Skip

“United States forest health has improved over recent decades and is not likely to be impaired in at least the next few decades.”

Bruce is one of our Progressive commenters here at the ‘Grok; I do give him kudos for entering our “lion’s den” especially when posts on global cooling global warming climate change climate chaos go up. This may be one of those.

Sidenote: Do you wonder if those that believe Man is responsible for climate change have to keep burning through so many names?  That their constant rebranding is just like Progressives cum Liberals cum Progressives (again)?  That maybe the realization that most of us think their ideas are so toxic that they believe they must hide themselves all the time (emphasis mine)?

Increased atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has increased U.S. forest health in recent decades

Abstract: The health of United States forests is of concern for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, forest commercial values, and other reasons. Climate change, rising concentrations of CO2 and some pollutants could plausibly have affected forest health and growth rates over the past 150 years and may affect forests in the future. Multiple factors must be considered when assessing present and future forest health.

Read more

Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Happiness was originally was Property; the NH Constitution says it more clearly:

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

And what does now US District Court Judge, thanks to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Wilhelmina Marie Wright hold on the Right to Personal Property?  Right out of the Critical Race Theory (that EVERYTHING, knowable and unknowable, always proves racism):

The practice of American racism is based on two principles: the sanctity of property and the belief in the hierarchy of races. The first of these principles is firmly protected by the words and action of the Constitution; the second is proscribed by the words of the instrument, but not by its effect. History shows that when these two principles are juxtaposed (which happens constantly), property rights are given absolute priority.

Read more

In essence, are they trying to “calm” (at best, mislead at worst) their base while appealing to the new electorate that they want?  Quite disturbing this – that Nikki Haley (Gov, R-SC) said one thing about immigration in English while Mario Díaz-Balart (Congressman, R-FL) said the opposite when they gave the response to Obama’s SOTU address.  Now look, those two speeches are microscoped well before they are given six ways to Sunday for tone, tenor, content, and delivery.  While considered to be an honor to give it, this is a speech that are Star Chambered by the GOP Establishment including the GOP itself, the Senate, the House, and others.  Not a word or syllable is included that they don’t approve of in advance (and that ‘scope looks for stuff left out, too).

So why were there two versions of the GOP response given – and why do they contradict each other?  Hmmm?

IJ Review has the story:

While her candor about the candidate surprised many listeners, the Republican Party’s official Spanish language State of the Union response took a softer tone on the issue that has contributed so much to Trump’s success in the polls: Immigration.

Here are the two speeches (diffs in bold):

Read more

Hillary:  “there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail“

Of COURSE, this magnificent threesome didn’t get the audience that it truly earned deserved DNC Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was praying not to get.  How could it – a Sunday night of a long weekend (well, at least for Government workers that got today, MLK Day, off) and wedged inbetween two NFL playoff games on a channel nobody watches (WIN! for DWS and for Hillary).  Normally I’d be tweeting live (ok, I am a sick puppy for watching these kinds of events) but couldn’t last nite so, yes, I DVR’d it.  A few observations as it went along:

Read more

The recent flood of illegal migrants currently inundating Europe continues to be one of the most horrific and misunderstood events of our time. This merciless attack upon Western Civilization has been unleashed on an unsuspecting European populace and continues to leave chaos and destruction in its wake. Though there is much coverage of the ‘effects’ of this attack there is no mention of the cause. Strange, isn’t it? The fact that no main stream news outlets are explaining the causal factors behind this mass human migration should indicate, at least to those that are awake, that there is more to this situation than meets the eye. This column is not primarily about the tragic events in Europe, but a cursory explanation is crucial to grasp the totality of the circumstances effecting America. The intention of the Global architects, who are orchestrating this invasion, is multifaceted, but yet simple in its intent. The main thrust behind what is occurring is an attempt to ‘reshuffle’ the ‘old order’ to usher in the ‘new’. The intent is to re-seat new leadership in these ‘gap’ nations that lay in the Middle East and North Africa. The goal is to eventually ‘wire them’ into the new global economic system taking shape (but more on that in another column). There are three main objectives that flow out of this effort; #1 To disrupt the idea of the Nation state and ‘Nationality’; #2 Depopulate the nations that are currently ‘in play’ until they are brought under control.

So, why is understanding the mechanics of what is happening in Europe important to the residents of New Hampshire?

Read more

For in the end, they are pretty much aligned to the same end – The Bigger the Citizen, the smaller the citizen (emphasis mine):

During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. I also read some interpretative works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me as convictions to this day. First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian, I believe that there is a creative personal power in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality-a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter. Second, I strongly disagreed with communism’s ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything-force, violence murder, lying-is a justifiable means to the ‘millennial’ end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the means.

Read more

A Democrat / Progressive definition:

Loophole: – any condition whereby there are insufficient laws or regulations which do not allow government to control an issue or situation down to the molecular level (and would prefer down to individual atom control).

At 14 minutes into MTP, Chuck Todd was interviewing Bernie Sanders on gun control violence safety (those Progressives, they certainly burn through words to advance (and then screw up) their issues, don’t they?)  makes the case that citizens should suffer because of the inadequacies of govt – the Charlestown “loophole”:

Another thing that’s going to come upon the issue of gun safety is the issue of a waiting period. The Clinton campaign is hitting you for supporting only a 3 day waiting period or instant background checks and not being in favor something longer like a 5 day or a 7 day window. And the reason why this is being brought up is that Dylan Roof, the man who killed those 9 folks in Charleston last year. If it had been a longer waiting period, he might have been prevented from buying a gun.

Progressives are trying to “tout” that they have discovered yet one more area where ordinary people can “take advantage” of the all-beneficent Government that only wants what’s best for us.  What Todd, what Bernie, what Hillary, what any anti-gunner does not want to admit,

Read more

And yes, the fact that Bernie Sanders chose to spend bring his new bride to Moscow should be a definite Red flag.  And while he easily calls himself a Socialist, remember that one is a Socialist on their way to becoming a Communist.  And Paul Sperry in a column in the NY Post pretty much lays that out – not Socialist but a Communist (reformatted, emphasis mine):

As polls tighten and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders looks more like a serious contender than a novelty candidate for president, the liberal media elite have suddenly stopped calling him socialist. He’s now cleaned-up as a “progressive” or “pragmatist.”  But he’s not even a socialist. He’s a communist.  Mainstreaming Sanders requires whitewashing his radical pro-Communist past. It won’t be easy to do.

Read more

“If you are elected president, how will you make a college education more affordable?”

The Concord Monitor had a piece “Where do the presidential candidates stand on college affordability?” that outlines some of the Prez Wannabees positions on that subject.  Frankly, I disagree with the question; why is it the proper role of Government of the Federal Government to be meddling in this area in the first place?  Sure, we are talking about a public good and folks might say that horse has left the barn, but if we do not continue to ask the question over and over, government always expands if it sees no impediment in front of it.  After all, like water seeking a downhill path, government always expands. But back to the “socialize the risk, privatize the profit” question:

Read more

If The Mentally Ill Shouldn’t Own Guns, Should Radical Muslims?

Read more