January 2020
« Dec    
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information

Archive for January 4th, 2020

Kimberley Strassel | The Resurgence of Socialism Today – HILLSDALE COLLEGE

Kimberley Strassel | The Resurgence of Socialism Today – HILLSDALE COLLEGE

Hillsdale College

The idea of socialism is ancient. Organized socialist movements took form in Europe in the nineteenth century, and socialism emerged as a dominant political ideology in many places around the world by the twentieth century. This second CCA of the 2019-2020 academic year, co-sponsored by the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series, will consider socialism, its practice over time, and its resurgence today.
Kimberley Strassel writes the weekly “Potomac Watch” column for The Wall Street Journal, where she is also a member of the editorial board. A graduate of Princeton University, her previous positions at the Journal include news assistant in Brussels, internet reporter in London, commercial real estate reporter in New York, columnist for OpinionJournal.com, and senior editorial page writer. She is a regular contributor to Sunday morning political programs, including Face the Nation and Meet the Press. In 2013, she was a Eugene C. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism at Hillsdale College, and in 2014 she was a recipient of the Bradley Prize. She is the author of The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech and, most recently, Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America.

Victor Davis Hanson | Nationalism Good and Bad: Lessons from History

Victor Davis Hanson | Nationalism Good and Bad: Lessons from History – HILLSDALE COLLEGE

Hillsdale College
125K subscribers

Victor Davis Hanson spoke on October 2, 2019 during the 175th anniversary celebration.
Victor Davis Hanson, the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College, is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, Fresno.
Dr. Hanson earned his B.A. at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his Ph.D. in classics from Stanford University. In 2007, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal, and in 2008, he received the Bradley Prize.
He is a columnist for National Review Online and for Tribune Media Services, and has published in several journals and newspapers, including Commentary, the Claremont Review of Books, The New Criterion, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Dr. Hanson has written or edited numerous books, including Wars of the Ancient Greeks, A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, and his latest book, The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.
Hillsdale College is an independent institution of higher learning founded in 1844 by men and women “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings” resulting from civil and religious liberty and “believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.” It pursues the stated object of the founders: “to furnish all persons who wish, irrespective of nation, color, or sex, a literary, scientific, [and] theological education” outstanding among American colleges “and to combine with this such moral and social instruction as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.” As a nonsectarian Christian institution, Hillsdale College maintains “by precept and example” the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith.
The College also considers itself a trustee of our Western philosophical and theological inheritance tracing to Athens and Jerusalem, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.
By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own survival and independence.

THE FOUR PILLARS HILLSDALE COLLEGE – 175 Years of Learning, Character, Faith, and Freedom

Hillsdale College
125K subscribers

Dr. Larry P. Arnn spoke on October 3, 2019 during the 175th anniversary celebration.

Hillsdale College is an independent institution of higher learning founded in 1844 by men and women “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings” resulting from civil and religious liberty and “believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.” It pursues the stated object of the founders: “to furnish all persons who wish, irrespective of nation, color, or sex, a literary, scientific, [and] theological education” outstanding among American colleges “and to combine with this such moral and social instruction as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.” As a nonsectarian Christian institution, Hillsdale College maintains “by precept and example” the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith.
The College also considers itself a trustee of our Western philosophical and theological inheritance tracing to Athens and Jerusalem, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.
By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own survival and independence.


Share this great video of a Virginian protesting the new Draconian Gun Control laws
touted by VA Gov and his Democrat controlled Legislature.


Thanks to Florida Representative ep. Mike Hill for sending.
Representative Hill is the Sponsor of HB 6003 to amend the Marjory Stoneman-Douglas Public Safety act RPO ..

This document was Twittered to; Sen. Sanders, Sen. Biden, Sem Warren, Sen. Schumer, Rep.Schiff, Rep. Nadler, Rep.Waters. Rep. Pelosi

Webmaster Commentary

January 4, 2020


Trump did not do anything different than three other Presidents have done!

Looking at History, you Democrats seem to have been just fine with Bill Clinton in 1999, and Barack Obama in 2011, violating the WAR POWERS ACT, but now you are going to chastise Trump for doing exactly the same thing!  A little Two-Faced, are we?

Something is terribly wrong with you Democrats!

The September attack on Saudi Aramco’s facilities that temporarily shut down half of the kingdom’s oil production represented an act of war by the Iranian state, U.S. special representative for Iran Brian Hook told CNBC on Saturday
“To launch an attack from your territory, if that is the case … this would be considered an act of war,” Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir said in late September
Referencing Benghazi;  Clinton reinforced his analysis when she said, “We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence.” This concept of “senseless violence” is at the heart of the left’s refusal to confront the reality of radical Islamists. These are not acts of senseless violence.
These are acts of war.
Since the 1970s, every sitting president has either sidestepped some of the law’s provisions or labeled it unconstitutional.
One of the first major challenges to the War Powers Act came in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan deployed military personnel to El Salvador without consulting or submitting a report to Congress. In 1999, President Bill Clinton continued a bombing campaign in Kosovo beyond the 60-day time limit cited in the law.
A more recent War Powers Act dispute arose in 2011, when President Barack Obama initiated a military action in Libya without congressional authorization.
Members of Congress have occasionally objected to the executive branch’s disregard for the War Powers Act, but attempts to take the issue to court have been unsuccessful. In 2000, for example, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case on whether the law had been violated during military operations in Yugoslavia.
 1995, when the U.S. House of Representatives voted on an amendment that would have repealed many of the Act’s main components. The measure was narrowly defeated by a vote of 217-204. This was A Democratic House in 1993-1995; 258 Democrats, 176 Republicans
So Congress gave Bill Clinton 1999, Reagan in 1981,  and Obama 2011 a pass to ignore the War Powers Act, Plus Obama using a Drone to Kill a terrorist, who was an American Citizen, but no pass for Trump!,
Lawyers for the Obama administration, arguing for their ability to kill an American citizen without trial in Yemen, contended that the protection of US citizenship was effectively removed by a key congressional act that blessed a global war against al-Qaida.
Known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), the broad and controversial 2001 law played a major role in the legal decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, the former al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen, in 2011, according to a redacted memorandum made public on Monday.
“We believe that the AUMF’s authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization,” reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended strictly for Awlaki’s case.
Just maybe you Democrats better look at you own house before charging the Other side!

Trump strike kills Iran’s terrorist general prompting leftist apologies, and ku

(File photo by STR / AFP via Getty Images)
The reactions to President Donald Trump ordering the U.S. drone strike at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, reinforce the belief held by many that Democrats hate Trump more than they love America.
It also leaves one with the notion that this president isn’t messing around.
While the strike escalates tensions in the region significantly, the anti-Trump media is spilling little ink explaining that Iran has been engaged in a series of provocative actions for some time, nor are they detailing the restraint exercised by Trump along the way.
A restraint that clearly reached its limits following the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad this week — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in an interview following the attack that militants were “directed to go to the embassy by Qassem Soleimani.”
Pompeo also shared a video after Soleimani’s death suggesting that the Iraqi people were pleased with the outcome.
Secretary Pompeo @SecPompeo
Embedded video
And make no mistake, Iran has “slowly brought the region to a boil,” as noted by The Washington Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti.
Describing Soleimani’s death as “a stunning blow to international terrorism and a reassertion of American might,” Continetti detailed Iran’s antagonizing actions and the restraint from the president:

“Last June, Iran’s fingerprints were all over two oil tankers that exploded in the Persian Gulf. Trump tightened the screws. Iran downed a U.S. drone. Trump called off a military strike at the last minute and responded indirectly, with more sanctions, cyber attacks, and additional troop deployments to the region. Last September a drone fleet launched by Iranian proxies in Yemen devastated the Aramco oil facility in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia. Trump responded as he had to previous incidents: nonviolently.

“Iran slowly brought the region to a boil. First it hit boats, then drones, then the key infrastructure of a critical ally. On December 27 it went further. Members of the Kataib Hezbollah militia launched rockets at a U.S. installation near Kirkuk, Iraq. Four U.S. soldiers were wounded. An American contractor was killed.”

As for reactions online, the most egregious by far comes from radical leftist actress Rose McGowan.  In what can only be described as an utter embarrassment, McGowan pleads with Iran to “not kill us” in response to the drone strike.  Taking Trump Derangement to a scary level that may require professional help, the actress offers a humble apology  to the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, telling Iran “we are being held hostage by a terrorist regime.”
Her unhinged tweet, which included an Iranian flag with cute emojis, led with “Dear Iran,” which began trending as an avalanche of ridicule fell upon her.
McGowan tweeted: “Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani.”

rose mcgowan@rosemcgowan

Embedded video

Of all the many responses to McGowan, this one may have summed things up best:

Educating Liberals @Education4Libs


Michael East@MichaelEast1983

The people of the world have seen American imperialism & crimes for what they are. This naked imperialism must be answered.
The good people of Iran should know that many in the west oppose this insanity, this murder and this criminality by our governments.
we stand with Iran ✊

And make no mistake, Soleimani was a terrorist — even the Obama administration acknowledged as much, as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, noted in a tweet responding to Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Muslim Democrat from Minnesota.

Ted Cruz @tedcruz

Ted Cruz: Release names of U.S. deaths linked to Iran

Sen. Ted Cruz is calling for the Pentagon to release an alleged document listing the names of some 500 U.S. service members whose combat deaths can be directly linked to Iran.


Ilhan Omar @IlhanMN

So what if Trump wants war, knows this leads to war and needs the distraction?
Real question is, will those with congressional authority step in and stop him? I know I will. https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1212913952436445185 

An appropriate counter to McGowen’s appeasement — which brings to mind Neville Chamberlain, the former U.K. prime minister who laid down for Adolph Hitler — was seen from former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke.
“F*ck with the bull, you get the horns. There is a NEW Sheriff in town. His name is [Donald Trump.] Maybe they thought Obama was still the Commander in Chief or that Mrs. Bill Clinton won the 2016 election. Probably don’t understand the electoral college🤭,” Clarke tweeted.
David A. Clarke, Jr.@SheriffClarke

F*ck with the bull, you get the horns.
There is a NEW Sheriff in town. His name is @realDonaldTrump
Maybe they thought Obama was still the Commander in Chief or that Mrs. Bill Clinton won the 2016 election. Probably don’t understand the electoral collegehttps://apnews.com/5597ff0f046a67805cc233d5933a53ed 

US kills Iran’s most powerful general in Baghdad airstrike

BAGHDAD (AP) — The United States killed Iran’s top general and the architect of Tehran’s proxy wars in the Middle East in an airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport early on Friday, an attack…


As expected, hand-wringing Democrats responded by taking cheap shots at the commander in chief:
Alex Moe@AlexNBCNews

Speaker Pelosi on Soleimani: “Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence” + notes the strike tonight was taken without an AUMF or consultation of Congress and also wants a full briefing for Congress immediately

View image on Twitter

The New York Times

@nytimes Breaking News: The U.S. confirmed it was behind the strike that killed the powerful Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani, a major escalation in a conflict with Iran https://nyti.ms/2QFz4pN 

Chris Murphy@ChrisMurphyCT

The 2020 leading Democratic presidential candidates quickly seized on the strike to use it for campaign fodder.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is worried that Iran might respond, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called the strike “reckless.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called it a “dangerous escalation.”
Joe Biden@JoeBiden
My statement on the killing of Qassem Soleimani.
View image on Twitter

Elizabeth Warren@ewarren

Bernie Sanders@BernieSanders
Replying to @BernieSanders Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.
Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.
Nikki Haley@NikkiHaley
Qassem Soleimani was an arch terrorist with American blood on his hands. His demise should be applauded by all who seek peace and justice. Proud of President Trump for doing the strong and right thing. @realDonaldTrump 🇺🇸

Rep. Dan Crenshaw@RepDanCrenshaw

Crenshaw Statement on U.S. Strike Killing Qassem Soleimani

Governor Christie@GovChristie
US air strike which killed Qasem Soleimani was the correct response to repeated Iranian provocations and apparent US intelligence about more to come. Iranian conduct cannot be ignored and @realDonaldTrump is to be commended for responding to awful Iranian actions!
Ryan Fournier@RyanAFournier
A U.S. air strike killed General Qassem Soleimani, and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.This is a bigger deal than Osama Bin Laden.
Obama sent Iran cash — Trump is sending them the grim reaper.
Charlie Kirk@charliekirk11

Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s most revered military figure has been killed in an air strike in Baghdad
Don’t mess with America under @realDonaldTrump
Obama & Hillary are gone
We fight back now.
America is back

Mark R. Levin@marklevinshow
1. The modern Democrat Party stands with Iran against America.  There’s no getting around it.  Of course, they’ll take great offense at this observation. But just listen to and read the comments of its leadership.
Bill Mitchell@mitchellvii
Are people actually afraid Trump has now “pissed Iran off?”These are the people who have been chanting “Death to America!” for decades. They were ALREADY pissed off. Now they are pissed off and scared.

personal commentary from a member of the Winter Haven 812

Guess a few “old time” Democrats still exist, those who have not moved to the radical LEFT .

So this morning I had breakfast with a Democrat, a guy who would never vote for Donald Trump. Who voted for Obama twice and Hillary, and guess what my friend said?  At this stage, if things keep going as they are “DONALD TRUMP WILL WIN IN A LANDSLIDE”! Yep, you heard that right!
A “died-in-the-wool” Democrat who can see the future. He said such things as; “look who we have running; 2 old white guys and a women who is nuts, she scares me to death”, I didn’t say that he did WOW!  You really have to give that some thought.

This is a NJ/NY Democrat, someone who thinks AOC and her crowd should disappear, and never be seen again.  He said “we have no one who can beat Trump, no one!” And he is sick of listening to Chuck Schumer preach IMPEACHMENT.
This is a Democrat, not a Republican, not an undecided, he votes for Democrats and he is throwing in the towel unless, well, according to my friend, unless something very different and unexpected happens.  Otherwise Donald gets 4 more years,a slam dunk in his mind.

This is not Russian propaganda, not Conservative Republican BS, NO; this is from exactly who any Democrat needs if they expect to beat Donald Trump in NOV and he says; NO CHANCE!  Oh, BTW, he also said; I certainly don’t like the guy but he has done a lot of very good things for the country.  WOW!

No more needs to be said…

Floyd Stern


In 2020, Americans are forced to choose between two opposing visions: The pro-American vision of President Abraham Lincoln or deeply anti-American vision of the modern Left.


The Modern American Left Repudiates Lincoln – Here’s How.

GThe Modern American Left Repudiates Lincoln – Here’s How.

In 2020, Americans are going to be forced to choose between two opposing visions: the pro-American vision of President Abraham Lincoln and the deeply anti-American vision of the modern Left.
The modern Left’s outlook is radically different from – and deeply hostile toward – the classic definitions of American liberty and history. In trying to fully understand the differences, I kept coming back to the greatest articulator of American freedoms, President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had to use words to explain to his fellow Americans why it was worth enduring four years of war for the cause of personal liberty.

This week in Newt’s Inner Circle

Join Newt’s Inner Circle>>

As someone who had been born poor and largely self-educated, Lincoln knew how rare it was in human history to have a system which enabled everyday folks to govern themselves, rise, and genuinely pursue happiness as Thomas Jefferson had described in the Declaration of Independence.  Lincoln’s most powerful evocation of the American spirit was in his remarkably brief speech at Gettysburg on November 19, 1863. In 272 words, Lincoln captured the essence of why America was worth fighting and dying for.
The contrast between Lincoln’s view of America and the modern Left’s is so stark that I thought it would be instructive to lay them out side-by-side.
Lincoln began his Gettysburg Address by asserting: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Lincoln is making four clear claims in this short opening sentence.
First, there was a historic date when the United States began, and it was the signing of the Declaration of Independence – not the signing the Constitution (which happened more than a decade later). Throughout the speech, Lincoln consistently re-established Jefferson’s bold vision of our rights coming from God and every person being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Second, Lincoln identified that the United States was a new country – and not merely an extension of the English colonies. As such, it was a clear break with the European-defined hierarchical system of aristocrats and corruption. Importantly, it was an assertion of the rule of law and the rights of the individual.
Third, Lincoln clearly believes that liberty is at the heart of the American system. It was for liberty that men followed General George Washington across the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776. It was for liberty that Union soldiers had died at Gettysburg. It was not coincidence that the original Battle Hymn of the Republic (the marching song of the Union Army) said “as [Christ] died to make men holy let us die to make men free.” As a man of humble origins and no inherited power or wealth, Lincoln felt the importance of liberty as the guarantee that his children – and all future Americans – could live in freedom. It was this sense of liberty which enabled him to endure the extraordinary casualties and difficulties of four years of war.
Fourth, Lincoln asserted that the United States is “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Note: Lincoln did not argue that all men lived equally – or that their lives had equal outcomes. He knew that was not true. But he believed we were dedicated to everyone being created equally and having an opportunity to pursue happiness without government interference.
Now, the modern American Left repudiates Lincoln’s version of America.
A recent case is the stunningly inaccurate, one-sided, and propagandistic effort by The New York Times to re-center all of American history around slavery (the antithesis of the Lincoln vision). As The Times describes it: “The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”
The Times goes on to highlight its answer to Lincoln in a long essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones which asserts that, “our Democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.”  So, The Times has designed a project to produce materials for schools which propagandize a negative view of America as a hateful place, defined by slavery, in which only Black Americans can be mentioned as fighting for the right ideals.  This is inherently racist and a stunning distortion of American history. Most major historians have condemned the project as simply untrue.
So, which American history should our children learn: Lincoln’s or the Left’s?
In his next few sentences, President Lincoln pre-emptively repudiated the arrogant racism implicit in Hannah-Jones’ argument that limits those who fought for justice to “Black Americans.”  As President Lincoln reminded his audience at Gettysburg: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.”
The American Battlefield Trust estimates that 620,000 Americans died during the American Civil War. This death toll nearly matches that of all other American wars combined (644,000). Now, imagine Lincoln going to the small towns in Maine, Wisconsin, and across the North – where men were volunteering to fight and die to save the Union – and explaining that they were pawns of slavery and only Black Americans were fighting to make our ideals true.  So, President Lincoln, a country lawyer from central Illinois, understood painfully and personally the human cost of preserving the Union and fighting for freedom.
Lincoln said, “in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate – we cannot consecrate – we cannot hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”
Thus, Lincoln again pre-emptively rebuked the modern Left’s contempt for the heroes who preserved America and fought for its liberty.
He went on to assert – in direct contradiction of The New York Times’ arrogance – that “it is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain –that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Here again, this is the opposite of what the modern Left would have you believe. Lincoln clearly admitted that the work of freedom was unfinished and that we owe it to those who gave their lives to continue the work of extending and improving liberty for all people. In fact, Lincoln said it is our duty to extend “under God, … a new birth of freedom.”  (Of course, the anti-religious Left would scoff at the reference to God. Yet, both Lincoln and Washington shared a belief that America existed because of Divine Providence’s benevolence.)
Finally, note the core description of Lincoln’s vision for America: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  The greatest revelation of the Trump presidency has been the depth of hostility and dishonesty the establishment and the deep state displayed in seeking to destroy the duly elected president through leaks, lies, and phony investigations. The further revelation of the bureaucracy’s belief that it had a duty to undermine presidential policies with which it disagreed was a further example of the drift away from government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
In Lincoln’s era, presidents could fill the government with people loyal to themselves. Lincoln spent a great deal of time on patronage in the first months of his presidency, and it was this pro-Lincoln bureaucracy which helped the Union survive the difficult first three years of war. In the modern era, the rigid bureaucratic systems severely limit a president’s ability to reshape the government.  We have moved from government of the people to government of the experts. We have replaced an aristocracy of inherited family status with an aristocracy of credentialing.
In many states and localities, the citizen no longer has any significant influence on government. In almost every level of government, Washington bureaucrats can dictate to elected local officials. The result has been a more and more dissatisfied citizenry.  The gap between Lincoln’s belief in the people and the contempt elitists such as Elizabeth Warren have for those who Hillary Clinton called “deplorables” tells you a lot about the gap between Lincoln’s values and the values of the modern American Left.
One of the great challenges for the Trump Administration and its allies is to re-center government on Lincoln’s values and dismantle the elitist “bureaucrats know best” model that now defines so much of our government.
Your Friend,

The holiday, officially known as National Vietnam War Veterans Day, was made official by Trump through the “Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017,

Trump Makes Vietnam Veterans Day Official Holiday

President Donald Trump meets U.S. Vietnam Veterans on November 10, 2017 (White House/D. Myles Cullen)
President Donald Trump meets U.S. Vietnam Veterans on November 10, 2017 (White House/D. Myles Cullen)
Americans celebrate Vietnam Veterans Day annually on March 29 thanks to a measure signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2017.
The holiday, officially known as National Vietnam War Veterans Day, was made official by Trump through the “Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017,” and encourages Americans to display the U.S. flag in honor of Vietnam veterans.
A similar holiday was previously observed on March 29, 2012, through a proclamation signed by then-President Barack Obama. That year marked the start of a 13-year-long celebration honoring Vietnam War veterans that runs through Veterans Day 2025.
In November 2017, Trump marked Veterans Day and the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War by meeting with U.S. veterans in Vietnam.
“One of my great honors is to represent the people standing right behind me — great, great warriors and veterans of the Vietnam War,” he said during a meeting with veterans at a hotel in Danang, Vietnam. “To each of you with me today, you are the heroes who fulfilled your duty to our nation. And each of you, under the most difficult conditions, did what you had to do, and you did it well.”
During that meeting, Trump also pledged to continue to support efforts by the Pentagon’s POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA), which works worldwide to recover the remains of U.S. troops missing in combat.
“Our accountability efforts in Vietnam are very, very important to all of us. We will not rest until all of the 1,253 missing veterans are returned home,” he said. “Our veterans are a national treasure, and I thank them all for their service, sacrifice and patriotism.”
Stay on Top of Your Veteran Benefits
Military benefits are always changing. Keep up with everything from pay to health care by signing up for a free Military.com membership, which will send all the latest benefits straight to your inbox while giving you access to up-to-date pay charts and more.

Climate Alarmists Maul Inconvenient Polar Bear Expert

Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Maul Inconvenient Polar Bear Expert

A World Wildlife Fund photograph taken along the western shore of Hudson Bay in November 2010 shows a female polar bear with two cubs near Churchill, Canada, in this file image released to Reuters on February 9, 2011.Reuters/Geoff York/WWF
Susan Crockford is a polar bear expert with a message that climate alarmists don’t want to hear: polar bear populations are thriving and are certainly in no danger from thinning summer sea ice supposedly caused by ‘man-made global warming.’
That’s why the alarmist establishment is currently trying destroy her.
First came a hatchet job in Bioscience, described by climate scientist Judith Curry as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”  Crockford’s rebuttal is epic and can be read in full here.
Now, the New York Times has weighed in with a piece entitled ‘Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back’.The headline has been poorly subbed. “Scientists” should be in danger quotation marks.
Its introductory paragraph will give you a taste of its quality:

Furry, button-nosed and dependent on sea ice for their survival, polar bears have long been poster animals for climate change.  But at a time when established climate science is being questioned at the highest levels of government, climate denialists are turning the charismatic bears to their own uses, capitalizing on their symbolic heft to spread doubts about the threat of global warming.

Yep, the “furry, button-nosed” and “charismatic” are dead giveaways. This is not an article remotely interested in the actual species Ursus maritimus, only the fantasy creature that appears in David Attenborough documentaries and the like in order to serve one overriding purpose: to act as the cute, fluffy, white ursine harbinger of man-made climate doom.
The reality is rather different, as Dr Crockford, a Canadian zoologist and polar bear expert, summarized in a recent paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Its findings are summarized here:

• Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur.

• Abundant prey and adequate sea ice in spring and early summer since 2007 appear to explain why global polar bear numbers have not declined, as might have been expected as a result of low summer sea ice levels.

• The greatest change in sea ice habitat since 1979 was experienced by Barents Sea polar bears and the least by those in Southern Hudson Bay, the most southerly region inhabited by bears.

• As far as is known, the record low extent of sea ice in March 2017 had no impact on polar bear health or survival.

• Some studies show bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, but none showed an increase in the number of individuals starving to death or too thin to reproduce.

• A just-released report of Southern Beaufort Sea bears having difficulty finding prey in 2014– 2016 suggests that the thick ice events that have impacted the region every ten years or so since the 1960s have continued despite reduced summer sea ice.

• Claims of widespread hybridization of polar bears with grizzlies were disproved by DNA studies.

• Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news out of scientifically insignificant events, suggesting an attempt is being made to restore the status of this failed global warming icon.

Naturally this all went down like a cup of frozen narwhal sick with the climate loons. Hence this current series of very personalized attacks, designed to discredit Crockford’s expertise. They can’t attack Crockford’s science because it’s rock solid. So instead they have resorted to the usual ad hominem.
There’s perhaps one person in the world who knows more about polar bears than Crockford: Mitchell “Mitch” Taylor who has been studying polar bears since 1978.
His verdict on this sorry affair is well worth a read:
It has become a lot more difficult to talk about polar bears since they became an icon for climate change as a cause.  The information has become secondary to the mission for a number of people who were formerly chiefly concerned with research and management of polar bears.  The mission is nothing less than saving the planet by saving the polar bears, and ironically the biggest obstacle to this initiative has been the polar bears themselves.  The real story has been the extent to which polar bears have managed to mitigate the demographic effects of sea ice loss so far.  In retrospect this is perhaps not so surprising because polar bears have been around since the Pliocene which means they have persisted through not only glacial cycles, but also through all the natural climate cycles during the glacial periods and interglacial periods.  Pliocene Period (The fifth and last epoch of the Tertiary Period, from about 5 to 2 million years ago. During this time the global climate became cooler and the number and expanse of grasslands and savannas increased greatly. This change in vegetation was accompanied by an increase in long-legged grazers. The land bridge between North America and South America also formed at this time, and massive ice sheets accumulated at the poles.)
Did Susan misrepresent the predictions from Amstrup’s “Belief Network”?  Has she misunderstood the population estimates provided by the various technical committees and specialists groups?  That is easy to check, because these papers are published.  They are part of the record.   I have been active in polar bears since 1978.  I didn’t recognize 12 of the 14 names on the paper written criticizing Susan for publishing an article about polar bears because she does not have any direct experience in polar bear research or management.  Does anyone need to point out how hypocritical this is?  Since when does anyone need to tag a polar bear to compare what was predicted to what has happened, based on published information?
It is also germane that the IUCN Redbook authority was unwilling to continue listing polar bears as a “vulnerable” species based on current population estimates and Amstrup’s Bayesian Network model expectations.  This was somehow not mentioned in the article criticizing Susan.  Polar bears remain an IUCN “vulnerable” species, but now that is based on a Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) polar bear population model that is driven by speculation but is also presented as “expert” predictive. The new guarantees that polar bears will decline was achieved by decoupling the model population projections from climate model forecasts of sea ice conditions … and just using the time-series regression of sea ice decline since 1980 to forecast sea ice (index for polar bear carrying capacity) forward.  And the IUCN went for it.
There is an International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears, and occasionally the parties to that Agreement (USA, Canada, Denmark-Greenland, Norway, and Russia) have a formal meeting.  The signatory nations (parties) have no independent scientific advisors, and they take their information only from the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG).  If you don’t believe that climate science is settled, you can’t be a member of the PBSG, even if you started working on polar bears in 1978.  Susan is also not a member.
There are two ways to get a scientific consensus.  One is to present the data and the analysis in a manner that is so persuasive that everyone is convinced.  The other way is to exclude or marginalize anyone who does not agree.  This occurs so commonly now that it has become an accepted practice.  The practice of science has become secondary to governments, NGOs, journals, and scientists who feel that the ends justify the means.
The response to Susan’s work is politically motivated, not an argument against her conclusions.  The journal’s response to this article and to her complaint was also political.  Sadly, BioScience is not a credible scientific journal anymore.  We have fake news and fake science.  Is it really so difficult to see what the Amstup predictions were indexed to, to see if that index has changed, and see if the demographic data are consistent with Amstrup’s predictions or not?  Susan has already done the work to show that the polar bear demographic data and sea ice data (all collected and reported by others) do not support the Amstrup et al. (2007) predictions.
If you can’t refute the argument, the only thing left is to discredit the author.  Where did they get their funding?  How many bears have they tagged?  Are they in the club or not? … and if not in the club, what the hell are they doing voicing an opinion.  How are right-thinking good people like us going to maintain the impression of omnipotent knowledge and scientific consensus if people like Susan are allowed to hold us accountable for what we publish?  Bad enough that the IUCN won’t do as its told, at least not without a new crystal ball.
There are currently some valid indications that some polar bear subpopulations may be experiencing demographic impacts from reduced sea ice.  There are also methodology issues and high variance associated with those studies.  Much of the past work has become dated and much of the population work in the last decade is either agenda driven and unreliable, or compromised by data collection issues to the point that accurate population demography estimates are not possible.  However, there are also many new studies that report their findings objectively.  So just because some researchers and journals have lost perspective does not mean polar bears are not currently impacted by sea ice decline or never will be.
To me the loss of credible information is the real harm that has resulted from turning scientific inquiry into an agenda driven exercise … even for a good cause.
Some may see parallels within climate science world to the polar bear experience.
There are a number of crimes which have been committed by the climate alarmist establishment. Not the least of these is the damage these charlatans, cheats and bullies have done to the integrity of science and scientists.


The Green Blob — aka the Climate Industrial Complex — is one of the most insidiously dangerous and oppressive forces in the world today and it’s time we hit back hard.

Delingpole: 2020 Is the Year We Storm the Green Barricades!

TOPSHOT - In this photo taken on May 1, 2019 shows environmental campaigners holding a protest against the development of the India-backed Adani coal mine at the entrance of Abbot Point port near the Queensland state town of Bowen, where the commodity will be shipped. - Tackling climate change has …
Getty Images
This is the year we storm the green barricades.
If you don’t like the sound of that ‘we’, fine, I’ll take ’em on my own. But I suspect that quite a few of you feel as angry about this thing as I do. The Green Blob — aka the Climate Industrial Complex — is one of the most insidiously dangerous and oppressive forces in the world today and it’s time we hit back hard.
Green ideology is evil. It’s killing our jobs, it’s brainwashing our kids (and stealing their future), it’s despoiling our landscapes, it’s murdering our wildlife, it’s corrupting honest science, it’s enriching the most disgusting, cynical people in crony capitalism, it’s driving up the cost of living, it’s holding back our economies, it’s hamstringing business, it’s burning our homes…
How dare these nauseating green zealots try to lecture us on how to save the planet when they’re the ones doing so much of the harm!
Latest case in point are the bushfires ravaging Australia. Every month, every week, every day practically, there’s a story somewhere in the world that captures the wanton idiocy of the green movement.
One day it’s some widely promulgated lie about threatened polar bear populations, Susan Crockford is a polar bear expert with a message that climate alarmists don’t want to hear: polar bear populations are thriving and are certainly in no danger from thinning summer sea ice supposedly caused by ‘man-made global warming.’the next it’s a David Attenborough documentary misleading viewers about ‘walruses threatened by climate change’, the next it’s fake news about the Amazon fires…This week, it just so happens, the eye of Green Sauron has decided to fix on Australia’s bush fires – and use them as an excuse to ramp up the scare about ‘climate change.’
As I demonstrate pretty comprehensively here, the Australian bush fires have nothing to do with climate change. The reason they are so widespread and intense, rather, is the result of misguided green policy. (So you can see why the greenies might be wanting to distract from this by pointing the blame elsewhere).
But you’d be amazed – or rather you probably wouldn’t, actually – how many supposedly intelligent people have chosen to buy into and promulgate the lie.
Here in the UK, for example, is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement, Stig Abell.

Stig Abell


Two photos from Australia yesterday seem to symbolise our collective problem with climate change.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
795 people are talking about this

Here is conservative journalist Daniel Johnson, son of legendary lefty-turned-right-wing author, journalist and polymath Paul, mystifying readers of his online conservative imprint The Article by ‘arguing’ that the bush fires are a sign we should abandon fossil fuels.

Australians cannot be blamed for the much larger climate impact of huge economies such as China, India and the US. But the bushfires do feel like a turning point. Coal represents only a small proportion of Australia’s energy and mineral resource exports: less than 10 per cent of a total of $278 billion. Does it really make sense to invest heavily in a sector that is not only environmentally damaging but may not have a long-term future?

A national debate is urgently needed about how those who depend on the extraction industries can be reconciled with those who do not, so that a new consensus can be built that protects both Australia’s unique ecology and its prosperity. Australians must listen to the voice of conscience that speaks from their burning bush. So, too, as we contemplate the tragic loss of flora and fauna, should the rest of humanity.

Here is a cartoon from the newspaper at least formerly read by the Establishment – the Times of London.

101 people are talking about this

Oh and here – because, of course you were all dying to get Hollywood’s take on this – is Bette Midler:

Bette Midler


Pity the poor , their country ablaze, and their rotten @ScottMorrisonMP saying, “This is not the time to talk about Climate Change. We have to grow our economy.” What an idiot. What good is an economy in an uninhabitable country? Lead, you fuckwit!!

28.2K people are talking about this

Obviously, if we try to list all the influential public figures – aka useful idiots – who are ignorantly and irresponsibly promoting the climate scare we’d be here for many months.

But that’s exactly my point. Green groupthink is now so dominant in Western Culture that it’s starting to feel like the final scene in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. None of the useful idiots I’ve just singled out above, well, not the top three at least, is remotely stupid. Yet each has found it convenient not to do his homework, to ignore the facts and glibly promulgate the climate change narrative regardless of the actual evidence. Truly climate change is the new Western religion; and as zealous and intolerant of heresy as any of the old religions.

And I think the time has come for us to stop letting these people get a free ride. Whether they are full-on enviro-loon activists like Extinction Rebellion or merely fellow travellers of convenience on the green gravy train, we need to stop indulging them and make it clear that what they are doing to our civilisation, our economies, and our freedoms is unacceptable.

Let me give you another example of the scale of the problem and the urgency of the need for a counter-revolution, courtesy of writer, journalist and zoologist Matt Ridley.

Matt  — who sits in the House of Lords as Lord Ridley — is one of only a handful of figures in public life who has dared to take on the Green Blob.

In this article for Reaction Life he describes a recent guest appearance on the BBC’s flagship political news show, Radio 4’s Today programme. Ridley was only there on sufferance: because four guest-editor slots had been given to greenies and lefties, including Greta Thunberg, the BBC permitted one solitary show to be guest-edited by a Conservative journalist Charles Moore.

Ridley made some good points about the climate change scare, all of them factually accurate. But in the interests of ‘balance’, the BBC then interviewed a professional climate alarmist — former government chief science advisor Sir David King —  who was allowed to spout a load of eco-propaganda nonsense, unchallenged.

I sat there open-mouthed as he beautifully demonstrated my point with one exaggeration after another. He said that Europe’s dash for diesel had nothing to do with greens, when green pressure groups pushed actively for it. He said that we will see 1-2 metres of sea level rise this century, when the current rate of rise is 3.4 millimetres a year with no acceleration (or 0.3 metres per century). He said that all of Greenland’s ice cap might melt and could cause 5-6 metres of sea level rise, though at current rates of melting, Greenland’s ice cap will be 99% intact in 2100. He said that wild fires were being caused by trees dying out because of rising temperatures, rather than a failure to manage increasingly luxuriant vegetation in fire-risk areas leading to a build up of tinder. He said scientists are agreed that Calcutta will have to be moved, when the Ganges delta is actually expanding in area, not shrinking.

So here you have a significant problem: Britain’s de facto state broadcaster, still taken seriously by a worrying percentage of the population, is pumping out not environmental news but pure green propaganda. And almost no one is correcting it or gainsaying it.

But it gets worse. Normally, you might expect the print media – at least the conservative print media – to counter the BBC’s relentlessly leftist green narrative. It rarely does though because its editors are running scared.

What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change. Take Bob Ward, who works at the London School of Economics, where his salary is paid by a billionaire, Jeremy Grantham. Ward is not employed to do research, but to “communicate” climate science. He chooses to interpret this as a duty to put pressure on the media to censor people like me. He complains to the Times almost every time I mention climate change, often getting his facts wrong, and kicked up a huge fuss when the Times, after publishing half a dozen of his letters declined to publish another one.

Recently he has taken to complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Whenever Charles Moore, James Delingpole, David Rose, the late Christopher Booker, I or any other journalist writes an article arguing against exaggerated climate alarmism in one of the newspapers self-regulated by IPSO, he sends in a detailed and lengthy complaint. He never complains about the myriad alarmist mistakes that appear all the time like articles saying that “the science” tells us six billion people are going to die soon because of climate change.

Yes. Can confirm. Britain is a country that prides itself on its robust, fearless free press. Yet in the field of the environment and climate change it has sold the pass completely: in some cases because the editors and writers are already fully onboard with the green narrative, in others because they are not prepared to go through the hassle of yet another vexatious complaint submitted to IPSO.

Think of all those stories British newspapers ran last year standing up to bullying billionaires like Sir Philip Green, railing against ‘gagging orders’   —     and then congratulating themselves on their own crusading courage.

So how come they’re prepared to give another billionaire — one who doesn’t even live in the UK — Jeremy Grantham, carte blanche effectively to gag the UK print media on the entire field of climate change?

Britain’s newspapers are guilty here not just of cowardice, but of something even more reprehensible in the media: repeatedly misunderstanding and misrepresenting one of the biggest stories of our age.

Just to return briefly to Australian bush fires story — because it’s the most recent — why aren’t the correspondents of the Mail, the Telegraph, the Times and the Sun all over it, reporting on every last detail of this crying global scandal: the warnings over a period of decades from experts in forest management; the green activists deliberately preventing controlled burning; the arsonists — quite possibly motivated by eco-activism — the total, utter lack of evidence showing any connection with climate change?

Environmentalism, never forget, is a totalitarian ideology inimical to the freedoms and prosperity of Western Civilisation. Our media, our elites, our politicians are betraying us hideously on this most important of issues. They are allowing a small but shrill minority of green activists and bent scientists to get away with murder by permitting their lies to go unchallenged.

My mission in 2020 is to blow this scam wide open. I’m shortly going to be announcing a project with which you might want to help me…

James Delingpole is the host of the Delingpod

Trending Today

Ads by Revcontent

3 Signs You Have A Leaky Gut

3 Signs You Have A Leaky Gut

United Naturals

Md: Do This Immediately to Remove Toe Fungus

Md: Do This Immediately to Remove Toe Fungus


12x Better Than Solar Panels? This Unique Invention Takes Country by Storm!

12x Better Than Solar Panels? This Unique Invention Takes Country by Storm!

Online Source Web

Florida MD: This "Ends" Diabetes - Do It Immediately

Florida MD: This “Ends” Diabetes – Do It Immediately

Diabetes Remedy

The Star 270 Pound Running Back Who is Taking the Nation by Storm

The Star 270 Pound Running Back Who is Taking the Nation by Storm


A Chilling Note Written By A Possessed Nun In 1676 Has Finally Been Translated

A Chilling Note Written By A Possessed Nun In 1676 Has Finally Been Translated


Florida Drivers With No Tickets In 3 Years Should Do This On January

Florida Drivers With No Tickets In 3 Years Should Do This On January


William And Harry Have A Stepsister - But There's A Reason She's Kept Hidden

William And Harry Have A Stepsister – But There’s A Reason She’s Kept Hidden


Chiropractors Baffled: Simple Stretch Relieves Years of Back Pain (Watch)

Chiropractors Baffled: Simple Stretch Relieves Years of Back Pain (Watch)

Health Today
.Please let us know if you’re having issues with commenting.


John Nelson - jenkan04@gmail.com
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com