Time for you to put in your own!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This woman is on the Canadian Supreme Court, was given an Honorary Degree by The Yale Law School and is why Democratic societies best Socialist ones: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/
++++
Unbelievable speech by the son of a top Hamas leader: http://bcove.me/gaqkrc4b
The West refuses to hear what he says because they remain gripped in the historical vise of fear and prejudice.(See 1 and 1a below.)
++++
Warts and all! (See 2 below.)
===
Trump's problem is not so much what he says or even his more outlandish ideas but the boastful, self- centered manner in which he says what he says. However, Trump has proven there is a well spring of support and belief beneath the PC turf and overburden.
A further problem he has, as does any Republican candidate for office, is the press and media have a basic anti-attitude, anti-bias and are more prone to find a bucket of paint with which to smear them. You find it in the subtle way they twist a story or downright lie. The New York Times has become famous for these tactics and MSNBC is notorious.
Furthermore, Trump's persona, his hair do, his past relationship with women, three marriages and wealth (we distrust wealthy in America) and his opulent bragging make him a target for questioning his right to be in The Oval Office and were it not for his two opponents and Obama's miserable presidency he might not even be the front runner of his party.
Meanwhile, Obama fears those challenging the unsubstantiated scientific claims regarding climate changes so now he wants the Justice Department to make it unlawful to challenge the assertions of "Greens."
School text book writers have even begun incorporating the scientific myths of "Greens" as acceptable truths. This is the Radical's method of inculcation and acceptance. If it is in print in a text book it must be so.(See 3 and 3a below.)
Now let's hear some real truth. Click on "here." One to savour! Here
===
Peter Muller ran a hard campaign and if you supported him you were not let down. He did not win, turnout was low so we were let down by others not him.
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Netanyahu and the Peace Charade
2) Hillary’s Crooked Defense
In Clintonworld, anything that isn’t found criminal becomes permissible.
Hillary Clinton campaigning in Oakland, Calif., May 27. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
“I’m not a crook.”
In 1973 the sitting president, Richard Nixon, used these words at a news conference to
deny allegations he had profited off his public service.
In 2016 an aspiring president, Hillary Clinton, as part of her campaign for the White
House, is advancing an aggressive variant of the Nixon defense. It runs like this:
Anything that isn’t criminal is permissible—and therefore none of it should be
disqualifying for the Oval Office.
This has become the go-to argument for Team Clinton these days. Thus Maryland
Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings was quick out of the box last week when the State
Department’s inspector general released a damning report finding that then-Secretary of
State Clinton had defied the department’s rules by setting up her private email server. Mr. Cummings, ABC News said, pointed out that the inspector general’s report “does not
accuse Clinton of any crime.” The implication is that it therefore doesn’t matter.
Chalk it up as one legacy of the first Clinton presidency, which has prepared the way for
the second. Because by refusing to resign after being caught out in an affair with an intern, President Bill Clinton successfully lowered the bar for would-be President Hillary.
In his fight to remain in office, Mr. Clinton’s argument was that because sex between two consenting adults—even between the president of the United States and a subordinate 27
years his junior—wasn’t a crime, it was nobody’s business but his and his family’s. In this brave new world, even perjury turned out not to be a crime when Bill Clinton did it, because it
was about sex.
Today the No Crime/No Foul defense defines the case for Mrs. Clinton. And she and her defenders have been invoking it for years:
“There were no criminal violations involved here.” The speaker was Clinton Budget Director Leon Panetta in July 1993, putting forward the White House party line on the
firing of seven people in the travel office, in which some had detected Hillary’s hand.
Three years later, an internal memo would surface confirming Mrs. Clinton as the force
behind the sackings.
“As far as even a breath of criminal activity by either the president and the first lady, it
will turn out to be nothing at all.” This time it was White House counsel Lloyd Cutler in
March 1994, dismissing the inquiry into the smelly Whitewater land deal. The remark
came at the same time Mrs. Clinton was explaining to the press that she hadn’t been
forthcoming about the details because she had been trying to protect her family’s privacy.
“Those motives for helping Webb Hubbell, you can criticize or not, but they’re not
criminal.”This was 1998, and it was now the turn of Lanny Davis, a former White House
special counsel. Mr. Davis was arguing that the hundreds of thousands in payments that
Mrs. Clinton’s former law partner had received from Clinton associates after he’d
resigned from the Justice Department was not hush money to keep him quiet.
“No evidence of a crime.” “Nothing criminal.” “Nothing illegal.” “No criminal activity.”
How frequently these words pop up when the subject of discussion is some action by Mrs. Clinton.
Now we have the FBI investigation into her private email server. When the New York
Times reported the news last year, the Clinton campaign haggled over the Times’s use
of—you guessed it!—the word “criminal” the Times had used to describe the
investigation. The Times issued a correction.
In a perverse way, it all works to Mrs. Clinton’s advantage. For so long as a criminal
conviction is presented as the only possible disqualification for running for president,
Mrs. Clinton will remain viable even if she does get indicted. In addition, the whole
obsession with whether the FBI investigation will end up in an indictment helps deflect attention away from other key aspects of the server mess that themselves make pretty substantive claims for Mrs. Clinton’s unfitness.
Even putting aside the question of criminality, we know the following: While in a
position of trust, Mrs. Clinton deliberately chose to put American security at risk by
setting up her home server. In so doing, she also concealed what should have been public
records from the American people. In the year since she’s been found out, almost every
public statement she has made in defense of her actions has been exposed as false. And
she refused to cooperate with investigators.
In short, this is a woman who never tells the truth when a lie will serve her purposes
equally well.
What an extraordinary place this has left her party and her country. Here we are, six
months out from the presidential election, and the Democratic nominee is under federal investigation.
It used to be, before the Clintons first moved into the White House, that having no
criminal conviction was something that kept you out of prison. But the way Mrs. Clinton
and her defenders talk, it’s almost as though it should make her president.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
The rise of the lithium-ion battery and explosion of battery-powered
3)
Trump Makes Sense on Energy
From the mouth of The Donald comes wisdom on America’s
climate dissonance.
After delivering an energy-policy speech in Bismarck, N.D., May 26. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Political markets are weird: They cry out for something and yet politicians,
with their enslavement to conventional wisdom and careerist caution, are
unwilling to supply it.
Then along comes Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump, in his set-piece energy speech on Thursday, did something that
might outlast his presidential hopes. In his anti-intellectual way, he made
an intellectual contribution. For decades, poorly justified scientific fears of
future warming have hovered as an incubus over U.S. energy development.
These fears, you’ll notice, have not actually blocked much of anything:
Fracking happened. The U.S. continues to export coal to China. But these
fears fill America’s leadership class with guilt and cognitive dissonance.
Give Mr. Trump credit for trying to break the spell.
Opinion Journal Video
Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. on the presumptive Republican nominee's plan to unleash American energy markets. Photo credit: Getty Images.
In a speech the media
has done its best to
ignore or debunk, he
said, “From an
environmental
standpoint, my priorities
are very simple: clean
air and clean water.”
With these words, he relegated back to the land of abstraction the
abstraction known as climate change.
His was a model political speech, one thatHillary Clinton might learn from.
It set an agenda, with a minimum of windy rationalization, that voters can
assess. Mr. Trump, as all politicians do, offered a prayer to the false deity
of energy independence but he also offered a perfectly serviceable vision of
Americans freely competing in global energy markets based on our own
natural and (note) renewable resources and technology.
Mr. Trump hit the climate moment squarely.
By now, it should be obvious that a succession of “fraudulent” (to borrow a
word used by out-of-school climate activist James Hansen) agreements like
Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris are not paving the way for a non-fraudulent
agreement to impose costly climate actions the public would never support.
The climate policy that actually gets enacted by now has a track record: It
consists of ludicrous gestures and policies of cost-without-benefit like
Tesla subsidies, whose driving force is the desire of influential pre-
Trumpian elites for handouts.
As for the $100 billion spent on climate research, it has yielded one
certainty: A human impact is hard to disentangle from a welter of natural
variables.
What’s more, science can’t deny its nature forever. New information, based
on actually measuring and understanding things like temperatures,
emissions and cloud formation, is increasingly rewriting our hazy
understanding of atmospheric processes. This data suggests our computer
models have overstated the warming risk.
Also ripe to be revisited are the “business as usual” scenarios presumed by
the climate alarmists, in which patterns of energy production and
consumption don’t change in the absence of heroic government central
planning efforts.
The rise of the lithium-ion battery and explosion of battery-powered
devices in our lives, of which even Tesla is but a flamboyant and overrated
derivative, was not the product of climate policy.The emergence of
fracking, which has played the major role in upending the U.S. coal
industry, was not the product of climate policy.
Climate movement types, meanwhile, have increasingly turned to vilifying
nonbelievers as a substitute for dealing sensibly with a possible human
impact on climate. A minority movement is on its way to becoming a cult,
increasingly anti-science. Know them by their talk of “saving” the planet:
Even under the worst scenarios, global warming does not endanger the
planet. It poses an inconvenience to human communities that have become
accustomed to stacking their wealth at the water’s edge.
Perhaps it took Donald Trump fully to exploit the fish-in-a-barrel
vulnerability of Democrats on climate. Democrats love citing a pending
climate catastrophe but want to live in the land of the real politically, never
taking ownership of policies actually commensurate with the alleged crisis.
Al Gore, when he was running for president in 2000, wanted Bill Clinton
to open the strategic reserve to keep gas prices low.
In his speech, Mr. Trump tweaked Hillary Clinton for promoting U.S
fracking technology to China as secretary of state, then proposing to
regulate fracking out of existence at home. He tweaked President Obama
for seeking to block Canada’s energy exports by killing the Keystone
pipeline even while enabling Iran to open its spigots.
Mr. Obama, proving again that he makes a better representative of the
countries he visits than the one he comes from, said from Japan on
Thursday that foreign leaders are “rattled” by the rise of Donald Trump.
Good grief. What endorsement could carry less weight with the American
people? These are the same foreign leaders who’ve been marching
America’s major allies into permanent decline, not least with massive
renewable-energy subsidies that have produced no benefit for their
societies. If anything survives as a monument to the great Trump boom of
2016, let’s hope it’s a turn toward realism on energy and climate.
3a)
Sex and the Citizens: Trump Edition
He has exposed illusions—mine, anyway—about
gender relations in the U.S.
At Donald Trump rally in San Diego, May 27. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Donald Trump doesn’t speak the truth so much as reveal it.
His campaign has ruthlessly exposed the illusions of well-
educated middle-class professionals—people like me.
We believed that changes in law and public norms had
gradually brought about changes in private attitudes across
partisan and ideological lines. We thought that longstanding
racial and ethnic prejudices had been marginalized. We hoped
that the most religious population in any Western
democracy would deal compassionately with the suffering of
refugees from war-torn nations, whatever their religion. We
assumed that some beliefs had moved so far beyond the pale
that those who continued to hold them would not dare to say
so publicly.
Mr. Trump has proved us wrong. His critique of political
correctness has destroyed many taboos and has given his
followers license to say what they really think. Beliefs we
mocked now command a majority in one of the world’s oldest
political parties, and sometimes in the electorate as a whole.
Nowhere is that truer than in gender relations. Mr. Trump’s
attitudes toward women are a throwback to the Rat Pack. His
past on-air conversations with shock-jock Howard Sternmake
Don Draper of “Mad Men” sound like a feminist. His
response to the familiar critique that these attitudes “objectify”
women is, in effect: That’s what men do. The difference is that I
don’t hide it. You’ve tried to make us feel guilty, and we’re not
going to take it anymore. In my America, men will be free once
again to be men, and the country will be better off.
Surprising numbers of Americans seem to agree with him.
In April, survey researchers at the Public Religion Research
Institute (PRRI) asked a blunt question: Do you agree or
disagree with the statement that “Society as a whole has become
too soft and feminine.” Fifty percent of men agreed, as did 34%
of women. Whites and Hispanics gave the statement identical
42% support, with African-Americans a few points lower.
Whites had the largest gap between men and women (20 points),
with the African-American gap close behind at 17 points. The
Hispanic gap stood at only six points—Hispanic women were
significantly more likely to agree with the sentiment than were
their white and African-American counterparts.
Forty-five percent of respondents with a high-school education
or less agreed with the “too soft and feminine” proposition; so
did 48% of those with some college education, compared with
only 31% for those with a bachelor’s degree or more.
Age made less difference than might have been expected. In fact,
Americans in the 30-49 age range were somewhat more likely to
agree than were those 50 and older, with only the youngest
adults registering a significantly different view.
By contrast, partisanship and ideology made a big difference.
Sixty percent of Republicans felt that American society has
become “too soft and feminine,” compared with 43% of
independents and only 29% of Democrats. Support among
conservatives, moderates and liberals stood at 58%, 44% and
24%, respectively.
Gender and partisanship interact. Seventy-two percent of
Republican men endorsed the statement, compared with 46% of
Republican women. Although Democratic men were less than
half as likely as their Republican counterparts to agree, they
were 10 points more likely to do so than were Democratic
women.
So Mr. Trump’s supporters want a tougher, more masculine
America. But what does this mean, exactly? The PRRI survey,
conducted in partnership with the Atlantic magazine, offers
some clues. Although only 39% of Americans believe that
society is better off when men and women hew to traditional
gender roles, the figure rises to 50% among Mr. Trump’s
backers.
As one might expect, Mr. Trump has mobilized the most
passionate opponents of America’s current gender regime:
68% of his supporters believe that society has become “too
soft and feminine”—74% of men backing him, and 59% of
the women. (Females in the Trump camp are 25 points more
likely to express this sentiment than are women as a whole.)
Women are often seen as more compliant with established rules
than are men, and more inclined to pursue progress through
compromise within these rules. But large majorities of
Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and in the
PRRI poll nearly half—45%—have concluded that to set things
right, we need a leader who is willing to break the rules on their
behalf. Among Mr. Trump’s supporters, 65% endorse this view.
My interpretation: They think it will take a “real man,”
indifferent to respectable opinion and procedural niceties, to
blow up the entire corrupt system and get the country back on
track.
The general-election contest between Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton will bring gender to the center of American
politics, with consequences that are no more predictable than
any other dimension of this astounding year.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
