Armstrong and Getty read from the Wall Street Journal article, “Walz Dithered While Minneapolis Burned,” by Heather Mac Donald on Tim Walz. I added some examples as well. See also:
Minnesota
Judge Rejects Attempt to Remove Trump From Colorado Ballot
THE FEDERALIST has an article again noting what my last three topics (first, second, and third posts) regarding the issue are: “the President is not included in the 14th Amendment.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Claims threw out challenges attempting to strike former President Donald Trump’s name from 2024 presidential primary election ballots. However, the courts left open the possibility of his removal from general presidential election ballots. Similar cases are pending across the country, and a decision is expected to be made today in a Colorado lawsuit.
The lawsuits, brought by leftist activist organizations, argue that because Trump was giving a speech to his supporters near the White House while protesters flooded the Capitol in a supposed “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies him from appearing on ballots.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads:
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
There are several issues with the lawsuits attempting to brazenly interfere in the next presidential election, starting with the fact that Trump did not “engage in an insurrection or rebellion.” No federal court has convicted Trump of such a thing. Moreover, the Senate acquitted Trump of the second impeachment resolution, which charged him with “Incitement of Insurrection.”
According to Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, there is also “a serious question of whether the disqualification provision of Section 3 even still exists as a constitutional matter.” As Spakovsky explained, “Section 3 gives Congress the ability to remove the disqualification provision and void Section 3 by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress,” and in 1872 and 1898, “Congress did just that” by passing two Amnesty Acts.
In Minnesota, the state Supreme Court refused to even consider Trump’s removal from the general election ballots because the issue is “neither ripe, nor is it ‘about to occur.’” Indeed, no one technically knows whether Trump will win the Republican primary and therefore be eligible to appear on general election ballots.
As for the primary election, the court concluded Section 3 is irrelevant. “[T]his is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes,” stated the court, “And there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.”
However, the court did leave open the possibility of Trump’s disqualification in the general election if he wins the primary.
In Michigan, state Court of Claims Judge James Redford ruled that Trump could not be removed from primary ballots because the primaries are an internal political party affair. Like in Minnesota, Redford left the door open for Trump’s removal from the general election, but he also strongly suggested that no court can rule on Trump’s eligibility in the general election because that decision should be left up to Congress.
“The questions involved are by their nature political,” Redford wrote. “It takes the decision of whether there was a rebellion or insurrection and whether or not someone participated in it from the Congress, a body made up of elected representatives of the people of every state in the nation, and gives it to but one single judicial officer, a person who no matter how well intentioned, evenhanded, fair and learned, cannot in any manner or form possibly embody the represented qualities of every citizen of the nation—as does the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
[….]
Legal experts predict that this boldest ploy yet to interfere in a presidential election will likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
JUST THE NEWS notes the same at the end of their article: “Activist group Free Speech for People has since asked the Wolverine State’s top bench to intervene.”
RED STATE shows the Judge involved believes Trump met the rules for the 14th, but that the 14th doesn’t apply to the President:
There’s a new decision among the cases making their way through the nation’s judicial system that seek to bar former President Donald Trump from 2024 presidential ballots by using section three of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — but it’s complicated. So bear with me.
Let’s start with the basics of what Colorado District Judge Sarah B. Wallace wrote in her ruling: First, she rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the 14th Amendment was intended to be read as the President of the United States is ““an officer of the United States.” Judge Wallace decided that by finding that “Section 3 did not include the presidential oath in that category.”
The clause does not explicitly name the presidency, so that question hinged on whether the president was included in the category “officer of the United States.”
The complication comes in after that. Yes, in the end, the decision by this state judge is that this cannot be used to keep the former president off Colorado’s ballot. But that wasn’t all that she determined in her ruling — and this part will likely please the leftists and Never Trump antagonists:
With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.
In other words, she said Trump “incited” the people who took part in entering the Capitol.
[….]
This isn’t over, in other words, and it’s believed that the Colorado case will likely end up at the Supreme Court……
Black Mother Calls Out Democrats For Racially Brainwash Her Kids
Based Black Mother Calls Out White & Black Liberals For Trying To Racially Brainwash Her Kids
Black mother denounces ethnic studies curriculum in Minnesota: “I see why you white proponents of this bill might support it. It’s not your kids being told they can’t succeed and you get to shed some of your white guilt in the process.”pic.twitter.com/Ktkc7RFMes
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 25, 2023
Are Electric Cars “Clean”
(MEDIA FILES UPDATED 8-28-2022) This is part five of a conversation at a friends house on Christmas. This conversation included: CO2; Rising Oceans; Year 2014 Being the Hottest; Polar Bear Fraud. LOMBORG BOTTOM LINE: Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%. However, the electric car requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries. (See more here) GREEN ENERGY GRID But manufacturing the famous gasoline-electric hybrid can be a dirty business. Toyota studied the car’s total environmental impact from factory to junkyard. In fact, when looking at the “materials manufacturing” phase of the car’s life cycle, the Prius was worse than the class average across all five emissions categories. (AUTO SPIES) Also, this from Reuters a few years back to put an emphasis on Dr. Lomborg’s $44 dollars of savings subsidized with $7,500 in tax-payers monies: (REUTERS) – General Motors Co. sold a record number of Chevrolet Volt sedans in August — but that probably isn’t a good thing for the automaker’s bottom line. Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts. Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce…. SO, to be clear… it requires A LOT MORE energy to produce the electric or hybrid car, and takes more energy to “fuel” them. From Lomborg’s USA TODAY editorial: It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars. Electric cars’ global-warming benefits are small. It is advertised as a zero-emissions car, but in reality it only shifts emissions to electricity production, with most coming from fossil fuels. As green venture capitalist Vinod Khosla likes to point out, “Electric cars are coal-powered cars.” The most popular electric car, a Nissan Leaf, over a 90,000-mile lifetime will emit 31 metric tons of CO2, based on emissions from its production, its electricity consumption at average U.S. fuel mix and its ultimate scrapping. A comparable diesel Mercedes CDI A160 over a similar lifetime will emit 3 tons more across its production, diesel consumption and ultimate scrapping. [….] Comparing Apples to Apples [….] Yes, in both cases the electric car is better, but only by a tiny bit. Avoiding 3 tons of CO2 would cost less than $27 on Europe’s emissions trading market. The annual benefit is about the cost of a cup of coffee. Yet U.S. taxpayers spend up to $7,500 in tax breaks for less than $27 of climate benefits. That’s a bad deal. (See also WUWT, where Lomborg notes that “…large battery pack [cars]… avoids nothing or even *increases* total CO2 emissions”) This post will deal with two areas, the main one will be to simply compare the lifetime environmental impact of electric cars to regular gas cars and diesel cars and their carbon footprint. I will add some newer information here as well as combining some older posts herein. The second part is simple, where does the energy come to charge these Electric Vehicles (EVs). SUBSIDY for CARS These subsidies mainly benefit the rich, Tesla’s increased sales are directly linked to tax breaks offered to the wealthy on the backs of gas and diesel drivers: …This means that CDA leader Sybrand Buma’s comments that ‘prosecco-drinking Tesla drivers’ have profited from the tax break at the ‘expense of the ordinary man in the street’ are largely true, the paper said. It points out that the subsidies for electric cars are mainly funded by higher taxes paid by petrol and diesel car owners… Follow the sources below to subsidy sites in purchasing an electric vehicle: California just put another $116 million toward clean vehicle rebates (source)…. Administered by CSE for the California Air Resources Board, the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) offers up to $15,000 in electric vehicle rebates for the purchase or lease of new, eligible zero-emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty vehicles (source). A side note. California, as a government, does not make money like a normal business. It CAN ONLY tax people to get the money it spends. If it gets money from the Federal government, THEY [the Federal government] can only tax people or print money [weakening the dollar if it does this too much]. So, this $116-million comes from somewhere, and, is really just a redistribution of peoples money to an area the State thinks is important ~ but! is in fact, based on bad science. TOYOTA SAYS! So let’s start with some Prius examples. AUTOMOTIVE NEWS documents a study done by Toyota that bursts greenies bubbles: The Toyota Prius is among the greenest cars to operate. But manufacturing the famous gasoline-electric hybrid can be a dirty business. Toyota studied the car’s total environmental impact from factory to junkyard. Not surprisingly, the fuel-efficient Prius was better than average in its class of vehicles in lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, according to Toyota. But it was slightly worse than average in emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons and particulate matter. Toyota says this is because producing hybrid-only parts such as motors, inverters and nickel-metal hydride batteries consumes more energy and creates more emissions. In fact, when looking at the “materials manufacturing” phase of the car’s life cycle, the Prius was worse than the class average across all five emissions categories. One proponent (now detractor) of EVs is Dr. Ozzie Zehner who has written quite fairly on the issue of alternative energy, and has an open chapter in his book for people to read. The following is via HotAir: …An environmental activist who once pushed for EVs and now works as a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley now calls electric vehicles “unclean at any speed” in a recent article for the engineering journal IEEE Spectrum (via Weasel Zippers and UPI): The idea of electrifying automobiles to get around their environmental shortcomings isn’t new. Twenty years ago, I myself built a hybrid electric car that could be plugged in or run on natural gas. It wasn’t very fast, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t safe. But I was convinced that cars like mine would help reduce both pollution and fossil-fuel dependence. I was wrong. I’ve come to this conclusion after many years of studying environmental issues more deeply and taking note of some important questions we need to ask ourselves as concerned citizens. Mine is an unpopular stance, to be sure. The suggestive power of electric cars is a persuasive force—so persuasive that answering the seemingly simple question “Are electric cars indeed green?” quickly gets complicated. Ozzie Zehner, who worked on the experimental EV-1 at GM before it got shelved, says some of the complications are due to the economics of science and scientific research. Most of the funding comes from interested parties, which tends to produce research that supports their positions… The article HotAir references is actually really long, well balanced, and informative. I suggest the serious reader delve in as “Unclean At Any Speed” touches on the many aspects of the alternative energy push right now. One aspect noted in the article is the large rare-earth metals needed (mined) and energy used in the extraction of these and the destruction of large swaths of land mass in order to produce the batteries and magnets involved in EVs. Prius vs. Hummer I will combine a graphic from Dr. Zehner article with another noted study comparing the Prius to a Hummer (the better comparison will come later with a diesel and electric cars): (click to enlarge) Some have called the Hummer/Prius comparison into question, some of which is even hashed out in the comment section of the post where the bullet points are from, fine. (A diesel Hummer H2 would surely beat the total lifespan footprint of the comparison.) But the impact on the environment (note the moon-landing stat) and overall comparisons to diesel’s is what interests me. The author of the above article updated his post with this [for the curious]: UPDATE: Apparently the Prius was only ranked #12 in overall green-ness, behind several diesels, city roadsters, and smart cars. Experts expect the ranking to be even worse next year. See also SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S article entitled: “Electric Cars Are Not Necessarily Clean: Your battery-powered vehicle is only as green as your electricity supplier“ This brings me to another idea noted in the aforementioned article, even given a growth pattern in alternative fuels diesel in 2030 is still projected to be the best in low impact on the environment: Environmental Impact This is an area that might be surprising. At face value, with high gas mileage and low emissions, hybrids seem like the easy answer. But as we have previously covered at Digital Trends, vehicles with batteries may not be nearly as “green” as is often claimed. This is a complicated issue. Essentially, batteries – particularly lithium-ion batteries – are both incredibly energy intensive and also toxic to produce. This means that the carbon footprint for hybrid production is much larger than a gasoline-only or even diesel-powered car. In fact, according to some studies, fully electric vehicles have a bigger carbon footprint than diesel powered vehicles in areas where most electricity is produced using fossil fuels. Modern diesel-cars should not be compared with truck engines that blast clouds of panda-killing soot into the air. Thanks to improvements in technology, current diesel cars are comparable in terms of particulate emissions to any other gasoline-powered car. In fact Volkswagen and Audi’s clean diesel technology makes cars like the Passat TDI cleaner than 93 percent of other cars on the road. As with price, there will be specific exceptions to this rule, but diesel is greener than hybrid technology. Solar/Wind Energy Environmental Impact So diesel hybrids are the ideal for those concerned about the environment. But the rare-earth metals and substances used to make the batteries and magnets are in much less supply than coal, oil, and the like. In fact, in the 70’s it was predicted that we would be running dry of oil this year, but in fact we have at least 200-years worth of supply, the highest ever in the history of man (see point #3). To be clear, the impact on land and energy to get these materials is worse than normal automotive choices: This section is a response of sorts to Dr. Lomborg, who is interviewed in the opening video. And it is very simple, alternative energy sources create more pollution than they will save (carbon footprint wise). WIND Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year. The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils. Wind farms are typically built on upland sites, where peat soil is common. In Scotland alone, two thirds of all planned onshore wind development is on peatland. England and Wales also have large numbers of current or proposed peatland wind farms. But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe’s equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities. British peatland stores at least 3.2 billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country’s most important carbon sink and among the most important in the world. Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change. [….] “This is just another way in which wind power is a scam. It couldn’t exist without subsidy. It is driving industry out of Britain and driving people into fuel poverty.”… Wind power cannot meet demands, and are dependent on weather conditions, as the above graph shows. Here is a snippit of the issue at hand with Germany’s electric grid: You can see the extreme volatility of wind power. Such volatility plays havoc with the electric grid and makes fossil fuel backup generation more expensive to run because it must constantly change production rate; it cannot be run efficiently. Those constant changes cause production of more emissions than would be produced without having to contend with the quirky wind power contribution. Gosselin (a US citizen living in Germany, who received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona) notes that “Resistance to wind power in Germany is snowballing.” “The turbines, which the German government says will become the ‘workhorse’ of the German power industry, ran at over 50% of their rated capacity only for 461 hours [out of a possible 8,766], or just 5.2% of the time.” In addition to the unreliable power produced by allegedly “green” wind power, it is becoming increasingly obvious that wind generation is taking a large toll on wildlife and has deleterious effects on human health. [….] “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and American Bird Conservancy say wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese and other birds every year in the United States, along with countless insect-eating bats. Wind turbines killed 600000 bats last year. “Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil (LINK TO ARTICLE IN POWER PLANT PICS) Put another way: “A fundamental principle of information theory is that you can’t guarantee outcomes… in order for an experiment to yield knowledge, it has to be able to fail. If you have guaranteed experiments, you have zero knowledge” ~ George Gilder Interview by Dennis Prager {Editors note: this is how the USSR ended up with warehouses FULL of “widgets” (things made that it could not use or people did not want) no one needed in the real world. This economic law enforcers George Gilder’s contention that when government supports a venture from failing, no information is gained in knowing if the program actually works. Only the free-market can do this. [See my post on Capitalism.]} Wind power, in fact, pollutes the environment in a much more thorough manner… Via Independent IE “Technology” page: ….But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature. Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world’s largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built. This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms. It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds. It is reported China is now erecting 36 wind turbines every day and Texas is the largest producer of wind power in the US. Liming Zhou, Research Associate Professor at the Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at the University of New York, who led the study, said further research is needed into the affect of the new technology on the wider environment. “Wind energy is among the world’s fastest growing sources of energy. The US wind industry has experienced a remarkably rapid expansion of capacity in recent years,” he said. “While converting wind’s kinetic energy into electricity, wind turbines modify surface-atmosphere exchanges and transfer of energy, momentum, mass and moisture within the atmosphere. These changes, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate.” The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions. The team studied satellite data showing land surface temperature in west-central Texas…. ….According to Prinn and Wang, this temperature increase occurs because the wind turbines affect two processes that play critical roles in determining surface temperature and atmospheric circulation: vertical turbulent motion and horizontal heat transport. Both processes are responsible for moving heat away from Earth’s surface. In the analysis, the wind turbines on land reduced wind speed, particularly on the downwind side of the wind farms, which reduced the strength of the turbulent motion and horizontal heat transport processes. This resulted in less heat being transported to the upper parts of the atmosphere, as well as to other regions farther away from the wind farms…. Via Gateway Pundit, and the part on birds is found here: Not only do wind farms kill off high-profile bird species like golden and bald eagles and California condors, the farms also cause global warming. After hundreds of millions in blown taxpayer money and thousands of dead birds the latest research shows that wind farms cause warming. Reuters reported, via Free Republic: Large wind farms might have a warming effect on the local climate, research in the United States showed on Sunday, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power… …The world’s wind farms last year had the capacity to produce 238 gigawatt of electricity at any one time. That was a 21 percent rise on 2010 and capacity is expected to reach nearly 500 gigawatt by the end of 2016 as more, and bigger, farms spring up, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany analysed the satellite data of areas around large wind farms in Texas, where four of the world’s largest farms are located, over the period 2003 to 2011. The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms. “We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms,” the study said. The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors, it said. “These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate,” the authors said. But the Democrats will continue to dump billions into the costly energy source anyway. It makes them feel good.
fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers
That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make
sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett
fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole
is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
– James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming
alarmism and former NASA climate chief)
Can you imagine the polluted, destroyed world we would have if the left had their way with green energy?
Environazis, like all progressives, care about two things: other people’s money and the power entailed in imposing their ideology. Prominent among the many things they do not care about is the environment, as demonstrated by a monstrosity planned for Loch Ness:
A giant 67 turbine wind farm planned for the mountains overlooking Loch Ness will be an environmental disaster thanks to the sheer quantity of stone which will need to be quarried to construct it, according to the John Muir Trust. In addition, the Trust has warned that the turbines spell ecological disaster for the wet blanket peat-land which covers the area and acts as a huge carbon sink, the Sunday Times has reported.
According to global warming dogma, carbon sinks are crucial in preventing human activity from causing climatic doom.
The planet isn’t the only victim of this ideologically driven enterprise:
Around one million people visit the picturesque Loch Ness, nestled in the highlands of Scotland each year, bringing about £25 million in revenue with them. Most are on the lookout for the infamous monster, but if Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) get their way the tourists will have something else to look at: the Stronelairg wind farm – 67 turbines, each 443ft high, peppered across the Monadhlaith mountains overlooking the Loch.
- Is “green” energy, particularly wind and solar energy, the solution to our climate and energy problems? Or should we be relying on things like natural gas, nuclear energy, and even coal for our energy needs and environmental obligations? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains.
NEW INFORMATION on the low frequency noise made by wind farms shows a direct connection to the health of ones heart.
Interviewed in Allgemeine-Zeitung, Vahl said that the Low Frequency Noise generated by wind turbines can weaken the heart muscle and change the blood flow.
According to NO TRICKS ZONE:
Prof. Wahl became interested in infrasound and its impact on health after a friend who lived near a wind park had complained of feeling continuously sick. It is known that all around the world people living near wind parks often experience health issues – some being severe.
The group led by Prof. Vahl conducted an experiment to find out if infrasound has an effect on heart muscle strength. Under the measurement conditions, the force developed by isolated heart muscle was up to 20 percent less.
The strength of the heart muscle is important in the event the aortic valve becomes caked up and thus more narrow. According to Dr. Vahl: “This changes the blood flow and the flow noise.”
Now researchers are discussing whether these changes can pose an additional risk to the function of the heart, the Allgemeine Zeitung reported.
Citing the results, Prof. Vahl said: “The fundamental question of whether infrasound can affect the heart muscle has been answered.”
The researchers conclude: “We are at the very beginning, but we can imagine that long-term impact of infrasound causes health problems. The silent noise of infrasound acts like a heart jammer.”
There has long been anecdotal evidence that wind turbines are injurious to human health. I first heard these stories myself on a visit to Australia in 2012 when I met several people who had experienced serious health problems from the effects of wind turbine infrasound – and had been forced to abandon their homes. Subsequently, I also spoke to people in the UK who were also victims of Wind Turbine Syndrome.
- You can read the first report I wrote on the subject here.
- Here is a more recent one, full of useful links, titled: Donald Trump is so Right to Wage War on Wind Farms
The wind industry is a massive class action suit waiting to happen. [Especially now that the World Health Organisation has confirmed the health risks – which, of course, just like Big Tobacco, Big Wind has been covering up for years] Indeed, of all the scandals to emerge from the great global warming scam, the wind industry is in my view the worst….
This realization has hit Google scientists squarely in the common sense thinking center. Google (and Apple) had grand dreams of going 100%-powered by alternative means. They have all but given up:
“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.
Solar
Low-Tech Magazine notes that new “research shows, albeit unintentional, that generating electricity with solar panels can also be a very bad idea. In some cases, producing electricity by solar panels releases more greenhouse gases than producing electricity by gas or even coal.” Continuing, they point out that…
Producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants and greenhouse gases by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies, claims a study called “Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles”, to be published this month in “Environmental Science & Technology”. Good news, it seems, until one reads the report itself. The researchers come up with a solid set of figures. However, they interpret them in a rather optimistic way. Some recalculations (skip this article if you get annoyed by numbers) produce striking conclusions.
Solar panels don’t come falling out of the sky – they have to be manufactured. Similar to computer chips, this is a dirty and energy-intensive process. First, raw materials have to be mined: quartz sand for silicon cells, metal ore for thin film cells. Next, these materials have to be treated, following different steps (in the case of silicon cells these are purification, crystallization and wafering). Finally, these upgraded materials have to be manufactured into solar cells, and assembled into modules. All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions, and they consume energy – which brings about more air pollution, heavy metal emissions and also greenhouse gases.
Similarly, Solar Industry Magazine notes that this process is very caustic:
There are also practical dangers to the first res ponders as well:
So an electrical grid powered by alternative fuels or “renewable energy is really a pipe-dream. Take the projections of that giant bird killing plant on the California-Nevada border:
….A solar power plant in the Mojave Desert that’s attracted negative attention for its injuries to birds is producing a whole lot less power than it’s supposed to, according to Energy Department figures.
According to stats from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a number-crunching branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in San Bernardino County has produced only about a quarter of the power it’s supposed to, with both less than optimal weather and apparent mechanical issues contributing to the shortfall.
[….]
As Danko points out, Ivanpah’s owners have recently sought extensions on the repayment schedule for the $1.6 billion in government-backed loans that paid for Ivanpah’s construction, hoping to delay writing checks until the firms can secure a government grant they hope to use to pay down the loan… .
(SEE MORE)
BATTERIES
In an excellent post linking to a German documentary (30-minutes) and study showing the devastation to Chili of lithium mining, we find the following:
German ZDF public television recently broadcast a report showing how electric cars are a far cry from being what they are all cracked up to be by green activists.
The report titled: “Batteries in twilight – The dark side of e-mobility” [now not available] shows how the mining of raw materials needed for producing the massive automobile batteries is highly destructive to the environment. For example, two thirds of the cobalt currently comes from the Congo, where the mining rights have been acquired by China. Other materials needed include manganese, lithium and graphite.
Every electric car battery needs about 20 – 30 kg of lithium.
The mining of the raw materials often takes place in third world countries where workers are forced to work under horrendous conditions and no regard is given to protecting the environment. When it comes to “going green”, it seems everything flies out the window….
- The production of lithium through evaporation ponds uses a lot of water – around 21 million litres per day. Approximately 2.2 million litres of water is needed to produce one ton of lithium. (EURO NEWS)
AGAIN… here is a Facebook post of the same thing regarding Lithium Fields:
This is a Lithium leach field.
This is what your Electric Car batteries are made of.
It is so neuro-toxic that a bird landing on this stuff dies in minutes.
Take a guess what it does to your nervous system?
Pat yourself on the back for saving the environment.
Chile, 2nd largest lithium producer, is having water-scarcity problems as this technology takes so much water to produce battery-grade lithium. 2000 tons: 1 ton.
And the current version of the “inflation reduction act” wants 100% of EV battery components produced in the US.
Lead, nickel, lithium, cadmium, alkaline, mercury and nickel metal hydride.
Batteries are a collection of things that are extremely deadly.
Alternative fuels/energy is a DIRTY BUSINESS… but the left who live in the seclusion of the New York Times and MSNBC would never know this. I can show a graph showing skyrocketing carbon emissions worldwide for the past decade and that the temperature has dropped during this time by a small amount, and it is like showing them instructions to build an IKEA bookcase with instructions written in Gaelic! 
What about the impact and supply of the materials needed to produce batteries? TreeHugger has a good post that mentions some of these environmental pitfalls. These issues involve many devices we use daily (cell phones, lap-top computers, rechargeable batteries, etc.), but add to this burden a mandated or subsidized car industry:
…lithium batteries take a tremendous amount of copper and aluminum to work properly. These metals are needed for the production of the anode & the cathode, cables and battery management systems. Copper and aluminum have to be mined, processes and manufacturing which takes lots of energy, chemicals and water which add to their environmental burden.
[….]
First of all, this study emphasizes that there would be less Lithium available than previously estimated for the global electric car market. It also states the fact that some of the largest concentrations of Lithium in the world are found in some of the most beautiful and ecologically fragile places, such as The Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia. The authors note:
“It would be irresponsible to despoil these regions for a material which can only ever be produced in sufficient quantities to serve a niche market of luxury vehicles for the top end of the market. We live in an age of Environmental Responsibility where the folly of the last two hundred years of despoilment of the Earth’s resources are clear to see. We cannot have “Green Cars” that have been produced at the expense of some of the world’s last unspoiled and irreplaceable wilderness. We have a responsibility to rectify our errors and not fall into the same traps as in the past.”
[….]
The report estimates that there would be less Lithium available than previously estimated for the global electric car market, as demand is rising for competing markets, such as cellular telephones and other electronic devices. At the same time, due to a great concentration of Lithium found in Chile, Bolivia and Argentina (70% of the world’s deposits), the United States and other developed countries needing the material will be subject to geopolitical forces similar to those they have already encountered from the member countries of OPEC…
Click HERE to go to larger file (use mouse wheel to zoom in)
In an excellent article we see the projected demands on other metals involved in the battery and transit goals:
….Regarding the demand for the different minerals, in the case of aluminum, according to our results, the demand for minerals from the rest of the economy would stand out, with the requirement for batteries having little influence. Copper would have a high demand from the rest of the economy, but it would also have a significant demand from vehicles, infrastructure and batteries. Cobalt would be in high demand because of the manufacture of batteries with the exception of the LFP battery that does not have this mineral, in the case of its demand from the rest of the economy it can be stated that it would be important but less influential than the demand for batteries. Lithium would have very high requirements from all the batteries and with a reduced demand from the rest of the economy. Manganese would have an important but contained demand coming from LMO and NMC batteries, since the requirements for this mineral would stand out in the rest of the economy. Finally, nickel would have a high demand from NMC and NCA batteries, but its main demand would come from the rest of the economy.
The batteries that would require the least materials are the NCA and LFP batteries. The NMC battery has been surpassed in performance and mineral usage by the NCA. The LiMnO2 battery has a very poor performance, so it has been doomed to disuse in electric vehicles. In addition, the LFP battery, the only one that does not use critical materials in the cathode (other than lithium), also has poor performance, requiring very large batteries (in size and weight) to match the capacity and power of batteries using cobalt.
Charging infrastructure, rail and copper used in electrified vehicles could add up to more than 17% of the copper reserve requirement in the most unfavourable scenario (high EV) and 7% in the most favourable (degrowth), so these are elements that must be taken into account…..
(GEEDS)
Half of all Cobalt made goes into electric cars.
Are Electric Vehicles really clean? | They run on dirty energy and blood of children as young as 6. | Electric cars drive human rights abuse and child labour. | China is one of the villains in this story. | Are electric carmakers equally guilty too? | Palki Sharma Upadhyay tells you.
Siddharth Kara is an author and expert on modern-day slavery, human trafficking, and child labor. Look for his new book, “Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives,” on January 31, 2023
TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE….
…. lithium is also not the only battery ingredient with a dark side. Perhaps the darkest of all is cobalt, which is commonly used, alongside lithium, in the batteries of many electric vehicles.
More than half of the world’s cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). According to a 2016 Amnesty International Report, 20% of the cobalt exported from the DRC comes from artisanal mines, in which miners use either their hands or very basic tools to dig out rocks from tunnels deep underground, often for as little as $2 a day.
Worse still, UNICEF estimates 40,000 of the workers in these mines are children under the age of 18, with some as young as 7 years old. Cobalt mining also comes with serious health risks. Chronic exposure to dust containing cobalt can cause the potentially fatal lung disease “hard metal lung disease.” Many fatal accidents have also been caused by mines not being constructed or managed safely.
Clearly then, in the face of such widespread environmental damage and human rights abuses, the ethics of electric vehicles is far more complicated than the expensive car adverts and glowing newspaper headlines would have us believe…..
(VARSITY)
From the video description:
This is pretty lame. I wonder how many people think this power just comes out of the ground? Perhaps these greentards think this is magic solar power that is leached from the sun and stored in invisible floating Tesla flywheels. Bet that went right over most heads. Anyway this is a real problem for shoppers at WalGREENS. Weather they are asked or not they are subsidizing this climate hoax and paying for the fuel that is getting these FARCE-CARS from point “a” to point “b.”
And there are a lot of tax-monies/incentives used even for the above charging stations. Wiki has some pretty good references in regards to this:
Plug-in conversion kits
The 2009 ARRA provided a tax credit for plug-in electric drive conversion kits. The credit is equal to 10% of the cost of converting a vehicle to a qualified plug-in electric vehicle and in service after February 17, 2009. The maximum amount of the credit is $4,000. The credit does not apply to conversions made after December 31, 2011.[142][149]
There was (through 2010) a federal tax credit equal to 50% of the cost to buy and install a home-based charging station with a maximum credit of US$2,000 for each station. Businesses qualified for tax credits up to $50,000 for larger installations.[144][150] These credits expired on December 31, 2010, but were extended through 2013 with a reduced tax credit equal to 30% with a maximum credit of up to US$1,000 for each station for individuals and up to US$30,000 for commercial buyers.[][]
(See more HERE)
CLIMATE/WEATHER
Another factor regarding optimal output and electric vehicles is hot and cold weather. I will let a wonderful WIRED MAGAZINE article explain:
…EV drivers have other factors to consider in winter weather: How far they can go, and how long it will take them to recharge.
Cold temperatures can hurt both, especially when it gets as severe as Winter Storm Jaden, which has triggered states of emergency across the country and will subject more than 70 percent of the US population to subzero temperatures over the next few days. That’s because the lithium-ion batteries that power EVs (as well as cellphones and laptops) are very temperature sensitive.
“Batteries are like humans,” says Anna Stefanopoulou, director of the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute. They prefer the same sort of temperature range that people do. Anything below 40 or above 115 degrees Fahrenheit and they’re not going to deliver their peak performance. They like to be around 60 to 80 degrees. As the temperature drops, the electrolyte fluid inside the battery cells becomes more sluggish. “You don’t have as much power when you want to discharge,” says Stefanopoulou. “The situation is even more limited when you want to charge.”
Modern cars are designed to take that into account, with battery thermal management systems that warm or cool a battery. But while an internal combustion engine generates its own heat, which warms the engine and the car occupants, an EV has to find that warmth somewhere else, either scavenging the small amount of heat that motors and inverters make or running a heater. That takes energy, meaning there’s less power available to move the wheels.
Additionally, to protect the battery—the most expensive component of an EV—the onboard computer may limit how it’s used in extreme low temperatures. The Tesla Model S owners manual warns: “In cold weather, some of the stored energy in the Battery may not be available on your drive because the battery is too cold.”…
In a conversation between EV owners and others at WATTS UP WITH THAT, a comment that sums up the above but in a short paragraph, reads:
- It’s not just bigger, it’s huge. Unlike an IC powered car, where cold weather won’t really affect it much, an electric car is severely disadvantaged. Drop outside temperatures down to -10 degrees F (not uncommon in Chicago) and that 300 mile range drops to 75 miles. Commute 20 miles to work on a frigid winter morning and 20 miles home in slooow traffic in a snowstorm with lights, wipers, and defroster on hi, and you just might not make it.
And another story of Minnessota doo gooders plans failiung them:
The Twin City buses were supposed to go 150 miles on a single charge, but the actual range was closer to 75 miles.
Minnesota cities worked to shift toward clean energy in public transit, but complications from acquired electric vehicles have prompted significant overhauls and additional expenditures to keep the buses operational.
In Duluth, Minn., technicians installed diesel-powered heaters on electric buses as the city’s electric fleet struggled to perform. In 2015, the city received a $6.3 million federal grant, according to MinnPost, for seven battery-electric buses from Proterra, which were delivered in 2018.
Proterra, which went bankrupt in August, sold 550 buses. The company enjoyed outspoken support from the Biden administration, but the buses have given transit districts across the country extensive problems. Many of the buses, which were purchased with sizable federal grants, have broken down, and repairs have been slow going as a result of a lack of parts.
The Proterra buses in Duluth struggled to make it up steep hills and to keep riders warm in winter. Proterra technicians installed diesel-powered heaters on the buses and increased the battery capacity so they could handle steep hills and subzero temperatures, which degrade the performance of electric vehicles.
In the Twin Cities, meanwhile, the transit department received another $1.7 million federal grant for eight more electric buses from Canada-based New Flyer. The Twin City buses were supposed to go 150 miles on a single charge, but the actual range was closer to 75 miles. The buses further failed to meet 20% of their scheduled operating miles because of needed battery replacements. In 2021, the buses were out of service for most of the year because of charging station issues at the garage…..
Reality is a Bitch!
THE DAILY MAIL notes that “[e]lectric cars have 40 per cent less range when the temperature dips below freezing, new research has revealed.” Wow. Canadians are well-aware of the issue — as are the people in the northern states.
IN~OTHER~WORDS, this “venture is a giant boondoggle and these charging-stations would never survive outside of transferring wealth from business owners and those that drive the economy to cover this failure of a “choice.”
AGAIN:
“A fundamental principle of information theory is that you can’t guarantee outcomes… in order for an experiment to yield knowledge, it has to be able to fail. If you have guaranteed experiments, you have zero knowledge” — George Gilder
Interview by Dennis Prager {Editors note: this is how the USSR ended up with warehouses FULL of “widgets” (things made that it could not use or people did not want) no one needed in the real world. This economic law enforcers George Gilder’s contention that when government supports a venture from failing, no information is gained in knowing if the program actually works. Only the free-market can do this. [See my post on Capitalism.]}
The Hidden Costs of Solar and Wind (Texas Update)
(UPDATED: First published in Sept of 2020)
See previous posts:
- Polluting the Beauty and Cleanliness Of Our World With Renewable Energy
- Wind and Solar More Harmful To Environment Than Helpful
Chuck says that we can learn from the Texas failure in light of Biden’s disastrous Green Energy plan. [RPT: DeVore mentions that these wind farms should with their own money — pay for battery storage as well as the gas plants that back up their failure to meet energy goals. THIS would give a closer to reality cost per megawatt. He also notes no study has included “reliability” as a facot yet in cost. I am sure it is coming at some point.]
The Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2019 report stated that in the previous 10 years the world had spent $2.6 trillion on solar and wind power subsidies – which they framed as a good thing. Since we need to get billions off wood and dung, the largest sources of pollution, that so much money only led to 1,650 gigawatts(GW) of energy should have environmentalists concerned.
Instead of focusing on how we can get energy, and therefore water and sanitation. to the poorest, activists continue to create propaganda about natural gas and nuclear while claiming solar and wind are ready.
Data show the opposite. What did we get for our hundreds of billions in spending in the US? Not much except a feel-good fallacy and the chance to make some political donors richer. ….
[RPT: This is called crony capitalism… or, crony corporatism]
Mark Mills and James Meigs joins John Stossel to discuss the Green New Deal, the limits of wind and solar power, and the “magical thinking” of an all-renewable energy future.
Countries around the world are embracing subsidies to expand the production of renewables, and environmentalists claim that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that will make oil and gas obsolete. Are they right?
Not likely. According to Meigs and Mills, improvements in wind and solar technology are reaching their theoretical limits. It would be virtually impossible to generate the amount of wind and solar power necessary to replace the world’s oil and gas consumption. And yet, renewables enjoy strong political support, while nuclear technology, our best source of clean, reliable, and—yes—safe electricity, faces intense political opposition
AMERICAN THINKER starts us out… I will support the main contentions in that story with other sources to follow:
….When wind or solar is producing, the fossil fuel plants are throttled back and they use less fuel. If, for example, a coal plant was closed when wind was added to the grid, the safety margin would be compromised.
Viewed from the effect on the economy, adding wind or solar electricity provides the benefit of reduced fuel consumption in backup fossil fuel plants. This saving in fuel amounts to about $15 per megawatt hour, the cost of natural gas to generate a megawatt hour of electricity. The cost of coal is similar. The backup fossil-fuel plant still has to have its full staff and may have more costly maintenance due to the up-down style of operation forced by the introduction of erratic energy. If the renewable energy costs more than $15 per megawatt hour, then it is not competitive. Wind or solar power actually costs around $80 per megawatt hour.
How can I claim that wind or solar cost $80 when power purchase agreements at $25 per megawatt hour are often touted in the press? Even at $25 the wind or solar is far from competitive. The gap between $80 and $25 is accounted for by subsidies. The $10 difference between $25 and $15 is also a subsidy because the purchaser is paying $25 for the electricity that could be generated in a backup fossil fuel plant, that already exists and that must exist, for $15. What are the subsidies that lower the $80 cost to the publicized $25?
The biggest and most important subsidy is not an explicit subsidy but a mandate. Thirty states have renewable portfolio standards. These are laws that require the utilities to supply a certain percentage of renewable power. For example, California has a law that 60% of its power must be renewable by 2030. The consequence of the mandate is that the utility has to grant whatever terms are required to convince investors to build the renewable power plants. In practice this results in the utility promising to purchase all the power generated for 25 years at a fixed rate. The contract is signed before a shovel of dirt is moved. Forcing utilities to buy renewable power puts the suppliers of renewable power in an advantageous position. The subsidy that reduces the cost from $80 to $25 are federal explicit subsidies, better financing, and lower required rate of return that results from having a 25-year contract in hand from a credit worthy utility. There is a federal tax credit that pays up to 30% of the plants cost. Additionally, there is a tax subsidy called tax equity financing that allows a highly taxed partner to the investor to divert money from the federal treasury to the project. This subsidy depends on special depreciation rules enacted by congress to subsidize renewable energy.
Wind or solar does not use fuel. The cost of the electricity is mostly determined by the capital cost amortized over the life of the plant. That in turn depends on the interest rate or discount factor. That factor is dramatically better due to the 25-year contract. If you take away the subsidies, renewable electricity, wind or solar, will cost about $80 per megawatt hour. Such comparisons are still dubious because there are no unsubsidized, utility-scale wind or solar plants. No utility would buy $80 renewable electricity to replace $15 fossil fuel electricity. A stand-alone, enterprise wind or solar plant would be a huge economic failure because there would be no market for overpriced electricity. The entire renewable electricity industry is actually a government boondoggle. Neither, is renewable electricity an economic method for reducing CO2 emissions as has been made clear by the most important proselytizers for global warming such as Climate Scientists for Nuclear.
Here is an example from one of the coldest areas regarding subsidies:
MINNESOTA + SUBSIDIES
CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT discusses Minnesota’s alternative energy costs without subsidies:
….When Otter Tail projected costs out to 2026 – when the PTC expires entirely and the ITC is lowered from a 30 percent to 10 percent tax credit on investment – the cost of wind energy increased by 119 percent to $54.59, and solar by 25 percent to $94.00.
These values, which represent the cost of wind and solar energy without subsidies, are anything but cost competitive with natural gas and coal prices, which we calculated to be $30.12 and $33.23 per MWh in Minnesota, respectively, based on utility form 1 filings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
In fact, these values bring wind and solar energy to the top of the list, as $54.59 and $94.00 are both more expensive than any other baseload energy source available in Minnesota, including coal, combined cycle natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric power.
Xcel Energy suggests the same as Otter Tail in their most recent resource plan.
As shown above, the true cost of wind energy in 2019, $50.78 per MWh, is over 75 percent more expensive than the subsidized cost of wind energy at $28.72 per MWh.
Wind and solar energy have been and will continue to be bad investments for the state of Minnesota.
Not only are they the two most expensive energy sources in the state, but they are inherently unable to provide enough power to supply 100 percent of electricity demand throughout the day, as they need backup generation on standby for when the wind isn’t blowing, and sun isn’t shining.
Wind and solar energy are still Minnesota’s most expensive energy sources, despite attempts by renewable advocates to convince the public that renewable energy sources are cost competitive, or even cheaper than coal, nuclear, or natural gas.
Here THE HILL discusses all energy producers getting subsides, which I will follow up with a graph showing just how much fossil fuel producers get vs renewable energy producers — government mandates ARE A SUBSIDY!
GOVERNMENT MANDATES DRIVE INCREASE
…Wind and solar farms in the United States, for example, are often only profitable because of the subsidies they collect. For wind, that is the production tax credit (PTC), which provides about a $23 per megawatt-hour subsidy to producers of wind energy. Each time renewing the PTC is up for debate in Congress, the number of planned wind projects plummets. As even the American Wind Energy Association, a group paid to represent the interests of the wind industry, noted in 2013, the most dramatic decline was from 2012 to 2013, when there was a 92 percent drop in installations of wind turbines.
Unfortunately, solar energy isn’t any different. The Government Accountability Office lists 345 programs available to solar energy producers and the influence of these subsidies is immense. In 2017, for example, the Solar Energy Industries Association expects a 57 percent decrease in installed solar capacity if the Investment Tax Credit, just one of the many programs available, is not renewed by Congress.
Even though European countries are often pointed to as evidence that renewable sources can provide the electricity consumers need, just as often the additional cost of those sources is unmentioned. It’s true that European countries generally use more electricity generated from renewable sources, but government mandates, not consumer choice, are often the cause. Still, European consumers bear the brunt of the costs, paying higher prices in addition to funding the subsidies and tax breaks that energy corporations collect…..
Here is the latest numbers regarding subsidies and tax breaks:
NEW: SUBSIDIES COMPARISON
Conclusion via NATURAL GAS NOW:
President Biden is hurting American jobs by his war on fossil fuels through the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline permit, ban on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, and his elimination of fossil fuel tax deductions that mainly support small independent oil and gas producers, who find most of America’s oil. Given that fossil fuels supply 80 percent of the nation’s energy and receive one-fifth of the subsidies that renewable fuels receive from the federal government, they are a far better investment than renewable energy. Except, of course, to the companies involved in gouging taxpayers for green energy subsidies.
President Biden is misleading the public by saying fossil fuels receive federal tax incentives of $40 billion—a number more in-line with what wind and solar receive from the federal government. Further, President Biden is not telling the public that fossil fuels supply 80 percent of our energy and that wind and solar power only supply 3.6 percent, after receiving years of federal subsidies.
Rep. Keith Ellison Lies for Islam (UPDATED)
Updated with POWERLINE’S excellent run-down of Ellison… He is a fan of everything radical and part of the problem in Minniapolis. I have
Given that this guy glorifying the Antifa handbook is Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison I doubt he’s going to be telling the truth about Antifa’s involvement any time soon pic.twitter.com/6zqBhtfkm4
— Matt Wolking (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@MattWolking) May 30, 2020
I first detailed his Ilsamic affinities on my old site (February 28, 2010), But some of POWERLINE are locals… so they have followed all these crazies for longer:
[…..]
1987–Ellison enrolls in University of Minnesota Law School
1989–Ellison publishes the first of two articles in the University of Minnesota Daily under the alias “Keith Hakim.” In the first such article, Ellison speaks up for the Nation of Islam.
1990–Ellison participates in the sponsorship of the anti-Semitic speech by Kwame Ture given at the University of Minnesota Law School (“Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?”). Ellison rejects the appeal of Jewish law students to withdraw sponsorship of the lecture. Ellison graduates from University of Minnesota Law School.
1992–Ellison appears as speaker at demonstration against Minneapolis police with Vice Lords leader Sharif Willis following the murder of Officer Haaf by four Vice Lords gangsters in September.
1993–Ellison leads demonstration chanting “We don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace” in support of Vice Lords defendant on trial for the murder of Officer Haaf. Ellison attends Gang Summit in Kansas City with Willis.
1995–Ellison supports Million Man March, appears at organizing rally with former Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Muhammed at University of Minnesota. Ellison acts as local Nation of Islam leader in march at office of U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis protesting indictment of Qubilah Shabazz for conspiring to murder Louis Farrakhan. Ellison charges FBI with conspiring to murder Farrakhan. Ellison writes article under alias “Keith X Ellison” attacking Star Tribune for criticizing Louis Farrakhan. Here it is; click to enlarge:
1997–Ellison appears under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad” at Minnesota Initiative Against Racism hearing in support of Joanne Jackson. Ellison defends “the truth” of Jackson’s statement that “Jews are the most racist white people.” This is the Star Tribune’s article on the controversy, which refers to Ellison’s statement:
[….]
1998–Ellison first runs for DFL endorsement for state representative. Ellison identifies himself as member of Nation of Islam in Insight News article on his candidacy. Ellison runs for endorsement under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad.”
[….]
2000–Ellison gives speech supporting Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson at National Lawyers Guild fundraiser. Demands Soliah/Olson’s release. Asks audience to recall time when “Qubilah Shabazz was prosecuted in retribution against Minister Farrakhan.” Speaks favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur.
May 2006–Ellison writes letter to JCRC asserting involvement with Nation of Islam limited to 18 months supporting Million Man March.
August 2006–Ellison appears at unpublicized fundraiser with CAIR executive director and Hamas supporter Nihad Awad among featured guests.
What are we to make of this? Take a look at Ellison’s May 28, 2006, letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council; it served as the keystone of his 2006 campaign for election to Congress. That letter to the contrary notwithstanding, the documents posted above nevertheless by themselves establish that 1) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam exceeded any 18-month period, 2) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam extended far beyond the promotion of the Million Man March, and 3) that Ellison himself, far from being ignorant of the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism, actively supported it.
The steadfast refusal of the local Minnesota media to examine Ellison’s public record in the course of his congressional campaign represented a striking case of nonfeasance, incompetence and willfully averted eyes that remains a story unto itself……
The below was posted March 2011
This from AMERICAN THINKER about what DIDN’T happen:
Ellison shed crocodile tears for a brilliant television sound bite effect–not truth. Matthew Shaffer of National Review reports on the real aftermath of Hamdani’s death on September 11, 2001.
[S]ix weeks after the September 11 attacks – before Hamdani’s remains were identified, which Ellison implies to be the turning point of public perception – Congress signed the PATRIOT Act into law with this line included: “Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.” That is, Hamdani was actually singled out for particular high honors among the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks.
There’s little evidence of the “rumors” of which Ellison speaks, either. Poke around yourself on Google.
(snip)
You’ll discover two discordant sets of returns: none for sites and news reports accusing Hamdani of being a terrorist, and many thousands of pages honoring him as a hero while claiming that he was “widely accused” of being a terrorist.
(snip)
[H]e was eulogized by the New York Times, had scholarship funds named after him, was honored by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (both of whom went barefoot to honor Muslim practice) at his funeral, and has been celebrated over and over again by the media.
Ah, but Bloomberg and Kelly, who removed their shoes, didn’t convert to Islam.
After this appearance on the Bill Maher show, one writer at BIGPEACE.COM POINTS OUT that the verse Rep. Ellison quotes is now — for all intent and purposes — defunct:
Matthew Shaffer of NRO (as noted here by Ethel Fenig) exposed Keith Ellison’s mendacious taqiyya (Koran-sanctioned Islamic dissimulation) theater during the Congressman’s testimony at Thursday’s Homeland Security Hearings on American Muslim radicalization.
The next day, during a 3/11/11 interview with Bill Maher (on “Real Time With Bill Maher”), responding to Maher’s complaint that, “[Islam] comes from a hate-filled holy book, the Koran, which is taken very literally by its people,” Ellison invoked a deceitfully redacted extract of Koran 5:32, and the ostensible Koranic paean to “tolerance,” verse 2:256.
Ellison’s disingenuous response was predictable.
Following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists quoting selectively from Koran 5:32, “whoso slays a soul …shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether”, attempting to demonstrate that the Koran disapproved of violence and killing. Here is the entire verse (5:32), quoted in full context, with the intimately related verse, Koran 5:33:
(5:32) Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth. (5:33) This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement
[For direct comparison see, Mishna, Sanhedrin, IV, 5, “Thus was created a single man, to teach us that every person who loses a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has lost the entire world, and every person who sustains a single soul, it shall be written, about him as if he has sustained the entire world”]
As Warraq noted, with regard to Koran 5:32/33, 1
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. [2 see these commentaries as well] “Behave, or else” is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished
Regarding the other pacific sounding verse Congressman Ellison cited, 2:256, it must be contextualized by Muhammad’s bellicose evolution within the Koran itself. But how, exactly? Abrogation is critical to understanding this evolution. Ali ibn Abi Talib—revered by Shiite Muslims and Islam’s 4th “Rightly Guided” Caliph—is reported to have told a pious Muslim companion, Abdul Rahman
“[C]an you differentiate between abrogating and abrogated verses” Abdul Rahman said, “no.” Thereupon Ali said “Thou art damned and causeth others to be damned.”
The Koran’s “verses of peace,” as cited by Ellison, and many other Muslim and non-Muslim apologists, most notably verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” were all abrogated by the so-called verses of the sword. These abrogating verses of the sword recommend beheading or otherwise murdering and mutilating non-Muslims, and Muslim apostates. According to classical Muslim Koranic commentators verse 9:5 (perhaps the most infamous verse of the sword), “Slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…”, for example, cancels 124 verses that promote patience and toleration. And this doctrine of abrogation, necessitated by the many contradictions which abound in the Koran, originates as putatively taught by Muhammad, himself, at verse 2:106: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”. This verse, in combination with verses* 16:101, 22:52, and 87:6, was elaborated into a formal system of abrogation (naskh in Arabic) by the greatest classical Muslim Koranic scholars and jurists, which entailed (p.72),
…the suppression of a ruling without the suppression of the wording. That is to say, the earlier ruling is still to be found in the Koran, and is still to this day recited in worship, but it no longer has any legal force.
I brought this up in a discussion with a Muslim in a debate setting and he never got back to me… I wonder why? Here is a small reference to this conversation from another post of mine:
iii. Comparison of Scripture. Some quick facts. Scripture in Islamic tradition is prescriptive. In the Biblical sense it is descriptive. This simple comparison goes a long way to explain why most of the terrorists in the world today are Islamic. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that in the Islamic fundamentalist tradition, verses in their Scripture. I guess the best way to exemplify this is with this final posting in a debate where a Muslim was trying to explain his faith to others. However, I showed him I had an in-depth understanding of his view of his scripture. Here is my response which is cataloged at my site Discussing God:
Kursat,
You see, unlike the Bible, the Qu’ran abrogates its “verses” and depending on what time period they were written (and depending on if the Muslim community was weaker than it was later), these later verses take over in importance (replaced with something “better”) in application for the Muslim.
So, Kursat, is this Sura Meccan? More specifically, is it the fifth and sixth years of the Prophet’s Mission? There is even a period after this in Mecca. After this period was Medina, right?
For those who are not aware of this abrogation (stated in the Qu’ran) and are use to thinking of Scriptures in a “Western” manner, this Sura you gave sounds great. But if one understands the full implications of 2:106 and 16:101. Then this changes the ballgame a bit, doesn’t it Kursat?
Obviously Kursat didn’t return because he was not a moderate Muslim. Moderates look at the Qur’an as descriptive and they reject the idea that these verses in the Qur’an are placed in any chronological importance. THUS, the later verses about Jihad in Islamic fundamentalism DO NOT trump the one’s about peace.
Read more: RPT Discussing Mosques and Men
Larry Elder DESTROYS Leo Terrell (5-Rounds)
Sean Hannity had Larry Elder (lawyer/radio talk show host, author) and Leo Terrell (a well-known civil rights attorney and radio talk show host) on his radio program to discuss the event in Minnesota. Apparently, Larry has been chomping at the bit to lay into Leo? I know why… the lie that the Left, the Media, and lawyers like Leo spread about racist cops and racial divides in America are what have contributed in great part (as well as other areas where the Left hurts the minority community — welfare, affirmative action, fatherless homes, etc.) to what we see happening in parts of our nation as I type. And Leo is a figure head in protecting this horribly negative ethos in the black community. Larry takes it personally.
ROUND ONE
PART ONE is the opening salvo… Leo Terrell had no idea “The Sage from South Central” came to scrap… and Leo never recovered. You will notice at times Hannity trying to be referee, because Leo is in the ring with someone above his weight class.
ROUND TWO
PART TWO Larry discusses police shooting stats by ethnicity, the absence of fathers, Hannity defends Leo because Leo is in the ring with someone above his weight class and Sean feels bad.
ROUND THREE
PART THREE Hannity discusses Trump responding quickly, as well as bringing up the Minneapolis prosecutor saying he has evidence that does not meet the charges. Leo because Leo is in the ring with someone above his weight class and Sean feels bad.
- “I will say this. That video is graphic, horrific and terrible and no person should do that. But my job in the end is to prove that he violated a criminal statute. And there is other evidence that does not support a criminal charge. We need to wade through all of that evidence to come to a meaningful determination and we are doing that to the best of our ability.” – Michael Freeman (RIGHT SCOOP)
ROUND FOUR
PART FOUR Hannity brings up Obama’s quote about the issue of these recent riots (see RED STATE for more). Leo Terrell slams Obama, then Larry brings up Obama’s abysmal record on racial issues during his Presidency.
ROUND FIVE
PART FIVE Hannity notes there are a high majority of great police officers, Leo basically agree… sorta. Larry Elder gets his parting shots in and he expands on “institutional racism” canard.
Larry Elder Discusses George Floyd and the Media
I will be working on some uploads as we enter into the weekend. These are some early uploads to my YouTube Channel… ALONG WITH a couple vie Larry Elder’s own Channel. Let me just say JUSTICE is already at work here. The four officers were fired, there will be some charges made, I assume the city will charge the officers with some manslaughter charge — as murder will be harder to convict; the FBI is involved, etc. The people rioting could care less about real justice.
Larry touches on George Floyd a bit this first hour — he does more so the next hour. The woman in the park calling police on a “black man is discussed a bit as well (hint: she is a Democrat). Some historical real racism is shown vs. what others are saying is racism today. ALSO, see this article:
Bombshell: Klobuchar Could Have Prosecuted Officer at Center of George Floyd Death, Refused
Democrats rarely get any of the blame when race riots occur, even though they occur by and large in Democrat-run cities.
But Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has now been put on the hot seat for her actions that some have said led to the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed after a police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes in Minneapolis this week.
The senator used to be in charge of prosecution for the city on Minneapolis when she served as Hennepin County attorney prior to becoming a senator.
When she was in that position she declined to prosecute many police officers who were accused of using excessive force, including the officer who has been blamed for Floyd’s death, The Guardian reported….
A friend noted this on his Facebook: “The most Liberal State in the Country saddled with the baggage that comes with ONE officer failing his job?” Yep… most of these cities are top down Left Democrats. Especially Minnesota.
Larry Elder has some good uploads himself, I would be remiss not to show them:
Systemic Racism in Modern America? Larry Elder makes the case for the exact opposite.
Larry Interviews Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute.
Larry Elder corrects the record on a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr., often taken from its larger context.
Another Gay Man That Opposes Same-Sex Marriage #SSM
(Originally posted March 28, 2013)
Here is what Doug Mainwaring has to say on the issue via his article: “Same-Sex Marriage: We’re Playing Chess, Not Checkers” In another article, Ryan Anderson notes the tactics of the Left:
The Left’s Three Techniques on Marriage Redefinition — and How to Counter Them
This week, everyone’s talking about gay marriage. And as the Supreme Court weighs opinions on two, key court battles, both sides of the ongoing debate are on edge and continuing to advance their views on the matter. But among the many voices speaking out against same-sex marriage is one that may shock you: Doug Mainwaring, a conservative activist who is gay.
But the Left also has deployed three distinct tactics: First, they’ve been successful at oversimplifying the issue, personalizing it and refusing to engage the complexities of social reality. Second, they’ve implied that the LGBT community speaks in one voice. And third, they’ve demonized their opponents as “bigots” and “haters.”
We need to better understand the Left’s strategy, for there are lessons here.
Who could be against expanding benefits for more people? That’s the first technique the Left used: Oversimplify the issue while personalizing it. Redefine marriage so more people get health care or tax exemptions or whatever other grab bag of goodies you want to focus on. (Never mind that you don’t have to redefine marriage to solve policy problems.)
Viewed in this light, the marriage debate is like so many other liberal-conservative divides. Take almost any bad social or economic policy. It’s easy to identify the winners—the family getting Obamacare, the corn farmer getting a subsidy, the bank getting bailed out, the worker making an inflated wage. These all can be cast as stories of people getting “stuff.”
[….]
This is hard to counter, but it can be done. And we have to do a better job at it. We need to call out the Left when they oversimplify complex human realities. We also need to effectively communicate complexities using stories and examples.
The Left’s second technique is to disparage dissenters. Marriage revisionists mimic the tactics of abortion advocates. Pro-life women have been demeaned as women-in-name-only. Now gays and lesbians who oppose redefining marriage are described as self-loathing. Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer claim to speak for all women on abortion, while Andrew Sullivan and Zach Wahls are held up to speak for all LGBT families.
It is a strategy expressly devised to marginalize the experiences of folks like Bobby Lopez (see his article “Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Child’s View”) and Doug Mainwaring (who was raising his kids with his partner when he realized they needed a mom—his ex-wife—and wrote “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage”).
We need to do more to make heard the voices of such brave people. And in doing so we’ll address that first challenge of demonstrating complexities through real-life examples.
Lastly, the Left has tried to bully us into silence. A principal strategy of the forces that have worked for 20 years to redefine marriage has been cultural intimidation—threatening defenders of marriage with the stigma of being “haters” and “bigots.”
They’ve said anyone who disagrees is the equivalent of a racist. They’ve sent a clear message: Stand up for marriage, and we will, with the help of our media friends, demonize and marginalize you. Just ask Dan Cathy, president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A.
And now this last technique has made its way into a Supreme Court decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion that the only reason Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean” and “humiliate” gay and lesbian Americans.
This kind of grotesque incivility is toxic. The fact that it is part of a majority opinion is not just outrageous but frightening.
[….]
So we marriage advocates must continue speaking out. But we also need to learn how to state our case succinctly and winsomely: Marriage is the way that societies from time immemorial have united a man and woman as husband and wife to be mother and father to any children born of their union. That’s how children are provided with the precious gift of being brought up in the publicly supported bond of the mom and dad whose union gave them life.
Let’s refuse to be cowed into silence. Let’s redouble our efforts to help our fellow citizens to understand what every political community prior to the year 2000 understood.
Catchy slogans can address complicated issues for only so long. Eventually reality prevails. Silencing dissent may be possible at first, but over time more and more people find their voices.
Bullies may intimidate for a season, but in the end truth wins out.
See also THE BLAZE’S post about Doug entitled, “GAY ACTIVIST SHOCKS CRITICS WITH THIS SCATHING OP-ED…AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE” (Also LIFE SITE NEWS as well as Doug’s PDF)
Don’t know that “nixing” gender comes with these cases that this brave gay man mentioned above when he said, “Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad.” Here is part of the bill from Minnesota, Doug’s home state, that attempted just this:
But a look at SF925 reveals that something much more insidious than advocates let on is underway. This bill would strip the words “mother” and “father” of meaning under Minnesota law. Henceforth, the bill states, these words — among the most beloved and culturally freighted in the English language — “must be construed in a neutral manner to refer to a person of either gender.”
For more on this, see my post linked in the picture above, as well as Massachusetts doing the same. This should engender ANY conservative or conservatively minded libertarian (gay or straight) to oppose this movement predominantly guided by the Left and the many low-information (young) voters.
“[The laws of any state rest on] the basis that the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” — Supreme Court, 1885
Here is another gay man talking about what marriage IS:
One of the most respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
1. Foster the bonding between men and women
2. Foster the birth and rearing of children
3. Foster the bonding between men and children
4. Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
5. Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”
Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”
The Democrats Lurch More Antisemitic
UPDATE, two explicitly anti-Semitic women voted in by Democrats. GATESTONE has more:
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history.
Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.
America’s first two Muslim congresswomen are now both on record as appearing to oppose Israel’s right to exist. They both support the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. Both are also explicitly or implicitly opposed to continuing military aid to Israel, as well as to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — an outcome that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, they favor a one-state solution — an outcome that many analysts believe would, due to demographics over time, replace the Jewish state with a unitary Palestinian state.
Ilhan Omar, who will replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) in Minnesota’s 5th congressional district, came to the United States as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia and settled in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the late 1990s.
In her acceptance speech, delivered without an American flag, Congresswoman-elect Omar opened her speech in Arabic with the greeting, “As-Salam Alaikum, (peace be upon you), alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), alhamdulillah, alhamdulillah.” She continued:
“I stand here before you tonight as your congresswoman-elect with many firsts behind my name. The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress. The first woman to wear a hijab. The first refugee ever elected to Congress. And one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress.”
Omar faced some controversy during the campaign, including a disturbing report that she had married her own brother in 2009 for fraudulent purposes, as well as a tweet from May 2018 in which she refers to Israel as an “apartheid regime,” and another tweet from November 2012, in which she stated: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
[….]
After her primary win on August 7, however, Tlaib radically shifted her positions on Israel, so much so that Haaretz suggested that she pulled a “bait-and-switch.”
In an August 14 interview with In These Times magazine, Tlaib was asked whether she supported a one-state or two-state solution. She replied:
“One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work…. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”
Tlaib also declared her opposition to US aid for Israel, as well as her support for the BDS movement.
When asked why she accepted money from J Street, Tlaib said that the organization endorsed her because of her “personal story,” not her policy “stances.”
In an August 13 interview with Britain’s Channel 4, Tlaib revealed that she subscribes to the specious concept of intersectionality, which posits that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally a dispute between “white supremacists” and “people of color.”
When Tlaib was asked about her position on Israel, she replied, “I grew up in Detroit where every single corner of the district is a reminder of the civil rights movement.”
When Tlaib was asked whether, once in Congress, she would vote to cut aid to Israel, she replied: “Absolutely. For me, US aid should be leverage.”….
JIHAD WATCH also chimes in with the Left’s love for diversity at the expense of hatred:
…The hijabed (and therefore pro-Sharia) Ilhan Omar, meanwhile, is even more hateful than Tlaib. According to the Daily Wire, in 2012 Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel.” Challenged about this tweet much more recently, she doubled down and attacked the man who called attention to the tweet: “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.”
There is much, much worse about Omar. David Steinberg of PJ Media has done extraordinary work in shedding light on aspects of Omar’s record that the establishment media has steadfastly ignored. Steinberg reports that Omar has “faced allegations — soon backed by a remarkable amount of evidence — that she had married her own brother in 2009, and was still legally his wife. They officially divorced in December 2017. The motivation for the marriage remains unclear. However, the totality of the evidence points to possible immigration fraud and student loan fraud.” What’s more, she swore to apparent falsehoods in court.
But Leftists rarely have to answer for their corruption, and in a Democrat House, Omar will much more likely be celebrated than investigated. She and Tlaib will enjoy establishment media accolades as they pursue their hard-Left, anti-American, anti-Israel agenda. Their presence in the House of Representatives may be evidence of “diversity,” but it is also a disquieting sign of the continued dominance of identity politics, and the increasing balkanization of the American body politic. Forthrightly pro-America, pro-Israel candidates would stand little to no chance in either of their districts. And that is indicative of a much larger problem.
More HERE as well
Continuing with the Older Post…
EDITOR’S COMMENTS
Democrats lurch not just Leftward, but incestuously as well. Ilhan Omar won the Democratic primary for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District late Tuesday evening, beating her [Democrat] opponent, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, who outspent her (DAILY CALLER). Remember, she is the woman busted by POWERLINE and JIHAD WATCH for marrying her brother. She is anti-Israel, as well as being most likely against homosexuals and Jews… although she won’t speak about it.
Keith Ellison won his bid for Minnesota Attorney General. This is a man I have posted about often, as well as others regarding Keith’s racist ties (GOP, TABLET MAG, WASHINGTON FREE BEACON, WEEKLY STANDARD, NATIONAL REVIEW, and others like JIHAD WATCH). His anti-Semitism is legend (really, the anti-Semitic/anti-Israel Democrat voters in that district), as well as the newest charge of treating women like Muhammad. Alan Dershowitz even said he would leave the Democrat Party if Ellison was elected DNC Chair. I guess the number two spot doesn’t count?
- Side-Note: The Anti-Semitism is getting SOO bad, that many have left the ranks of the Women’s March and started a pro-Jewish WMFA (Women’s March for All).
NOT to mention a man (“Christine” Hallquist) masquerading as a woman who won HIS primary as well. That doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the self-described PROGRESSIVE platform he ran on. He beats around the bush (pun intended) when asked about his obvious socialism.
Add the socialist cherry on top and you have quite a mix!
- Are Democratic-Socialists the New Tea Party?
- Democrats Favor Socialism Over Capitalism… Sorta
- Hiding in Plain Sight – DSA
- DNC Chair Says Socialism Future of Democrat Party
- Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The Democratic Party’s Obituary
- The Democratic Establishment Takes a Beating
- Is Democracy A Means Or An End To Democratic Socialists Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Etc., etc.
(ACE OF SPADES has a good wrap up of the latest election nonsense.)
Another Post Combined
- Eight House Democrats have met with notorious racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan during their time in Congress
- Four of those House Democrats now refuse to denounce Farrakhan (and two others have misled the public about their prior relationships with him)
- Farrakahn’s close ties to the Democratic Party have re-emerged as a political issue after he was revealed to have been closer with several House Democrats than they let on. (DAILY CALLER)
There also seems to be ties with the up-n-comer Ayanna Pressley to the Nation of Islam.
THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLES come from Aretha Franklin’s funeral. THE DAILY CALLER fills us in on this apparent “doubling down” on “black Hitler”:
The legendary singer’s funeral prominently featured Farrakhan alongside former President Bill Clinton and MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton.
Holder now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) and is reportedly weighing running for president in 2020.
“When asked, Mr. Holder participated in a photo taken with the people on stage at the Aretha Franklin services. It was in no way an endorsement or expression of support for anyone,” NDRC spokesman Patrick Rodenbush told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.
Rodenbush did not answer whether Holder is willing to condemn Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.
Farrakhan’s ties to the Democratic Party have become a source of controversy after a photo emerged showing then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama standing with Farrakhan in 2008.
[….]
Following the publication of the Obama-Farrakhan photo, other prominent Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Maxine Waters of California were revealed to have attended events with Farrakhan and have since declined to denounce him.
Clyburn has said he is willing to consider running for Speaker of the House if Democrats retake the lower chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Illinois Rep. Danny Davis described Farrakhan in February as an “outstanding human being” and admitted the two had a personal relationship.
After Davis’s office falsely told the Anti-Defamation League that the congressman had been misquoted, he doubled down on his relationship with Farrakhan in a March interview with this reporter.
Davis easily won his primary in March despite the Farrakhan controversy.
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison repeatedly attended meetings with Farrakhan during his time in Congress, despite claiming that he had cut ties with the anti-Semite decades earlier.
Despite misleading the public about his Farrakhan ties, Ellison has remained the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and last month won the Democratic nomination for Minnesota attorney general.
The leaders of Women’s March, a popular progressive activist group, similarly sparked controversy by declaring their support for Farrakhan.
The group’s cofounder, Tamika Mallory, attended a Nation of Islam convention where Farrakhan espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Mallory later defended Farrakhan and repeatedly refused to condemn him.
(Updated Info from My HAWAII VACATION CONVERSATION WITH A DEMOCRAT)
Give it a second to load… this is rendering from Facebook…
About Time. We know from a long-time aid to the racist UFO black nationalist anti-Semitic cop killing cult leader that Obama and Farrakhan were close. And we have photos of Michelle Obama with this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader’s wife.
And we know this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader was brought into Obama’s church for an award one Sunday, and we also know that this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader’s personage was placed on Obama’s church’s magazine cover not once, but three times. We also know that some of this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader’s sermons/speeches were sold in Obama’s church’s book store during his tenure, as well as these outright racist books:
- A Black Theology of Liberation;
- Black Theology & Black Power
(I purchased these and other books myself from Trinity United Church of Christ’s book store online, which was called – Akiba Bookstore)
Here is a small sample to make the point about these books:
“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” — James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62
“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” — James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64
…BUT…
…we haven’t had a clear picture of Barry Soetoro with this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader… until now:
(Photo credited to Askia Muhammad via TPM)
NATIONAL REVIEW has a lot on this just released photo, but here is the main issue:
A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have “made a difference” to Obama’s political future.
THE PHOTOGRAPHER, ASKIA MUHAMMAD, TOLD THE TRICE EDNEY NEWS WIRE THAT HE “GAVE THE PICTURE UP AT THE TIME AND BASICALLY SWORE SECRECY.”
(emphasis added)
BREITBART also joins in to explain the cover-up:
“I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy,” Muhammad said in an exclusive interview with the Trice Edney News Wire this week. “BUT AFTER THE NOMINATION WAS SECURED AND ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL THE INAUGURATION; THEN FOR EIGHT YEARS AFTER HE WAS PRESIDENT, IT WAS KEPT UNDER COVER.”
As for any debate that the photo could have made a difference in the outcome of the Obama presidential election, Muhammad is emphatic: “I INSIST. IT ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE.”
(emphasis added)
Our country would have been better off if it had been released, and the press were doing it’s job rather than worshiping Obama as a Messianic figure.
ANALOGY
Gotta keep black racism on the DL in order to get into the Presidency. Mmmm, this is as good a time as ever to update my analogy replacing Bush here to reflect Trump vs. Obama:
…I will use Trump in my analogy. Let us say for twenty years Trump attended a church that twice prominently displayed David Dukes likeness on the cover of their church’s magazine which reaches 20,000 homes, and a third time alongside Barry Mills (the co-founder of the Aryan Brotherhood). Even inviting David Duke to the pulpit to receive a “lifetime achievement award.” Even selling sermons by David Duke in the church’s book store. Authors of sermons sold in Trump’s church’s bookstore teach in accordance with Christian Identity’s view that Jews and blacks are offspring of Satan and Eve via a sexual encounter in the Garden of Eden. In the church’s bookstore, the entire time Trump attended, books like Mein Kampf (Hitler) and My Awakening (David Duke), and other blatantly racist books were sold. Even members of the Aryan Brotherhood felt comfortable enough to sit in the pews at times… being that the pastor of Trump’s church was once a reverend for the group.
…if Trump had gone to a church like that I would walk arm-n-arm with my Democratic comrades in making sure he would never be President. Wouldn’t this be expected of me?
Here is the “not”-analogy of Obama:
Obama’s pastor not only was a minister in The Nation of Islam, an anti-Semitic/racist group, but the church’s book store sells sermons by Louise Farrakhan, who teaches that the white man was created on the Island of Cyprus by a mad scientist, Yakub. (Mr. Farrakhan also believes he was taken up on a UFO to meet God, and was told he was a little messiah, take note also that he was directly involved in the deaths of police officers as well.) Louise Farrakhan was featured twice on the church’s magazine which reach 20,000[plus] homes in the Chicago area. Even placing on the cover with Louise Farrakhan a third time the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad. Elijah Muhammad likewise taught that the white man was created by Yakub 6,600 years ago. Walter, Louise Farrakhan teaches that the Jews in Israel do not belong there, and that the true Jews are the black people. Louise Farrakhan was invited into Obama’s church, to the pulpit and given a “lifetime achievement award.” In fact, the New Black Panthers and members of the Nation of Islam often times sat in the pews for sermons by Rev. Wright, whom Obama called a mentor. Not to mention Obama’s wife pictured with racist, anti-Semetic, UFO cult members.
So I expect you, [insert Leftist name], to join arm-and-arm with me on finding out why the media, and Democrats who are so concerned about racism let such a man into office, when, if the tables were turned, I wouldn’t want in office.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ is correct when he says “that any Democrat who meets with the ‘bigot’ Louis Farrakhan should resign from office, and said there should be no tolerance for any association with the Nation of Islam leader.” Continuing he notes,
“Farrakhan is a bigot,” Dershowitz said on Fox News. “He is far worse than David Duke. Why? Because Farrakhan has a large following, David Duke is a joke.”
“He ought to be treated the way we treat David Duke,” he said. “If any Republican dared to meet with David Duke, that would be the end of their career.”
“It should be the end of the career of any Democrat who has any association with this bigot Farrakhan,” Dershowitz added.
Keith Ellison, the No. 2 Democrat at the Democratic National Committee, had said he stopped meeting with Farrakhan before 2006, but it was later confirmed he was at a private meeting with Farrakhan in 2015.
Washington Post gave Ellison four Pinnochios for lying when he said his relationship with Farrakhan ended more than a decade ago.
“This is the leadership of the Democratic Party,” Dershowitz said…….
See much more here:
Here is my video a few months before the 2008 election:
A Minnesota Mayor Labels City Councilwoman “Racist”
While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs.
- Mayor of New Brighton Minnesota, Valerie Johnson, cries after a member of the City Council doubts ‘white privilege.’
Katherine Kersten’s First Things Article (Dennis Prager)
Dennis Prager read from a FIRST THINGS article entitled “Transgender Conformity,” by Katherine Kersten. The article discusses Nova Classical Academy, “a K–12 charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota, is the sort of school that most parents seeking a first-rate education for their children can only dream about. Founded in 2003, the school teaches the classical curriculum of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Students read the Aeneid, the Iliad, and Dante’s Inferno.”
First Things continued:
Nova’s website proclaims, “Parents are the primary educators of their children.” The school’s mission statement calls students to “a virtuous life of duty and ideals.” In 2016, U.S. News and World Report named Nova’s high school No. 1 in Minnesota, and the No. 4 charter high school in the nation.
But on October 14, 2015, parents of K–5 students at Nova received an email from lower school principal Brooke Tousignant that was destined to change the school forever.
Tousignant informed parents that, in the coming year, Nova would be “support[ing] a student who is gender non-conforming.” This term, she explained,
describes children whose identities, appearances, behaviors, or interests do not fit traditional societal expectations associated with their sex assigned at birth. It is important to note that this expression of gender is ever-changing as students are constantly exploring many different aspects of their identity.
To support the gender-nonconforming child, Nova would be teaching K–5 students “about the beauty of being themselves.” All K–5 students would read a book called My Princess Boy, “which tells the story of a boy who expresses his true self by dressing up and enjoying traditional girl things.” Thus was Nova Classical Academy plunged into the Twilight Zone of transgender politics.
[….]
….School board meetings at Nova, once sleepy affairs, quickly became scenes of conflict. LGBT activist groups such as Transforming Families (a support group for transgender families) and Gender Justice (a nonprofit law firm) “mobbed the meetings, brought their lawyers, protested, and compelled their sobbing transgender kids to talk about bullying and suicide attempts,” according to Emily Zinos, a longtime Nova parent.
Parents who questioned the proposed policy changes were branded as bigots. “We were ridiculed, mocked, and accused of hatefulness and ignorance, despite our doctoral degrees,” said Tom Lynn, parent of four Nova students. Parents’ free speech rights were also frequently challenged. At one school board meeting, Nova’s attorney asked the school board chair to end public comment, warning that a parent’s reference to the First Amendment could be interpreted as creating an impermissible “hostile environment.”
[…..]
…Individuals who suffer from a psychological condition known as “gender dysphoria” experience a marked incongruence between their biological sex and their “gender identity”—defined as the subjective, internal sense of being a man or woman. Gender dysphoria is listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). It is part of the family of psychological disorders that includes anorexia, body dysmorphic disorder, and body integrity identity disorder (BIID). Anorexic individuals wrongly believe they are obese, while those with body dysmorphic disorder are consumed by the notion that they are ugly. Individuals who suffer from BIID identify as disabled and sometimes seek amputation of healthy limbs or the surgical severing of their spinal cord.
In adult males, gender dysphoria is generally rooted in erotic attractions, according to McHugh. Children are different. They “come to their ideas about their sex” through “a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns,” he says. These include “conflicts over the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex—and presume that sex-reassignment will ease or resolve them.”
Gender dysphoria is often associated with pre-existing psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, autism spectrum disorders, and a history of sexual abuse or physical or mental trauma. Other “predisposing and perpetuating factors” include troubled peer dynamics, parental psychopathology, and parental reinforcement of cross-gender behavior during the sensitive period of gender-identity formation, according to Dr. Kenneth Zucker, longtime director of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. A child’s ability to resolve gender dysphoria tends to correlate with parental attitudes, with success much more likely if parents minimize the problem, which is exactly the opposite of what transgender ideologues such as the Edwards are doing.
Fortunately, the great majority of young people who struggle with gender dysphoria “identify” with their own sex by late adolescence or adulthood, according to the DSM-5. Estimates range from 70 to 95 percent. For those afflicted, McHugh says, the best treatment is counseling and family therapy….