Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

VOTE ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

 

www.wsj.com/articles/vote-on-the-green-new-deal-11549931107

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Vote on the Green New Deal

Every Member of Congress should step up and be counted.

Editorial Board     February 12, 2019

Democrats rolled out their Green New Deal last week, and by all means let’s have a national debate and then a vote in Congress—as soon as possible. Here in one package is what the political left really means when it says Americans need to do something urgently about climate change, so let’s see who has the courage of those convictions.

Thanks to the resolution introduced last week by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, there’s already official language. While it’s nonbinding, the 14 pages give a clear sense of direction and magnitude in calling for a “10-year national mobilization” to exorcise carbon from the U.S. economy.

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan looks modest by comparison. The 10-year Green New Deal calls for generating 100% of power from renewables and removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and transportation—to the extent these goals are “technologically feasible.” Hint: They’re not.

The plan also calls for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification.” That’s all existing buildings, comrade.

Millions of jobs would have to be destroyed en route to this brave new green world, but not to worry. The resolution says the government would also guarantee “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” Good that they’re starting small.

Sorry to mention unhappy reality, but renewable sources currently make up only 17% of U.S. electric-power generation despite enormous federal and state subsidies. Wind and solar energy have become more competitive over the last decade as costs have plunged. But without subsidies, solar costs remain about 20% higher than natural gas while offshore wind is two-thirds more expensive. The bigger problem is solar and wind don’t provide reliable power, so backup plants that burn fossil fuels are required to run on stand-by.

(more…)

Share

AUSTRALIA – A CAUTIONARY TALE OF A GREEN NEW DEAL

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

 

The first article tells the the revealing story of Australia’s fatal  experiment with trying to maximize energy efficiency.  The second article encourages a vote on the new green energy deal to put Democrats on record for supporting this fantasy land proposal.  It is truly fascinating to watch this spectacle unfold of a party self-destructing right in front of our  very eyes.   Nancy      
 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Green New Deal: A Cautionary Tale

Australia’s costly and fatal 2009 effort to upgrade houses for energy efficiency.

By Tim Blair    Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.
February 12, 2019

Sydney

The Green New Deal—introduced in Congress last week and immediately endorsed by several Democratic presidential candidates—calls among other things for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States . . . to achieve maximal energy efficiency.” We’ve tried it in Australia—on a much smaller scale—and it didn’t go well.

On Feb. 3, 2009, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his treasurer, Wayne Swan, announced the Energy Efficient Homes Package. “To support jobs and set Australia up for a low carbon future the Rudd Government will install free ceiling insulation in around 2.7 million Australian homes,” declared a press release from Mr. Swan’s office.

“For a time-limited period of two and a half years, from 1 July 2009, owner-occupiers without ceiling insulation will be eligible for free product and installation (capped at $1,600) simply by making a phone call.” At the time, A$1,600 was worth about US$1,280.

In many cases those calls weren’t necessary. At the Daily Telegraph, where I work, we discovered something was amiss when our chief of staff ordered a pizza. To her surprise, the delivery man also offered an insulation quote.

There were only 250 registered insulation businesses in Australia when the package was announced. That number quickly blew out to 7,000 because the government was handing out free money to installers. Pizza drivers could pick up more in one insulation job than from a month’s worth of tips. They received their rebates directly from the government rather than from homeowners, who therefore had little incentive to check if the work had been done well or even at all. Some ceilings ended up with a mere handful of insulation batts thrown around. Others featured only shredded paper. Almost every insulation job went right up to the $1,600 cap, regardless of size or ceiling area.

The insulation army worked at frantic speed, eager to cash in while they could. When the difference between five jobs done reasonably well and eight jobs done in careless haste is $4,800, a short amount of time represents a lot of money.

Then the deaths began. Four young men were killed while installing insulation under the government’s program—three by electrocution and one from hyperthermia during the Australian summer. Dozens more workers, most of them inexperienced, suffered injuries and heat stroke.

Nearly 100 houses caught fire. Environment Minister Peter Garrett, whose hits as Midnight Oil’s lead singer included 1987’s “Beds are Burning,” subsequently announced the planned deregistration or suspension of 5,000 installers.

Those suspensions were never required. In February 2010, a year after the Energy Efficient Homes Package was announced, it was abandoned.

Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

Share

“I SURVIVED COMMUNISM” A WARNING TO CANADA AND THE U.S.

Saturday, February 9th, 2019

 

A very sobering article that was written as a warning to Canada  but also applies to the U.S regarding Communism and Socialism.  Key words that we have been  bombarded with from the Left for years are becoming louder – Socialism, Social Justice, Global Warming/Environmentalism, Equality, Save the Planet, Indoctrination of our children in the educational system, redistributing wealth, eliminating fossil fuels, Medicare for All (controlled by the government, of course).  This article addresses them all and warns what they lead to.  Thanks to Steve Bishop for sharing this article.    Nancy   

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

SPENCER FERNANDO JANUARY 3, 2019

The article below was written by Zuzana Janosova Den Boer, who experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before coming to Canada. She said, “Having recognized all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda in my adopted country of Canada, I felt obligated to write the article below ( I survived communism – are you ready for your turn?)– because I do not want my adopted country to suffer the same fate as the country from which I emigrated (Czechoslovakia).”

Her warning is something all Canadians need to see. That’s why I’m sharing her article in full on SpencerFernando.com, and I encourage you to share it:

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

By Zuzana Janosova Den Boer

It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality – 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”, so proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject ‘scientific communism’, while the country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’ideology is.

In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitledEnvironmentalism is new communism. In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” He goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.” Klaus has also written a book: “Blue planet in green shackles”, in which he states communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism – new communism.

(more…)

Share

LATE TERM ABORTION – BEWARE GRAPHIC VIDEO AND TWO ARTICLES

Friday, February 8th, 2019

 

There are two articles and one video link in this email.  All deal with late term abortion.  The video is an animated video of how a late term abortion is done and is really very upsetting.  The first article is ” It is Never Necessary to Kill Baby for Health, Life of Mother ” where doctors and nurses speak out on this issue.
The second article is regarding the bill that was introduced by Republicans  in the House to give medical aid to a baby that survives an abortion.  Democrats blocked that bill.   How much lower can the Democrats go ?   
Thanks to Cindy Chuey and Charlie Hendrix for sharing these articles and video.  Nancy

OB/GYNs, Nurses Speak Out Against NY Abortion Law: It Is Never Necessary to Kill Baby for Health, Life of Mother

By Heather Clark on  January 28, 201936 Comments

A number of pro-life obstetricians and nurses nationwide have spoken out against the New York Reproductive Health Act signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week, which not only codifies the “right” to an abortion, but also allows mothers to obtain an abortion past the 24-week mark and without limitation if the child in their womb is not expected to survive, or to “protect” the mother’s health or life.

“Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” the Reproductive Health Act, signed into law on Tuesday, reads in part. “A health care practitioner … may perform an abortion when … the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

The language reflects the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, in which Justice Harry Blackmun, nominated to the bench by Republican president Richard Nixon, wrote, “If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability [written in the ruling to be as early as 24 weeks], it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

“I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt,” Dr. Omar Hamada of Tennessee, who outlined that he has delivered more than 2,500 babies, wrote on social media on Wednesday. “There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no. There is absolutely no medical reason to kill a near term or term infant. For any reason.”

“If there’s a problem—and there are problems in the third trimester, both with the babies and with the mom that require delivery—just deliver the baby. We don’t have to kill it,” Hamada further explained to Fox News.

Dr. David McKnight, also of Tennessee, likewise said that if a concern arises, the baby is simply delivered via C-section. There is no need to kill the child to save the mother.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – CORRUPTION AT THE DEPT OF JUSTICE – MARK LEVIN AND SIDNEY POWELL

Thursday, February 7th, 2019

 

 How can we possibly have trust in our Justice Department after hearing the information in this video ?   Nancy
VIDEO – SIDNEY POWELL AND MARK LEVIN ON DOJ CORRUPTION

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk-3uaGZsM8

Sidney Powell  –  bio

Sidney PowellSidney Powell was a federal prosecutor in three districts under nine U.S. Attorneys from both political parties, then in private practice for more than 20 years. She is past-president of the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit and of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. A veteran of 500 federal appeals, she published LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, the true inside story of the corrupted prosecutions of Ted Stevens, Arthur Andersen LLP, Merrill Lynch executives, and many others. In addition to practicing law, Ms. Powell is now Senior Policy Advisor on Justice Reform for America First and a Senior Fellow of the London Center for Policy Research.

The book LICENSED TO LIE focuses on abusive prosecutors—all of whom rose to very powerful positions in the government. The book’s most prominent villain now leads Robert Mueller’s task force investigating the 2106 presidential election. It has recently been discussed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on Cavuto, Hannity, Fox & Friends, with Bill Hemmer, on MSNBC, and on NPR. The book was also featured by John Stossel in a segment of one of his shows on Washington Overlords.

(more…)

Share

MLK WAS A REPUBLICAN – GREAT HISTORY OF REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT HISTORY

Wednesday, February 6th, 2019

 

This article was written in 2006 but contains a tremendous amount of history about the Democrat and Republican parties  Please share with your email lists.   Democrats have been very successful at rewriting history but this article exposes them.  Nancy

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican

frice | Wednesday Aug 16, 2006 12:00 AM

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO WHY YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH LEFTISTS

Tuesday, February 5th, 2019

 

VIDEO PRAGER U

Why You Can’t Argue with a Leftist

372.3K Views
Feb 4, 2019

When two people share the same goals, they can disagree – even strongly disagree – and still have a productive discussion about how to reach those shared objectives. As comedian and author Owen Benjamin explains, the problem with America today is we no longer share the same goals, and that’s tearing us apart.

 

 

Share

RED STATE/BLUE STATE DIVIDE

Tuesday, February 5th, 2019

 

Navigating the Great Divide

By Stephen Moore    January 8, 2019
 In the months after the election of Donald Trump, there was a mini-political movement in California to get the Golden State to secede from the Union.It didn’t get off the ground, though during a recent trip to Northern California, many of the people I met were still so distraught over the Trump presidency that were he to win re-election, secession would be much more seriously pursued. A majority of Californians don’t want to be governed by Donald Trump, and many liberal leaders and talking heads openly compare him to Adolf Hitler.

What if we arrived at a point where a solid majority of Californians wanted independence (and perhaps states like Washington and Oregon sought to join them)? Should they have the moral and constitutional right to do so? Would the other states ever impose military control over Californians to keep them in the Union?

The standard response is this issue was settled during the Civil War. Really? What the Civil War proved was that the North had more military might than the South. Imagine that it were the South in 1860 that held the political and military advantage to impose its will over the North, and moved to legalize the evil of slavery everywhere. Would the North have been morally wrong to secede?

The issue of secession takes on renewed vigor now given the British exit from the European Union. The EU allowed a fairly orderly process for allowing nations to leave the EU governing structure. The political tide in many places around the world appears to be for self-rule and sovereignty.

In America, the deepening and perhaps irreversible red state-blue state schism deserves immediate attention. We as a nation are more divided on ideological, cultural, economic and geographical lines than at any time since the Civil War. Look at the electoral map from recent elections.

(more…)

Share

TECHNOLOGY VERSUS THE WALL

Monday, February 4th, 2019

 

Has anyone suggested “armed drones”  ?  They would certainly get the attention of
those who are illegally crossing our border !   Nancy

Democrats who killed Bush’s ‘virtual fence’ now back ‘technological wall’ at border

by S. A. Miller

January 13, 2019
Bush’ ‘virtual fence’ killed by Obama

The Department of Homeland Security spent seven years and more than $1 billion trying to create a wall of technology at the border — or, as President George W. Bush called it, a “virtual fence.” It was a bust.

Now the idea has returned as the main ante for congressional Democrats in the border security spending fight. Opposed to President Trump’s physical barriers, they say drones, sensors and other electronics are all the tools needed — a “technological wall,” in the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

The Obama administration in 2011 pulled the plug on the Bush-era Secure Border Initiative Network, or SBINet, which was envisioned as an integrated system of radar, sensors and video cameras along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrats at the time cheered the decision to cancel the contract with Boeing for the long-troubled program.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who was the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, called SBINet a “grave and expensive disappointment” for squandering a little more than $1 billion to achieve just 53 miles of coverage on the border in Arizona.

Mr. Thompson, who now chairs the committee, said last week that he is ready to try again rather than spend on Mr. Trump’s corrugated steel fence.

“I have been engaging the tech community. They are telling me that they are developing modern technology that will help us identify those vulnerabilities. I would like for us to go in that direction,” he said on “PBS NewsHour.”

He said U.S. Customs and Border Protection already have high-tech sensors that just need to be used in a better way.

The Washington Times asked Mr. Thompson’s office what had changed since 2011 and whether he fully backed Mrs. Pelosi’s “technological wall.”

“He does support proven and effective technology to be used at the border where appropriate. SBINet simply did not work, was not deployed correctly and was overly ambitious,” said Thompson spokesman Adam Comis.

The border security debate and Mr. Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for a border fence are at the heart of the standoff between the White House and Democrats that has kept the government partially shut down for more than three weeks.

Border security analysts agree that the technology has improved by leaps and bounds since 2011, but they disagree on whether sensors and remote imaging can substitute for physical barriers.

Jay F. Nunamaker Jr., director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration at the University of Arizona, had no doubt that technology could replace walls and fences.

“The combination of all the cameras, night vision cameras, you could see people walking through marshes and streams like it was bright daylight,” he said, recalling a 2013 visit to a border security command center set up at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson.

“Technology has only improved since then,” he said.

National security scholar James R. Phelps, co-author of the 2014 book “Border Security,” said the question isn’t whether the technology works in detecting border jumpers — it does.

“The question then becomes, ‘Do they actually stop anybody?’ The answer to that is no,” he said. “It is definitely not a substitute. It works in conjunction with physical barriers.”

A big difference between sensors and fences, he said, is where Border Patrol agents apprehend smugglers or illegal immigrants. The high-tech sensors and video cameras don’t prevent or hamper illegal border crossings.

“Once they are on U.S. soil, inside the United States of America, you now have to go through all the legal processes and administrative processes,” said Mr. Phelps. “You have to determine if they are here legally or illegally, collect the biometrics to put through the criminal check systems, detain them or arrest them, set them up for a deportation hearing, put them in front of a judge, potentially house them, treat them medically. The list goes on and on and on — with all the expenses associated with that person once they set foot in the United States.”

The scenario also depends on Border Patrol agents apprehending border jumpers after they appear on video screens.

“It does no good to detect illegal crossings unless someone is available to track them down, and fairly quickly, before the crossers disappear into the many private homes, farms, businesses, vehicles and natural hiding places that are in the border areas, often very close to the border,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. “Technology by itself does not prevent anyone from crossing the way a real wall or fence does.”

(more…)

Share

VIDEO MARK LEVIN WITH DR. PAUL KENGOR –

Friday, February 1st, 2019

 

 

Ted Kennedy and Russia  1983  and Soviet Spies in President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration

Share
Search All Posts
Categories