The NEW/2.0 Russian Conspiracy by the Left

I am starting out with wetting your whistle with some audio by Larry Elder (0.00 to the 8:18 mark) showing the difference between how MSNBC and others are reporting the Hunter Biden lap-top story vs. other European based news channels. Some are even saying it is a new “Russian Conspiracy.”

[….]

Which brings me to the following days show by Armstrong and Getty (from the 8:18 mark till the end) , who talk about the same characters involved in the “Russia Hoax” that enraptured the Left and #NeverTrumpers for over two years. They signed a letter saying this is a Russian Undercover Intel Attack (rough synopsis). A friend on Facebook linked to a POLITICO story regarding these 50[+] intel persons signing a letter: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

However, 2-days ago Fox news confirmed with the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) that this laptop in no way is Russian Intel. Yesterday, CBS confirmed via their contacts at the FBI AND DOJ that the fox report is correct. Fox News contacted someone in the “cc” portion of the email discussing the “Big Guy” and who that was… the person involved as a person in the email chain said that was Joe Biden. AND, there are signatures from Hunter dropping it off.

Here is how I responded to my friend:

It shows that without a shred of evidence intel ppl are biased … inflicted with TDS. The DNI said there was no Russian disinformation program (Fox, yesterday). Then CBS confirmed through their sources that both the DOJ and the FBI confirmed that this is true.

The FBI has had the computer since December.

Maybe, the Russians trained a dopey back woods computer repair guy as a mole/sleeper agent for just such a moment, when, a VP’s son would drop off water damaged computers and SIGN for them to be serviced.

“Yeeah… That’s the Ticket”

Here is a Fox News story on the Glenn Greenwald piece: “Glenn Greenwald trashes media ‘cone of silence’ around Hunter Biden email scandal” (VIDEO at link)

Trump Wins Against Media and Democrats

Larry Elder has great openers, here is one on the Covid-19 hype via the press and Democrats, and Trump “Winning!”

Larry Elder deftly goes thru the differences between the 1918 breakout and the 2020 flu. No comparison at all.

Coronavirus Lies Via Democrats/Media (UPDATED w/CONVO)

(Jump to UPDATE — a quick convo on Facebook)

He takes forever to get to the points… but they are good points. President Trump’s critics are using the natural fear of the coronavirus as a political weapon.

CONSERVATIVE TREE-HOUSE was on it! (Feb 2nd):

In response to an escalating spread of the Coronavirus President Trump initiated a suspension of entry visa’s for persons traveling from China:  “The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the People’s Republic of China, excluding the Special Autonomous Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States is hereby suspended and limited” [link].

The travel restrictions went into effect at 5:00pm today.  Essentially President Trump is putting the health of Americans first. However, in an effort to politicize the Coronavirus, presidential candidate Joe Biden says travel entry restrictions are “hysteria, xenophobia and fearmongering”:

[…] “We have, right now, a crisis with the coronavirus,” Biden said in Iowa Friday. “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia – hysterical xenophobia – and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.”  (more)

And just like that Democrats become the party of pro-virus….

TREE-HOUSE points out with a link to the January 31st proclamation, that on this date (again, January 31st), the February ban was put into motion.

The NEW YORK POST has a good piece showing all the maligning when Trump got a jump on the virus… and now they are saying he waited too long — WHICH IS IT?

It’s a unique set of characteristics showing that President Trump understood early the need for decisive measures such as travel restrictions on China, which he imposed in January.

Yet for that sensible decision — in defiance of the World Health Organization — he was criticized by Democrats such as Joe Biden as xenophobic, and by China as racist.

“This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia — hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering,” said Biden the day after the travel restrictions were imposed.

CNN ran a story warning that “the US coronavirus travel ban could backfire” and have the effect of “stigmatizing countries and ethnicities.”

The Chinese Communist Party’s official mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, called the ban “racist.”

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned it would increase “fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”

[….]

At the press conference with Trump on Saturday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the highly respected head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, praised the “original decision that was made by the president … [that] prevented travel from China to the United States.

“If we had not done that, we would have had many, many more cases right here that we would have to be dealing with.”

Trump’s travel restrictions began on Jan. 31. Australia and Singapore instituted their own travel limits the next day. Trump’s move bought valuable time to slow the spread of the virus and ease pressure on the nation’s health system before a vaccine is developed — which experts believe is at least 18 months away.

But that hasn’t stopped the barrage of fake criticisms, including that Trump had left the nation dangerously unprepared to cope with a pandemic by cutting funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Not true. The CDC’s programming budget increased from $7.2 billion in 2019 to nearly $7.7 billion this year, the Associated Press fact-checking unit reported. Trump had proposed a cut, but Congress rejected it.

It’s reprehensible for the Democrats to make political hay by blaming Trump for the coronavirus or, as a New York Times op-ed piece called it, “Trumpvirus.”

In an editorial Saturday, the Gray Lady also reiterated its debunked claim that Trump has “muzzled” Fauci.

Yet at Saturday’s 2 p.m. press conference — hours before the Times’ deadline — Fauci emphatically denied the claim.

“I have never been muzzled, ever, and I’ve been doing this since the administration of Ronald Reagan,” Fauci said. “I’m not being muzzled by this administration. That was a real misrepresentation of what happened.”

What shoddy journalism to publish such an incendiary, anonymously sourced claim, without at least including Fauci’s denial.

The anti-Trump narrative rolled on, with increasingly silly attacks. The Washington Post speculated that the coronavirus could be “Trump’s Katrina,” referring to Hurricane Katrina, the response to which had been bungled by President George W. Bush.

When Trump announced a coronavirus task force with the most eminent experts in the nation, CNN blasted him for a “lack of diversity.”….

The media and Democrats push false Trump coronavirus narrative.

AMERICAN THINKER runs some good Tweets by Steve Guest (You can find the entire Twitter thread HERE):

MUZZLED?! CUT FUNDING?!

When the AP fact-checks Democrats… you know its bad. More from an earlier AMERICAN THINKER article:

To set the stage, here are a few indisputable facts:

On January 31, 2020, as China confirmed that 259 people had died and there were about 100 cases reported outside of China, President Trump ordered that the U.S. would prevent foreign nationals who had recently visited China from entering the country. He also ordered quarantined American travelers who posed a high risk.  

Democrats called Trump a racist.

Democrats were worried that Trump’s germ phobia would make him issue even more and worse racist orders.

President Trump held a press conference during which (1) he was surrounded by government scientists who explained what was going on (2) he appointed Vice President Pence, a competent, experienced administrator, to be the White House point person on coronavirus efforts.

Democrats called Pence a killer.

Democrats also announced that henceforth they would call coronavirus “TrumpVirus” because Trump had appointed Pence to oversee the administrative end of dealing with coronavirus and because Trump said there was no need for panic.

Nancy Pelosi complained that Trump had waited too long to act, even though when she spoke not a single American had died.

Elizabeth Warren said that she would end the “racist” border wall by taking all wall funds and putting them into coronavirus research (never mind that, since time immemorial, sealing borders has been one of the prime ways in which governments have been able to protect their citizens from epidemic disease).

Trump stated during the rally in South Carolina that the Democrats’ unceasing and dishonest attacks against him for his handling of the coronavirus risk were their latest hoax.

The media reported that Trump had declared that coronavirus itself was a hoax, one of the most blatantly dishonest bits of reporting ever to come from the media.

Leftists are actively hoping that coronavirus causes so much economic disruption that it will hurt Trump politically – never mind that it will also hurt ordinary Americans….


Facebook Back-N-Forth


A “Never Trumper” friend responded to the following post by me:

(hat-tip to JONATHAN SARFATI) President Trump’s TV press conference:

  • State of emergency declared in the US. $50 billion in aid available and states urged to set up emergency centers.
  • Laws waived to allow greater availability of hospitals and clear beds for urgent cases—i.e. hospitals can move elderly patients from hospitals to nursing homes more quickly.
  • Partnership with private sector to test for coronavirus more quickly (results within 24–36 hours). But he says only people should only take tests if they actually have cause to think they have it.
  • In discussion with pharmacies to make drive-through tests available. Google is developing a website to help people determine whether testing is warranted and direct people to the nearest testing location.
  • Large retailers are partnering with the administration to fight coronavirus by keeping the supply chain as intact as possible.
  • One said, “We are normally competitors, but today we are all working together to fight this virus.”
  • Student loan interest is waived indefinitely.
  • Secretary of Energy instructed to buy strategic reserve of crude oil as the price is very low.
  • Unified decisive action to combat coronavirus is imperative.
  • Coronavirus is now in 46 out of 50 states. Important to look after senior citizens and those with pre-existing chronic conditions.
  • Nursing homes restricting all visits except for essential staff and end of life situations.

His response was thus:

To which I responded thus:

Since I cannot view behind a pay wall. What is the date of that article JIM G? Important information for me to confirm Fact Check rating it half-true. Out of curiosity… what would have been done different with this “official” was there?? (I THEN LINKED TO THIS POSTThree weeks after it was identified Trump slowed the inflow of it drastically? (<< Against the advice of his Cabinet)

This would have been different?

That is the problem with government once something is put in place, it never is tore down after it (a) fails, or (b) succeeds in its proposed goal. The Trump Admin is different

JIM G. >>>

In reality, the pandemic expert — Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer — left the National Security Council (NSC) voluntarily after then-National Security Advisor John Bolton was appointed.

Bolton disbanded the unit that Ziemer was supervising as part of an effort to downsize the bloated NSC staff. The purpose of the unit, which had overseen the global fight against Ebola, had largely been fulfilled.

It is true that Ziemer and his unit have not yet been replaced….

(BREITBART)

It still should not be put in place, and more of the NSC should be disbanded. And?


A Couple Text Responses


This was in response to someone basically saying Trump got in the way of experts, and that he should just keep his mouth shut:

Dr. Fauci was interviewed at 3am the other morning [March 24th] (10 minutes of you time:DR. FAUCI INTERVIEWED BY WMAL) and the MSM hasn’t referenced his statements once. Also the quote you are probably referring to is this one: when he was asked if he was worried about this becoming a pandemic:

  • “No, not at all. We have it totally under control,” Trump said. “It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” (Jan. 22)

This was essentially three weeks after the first Chinese case was announced, and only 10-days after China shared the genetic information of the virus. (The first American known to have it was January 21st.) So I think you may be wanting something from the President that you wouldn’t expect from another. (In contrast to the below excerpted timeline) Trump ordered all flights from China halted January 31st.

By the time he declared a state of emergency (March 13), we had had 49 deaths by that time. It took the previous administration till there were a thousand Americans dead to declare an emergency. I think this is an “orange man bad” scenario. You should listen to Dr. Fauci’s wise words. 

And in another text stream I responded to the idea that South Korea did more tests with a note from a friend via Facebook:

Trump said the US did more testing in 8 days than South Korea did in 8 weeks. Because this is literally true (we did 360,000 in 8 days to their 350,000 in 8 weeks), Politifact decided that “more testing” meant per capita so they could claim it was false.

 

Coronavirus and Media Hype

First a post by ACE OF SPADES, with a large excerpt from the NY POST article:

The breathless reporting from pretty much every source, with the exception of Michael Fumento in the NY Post is typical of the no-nothings in the media and their tenuous relationship with logic and the Scientific Method and pesky little things like data and numbers and statistics.

And the facts are very, very thin. We don’t know much other than what the Chinese government is telling the world, and I believe them about as much as I believe that Epstein killed himself. Maybe it’s worse than they are reporting. Maybe it is overblown to deflect attention from other things in China, like Hong Kong! And maybe it is just like most of the other diseases that emerge from China and then fizzle in developed countries because we are healthier, cleaner, have better medical care and more efficient ways to get that care to the people who need it.

I have no idea how this will shake out. Is it the next pandemic, with hundreds of millions dead? Maybe, but I doubt it. Is it the next SARS? Probably. And how many Americans died of SARS? From the CDC:

  • In the United States, only eight persons were laboratory-confirmed as SARS cases. There were no SARS-related deaths in the United States. All of the eight persons with laboratory-confirmed SARS had traveled to areas where SARS-CoV transmission was occurring.

For all of American medicine’s faults, we do a pretty good job of minimizing the severity of things like the flu and TB and Measles and Pertusis and all sorts of diseases that are major killers in other parts of the world. Will I take a trip to Wuhan? hell no. But until there is evidence of this virus being a significant health threat in the developed world I will not worry too much.

Here is the NEW YORK POST:

A CNN reporter broadcasts from Wuhan, China, on the recent viral outbreak. There is nobody near who could possibly infect him ­— unless the cameraman has Guinness Book of Records coughs and sneezes. So why does he insist on wearing a blue surgical mask while talking?

It’s called “drama,” which is badly needed, because there appears to be nothing very special about this outbreak of the 2019-nCoV or Wuhan ­virus. It should actually be called the DvV, or Déjà vu Virus, because we have been through these hysterias before. Over and over. Heterosexual AIDS, Ebola repeatedly, the H1N1 swine flu that was actually vastly milder than the regular flu and, especially, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003.

Once you start debunking mass hysteria over outbreaks, it gets easy, because the same patterns repeat themselves.

The best remedy for all epidemic hysteria is perspective. How is this new outbreak different and thus potentially more dangerous from other diseases we have dealt with in the past or are dealing with now?

Wuhan is repeatedly labeled “deadly” — but so is every other ­virus most people know about. But especially deadly? Nearly 600 cases have been confirmed with at least 17 reported deaths.

[….]

What we can say for sure is that Wuhan will be a lot worse in China, simply because health care there is vastly inferior. It appears that, like flu, Wuhan usually kills through ­often treatable secondary infections. Well, treatable in the West. You’d be surprised at how many potentially deadly diseases ­(malaria, TB) Americans get that wreak havoc in much of the world but kill essentially none of us.

It also appears those most likely to die of Wuhan virus fit the same profile as flu fatalities: people over 65, those with compromised immune systems and those with serious pre-existing conditions. Two of the 17 Wuhan dead were 89-year-olds with pre-existing conditions; the youngest was 48 and suffering from diabetes and a stroke.

Contagiousness is highly important, of course. But so far, there is no evidence that Wuhan, first ­reported more than three weeks ago, is more contagious than ­influenza or spreads differently.

Those are the important factors; everything else is noise and tinfoil-hat paranoia.

[….]

It’s inherently bad because it’s new, we’re told. So were swine flu and SARS.

Chinese health officials warned it could mutate further to either become more deadly or more contagious. Same was said about the aforementioned outbreaks. Actually, viruses usually mutate to become less deadly, to preserve the host body and hence themselves.

The media are correct in saying the closest comparison here is SARS. It also was first reported in China and was what’s called a coronavirus. But while they want you to remember SARS as akin to the Black Death with cries of “Bring out your dead!,” fact is, there was a grand total of only 8,098 cases, of whom 774 died. Then the disease simply disappeared. More than 7,000 of those cases and about 650 of the deaths occurred just in mainland China and Hong Kong. The United States had just 75 cases and zero deaths.

By contrast, the CDC estimates about 80,000 Americans died of flu two seasons ago.

So if you want, buy a (probably worthless) surgical mask to play “twins” with those “courageous” TV newsmen. Or you may consider that flu shots are still available.

 

Earth-Day Fails! Prince EA’s Video is Full of Hot Air

(Originally Posted Apr 22, 2015 | New Audios)

I wanted to play the video in whole, then go through 6-points it makes to shed more light on them.

(I recently added to this next section)

DEFORESTATION

Prince EA’s mentioning that a future generation of people will not know what trees are is JUST LIKE people telling us kids will not know what snow is like:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Monday 20 March 2000

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

[….]

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

…read more…

Funny thing is, some record breaking snow-fall followed in the years after… so much so that kids wished they forgot what it was.

But in all seriousness we are seeing similar dire predictions fail about the deforestation of trees. Keep in mind this is not a polemic proving all stories of deforestation false. I merely wish to bring some balance to the issue. For instance, in the Amazon, well over 95% of deforestation comes from cattle ranching, commercial agriculture, and infrastructure improvements. Less than 5% is from legal and illegal logging. Take note as well that The New York Times makes the point that,

  • for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.”

I love balance.

William Shatner, Captain Kirk of Star Trek fame, mentioned in a National Geographic video that, “rainforests [are] being cleared at the rate of 20 football fields per minute.”  If this were truly the case, the forests would have been completely wiped out years ago.  In Prince EA’s video he said 40 football fields! In an interview with Dr. Evaristo Eduardo de Miranda (one of the world’s leading experts on deforestation in the Amazon, is a professor of ecology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest institution of higher learning, and president of ECOFORCE, a private, nonprofit, environmental research/educational institution), he was asked where these numbers come from:

Q. There have been many reports by environmental groups in the U.S. claiming that the Amazon rain forest is being destroyed at a frightening pace. Many conflicting statistics are given concerning the alleged rate of destruction — 4 million hectares per year, 8 million hectares per year, 50,000 acres per day, etc. What are the facts and where are these statistics coming from?

A. A good example of this is the report released at the Earth Summit by the FAO [United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization]. FAO claims that the world tropical deforestation rate is 16.9 million hectares per year. FAO has up to the present been still using their discredited 8 million hectares per year rate for deforestation in Brazil. But when pressed at the summit they conceded to the 2.1 million hectares annually that the INPE, the Brazilian national space agency, has asserted is the real rate. This is an admission that they were inflating the deforestation rate by nearly 300 percent.

But they also said that deforestation for all of South America is 6.9 million hectares annually, which raises an obvious problem. Since Brazil has 70 percent of South America’s tropical forests, it would be incredible to suggest that other countries are deforesting at the levels necessary for the FAO figures to be valid. If you subtract the 2.1 million [Brazilian hectares] from the [FAO’s] 6.9 million, you have 4.8 million hectares being cut down annually in the 30 percent of South American tropical forests outside of Brazil. That is far greater than any data shows.

There is a similar problem with their annual 16.9 million hectares statistic for world deforestation. If you subtract Brazil’s 2.1 million, then you must ask who deforests the other 14.8 million hectares. When they were asked these questions, the FAO could not answer. They could not break the numbers down country by country or show any other means by which they arrived at this figure.

Q. No maps, no satellite photos, no national data ? Where did they conjure up these figures?Trees

A. They were put in a very bad light because they could produce nothing to substantiate these fantastic figures. This is an important example, because if the FAO cannot sustain these numbers, then you can imagine that these eco-groups — the NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] — could not either. They always use these big numbers to make sensational news stories, but they never can break the aggregate numbers down to show where they come from, and they never produce maps with alleged areas of deforestation specified so that they can be independently verified.

One comment from the inter-webs noted: “The Amazon is just fine, as the people are moving out of the jungle to the cities and the jungle is raging back quite nicely. It’s in Indonesia and the area that the forests are being cut down for palm oil/biofuel productions.” Yep

In fact, the co-founder and long-time director of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, said: “All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science….  They are quite simply wrong… [Phillip Stott and I] found that the Amazon rainforests is more than 90% intact. We flew over it and met all the environmental authorities. We studied satellite pictures of the entire area.” Phillip Stott, who has 30 years of studying tropical forests under his belt as well as being professor of biogeography at London University mentioned that, “there are now still – despite what humans have done – more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago.”

Conventional wisdom is often challenged as well by climatologists and specialists in their field. The NEW YORK TIMES passes along the complexity of an issue most people take for granted:

Deforestation accounts for about 20 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide. The assumption is that planting trees and avoiding further deforestation provides a convenient carbon capture and storage facility on the land.

That is the conventional wisdom. But the conventional wisdom is wrong.

[….]

Planting trees and avoiding deforestation do offer unambiguous benefits to biodiversity and many forms of life. But relying on forestry to slow or reverse global warming is another matter entirely.

The science says that spending precious dollars for climate change mitigation on forestry is high-risk: We don’t know that it would cool the planet, and we have good reason to fear it might have precisely the opposite effect. More funding for forestry might seem like a tempting easy win for the world leaders at the United Nations, but it’s a bad bet.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN gets a bit more detailed regarding the above. But this is a very complicated issue… especially since chopping down massive forests is being posited as a boon to fight “global warming” – to wit:

2007 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that global-scale deforestation would result in a net cooling, as the changes in albedo and evaporation would overwhelm the impact of all that carbon being released into the atmosphere. But that doesn’t mean we should go about chopping down every tree we can—on the whole, preserving tropical forests and even adding more trees in the equatorial latitudes will be beneficial for the climate, not to mention the biodiversity that depends on rainforests. But large-scale reforestation or afforestation projects in the north may not be the best idea, as Lee says:

People are debating whether afforestation is a good idea in high latitudes. If you plant trees you sequester carbon, which is a benefit to the climate system. At the same time, if you plant trees you warm the landscape because trees are darker compared to other vegetation types. So they absorb solar radiation.

The study is another reminder of just how devilishly complicated the climate system really is….

(TIME)

Like I said – challenging conventional wisdom. In reality, what throws many of these studies of deforestation off is the urban heat island effect and rural cold island effect. For more on this see Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy’s (bio) book/chapter: “Climate Change: Myths & Realities”, 2008 — Chapter 7: Ecological changes.

NATIVE-AMERICANS

The second point I wish to comment on, and it is Prince EA’s mentioning of the Native-Americans. I do not doubt that Prince was taught these things in school. However, like many other issues cornered in the monopoly of the government, balance is needed.

For instance, I wrote a response to an in-class supplement to my sons elementary class lesson [he is now married and lives in Florida] about HOW the Settlers treated the New World versus how the Indians treated it. I made sure each parent got a copy and this engendered a visit to see the principle. Here is a quote from that post:

From James Fenimore Cooper to Dances with Wolves and Disney’s Pocahontas, American Indians have been mythologized as noble beings with a “spiritual, sacred attitude towards land and animals, not a practical utilitarian one.”[16] Small children are taught that the Plains Indians never wasted any part of the buffalo. They grow up certain that the Indians lived as one with nature, and that white European settlers were the rapists who destroyed it.

In The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, Shepard Krech III, an anthropologist at Brown University, strips away the myth to show that American Indians behaved pretty much like everyone else. When times were bad they used the whole buffalo. When times were good, “whole herds” of buffalo might be killed only for their tongues or their fetuses.[17] Although American Indians adapted to their environment and were intimately familiar with it, they had no qualms about shaping it to their needs.

Indians set fires to promote the growth of grasses and make land more productive for the game and plants that they preferred. Sometimes fire was used carefully. Sometimes it was not. Along with the evidence that Indians used fire to improve habitat are abundant descriptions of carelessly started fires that destroyed all plant life and entire buffalo herds.[18]

Nor were American Indians particularly interested in conserving resources for the future. In the East, they practiced slash and burn agriculture. When soils became infertile, wood for fuel was exhausted, and game depleted, whole villages moved.[19] The Cherokee, along with the other Indians who participated in the Southern deerskin trade, helped decimate white-tailed deer populations.[20] Cherokee mythology believed that deer that were killed in a hunt were reanimated.

In all, contemporary accounts suggest that many Indians treated game as an inexhaustible resource. Despite vague hints in the historical records that some Crees may have tried to conserve beaver populations by allocating hunting territories and sparing young animals, Krech concludes that it was “market forces in combination with the Hudchild’s Bay Company policies [which actively promoted conservation]” that “led to the eventual recovery of beaver populations.”[21]

Those who blame European settlers for genocide because they introduced microbes that ravaged native populations might as well call the Mongols genocidal for creating the plague reservoirs that led to the Black Death in Europe.[22] Microbes travel with their hosts. Trade, desired by Indians as well as whites, created the pathways for disease.


[16] Shepard Krech III, The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, W.W. Norton & Company; New York: NY (1999), p. 22.

[17] Ibid., p. 135.

[18] Ibid., p. 119.

[19] Ibid., p. 76.

[20] Ibid., p. 171.

[21] Ibid., p. 188.

[22] For a discussion of the effect of the Mongol invasions and their effect on European epidemiology see, William H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples, Doubleday; New York, NY (1977).

These little historical facts changes the narrative just a tad, doesn’t it? Like when the Iroquois directed their most furious attacks against the Hurons during the Beaver Wars. One Jesuit missionary wrote, “it is the design of the Iroquois to capture all the Hurons, if it is possible; to put the chiefs and great part of the nation to death, and with the rest to form one nation and one country.” American Indians, alongside the Settlers, accelerated their hunting of the American Bison (Buffalo) that contributed to the near extinction of this plains beast. All in the name of the Mighty Buck! (READ MORE)


POLAR BEAR BREAK

(An UPDATED POST on an old one can be found showing the bottom line is that the current population is at record highs.)  While not dealt with well in Prince EA’s video, his presentation  shows a computerized Polar Bear[s] walking in the background while intimating extinction or low numbers. Again, he probably learned about this in school, so you cannot really blame him fully. He is the product of indoctrination. However, this just isn’t the case. In fact, there are a record number of Polar Bears. Here Is The Bottom Line:

1) It confirms the global population size I published in May 2015 (20,129-32,558; average 26,344). See the graph below, now amended to reflect this point. If global numbers do decline over the next 35 years, it will be from a high point not previously acknowledged by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG).

2) The current population trend is listed as: ? Unknown. [NOT declining – if anyone claims it is, send them here: IUCN Red List U. maritimus]

(MS) WINNIPEG, Canada (Globe and Mail 4/2012) The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

[….]

But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.

Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 25,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level]there has ever been.”

[Editors note: perhaps to 27,000-32,000?]

Again, this throws a monkey wrench into the narrative, and makes the next proposition trues if the counter proposition can be true:

Look, it is simple:

  • Either polar bears are dying because of CO2 emissions via man ~ hence, we should stopproducing high levels of CO2;

or [following the train of thinking FROM Al Gore],

  • Polar bears are at their highest recorded population levels because of CO2 emissions via man, hence, we should produce high levels of CO2.

If “a,” why not “b”?

Truth About Stranded Polar Bears Image

(SEE MORE)

FOX NEWS & SEA LEVEL RISE

Want to move on quick over this section? Here is my response to a Starbucks patron (of which I count myself) when they bring up sea rise:

  • “I believe in sea rise? Hell, 10,000 years ago it was 350ft lower. That is how the American Indian populated the continent.”

Mic Drop!

This was interesting because he calls out a news network. Good for him! He is wrong, but I like his style. This section I will deal with sea level rise in general, and then deal with the Bangladesh portion of Prince EA’s claims. The general sea rise refutation of the school-house session can be seen here, but let us look at a graph:

I wanted to draw the people who believe this (rising oceans) attention to a very old photograph compared to a new one to compare La Jolla (California) sea levels from 1871 to Now (REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE):

lajolla18712b

Also, Photographs show no change in Sydney sea level over the last 130 years (REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE):


But what interested me was his mentioning Bangladesh specifically… wrapped up in a challenge to Fox News.

Woa Whoa! Throwin’ down the gauntlet. I am going to answer this from various sources, but as you will see, this is another fail on the eco-fascists side. Here is a conservative source first:

It’s hard to believe that it’s been more than a month since the latest example of intellectual collapse at the IPCC.  Now added to the fraudulent claims about Amazon rain forests, African crop harvests, and Himalayan glaciers comes the exposure of a very large error in the UN body’s warnings about flooding in Bangladesh.  Turns out that the scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits (via Yid with Lid):

Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN’s top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body’s landmark 2007 report were overblown.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under fire for errors in the 2007 report, had said a one-metre (three-foot) rise in sea levels would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh and create 20 million refugees by 2050.

The claim helped create a widespread consensus that the low-lying country was on the “front line” of climate change, but a new study argues the IPCC ignored the role sediment plays in countering sea level rises. …

But IPCC’s prediction did not take into account the one billion tonnes of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh every year, which are crucial in countering rises in sea levels, the study funded by the Asian Development Bank said.

“Sediments have been shaping Bangladesh’s coast for thousands of years,” said Maminul Haque Sarker, director of the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), who led research for the study.

Even if the sea level rises that far — a claim which is itself greeted with increasing skepticism — most of the coastline for Bangladesh won’t be affected. 

WHAT’S UP WITH THAT calls this Bangladesh “THE POSTER CHILD,” and here is the end of their report:

Deltas are formed at the boundary of rivers and oceans. The rivers that build deltas flow to low and slowly sinking parts of the crust, where large volumes of sediment are being deposited. They will always be in balance with sea level but almost by definition increase in size, if rivers are allowed to follow their course. Deltas, by their very nature are building out and up. They also tend to flood frequently and seasonally, often with disastrous effects on the inhabitants. People living in deltas should learn to swim, have a boat and generally be aware of what can happen. Sea level rise is not an issue in large deltas; they have been proven to be able to keep up with any sea level rise. Flooding disasters are seasonally the result of excessive run-off, and occasionally due to unfortunate storm surges that result in breaks through natural barriers, but this has nothing to do with sea level rise. Bangladesh will be there, even if all the ice in the world has melted, with its people still fighting floods while farming the fertile floodplains.

Scientific American also takes a wholly different course and shows that current flooding is caused in big part to the Bangladeshi’s themselves:

Man-made flood protections, not climate change, are the main culprit in sea-level rise in southwest Bangladesh, according to new research conducted for the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research.

The report from a team of scientists at Vanderbilt University is the first part in a wide-ranging, $7.5 million analysis of environmental stress and human migration scenarios in the low-lying South Asian nation.

Published this week in Nature Climate Change, the initial study finds that embankments constructed since the 1960s are primarily to blame for lower land elevations along the Ganges-Brahmaputra River Delta, with some areas experiencing more than twice the rate of the most worrisome sea-level rise projections from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

OF COURSE the magazine then goes on to assert Climate Disruption is still a threat to Bangladesh (towing the line is tough!). But this problem is moot because they gain land from the delta and the flooding is mainly “man-made,” so are the solutions [technology].

CHINA vs SARAH PALIN

WOW, another challenge. Good for you Prince EA! But again, your understanding is wrong.

The Atlantic Monthly has a VERY interesting article I read a few years back. They note that in reality the pollution in China is at our 1980-levels.

Does China, in short, truly deserve its reputation as an environmental pariah?

Ramon Guardans, a biologist who studies air pollution and co-chairs a global monitoring plan on toxic chemicals for the United Nations Environment Program, is skeptical.

“The air concentrations of several pollutants in sites in China are certainly comparable to the levels observed in heavily industrialized areas in Europe and North America before the 1970’s,” he wrote by email. But pound for pound, person for person these pollutant emissions were, and generally still are, much greater than China’s.

“So in relation to the population density we see in China,” Guardans continues, “the U.S. and Europe did a much dirtier job industrializing.”

Beijing just happens to be, similar to Los Angeles, in a geographical bind. Bloomberg makes this point as well around the same time the Atlantic Monthly does:

Why is Beijing susceptible to these episodes? First, and uncontrollable by the authorities, are the peculiarities of Beijing’s geography. In particular, the capital is surrounded by mountain ranges that lead to the unfortunate phenomenon of an inversion layer—cold air settles on top of a warmer air mass, trapping the pollutants inside. This is the same problem that bedevils Los Angeles.

Beyond the misfortune of geography, though, lie a number of factors that have everything to do with China’s policies….

China is blessed and cursed with the world’s largest coal reserves, which means that the country sources some 80 percent of its electricity from burning coal—and much of that coal is of lower quality and highly polluting. 

But as I have clearly shown… wind and solar energy is no cleaner. And the dream in peoples heads is truly just that, a dream… I mean when Google caves, you know the end-is-nigh.

  • “Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

I must say I’m personally surprised at the conclusion of this study. I genuinely thought that we were maybe a few solar innovations and battery technology breakthroughs away from truly viable solar power. But if this study is to be believed, solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy.

(read more)

And bio-fuels cause, literally, food riots and starvation in poor countries and raise the price of food which hurt the poorer people in the more well off nations: Ethanol is killing children around the world… Democrats! It takes 450lbs of Corn to fill one SUV tank… that is a years worth of food for multiple children, not to mention the rise of corn-based food for the poor worldwide. (SEE MORE)

ICE MELTING

Here is another fail on the part of the doomsayers who speak with a tongue very similar to the eschatology handed us at the most fiery southern Baptist church.

Prince EA is just relying on others work that have been either proven wrong or fraudulant in nature. Here for instance we see some predictions simlar to Prince’s:

“Peter Wadhams, who heads the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge… believes that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free before 2020 and possibly as early as 2015,” (YALE ENVIRONMENT 360 REPORTED IN 2012). Yet government data shows that arctic sea ice has increased since then….

Here I will post information from a PREVIOUS POST about Polar Bear population levels, in which I point the following out:

Recent Population Increase Partly Due To Lots of Sea-Ice

Canada (CBC News via the Canadian Coast Guard, 3/2014) [ARCTIC Sea Ice] The Canadian Coast Guard is pleading with merchant ships to plan their voyages well in advance this year as the organization’s icebreaker fleet confronts some of the worst ice conditions on the Atlantic Ocean in decades.

“Plan your voyage and we’ll all get through this,” said Mike Voight, the Atlantic region’s director of programs. “We’ve got a pretty bad or challenging ice year.”

The Canadian Ice Service, an arm of Environment Canada, said there is 10 per cent more ice this year compared to the 30-year average.

“We probably haven’t seen a winter this bad as far as ice for the past 25 years,” said Voight, referring to both the amount and thickness of the ice….

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) Abstract (12/2014) [ARCTIC sea ice] Despite a well-documented ~40% decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent since the late 1970’s, it has been difficult to estimate trends in sea ice volume because thickness observations have been spatially incomplete and temporally sporadic. While numerical models suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a reduction in volume, there is considerable disagreement over the rate at which this has occurred. We present the first complete assessment of trends in northern hemisphere sea ice thickness and volume using 4 years of measurements from CryoSat-2. Between autumn 2010 and spring 2013, there was a 14% and 5% reduction in autumn and spring Arctic sea ice volume, respectively, in keeping with the long-term decline in extent. However, since then there has been a marked 41% and 9% recovery in autumn and spring sea ice volume, respectively, more than offsetting losses of the previous three years. The recovery was driven by the retention of thick ice around north Greenland and Canada during summer 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 6% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred – climatic conditions more typical of the early 1990’s. Such a sharp increase in volume after just one cool summer indicates that the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered.

Talking About Weather (7/2014) [ANTARCTIC sea ice] Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007, as I reported here, and also covered in my book.

Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, responded to e-mail questions and also spoke by telephone about the new record sea ice growth in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the sea ice growth was specifically due to global warming.

Sea Ice 2014

Let us compare this to Al Gore saying the northern ice-caps will be gone

NewsBusters makes the point another way, in that the “media” is derelict in their duty:

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by theDanish Meteorological Institute

According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.

But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high….

Remember, you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.…read it all at Fox News.

“The West Antarctic ice sheet sits on bedrock which is below sea level. It formed during the ice age but the sea level rose 12,000 years ago and has been chipping away at it ever since. What happens to ice which sits on rock which is below sea level? Hint: it has nothing to do with CO2.” This is a comment from Real Science’s FLASHBACK to 1932 and how the ICe-Sheets were melting then (to the right).

AND FINALLY….

ROCKETS

I hate to break it to Prince EA, but that rocket to find other worlds would have to be powered by (in part) fossil fuels to break earths gravitational force. Not to mention the massive amount of energy (fossil fuels again) And often times the left kills innovation in areas (like nuclear) for ideological reasons. Keeping us dependent on fossil fuels.

You see, all of the above “sounds good,” and grand. But as Thomas Sowell says, liberals — unlike conservatives — do not ask three simple questions:

  1. compared to what?
  2. at what cost?
  3. what hard-evidence do you have?

FOR INSTANCE, as an example, Google came to the logical conclusion that such endeavors with alternative fuels is unattainable:

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[….]

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

Google Joins the Common Sense Crew On Renewable Energies ~ Finally! (RPT)


  • What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change (SPETRUM)
  • Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’ (WATTS UP WITH THAT)
  • Polluting the Beauty and Cleanliness Of Our World With Renewable Energy (RPT)
  • Wind and Solar More Harmful To Environment Than Helpful (RPT)

Censoring A Name – Eric Ciaramella

YouTube censored an upload of mine twice (maybe a third now? (see the RUSH audio here) — and the ONLY reason I can think is that I noted the name of the non-whistleblower in the description. I say non because the statute nowhere forbids a name from being uttered. It merely protects the individual from harassment and firing at work. So legally, the statute does not protect a name from being “revealed.” Here is some quotes by Gregg Jarrett via TIGER DROPPINGS (see also, TWITCHY):

Good and accurate legal analysis of why this whole shitshow is a legal farce. Neither the president nor a call with a foreign leader falls under the ICWBPA act, an act which incidentally does not grant anonymity protection.


QUOTE:

nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else.

Under this framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements.

However, identity protection is neither provided for, nor contemplated, anywhere in the language.

QUOTE:

As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.

This was meticulously explained in an 11-page opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) when it issued the following opinion: “The president is not a member of the intelligence community, and his communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or other activity aided at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence.”

The OLC opinion made it clear that the complaint by the so-called “whistleblower” regarding Ukraine was so deficient that Congress should never have been notified. The acting director of national intelligence agreed with this assessment. The legal analysis and reasoning was sound.

In our constitutional form of government, the president is a unitary executive. He is not a member of any department or agency – they report to him.

To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government.

Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make requests or solicit information.

The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to bureaucratic employees. Indeed, the whistleblower law explicitly excludes a complaint involving “differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.”

So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.

Second, Adam Schiff released his name in a public transcript, as did the Mueller report. Here is a Twitter comment on the matter (NOQ REPORT):

Third, to be a whistleblower he — Eric Ciaramella — would have to have information related to his work. He merely passed along third-hand information… the statute (and the progression of the report up the chain of command ALL found this not to be a statute violate. GREGG JARRETT explains:

5.     It appears the acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) agrees with this assessment.  His agency’s general counsel wrote a letter stating the complaint did not meet the ICWPA definition because it involved conduct “from someone outside the intel community and did not relate to intelligence activity”, according to a report by Fox News.  This is why the DNI refused to forward the complaint to congress.

  • To put this in plain language, a spy who spied on the president does not have a legitimate whistleblower complaint against that president under the law…

To put this in plain language, a spy who allegedly spied on the president does not have a legitimate whistleblower complaint against that president under the law.  The ICWPA is a mechanism to report alleged misconduct by members within the intelligence community, of which the president is not.  Yes, the alphabet soup of intel agencies ultimately report to the president, but that does not make Trump a member of that community and subject to its rules of conduct.

So, it turns out that the “whistleblower” may not be a whistleblower at all.  But you will not hear that from the mainstream media.  They are too busy lighting their own hair on fire.

He also has DEEP ties to spreading lies about the Trump admin (a lie that Putin called Trump and asked him to fire Comey — um, can anyone say #fakenews?)

FLOPPING ACES and REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS (OG source) has much more information on this… but suffice to say, this is the main point:

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

[….]

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.  She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

Now, China has removed all (I mean ALL — like 1984 stuff) references to South-Park and Winnie the Poo — MIC:

After airing an episode called “Band in China,” South Park has been, well, banned in China.

[….]

After “Band in China” aired, government censors quickly and aggressively scrubbed every trace of South Park from the Chinese internet, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Gone was every single mention of the show from the Twitter-like social media site Weibo. Links to every clip, episode, and full season of South Park on streaming service Youku, owned by Alibaba, were dead. Each thread and subthread about the show on Baidu’s Tieba, China’s Reddit-esque discussion platform, had evaporated. If visitors manually typed in the URL for what used to be a South Park forum, they got a message stating, “According to the relevant law and regulation, this section is temporarily not open.”

Larry Elder (listen to the first 2-minutes):

… this is getting concerning that FaceBook, Google, and YouTube would scrub mentioning a public, political name.

Crazy!

This was the original description on YouTube:

(This deserves a “Bwahahaha!”) MUST LISTEN TO Rush Limbaugh — who reads from Rep. Lee Zeldin’s questioning of Ambassador Bill Taylor. The media went with the Democrats summary of the witness testimony — so the media [in other words] didn’t report just how horrible the witness was. As usual, it took a couple minutes to cut through the muck by a Republican. TWITCHY notes some of the devastating “fact” witness B.S. (LINK). More RUSH STUFF:

➤ Whistleblower’s Lawyer Admits It’s a Coup! (LINK)
➤ Pencil Neck Outed Eric Ciaramella in Transcript Release (LINK)

The NBA Chooses China Over America (Part 2 Added)

With the NBA in a tough spot over their condemnation of Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey’s tweet supporting Hong Kong protests, Larry looks into coaches Brian Kerr, Greg Popovich, and player Lebron James and how they are quick to criticize President Trump and comment on other political issues in the US, but are reluctant to criticize China for any of its human rights abuses. Larry thinks one sports commentator knows the reason why.

PART 1

After Lebron James lambasted Daryl Morey for supporting Hong Kong protesters, Larry decides to look into one of the NBA’s biggest issues: fatherless households. He cites a number of well-known figures about the issue that he says faces not only NBA players but America’s black community in general.

PART 2

Larry Elder does a great job (in two segments) of showing the incredible hypocrisy of the NBA, China’s Orwellian fruition of it’s use of technology to keeps it’s communist regime in power. A must listen to excoriation of the issue with professional sports. Here is the CNN article Larry was reading from: “CHINA’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF“.

Some more JASON WHITLOCK:

Some Clarity On The Syrian Kurds (UPDATED)

UPDATED INTERVIEWS ADDED:

Hugh Hewitt talks with Florida Congressman Michael Waltz (against the pull back to defensible lines) and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton (for the pull back to defensible lines) about the Syrian issue with the Kurds and Turkey, impeachment, and China’s LOOMING threat.

(PREVIOUS UPLOAD) Hugh Hewitt quickly summarizes the Kurdish conundrum the U.S. finds itself in in Syria. Brings some even keeled thinking to a topic ginned up by hawks (of which I am one).

Make Greenland Great Again

UPDATED via HERITAGE FOUNDATION (hat-tip to James Carafano):

There is a strong desire in Greenland for full independence—especially among Greenland’s political elite. Only one political party does not support independence (and that party holds only one seat in the 31-seat parliament). 

For Greenland, the question is not if it will become independent, but when and how. 

Few inside Greenland’s government think it is ready now, but Denmark’s official position is that Greenland can become independent whenever it pleases.

After Germany invaded Denmark in 1940, the U.S. quickly deployed forces to protect Greenland from Nazi Germany. Ever since, the U.S. has maintained a military presence on the island. 

In 1946, the Truman administration tried, unsuccessfully, to buy the entire island from Denmark for $100 million. The U.S. was, however, granted long-term access to important military sites. 

Today, the main U.S. military presence is at Thule Air Base in the north of the country. Thule also serves as a very important early warning radar and satellite tracking station for the protection of the U.S. homeland.

So while the U.S.-Greenland security relationship is already good, U.S. policymakers should use the president’s newfound interest in Greenland to advance closer economic relations with the country and expand America’s diplomatic presence there.

[….]

The only way to fly commercially to Greenland is from Iceland or Denmark, but that could change in the coming years. Greenland is set to begin construction on three new airports this year, to be finished in 2023 (in Qaqortoq in the south, in Nuuk the capital, and Ilulissat in the north). 

Greenland’s government hopes the new airports will allow direct flights from North America and open up new opportunities for business and tourism.

The U.S. is also making new initiatives. 

After years of putting it on the back burner, the Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. will maintain a part-time diplomatic presence in Greenland. This is something The Heritage Foundation has been calling for. While this is a very welcome first step, over time this should become an enduring and permanent presence. 

The U.S. once had a consulate in Greenland, from 1940 to the early 1950s. Greenland is in America’s backyard and a critical part of America’s security architecture….

The whole “debacle” — so called — is putting Greenland’s interests first. I found out that apparently this has been in the works for some time. Since WWII in fact… as well as more recently (PJ-MEDIA):

….Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took his two Harvard degrees over to The New York Times to explain just why our real estate mogul POTUS may be onto something.

After news leaked last week that President Trump had expressed interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark, his critics predictably derided him as crazy. But once again, the president is crazy like a fox. The acquisition of Greenland would secure vital strategic interests for the United States, economically benefit both us and Greenlanders, and would be in keeping with American — and Danish — diplomatic traditions.

Strategically positioned in the Arctic Circle, Greenland has long attracted the attention of American policymakers. As far back as 1867, Secretary of State William Seward explored the acquisition of Greenland around the time that he negotiated the purchase of Alaska from the Russians. I myself raised the prospect of acquiring Greenland with the Danish ambassador just last year.

Take that, haters!

This country has needed some big, original thinking for a long time now. While the liberals are forever looking for new ways to suck the joy out of our lives and diminish American achievement, Trump’s all, “You know…Greenland is just sitting there.”

We haven’t done a major real estate deal in over 150 years and we’re certainly not picking up any new territory via warfare these days, so buying Greenland is looking better and better if the U.S. is going to remind the world what’s what.

Sen. Cotton again:

America is not the only nation to recognize Greenland’s strategic significance. Intent on securing a foothold in the Arctic and North America, China attempted in 2016 to purchase an old American naval base in Greenland, a move the Danish government prevented. Two years later, China was back at it, attempting to build three airports on the island, which failed only after intense lobbying of the Danes by the Trump administration.

Beijing understands not only Greenland’s geographic importance but also its economic potential. Greenland is rich in a wide array of mineral deposits, including rare-earth minerals — resources critical to our high-tech and defense industries. China currently dominates the market in these minerals and has threatened to withhold them from us to gain leverage in trade negotiations. Greenland also possesses untold reserves of oil and natural gas.

It just got moved into the “No-Brainer” column, people…..

In other words… China is looking to the mineral rich and strategically powerful option of Greenland… why shouldn’t we? In fact, this geopolitical chess match with China has been going on (over Greenland) for a few years now. More on this in the Washington Times article below.

Sebastian Gorka had James J. Carafano of the Heritage Foundation on his show, the discussion focused on Greenland:

The WASHINGTON TIMES (the indomitable Tammy Bruce in fact) notes that Greenland is mismanaged by Denmark:

But this usual panic from the jealous chattering class once again reveals the Democrats and envious Trump haters’ biggest unforced error — constantly underestimating Donald Trump. This requires deliberately maintaining a remarkable ignorance about the economic and national security issues we face as a nation.

One of those issues is the vital importance of Greenland, its horrible mismanagement as the Danish elite virtue signal about their environmentalism, condemning its 55,000 residents to poverty-stricken lives, and the national security risks economic dereliction invite. The incompetence ruining Greenland, in fact, compelled Greenlandic officials to reach out to China as they searched for a Sugar Daddy to fund infrastructure projects….

The WT’s continues with the strategic infighting over the territory:

what’s worth knowing is what precipitated the president’s comments. In 2017, Greenland’s prime minister flew to China and asked, as the Journal reported in February of this year, “Chinese state-run banks to finance the new commercial airports, including a big one for one of the smallest capitals on earth, Nuuk, which can now be served only by propeller planes. The bankers were interested, people at the meetings said, so long as a Chinese company constructed the airports.”

Reports indicate this action was triggered by Denmark refusing to help.

Then-Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis was not happy and convinced Danish officials to fund the infrastructure, sidelining China. This was an effort by China starting in 2018 and only ending when they officially withdrew in June of this year. For those who look past their shallow view of the United States and the administration, one would know it’s no coincidence that the president’s remarks on Greenland became public just two months after we successfully fought off China in their latest swing at the North American island….

Continuing still, the WASHINGTON TIMES notes the royal families response to the whole thing:

After a few days of screeching from those paralyzed by Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Danish royal family is chiming in with comments indicating they may be moved by the art of the deal.

“In comments sent to Newsweek, along with other publications including The Sun, Dr. Princess Antonia of Schaumburg-Lippe suggested the interest should be taken as a compliment. ‘A purchase offer is a compliment for magical Greenland, as only desirable areas receive offers,’ she said. ‘The people of Greenland should and can decide about their own destiny.’ Her son, Prince Mario Max Schaumburg-Lippe, added: ‘I love Greenland and want the beloved citizens there to be happy. ‘Whatever they feel best and decide, needs to be supported,’ ” the news magazine reported.

While Democrats and resisters continue to chase their tails, it would serve them well to stop and admit that American exceptionalism is back. For everyone.

On this episode of White House Brief [above], Jon Miller describes why Trump should take Greenland: ” President Trump canceled his trip to Denmark because of the prime minister’s rotten attitude over selling Greenland to us. America absolutely should acquire Greenland. It will capture our imagination and revitalize our spirit in a way not seen since the Louisiana Purchase.”

James Pinkerton over at BREITBART throws some “eco-unfriendly” water on the fire:

Yet even from afar, we know that Greenland offers a fantastic development opportunity. And so, if the Danes are too green and politically correct to extract that wealth, perhaps the U.S. can blaze a rich new trail.

Of course, some will say that all this is a pipe-dream, even if the U.S. were to become sovereign in Greenland. That is, the greens in America would work just as hard as the greens in Denmark to stop any such development, preferring to leave Greenland as it is, undeveloped. Yes, American greens, backed up by numerous billion-dollar foundations, would do precisely that: They’d organize, agitate, and litigate to leave Greenland to the seals and polar bears.

So we can see: Green power is not to be underestimated. As a matter of fact, the greens are so powerful in the U.S. that they have, in much of the country, taken the issue of natural resource development off the table. That’s why, for example, efforts to fully exploit America’s hydrocarbon resources have been stymied. As has been pointed out by Breitbart News, the total value of oil and natural gas, under federal lands and waters, is $128 trillion. That’s a lot of wealth — six times America’s annual GDP, six times our national debt — and yet green power is such that few even talk about tapping into our natural abundance….

Pinkerton finishes his article with this:

So let’s give Trump credit for his Greenland idea. Even if nothing comes of it during his presidency, he has expanded the “Overton Window” — that is, the range of acceptable political discourse — reminding us that greatness comes from expansion and innovation, not from contraction and enervation.

One fine day, development will come to Greenland, as well as to other desolate places. Such development can, and should, be done cleanly as well as profitably.

There may never be a Trump Tower in Greenland. But even so, the MAGA spirit could be extended to include the new phrase, MGGA — Make Greenland Great Again.

USS WASP Training In South China Sea

The JAPAN TIMES writes about the significance of such a move:

Contacted by The Japan Times, a U.S. military spokeswoman would not confirm or deny the Wasp’s presence near the collection of outcroppings that barely jut out above water at high tide, citing “force protection and security.” However, the spokeswoman did confirm that the Wasp “has been training with Philippine Navy ships in Subic Bay and in international waters of the South China Sea for several days.”

Scarborough Shoal, which is also claimed by Taiwan, is regarded as a potential powder keg in the strategic waterway. It was seized by Beijing in 2012 after an extended standoff with Manila. China later effectively blockaded the lagoon, which is rich in fish stocks, and routinely dispatches scores of fishing vessels and government-backed “maritime militia” ships to the area to continue its de facto blockade.

The Wasp was taking part in the annual Balikatan U.S.-Philippine military training exercise “that focuses on maritime security and amphibious capabilities, as well as multinational interoperability through military exchanges,” said U.S. Marine Corps Second Lt. Tori Sharpe, a spokeswoman for the exercises, adding that the exercises were “unrelated to current events.”

Still, beyond the location of the exercises, the Wasp’s presence alone in the South China Sea was likely to draw Beijing’s attention since this year’s Balikatan exercise was the first to incorporate the Wasp paired with the U.S. Marines Corps’ cutting-edge F-35B Lightning II stealth aircraft. The F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the aircraft.

“TOGETHER THEY REPRESENT AN INCREASE IN MILITARY CAPABILITY COMMITTED TO A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC,” SHARPE SAID….

Some WASP Porn: