progressives at November 12th, 2014 - 7:46 am

And the Democrats hate you, so vote Democrat!

Supporters of the Democratic Party have many theories to explain the drubbing they were handed on Election Day. The explanations seem to boil down to one basic proposition, however: Voters are too stupid to know what’s good for them.

Let me say it clearly: The Democratic Party will continue to underperform until it learns to take election beatings a bit more personally.

The sheer variety of theories based on the stupidity of voters is what’s so impressive. For instance, the Obama administration’s record is good, and the economy is finally doing better; but voters are too stupid to see that. Or: The policy record is poor and the economy is screwed, which is the Republicans’ fault for paralyzing Washington; and voters are too stupid to see that. Or: The policies are bad, the economy is screwed, and Democrats are to blame for failing to press the robust progressive agenda that voters want; then voters (who really are impossibly stupid) punish this lack of commitment by electing conservative Republicans.

These theories aren’t mutually exclusive, apparently. I think Paul Krugman has supported all of them at various times. Like many progressives, he’s lost count of all the ways voters are stupid.

This is the Democrat answer to the election. It is not that the voters rejected Leftism and all its works, but that they were too stupid to vote the way that they should vote. The subtext of this is “Will no one rid me of these troublesome elections?” The Left are totalitarian in mindset. Their real goal is and always has been the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship with them at the head of it. Anything else that they espouse, whether it is civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, or what have you is simply a means to an end. You can see this all over the place. The Democrats don’t really try very hard to hide what they are. They know that they can fool 51% of the people most of the time, and that the Right is too chickenshit to come out and say The Left are EVIL, so they don’t feel like they have to hide it. Think about it. We’ve now heard this kind of refrain several times, from several different Leftist leaders, whether it is Obama’s “bitter clingers” statement or this last guy’s assertion that the voters are stupid. Think about all the things that they have said in private that we haven’t heard tapes of.

The article finishes up with this:

The constant emphasis on social injustice, economic inequality, class struggle and the existential perils of climate change advertises a far-reaching transformative ambition. Here’s the problem: Even putting aside the question of competence, U.S. voters aren’t sold on the idea of having their society transformed. They just want it made better. To be popular, the progressive agenda therefore needs to be plausibly delimited. The Democrats need to make clear what they won’t do as much as what they will. Without a clear program, that’s difficult.

It won’t do to say, “Trust us to dismantle this fundamentally broken society and build something new. You can leave the details to us.” That’s what Democrats were offering the country last week. The voters said, “No, thanks.” I wouldn’t call that stupid.

He comes at this really from a Center Left perspective (it is in Bloomberg News, after all). Even he can’t be sold on the “pass it to see what’s in it” blank check to Big Government to do whatever the hell it pleases. He doesn’t come to the same conclusion that I do, that the Democrats are evil. He still essentially sees the Democrat’s problem as a messaging problem. He is wrong. The reason the voters reject the Democrat’s position is that most Americans want a prosperous, free, and happy America. The Democrats want none of this. And the “stupid” voters are starting to see that.

Warren G and Silent Cal and the Banker Mellon

by coldwarrior ( 216 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Election 2014, Elections 2016, government, History, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, The Political Right at October 31st, 2014 - 6:21 am

Are we ready for Old School economics? Are there any GOPsters who dare do this in DC? Does the Right have an economic spine?

Lower taxes, Less Government? OH MY!

Good ol’ Warren G. & Silent Cal: Harding & Coolidge understood basic economics

By Amity Shlaes

Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Republicans and Democrats resemble one another too closely for voter comfort these days. Whatever their own political leanings, voters would prefer more diversity in the policy spectrum.

Consider the question of whether the federal government should increase spending. Politicians’ answers come in a broad range: “yes” or “yes, a lot.” Even candidates who talk about cuts are really only speaking about reductions in increases. In fact, politicians don’t believe they really can make cuts. No modern president has, or at least no president who took office in peacetime.

Not Bill Clinton, who told the nation the welfare era was over. Not even Ronald Reagan, the great free-market president of the postwar era. Budget cutters, the assumption runs, can’t get elected. Federal austerity, the politicians often warn, might hurt the economy anyhow. Presidents just can’t say “no.”

But there have been peacetime presidents who said “no.” Two were presidents we scarcely hear about anymore, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. The 29th president died amid scandal in 1923 — but not before cutting the federal budget. Coolidge then served 512 years, to 1929, a period when the population and the economy grew. Yet when Coolidge left the White House and returned to his hometown of Northampton, Mass., the federal budget was actually lower than when he came in.

How Harding and Coolidge managed to say “no” is a good story and one that couldn’t have happened without the contribution of the nation’s greatest banker, Andrew Mellon.

The story starts in 1920 and in a fiscal landscape that would seem familiar. As today, the federal debt loomed over the future. Yet tax rates, ranging into the 70s, could hardly be pushed higher. The government had expanded, but various groups were pressing for greater federal spending. World War I veterans did not all find jobs and many were disabled — they sought a pension or a bonus.

With commodity prices bouncing up and down, farmers demanded some kind of subsidy stream as well. The presidents lacked control or even oversight of the budget: Congress called the shots. Yet Harding, an ebullient senator of Ohio, and Coolidge, a quiet governor of Massachusetts, ran and won on a ticket of “no.” They would say “no” to both high taxes and government expansion.

Harding did some of the first hard work of cutting. He shepherded through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which unified the budget process under the president and gave the White House the power to impound and sequester. Harding also cut the budget and vetoed veteran pensions and farm subsidies.

Harding appointed Mellon as Treasury secretary, and Mellon adroitly rescheduled the debt; Harding and Mellon also passed a round of tax cuts. Harding was not a “naysayer” by temperament. He disliked using the veto on his old Senate colleagues. He appointed friends, rather than professionals, to key posts. Their corruption tainted his reforms and aborted them.

Few reckoned that Coolidge could continue or complete what Harding had started. Voters figured Coolidge was a lame duck, “the accident of an accident.” The real Republican candidate would emerge in 1924. Coolidge’s colleagues in Washington didn’t expect much either: “Coolidge had little about him that was regal,” recalled George Wharton Pepper, a senator of Pennsylvania.

Still, Coolidge pushed forward where Harding had hesitated. He and Mellon sought and received several more rounds of tax cuts, bringing the top marginal income tax rate down to 25 percent, a level even lower than Reagan’s. In his years observing railroads, Mellon had noted that when you cut the toll for a rail line, you might get more business. An owner charged, as Mellon put it, “what the traffic will bear.”

Mellon thought the same principle might apply to tax rates. Perhaps lower rates would permit more business activity and therefore bring higher revenues. Today we call this philosophy “supply-side economics.”

Coolidge was not as enthusiastic. His thrifty temperament led him to obsess about the budget. In fact, the president kept twin lion cubs, which the White House named “Tax Reduction” and “Budget Bureau.” The point was that the lions were twins: Fed on steak, they weighed the same. To match Mellon’s tax cuts, Coolidge kept up with budgets. He also vowed to prevent future spending. “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Coolidge had written his father years before. As president, Coolidge “killed” 60 laws by veto, compared with Harding’s record of six.

The result of Mellon’s partnership with Harding and Coolidge pleased most Americans. Government became smaller; the number of strikes fell. Mellon had won his bet: Revenues for the government actually increased from 1924, even though tax rates were lower. The team lowered the debt by a third. Working-class families became middle-class when they found they were able to acquire new comforts such as Model Ts and Model As, electricity, and indoor plumbing. The 1920s were not the fragile illusion depicted in, say, “The Great Gatsby.” Voters knew it and rewarded the pro-austerity Coolidge in 1924 with a resounding victory.

Under Herbert Hoover, policy shifted, with the White House becoming active. This shift, indeed the whole story, is little known, in part because people blame the Great Depression of the 1930s on the 1920s. But that is misplaced. As I noted in “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” the economic crash had multiple causes. Few had much to do with policies from 1920 to 1928.

Knowing about the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon record doesn’t assure us that voters will elect to the White House a candidate who says “no.” Knowledge of that forgotten record merely broadens the range of options politicians can feel comfortable offering to voters today. That is, such knowledge makes a candidate who says “no” possible. And asked whether a wider range of policy choices represents an improvement, even those who oppose such policies will probably want to answer “yes.”

NXNW OOT

by Macker ( 264 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Golden Age of Hollywod, OOT, Progressives at October 10th, 2014 - 8:00 pm

This amusing mashup is brought to you by Weasel Zippers’ Purple Penguins thread, where John Barleycorn quipped:
SOMEDAY HUNTING PROGRESSIVES & COMMIES
. . . . . . . . . .WILL BE A SPORT.

Gee, how many points for bagging Обама?
Let The Overnight Open Thread commence!

The lies behind bombing ISIS

by Rodan ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Hezballah, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Progressives, Republican Party, Syria at October 1st, 2014 - 2:00 pm

The Progressive and Decepti-Con (alleged conservatives) media are all cheering the fallen god-king’s illegal bombing of ISIS in Syria. Obama has not asked for authorization of force and ISIS was not a threat to the US. The Jihadist/Saddam Baathist hybrid organization was only a threat to one nation Iran. Up until the Syrian revolution and the rise of ISIS, Iran through its puppet in Iraq which was installed by the US, Assad’s Syria and Hezbollah occupied Lebanon formed was called the Shiite crescent. ISIS shattered this crescent and has the Ayatollahs in Tehran quaking in their boots. In battles ranging from the Lebanese border, to eastern Syria and the gate of Baghdad, ISIS has defeated Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Syrian army, Hezbollah and the Shia Iraqi army. No Iranian allied force can stand up to ISIS in battle, but their fortune may change.

In what has to be the stupidest military act since we bombed Serbia, the United States is now bombing the one military force standing in the way of Iranian Shiite hegemony of the Middle East. Even worse, we have coordinated with Iran these bombings to help their proxies on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. told Iran of its plans to strike ISIS militants inside Syria in order to reassure them that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be targetted, a senior Iranian official has claimed.

The communication, confirmed in part by a senior U.S. State Department official, appears to signal a cooling in hostilities between the U.S. and Iran for the first time since a 1979 hostage crisis prompted Washington to sever ties with Tehran.

Iran is said to have voiced concerns for the safety of Assad, who remains the Shia Islam-dominated nation’s closest regional ally and the recipient of Iranian military support during a Syrian Civil War.

[....]

The Iranian official said Iran was informed separately in advance of the airstrikes launched by Washington and Arab allies against Islamic State positions in Syria for the first time.

That’s right, the US is giving Iran a heads up on our bombings of ISIS. Our attacks have been ineffective since the Iraqi Bathist element of  ISIS have experience fighting the US since at least the gulf war. We are just hitting empty building and grain silos, but we are doing this to help Iran.
If this is bad enough, it turns out what many Lebanese Maronites have claimed through the years is true, the US backs Hezbollah. The US tipped off Hezbollah over ISIS plots to bomb their positions in Lebanon.

BEIRUT, Lebanon — They are sworn enemies who insist they will never work together, but in practice, Hezbollah and the United States are already working — separately — on a common goal: to stop the extremist Islamic State from moving into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful military and political player and currently shares with Washington an interest in stability.

Weeks after Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group and political party, helped repel an Islamic State attack on the town of Arsal on the Syrian border, new American weapons are flowing to help the Lebanese Army — which coordinates with Hezbollah — to secure the frontier. American intelligence shared with the army, according to Lebanese experts on Hezbollah, has helped the organization stop suicide attacks on its domain in southern Beirut.

If you think this was bad, well it gets worse. The Obama Regime, Progressive media and the Decepti-Con media all claimed that there was some terror group called Khorosan ready to strike at America. This was a total lie and the presence of some al-Qaeda operatives with Nusra Front, was an excuse to bomb another enemy of Iran. Even better, the group does not exist!

Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.The who?

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.

You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian–​Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

Once again, the evil 2 party plutocracy has committed the blood and treasure of America to commit a stretgic mistake. All this is being done to distract Americans, while the 2 parasite parties keep feeding the Militray Industrial complex. The only people we should be assisting against ISIS are the Kurds and Assyrian Christians. It is in our interest for ISIS and Iran to keep fighting. But, the 2 headed demon that runs America is being a sucker for the Ayatollahs in Iran.

One if the greatest Republican Presidents, warned about what we are seeing today.
Other than Rand Paul who is one of the last true Republicans that Ike would recognize as one of his own, is there anyone else calling BS on this fake war on ISIS to help Iran and the Military Industrial Complex? Make no mistake, both Democrat and Republican parties hate constitutional America and seek to establish a Fascist Totalitarian police state. They just disagree on what kind Fascist police state America will have and who will benefit from it. Notice neither party ever presents ideas that will benefit all Americans? All they do is come up with plans that benefit their favorite groups and then they pit Americans against each other. Our founding fathers never envisioned what is going on today.
You are being lied to and deceived about what is really going on.

Follow The Money

by coldwarrior ( 53 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Energy, Marxism, Open thread, Progressives, Technology at September 23rd, 2014 - 8:00 am

Follow the money…always a good place to start:

 

What really drives anti-fracking zealots?

Author

By Paul DriessenSeptember 22, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |

Recent news stories underscore the tremendous benefits brought by America’s fracking revolution.

  • The shale oil production boom could boost US crude production to 9.5 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) next year, reducing America’s crude oil imports to 21% of domestic demand, the lowest level since 1968. Output from fracked wells represents 43% of all US oil production and 67% of natural gas production; “frack oil” could hit 10 million bopd by 2016, the Energy Information Administration says.
  • The global economy saves $4.9 billion per day in oil spending because of the shale oil boom. Without it there would be a 3 million barrel per day shortfall and prices would likely be 55% higher: $150/barrel.
  • Constantly improving hydraulic fracturing technologies continue to increase production. For example, Cabot Oil & Gas refracked a 2013 Pennsylvania well, increasing its output to 30.3 million cubic feet of gas per day; that’s four times the output from the best well drilled in 2003. Fracking is even being used in decades-old onshore and offshore wells, to keep them producing for many more years.
  • Rust Belt cities and industries—from manufacturing, real estate and law to hotels, restaurants and many others—are rebounding because of drilling,fracking and production in nearby shale areas. In Ohio unemployment fell to 5.7% in July from 10.6% four years ago; oil output increased 26% just from the previous quarter, while gas production rose 31%—generating billions in state and local revenues.
  • The US oil and natural gas boom means jobs and business for almost 30,000 companies within the industry’s vast and complex supply chain. Indeed, the petroleum industry accounts for nearly 10 million jobs and almost 8% of all domestic economic activity, including states far from actual drilling activities.
  • The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers launched a new website to help veterans and other men and women find high-paying jobs in the booming oilfield, fuel and petrochemical industries.

Anti-fracking zealots: Follow the money—and the ideology

There are numerous other benefits, while the alleged risks are exaggerated or even fabricated. So what drives anti-fracking zealots who seem to materializeen masse whenever a new project is announced?

Follow the money—and the ideology. Big Green is big business. The US environmental activist industry alone is a $13.4-billion-a-year operation. It pours that money into determined campaigns to eliminate fossil fuels, gain ever greater control over our lives, reduce our living standards, and end free-enterprise capitalism. It drives its agenda with clever but phony crises: catastrophic climate change, unsustainable development, imminent resource depletion, poisonous frack chemicals and dozens of others.

Fracking obliterates its claim that we are about to run out of oil and gas—and so must slash our living standards, spend billions on crony-corporatist “renewable energy” schemes, and put radical green bureaucrats and activists in charge of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and remaining liberties. They are incensed that fracking guarantees a hydrocarbon renaissance and predominance for decades to come. They won’t even acknowledge that “frackgas” helps reduce (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide emissions.

Even √ºber wealthy celebrities get involved. Exaggerations and fabrications, confrontations and often callous disregard of other people’s needs are their stock in trade. In torrents of angry outrage and demands for totally one-sided precaution, they denounce any suggestion that fracking is safe or beneficial.

Whatever alternative technologies they support comply with their “precautionary principle.” Whatever they oppose violates it. They trumpet alleged risks of using fracking and hydrocarbon technologies, but ignore even the most obvious benefits of using them… and most obvious risks of not using them.

Anti-fracking zealots tend to be well-off, and largely clueless about the true sources of modern living standards. They assume electricity comes from wall sockets, food from grocery stores, iPhones from Apple Stores. You can count on one hand the farm, utility or factory workers they know personally.

They are dismissive about people who are jobless because of their war on affordable energy—and about poor rural New York families that are barely hanging onto their farms, unable to tap the Marcellus Shale riches beneath their land, because of an Albany and Manhattan-instigated moratorium.

They are equally uncaring about the world’s impoverished billions, whose hope for better lives depends on the reliable, affordable electricity that drilling and fracking can help bring. Worldwide, 1.4 billion people still do not have access to electricity including 300 million in India and 550 million in Africa. Millions die from lung and intestinal diseases that would largely disappear if they had electricity.

What the frack is wrong with this picture? This is not the same environmental movement that Ron Arnold, Patrick Moore and I belonged to decades ago. Big Green has become too rich, too powerful, too driven by perverse, inhumane notions of ethics, social responsibility and compassion. Their claims aboutethanol and wind power being environment-friendly are just as out of touch with reality.

Incessant claims that fracking contaminates groundwater and drinking water?

But what about their incessant claims that fracking contaminates groundwater and drinking water? Even EPA has not been able to cite a single “proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” A September 2013 report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences further confirms this. After carefully examining water wells in heavily fracked areas of Pennsylvania and Texas, researchers concluded that rare cases of methane (natural gas) contamination were not due to fracking.

Instead they resulted from improper cement and pipe installation near the surface, thousands of feet above the frack zone. The problem is covered by existing regulations and is preventable and relatively easy to correct. Petroleum industry and state officials are already collaborating to further strengthen the regulations where necessary, enforce them more vigorously, and improve well completion practices.

Moreover, some of the contamination resulted from water wells being drilled through rock formations that hold naturally occurring methane. Indeed, there have been very few cases of any contamination, out of more than one million wells hydraulically fractured since the first “frack job” was done in 1947, and out of 20,000 wells fracked in Pennsylvania since the Keystone State’s boom began in 2008.

Of course, none of this is likely to assuage anti-fracking factions or end their fictions. They are driven by motives that have nothing to do with protecting people’s health or environmental quality. In fact, what they advocate would further impair human health and environmental quality.

The great Irish statesman Edmund Burke could have been talking about these “fracktivists” when he said: “Because half a dozen grasshoppers make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle… chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that they are the only inhabitants of the field… or that they are other than little, shriveled, meager, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour.”

Unfortunately, these definitely loud and troublesome insects have also grown powerful, meddlesome and effective. So fracking supporters must continue to battle the anti-energy ideologues—by becoming better community organizers and persuaders themselves, to counter the anti-fossil fuel lies and insanity, and the destructive policies, rules and moratoria imposed by ill-advised or ideological politicians and regulators.

We fracking supporters are clearly on the side of humanity, morality, true sustainability and real environmental progress. We also know that—no matter how hard eco-activists despise it and rail against it—they cannot put the fracking genie back in the bottle.

America and the world have awakened to its potential—and to the critical need for this technology. Let us applaud this incredible progress, and champion it throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and worldwide.

From this morning’s drudge:

GARBAGE MARCH FOR CLIMATE…

VIDEO: Dicaprio loses his hearing when asked about his yachts…

GOOGLE severs ties with conservative group over ‘climate change’ stance…

VIDEO: RFK Jr. refuses to give up cellphone, automobile to save planet…

Skeptics ‘should be in Hague’…

BASTARDI: ‘Nature, not man, rules climate system’…

Qatar is funding the NEXT wave of Jihad

by Iron Fist ( 93 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Military, Politics at September 22nd, 2014 - 8:00 am

This is important:

The remarkable truth is that few in the Middle East would be shocked. From Hamas in the Gaza Strip to radical armed movements in Syria, Qatar’s status as a prime sponsor of violent Islamists, including groups linked to al-Qaeda, is clear to diplomats and experts.
Qatar’s promotion of extremism has so infuriated its neighbours that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all chose to withdraw their ambassadors from the country in March.
Take Syria, where Qatar has been sponsoring the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In itself, that policy places Qatar alongside the leading Western powers and much of the Arab world.
But Qatar has deliberately channeled guns and cash towards Islamist rebels, notably a group styling itself Ahrar al-Sham, or “Free Men of Syria”. Only last week, Khalid al-Attiyah, the Qatari foreign minister, praised this movement as “purely” Syrian.
He added that its fighters had suffered heavy losses while combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), the group behind the murder of David Haines, the British aid worker, and which is holding John Cantlie and Alan Henning hostage.
Far from being a force for moderation, Ahrar al-Sham played a key role in transforming the anti-Assad revolt into an Islamist uprising. Its men fought alongside Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, during the battle for Aleppo and they were accused of at least one sectarian massacre.
Instead of fighting Isil, Ahrar al-Sham helped the jihadists to run Raqqa, the town in eastern Syria that is now the capital of the self-proclaimed “Caliphate”. This cooperation with Isil happened for some months until the two groups fell out last year.
Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a “global terrorist”. The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to “al-Qaeda’s representative in Syria”, named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.
Suri has also been a senior commander of Ahrar al-Sham. If America was right to describe him as “al-Qaeda’s representative”, then there was an overlap between the leadership of the two groups.

All of these guys are in bed together. We have no way of knowing what kind of back-door deals they have with each other. They may “fight” among themselves, and even kill people, but remember that life means nothing to these people. Killing a few (or more than a few) people in the ranks simply does not matter if it advances the Jihad. They’ll butcher their own as long as it moves the Caliphate forward.

Who is going to gainsay them? This is why we can’t fund the “Free Syrian Army”. They are all just wings of the Jihad. They are all just aspects of the real confrontation. You can’t trust any of them.

We keep making the mistake of believing that our enemies have the same morals and values as we do. They do not.

They tell us this, and we wave that away as if it doesn’t matter. They can’t really mean what they say. They say they love death. They really do. They mean what they say. They aren’t even bothering to lie to us, because they know we will deceive ourselves into believing lies that they haven’t even told us. This is important.

The Great Chicken Hawk Ad Hominem: Rule Twelve From The Alinsky List

by Flyovercountry ( 267 Comments › )
Filed under Fascism, Military, Progressives at September 18th, 2014 - 8:02 am

Once again, we’ll start this one with a definition from the Webster Dictionary.

Ad Hominem -

adjective
1.
appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

The second piece of reference I’d like to use as a preface would be rule 12 from Saul Alinsky’s, “Rules For Radicals,” which is the official play book of the political left.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

Now, we’ll let Andrew Klavan tell you what those using the Chicken Hawk charge are really saying when they employ this tactic. This is as timely today as it was 5 years ago when he produced the video for PJTV.

The charge of Chicken Hawk is that anyone who has not served in our armed forces and advocates a foreign policy position that would see a deployment of our military, is a coward and a hypocrite. Simply put, only people who have ever served in our military should be listened to when any topic of appropriate usage of our military is discussed.

This of course, is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, dressed in fancy clothing, and trotted out as the same weak substitute for substantive debate. It does nothing to address the arguments that one may have given in support of military force, and even worse, the argument itself is a true sign of cowardice. Rather than engaging in the actual topic at hand, the employer of the ad hominem attacks the character of his debate opponent. We see this constantly from the political left, in fact, I’d call it the mainstay argument. Sarah Palin, despite being 100% correct with every statement she made during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, is stupid. Mitt Romney, despite being 100% correct about every statement he made during the 2012 Presidential Campaign is an evil plutocrat. Ronald Reagan was dumb. George W. Bush is dumb. Barry Goldwater was crazy. Richard Nixon was evil. John McCain is senile. Apparently, I’m a Chicken Hawk. This tactic is employed when the person using it feels incapable of substantive debate. In the case of the Chicken Hawk charge, the person employing it has failed to detail his position as to why military force would not be appropriate. End of story.

As you may have guessed, I was called out as a Chicken Hawk yesterday, because of this post. Now, it is possible that a counter to my argument exists, and I would be willing to consider that argument, but the Chicken Hawk cowardice is quite simply a cop out, or as Mr. Klavan put it so eloquently, nothing more than shut uppery. Why don’t we put that aside however, simply for the sake of argument. Let’s follow the charge, such as it is, to its illogical conclusion.

First, let’s think about the concept that only people with experience or expertise in specific areas of discipline be allowed to voice opinions on those areas of debate. When discussing tax policy, should CPA’s for example, be the only group of citizenry allowed to have input? Should Doctors and Nurses be the only ones allowed to vote as to whether or not Obamacare be adopted as the law of the land? In this, only-some-of-our-citizens-get-a-voice Universe, who gets to pick and choose what gravitas is necessary for an opinion? Will it extend to the ballot box?

There’s something else to consider. The person who employs this tactic also appoints himself the defacto spokes person for the military. This brings up another pet peeve of mine, argumentation devoid of any substance beyond an appeal to authority. This is the statement made during a debate in which the person debating will simply declare that debate is over, because he is an expert in the field. The problem with this on line of course, is that anyone can claim to be anything they want. You may remember for instance, when two middle aged white, and coincidentally male, college professors ran the two most popular lesbian blogs on the internet. They had dishonestly set themselves up as experts on all things related to the woes of lesbianism, and their word was accepted as gold, up until the two geniuses outed each other. If someone truly were an expert, than substantive debate should be an easy peazy lemon squeazy thing to bring off. Even more bizarre however, is that this defacto claim to speak for the military flies in the face that members of the military are able to speak for themselves. They may not according the the UCMJ be allowed to publicly advocate a political position on certain matters, but they speak through their vote. The military’s voting record as a whole, has been extremely tilted towards the conservative view point for a long time. This tilt has been about 80/20 since polling has been conducted. This disparity is in fact so large, that anyone who presents himself as a liberal veteran, while it may be possible, is immediately suspect in my estimation. More often than not, those calling out others as Chicken Hawks are usually people who by and large have real antipathy for the military, and are almost always advocating a position in fact which is 180 degrees out of sync with how most members of our armed services actually feel. In reality, those shouting Chicken Hawk are very often the same fine folks who spend vast amounts of energy and effort trying to disqualify the military vote in every national election, thus disenfranchising those for whom they claim to speak.

Let’s take it even further down this road. The Chicken Hawk argument, as stupid as it is, also pushes for something else. It is a demand for the military to be guided not by civilian control, as per Article II Section 2 of our Constitution, but to be placed instead under its own supervision and direction. The military of the United States has always, since the inception of our nation, been a tool of civilian political policy. This is one of the things which limits the military’s ability to make our nation a police state, not that I would accuse my fellow citizens of such intention, but the institution is in place for a reason. Military juntas do exist around the globe, and for the most part, the people who live in them are constantly trying to leave for a life in our nation, or some where else in a more free society. I find it ironic that people who mainly hate the military are the ones advocating for our nation to become a military junta. In fact, I find it down right hilarious.

As debate opponents go, I find anyone using the words Chicken Hawk to be the least worthy of my time, for the reasons stated above. It’s dishonest, foolish, cowardly, and does nothing to address anything even remotely related to a substantive point. In other words, it’s a typical leftist argument.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.