Saturday, March 25, 2017

Al Gore is back still singing one note.

Climate change helped cause Brexit, says Al Gore

Former Vice President echoes warnings from US military that global warming is causing dangerous political instability

Brexit was caused in part by climate change, former US Vice-President Al Gore has said, warning that extreme weather is creating political instability “the world will find extremely difficult to deal with”.
Mr Gore, speaking at an event in which he previewed a sequel to his landmark 2006 documentaryAn Inconvenient Truth, said the “principal” cause of the Syrian Civil War had been the worst drought in 900 years, which forced 1.5 million people to move from the countryside to the cities.
There they met a similar number of Iraqis who had fled the conflict in their homeland, creating powder keg conditions that Syrian government officials privately feared would explode.

The resulting war brought more refugees into Europe, causing political instability and helping convince some in the UK to vote to leave the European Union.
One of the most controversial Leave campaign posters showed a queue of refugees stretching into the distance with the caption “Breaking point: The EU has failed us all”. The then-Chancellor, George Osborne, described the poster as “disgusting and vile” and, like others who explicitly compared it to Nazi propaganda, said it had “echoes of literature used in the 1930s”.
Mr Gore, whose new film An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Poweris due out in the UK in August, told an audience at the Advertising Week Europe event in London: “This collision between the power of industrial civilisation and the surprising fragility of the Earth’s ecosystem now poses a great danger that could even threaten the future of human civilisation itself.
“One of the lines of investigation [scientists] have been pursuing has led them to the conclusion that significant areas of the Middle East and North Africa are in danger of becoming uninhabitable.
“And, just a taste of this, to link it to some of the events that the UK and European Union are going through – think for a moment about what happened in Syria. 
“Before the gates of hell opened in Syria, what happened was a climate-related extreme drought.
“From 2006 to 2010, 60 per cent of the farms in Syria were destroyed… and 80 per cent of the livestock were killed. The drought in the eastern Mediterranean is the worst ever on record – the records only go back 900 years, but it’s historic.
“And 1.5 million climate refugees were driven into the cities in Syria, where they collided with refugees from the Iraq War.
“Wikileaks revealed the internal conversations in the Syrian government where they were saying to one another ‘we can’t handle this, there’s going to be a social explosion’. There are other causes of the Syrian civil war, but this was the principal one.”
Mr Gore said this had produced an “incredible flow of refugees into Europe, which is creating political instability and which contributed in some ways to the desire of some in the UK to say ‘whoa, we’re not sure we want to be part of that anymore’”.
He said this kind of political instability was being felt by a number of countries around the world.
“Some countries have a hard time even in the best of seasons but the additional stress this climate crisis is causing really poses the threat of some political disruption and chaos of a kind the world would find extremely difficult to deal with,” Mr Gore said.
This is a view shared by the current US Defence Secretary, General James “Mad Dog” Mattis.
Despite Donald Trump’s apparent dismissal of the problems being caused by climate change, the US military is taking the issue seriously.
“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” he said. 
“It is appropriate for the combatant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.
“Climate change can be a driver of instability and the Department of Defence must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.
“I agree that the effects of a changing climate – such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others – impact our security situation. 
“I will ensure that the Department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future, and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources, and readiness.”

VDH: Law takes a holiday

Law Takes a Holiday

Victor Davis Hanson
Posted: Mar 23, 2017 12:00 AM
Law Takes a Holiday

In the 1934 romantic movie "Death Takes a Holiday," Death assumes human form for three days, and the world turns chaotic.
The same thing happens when the law goes on a vacation. Rules are unenforced or politicized. Citizens quickly lose faith in the legal system. Anarchy follows -- ensuring that there can be neither prosperity nor security.
The United States is descending into such as abyss, as politics now seem to govern whether existing laws are enforced.
Sociologists in the 1980s found out that when even minor infractions were ignored -- such as the breaking of windows, or vendors walking into the street to hawk wares to motorists in a traffic jam -- misdemeanors then spiraled into felonies as lawbreakers become emboldened.
A federal law states that the president can by proclamation "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." Yet a federal judge ruled that president Trump cannot do what the law allows in temporarily suspending immigration from countries previously singled out by the Obama administration for their laxity in vetting their emigrants.
In the logic of his 43-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson seemed to strike down the travel ban based on his own subjective opinion of a president's supposedly incorrect attitudes and past statements.
Some 500 "sanctuary" cities and counties have decided for political reasons that federal immigration law does not fully apply within their jurisdictions. They have done so with impunity, believing that illegal immigration is a winning political issue given changing demography. In a way, they have already legally seceded from the union and provided other cities with a model of how to ignore any federal law they do not like.
The law states that foreign nationals cannot enter and permanently reside in the United States without going through a checkpoint and in most cases obtaining a legal visa or green card. But immigration law has been all but ignored. Or it was redefined as not committing additional crimes while otherwise violating immigration law. Then the law was effectively watered down further to allow entering and residing illegally if not committing "serious" crimes. Now, the adjective "serious" is being redefined as something that does not lead to too many deportations.
The logical end is no immigration law at all -- and open borders.
There is a federal law that forbids the IRS from unfairly targeting private groups or individuals on the basis of their politics. Lois Lerner, an IRS director, did just that but faced no legal consequences.
Perhaps Lerner's exemption emboldened New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to invite IRS employees via social media to unlawfully leak Donald Trump's tax returns. Later, someone leaked Trump's 2005 tax return to MSNBC.
There are statutes that prevent federal intelligence and investigatory agencies from leaking classified documents. No matter. For the last six months, the media has trafficked in reports that Trump is under some sort of investigation by government agencies for allegedly colluding with the Russians. That narrative is usually based on information from "unnamed sources" affiliated with the FBI, NSA or CIA. No one has been punished for such leaking.
The leakers apparently feel that prosecutors and the courts do not mind if someone's privacy is illegally violated, as long as it is the privacy of someone they all loathe, like Donald Trump.
The logic seems also to be that we need only follow the laws that we like -- and assume that law enforcement must make the necessary adjustments.
At this late date, a return to legality and respect for the law might seem extremist or revolutionary. For the federal government to demand that cities follow federal law or face cutoffs in federal funds might cause rioting.
Going after federal officials who leak classified documents to reporters would make those officials martyrs.
And to warn high-ranking IRS officials that they could likely go to prison for targeting groups based on their political beliefs might earn a prosecutor an unexpected IRS audit.
There is one common denominator in all these instances of attempted legal nullification: the liberal belief that laws should "progress" to reflect the supposedly superior political agenda of the left.
And if laws don't progress? Then they can be safely ignored.
But when the law is what we say it is, or what we want it to be, there is no law. And when there is no law, there is not much left but something resembling Russia, Somalia or Venezuela.

Nebraska Dems welcome refugees with voter registration forms...another example of the Democrats buying the vote of illegals/refugees.

Nebraska Dems welcome refugees with voter registration forms

Is it illegal to solicit non-citizens to register and vote in American elections?  I suppose it depends on the laws of each state, but really, shouldn't the Nebraska A.G. start looking into a campaign launched by Nebraska's Democrats?
Chris Pandolfo reports for Conservative Review:
The Nebraska Democratic Party is welcoming refugees with open arms, welcome baskets … and voter registration forms.
A donation drive organized by the NDP collected some 50 gift baskets for refugees. Each contained items like diapers and kitchen utensils, a welcome letter from the Nebraska Democratic Party signed by its chairwoman Jane Kleeb, and a voter registration form, according to a video posted to Facebook by the Nebraska Democratic Party.
The video, posted Saturday March 18, discusses the details of the "Refugee Welcome Basket" project and was recorded at the Nebraska Democratic Party's Spring Meeting.

So the question is, do Nebraska Democrats actually believe that foreigners are entitled to vote in our elections, or are they in a criminal conspiracy to defraud voter rolls?
Evil or stupid?

Why Trump was right to shine the light of criticism on NATO.

Does Europe Treasure NATO Again?

It is a bit rich to hear Europeans insist that any Trump Administration doubts about NATO’s usefulness is heresy—given their occasional popular indifference to and ambiguity about the alliance.
In current journalistic groupthink, Donald Trump has endangered NATO by suggesting a) it does not have a clearly defined role and needs to find one for the 21st century; and b) the vast majority of European members have welched on their defense spending commitments, on the expectation that the U.S. defense budget would always take up the slack, protect Europe, and thus indirectly subsidize the European social welfare project.
No one really disputes the logic of Trump’s criticisms, only his supposed recklessness in daring to be so rude as to voice them.
But we forget that by the mid-2000s, especially after the invasion of Iraq, there was growing European unease with the trajectory of NATO. A different narrative was then in currency of a regrettable omnipresence of the United States (the “hyperpuissance”) within NATO. Hundreds of thousands of soft-power Europeans hit the streets to protest the Iraq War and hard-power American imperialism, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld earned furious pushback for characterizing Western NATO allies as “Old Europe.”
A European solution at a time of a strengthening euro and widespread loathing of George W. Bush was greater autonomy. The long overdue reification of an all-European Union defense agreement (“Common Security and Defence Policy”), would work side-by-side with NATO, but in truth draw indirectly European resources from it and eventually supersede the transatlantic alliance. We are still waiting to see the fruition of a European External Action Service; so far there are lots of impressive acronyms for various forces and programs, but no brigades in action.
What explains the rapid European about-face on NATO by 2017? A number of things:
1) Over a decade ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to many Europeans as growing into a likely benign figure (a “flawless democrat” in the words of then socialist German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder), much less worthy of criticism than was George W. Bush. Schröder himself, just weeks after he left the chancellorship, went to work for Nord Stream, the Russian Gazprom pipeline project. Now Putin, who formerly was supposed to be reasonable, has transmogrified into a land-grabbing existential threat. A U.S.-backed NATO is suddenly seen as a more viable deterrent than the once hyped European defense force; and the Cold War American-led relic is now seen as a vital Hot War American-led deterrent.
2) A decade ago the United States was a thirsty oil-importer dependent on Middle East energy, while Europe was next-door to an oil-rich Russia, which increasingly was seen as an asset in a way the energy-short U.S. was not. Now America is the largest energy producer in the world, soon to be a natural gas and coal exporter, and is immune from Middle East oil chaos in a way a petrol-short Europe is not, especially given the worrisome implosion of the Middle East between 2011 and 2016 and the rise of a hostile and unreliable oil-exporting Russia.
3) The shaky European Union of today is not the confident EU paradigm of a decade ago, which, in Robert Kagan’s formulation, played more a fun-loving Venus to our arms-obsessed Mars. The euro has been weakening, not strengthening. The north-south financial crisis has been papered over, but not resolved. Global sympathies have shifted somewhat, from a “they got what they deserved” feeling about the often deceptive and undisciplined southern Mediterranean debtor nations to a more nuanced view that the lender Germany has gamed the EU for its own trade advantages, monopolizing through its exports a highly regulated European market and relying on weaker EU states to keep the value of the euro lower than a free-floating Deutsche Mark would have been.
The immigration disaster, advanced by the naiveté of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has fueled populist pushbacks against German immigration policy throughout the EU. Currently, the European economy is anemic and ossified. Turkey is no longer seen as a future EU member and protector of NATO’s southern flank, but rather a neo-Ottoman belligerent that considers fellow European NATO allies all but enemies. Given all that, the idea of NATO is now once again seen by European elites as essential in a way it was growing optional a decade ago, when European media caricatured the organization as moral cover for U.S. adventurism and imperialism. Brexit, and the United Kingdom’s reinvestment in its navy, are hints that bilateral relations could extend to two-party defense pacts.
4) Past European ankle-biting about NATO was part and parcel of an asymmetrical transatlantic relationship, sharpened during the Reagan years, in which Europe characteristically distanced itself from the United States, on the assumption that U.S. bipartisan postwar “wise men” would merely grimace a bit and press on with ensuring the costly military subsidies of Europe.
Indeed, Europe, militarily dependent on America during the Cold War, had rhetorically reinvented the dependency as one that served more selfish U.S. Cold War strategic interests to the point that U.S. bases on European soil were supposedly neocolonial outposts. (During the 1973 Yom Kippur War some European NATO members denied the U.S. the use of airspace to resupply an endangered democratic Israel, while letting Soviet transports to Egypt and Syria fly over some NATO nations; when I lived in Greece, weekend demonstrations started off with the obligatory chant Ekso Nato!). During the 1983 Pershing Missile crisis, the Reagan administration was sometimes seen by European leftists as more the aggressor against than the protector of Europe.
But now? The outsider Trump is no globalist Bill Clinton or internationalist George W. Bush. Instead, he’s seen as wildly unpredictable. Trump appears to the Europeans as the first U.S. president who might well react to European mantras about outsized American influence in European affairs, with an almost happy, “So long, it’s been good to know you” attitude. Past U.S. presidents, even after the Cold War, accepted that a U.S.-led NATO (“America in”) was critical to confining an always powerful Russia to its own territory (“Russia out”), while dealing with the age-old “German problem” (“Germany down”) of continental aggression that had led to three European wars.
Yet Lord Hasting Ismay’s original tripartite Russia-America-Germany formulation for NATO by the 21st century was looked upon as outdated and simplistic jargon.
Not anymore. Ismay seems prescient again. Fears of an imperious and domineering Germany have returned, along with worries about Russian unpredictability, both of which require America to be engaged as never before—and all of which has stopped dead European parlor talk of U.S. hegemony over NATO and replaced it with “don’t even dare think we don’t need you” desperation.
The existential threats to NATO are not Donald Trump’s, but rather the continuing European lack of confidence that it can create a peaceful, democratic, and secure continent that does not once again devour itself, along with its own chronic reneging on promised military contributions.
Ironically, Trump’s herky-jerky warnings about redefining strategic missions and meeting required contributions may jolt the alliance into reform—in a way that past American presidents’ mellifluous but empty rhetoric about the fissures within and the contradictions of NATO seem to have only made things worse.

The growing acceptance of anti white racism on campus. Those who will never produce anything of value wallow racial activism. Group think through Liberation Theology.

‘Dear White People’ signs at college declare ‘black people can’t be racist,’ decry whites

‘Dear White People’ signs at college declare ‘black people can’t be racist,’ decry whites
"Dear White People" signs appeared on the campus of North Carolina State University on Thursday. One sign said that "black people can't be racist." (Image source: YouTube screen cap) 

A number of “Dear White People” signs were posted on the campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina, Thursday that decry and criticize white people.
One read, “Dear White People… Black people can’t be racist. Prejudice [sic], yes, but not racist. Racism describes a system of disadvantage based on race. Black people can’t be racist since we don’t stand to benefit from such a system.”
Others read, “Dear White People… There is no such thing as ‘colorblind.’ You are perpetuation racism and white supremacy” and “Dear White People… I am here to burst your post-racial bubble…”
Another read, “Dear White People… Are you tired of your hum drum, Wonderbread existence of accidental racism and wishing you could sip on Henny out yo crunk cup without a Bitch giving you the side-eye? Course you are.”
The sign postings were a project by the school’s Union Activities Board for “Diversity Education Week.” A “special message” from the group’s president noted that the signs were quotations from the 2014 movie “Dear White People.”
The group Hispanics for Trump posed a question to the UAB:
Campus Reform reported that another sign noted, “in a stunning reversal using the term ‘African American’ is borderline racist now. It turns out if you’re too worried about political correctness… to say ‘black,’ odds are… you secretly just want to call us n****** anyway… and truth be told, I’d rather you just be honest about it.”
Campus police allegedly removed one of the signs — “Dear White People…have you read the 13th Amendment?” — after someone wrote in pencil underneath, “Have you read the 2th [sic]?” the Tab reported, adding that it was considered an indirect threat.
This story has been updated.