Monday, April 15, 2019

The folly of the Dem's Green Deal.

The folly of the Dem's Green Deal.
-About a comprehensive report on the costs and benefits of adopting a 50% “green” power mandate in Minnesota, in place of the current 25% mandate. The costs would be staggering–$80 billion, a 40% increase in the price of electricity, $1,200 additional cost every year for each Minnesota family, a $3 billion annual decline in the state’s GDP, and destruction of 21,000 permanent jobs.
The benefits? Immeasurably small. Literally. If you accept the Obama administration’s global warming numbers, the reduced CO2 emissions resulting from the 50% mandate would, by 2100, reduce average global temperature by 0.0006 degree–an amount too small to be measured by even the most sophisticated equipment.

Cair started by terrorist Hamas

How and why Hamas founded CAIR
Posted: 15 Apr 2019 05:59 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson)
Ilhan Omar’s Los Angeles CAIR speech — the one that has attracted the current attention — gives the received CAIR origin fable that is recited as fact by the mainstream media outlets. I mean the one that serves up CAIR as a civil rights organization. Mosaic reminds us this morning:
Controversy broke out last week concerning remarks Congresswoman Ilhan Omar made at a gathering of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Last week also marked the fifth anniversary since CAIR—widely regarded by American journalists and politicians as a legitimate representative of U.S. Muslims—successfully pressured Brandeis University into canceling its plans to grant an honorary degree to the apostate Muslim and women’s-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. At the time, Andrew McCarthy responded with an updated version of a chapter from his 2010 book, in which he explained how Hamas operatives created CAIR.
Mosaic quotes this passage:
When 25 [Hamas] members and supporters gathered at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on October 27, 1993, they were unaware that the FBI was monitoring their deliberations. The confab was a brainstorming exercise: how best to back Hamas and derail the Oslo Accords while concealing these activities from the American government? . . . In the U.S., Hamas was [by this time] perceived as the principal enemy of the popular “peace process.” . . .
That was where [a] new organization would come in. . . . The new entity’s Islamism and Hamas promotion would have to be less “conspicuous.” It would need to couch its rhetoric in sweet nothings like “social justice,” “due process,” and “resistance.” If it did those things, though, it might be more attractive . . . and effective. A Muslim organization posing as a civil-rights activist while soft-pedaling its jihadist sympathies might be able to snow the American political class, the courts, the media, and the academy. It might make real inroads with the . . . progressives who dominated the Clinton administration. . . .
Despite its Hamas roots and terror ties, the most disturbing aspect of CAIR is its accomplishment of the Muslim Brotherhood’s precise aspiration for it. Thanks to its media savvy and the credulousness of government officials and press outlets, which have treated it as the “civil-rights” group it purports to be rather than the Islamist spearhead that it is, CAIR has been a constant thorn in the side of American national defense.
NR published an adapted excerpt from McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad in 2014 as “The roots of CAIR’s intimidation campaign.” Everyone should know this story. Those who recite the received version of the origin story are either willfully blind or, like Omar, complicit with CAIR.

Just in time for the seder. that Jews's flight from Egypt did indeed take place –

Just in time for the seder
Despite a majority of researchers questioning the accuracy of the Book of Exodus, some believe that Jews's flight from Egypt did indeed take place – and that new evidence of this is poised to “seriously shift” the frame of discussion.
Researchers from the Doubting Thomas Research Foundation (DTRF), which investigates the historicity and evidence of Biblical accounts, say they may have found the route to the Promised Land taken by the Israelites under Moses' leadership.
Filmmaker Ryan Mauro of the DTRF had made three trips to Saudi Arabia, which he says was part of Moses' route.
"What I found there was simply mind-blowing. I couldn't believe that there was all this evidence for the Exodus and hardly anyone outside this region was aware of it," he told the Daily Star.
The Book of Exodus — the second book of the Old Testament and the Torah — provides an account of the departure of the Jews from slavery in Egypt and their journey through the wilderness.
According to the Biblical narrative, the Israelites fled the Egyptian army when Moses parted the Red Sea, with the waters later closing up again upon their pursuers. They are said to have later arrived at Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Ten Commandments from God, and ended up settling in what is now Israel.
READ MORE: Bible Marks the Spot? Scholars Reportedly Found Possible Location of Eden
The location of the biblical Mount Sinai is traditionally associated with Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. Near the foot of the mountain, St Catherine's Monastery was built over what's traditionally believed to be the site of the burning bush from which God first revealed himself to Moses.
Ryan Mauro believes, however, that the real Mount of Sinai is located over a hundred miles eastwards across the Gulf of Aqaba, which separates the Sinai Peninsula from Saudi Arabia.
"After three trips to Saudi Arabia, I'm fully convinced that the Israelites went into the ancient land of Midian when they fled slavery in Egypt."
He also says there is evidence that Moses led his people across the Gulf of Aqaba from what is now the coastal town of Nuweiba in the east of the Sinai Peninsula, where the crossing would just be nearly 8 miles (12km) wide with a shallow depth of just 33 metres.
"It's going to take some time to bring this alternative theory into mainstream historiography, but I believe that our work is going to seriously shift the landscape on this subject," Mauro argued.
The mainstream scholarly consensus is that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus, and that the Bible represents the reflection of the Jewish people on their origins rather than details a specific moment in history.
"I would basically say to someone who's sceptical about the Exodus to keep an open mind about the subject," Mauro was quoted as saying. "There's a reason why this tradition has been passed down in the three major world religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam."
"Perhaps these sceptics have doubted the historical account of the Exodus story because of a lack of evidence at the traditional site at St. Catherine's, but what we have found appears to fit the ancient accounts."
Sunrise from the summit of Mount Sinai
CC BY-SA 4.0 / SARA NABIH / SUNRISE FROM THE SUMMIT OF MOUNT SINAI
Saudis Are Hiding the Real Location of Mount Sinai, Bible Researchers Claim
Late last year, his foundation released a documentary titled 'Finding the Mountain of Moses', which cited "undeniable archaeological evidence" of its presumed real location in Saudi Arabia.
In the film, he said he had discovered several pieces of evidence that the Exodus did occur, like a rock split by Moses and the remains of an ancient altar where the Israelites worshipped a golden calf while Moses was on top of the mountain.
"The golden calf, the split rock, Moses' altar, the Red Sea crossing site; all of these pieces need to fit, and they fit at this site in a way that no other site does," he added.
"We don't necessarily believe in the same deities as the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians did, but we still accept the evidence that these peoples existed and that there were major events during their respective existences."
"The accounts of the Exodus are no different, and now we have real, physical evidence that these events took place."

The Israel hater Bernie was on Fox tonight. I give him credit for appearing. BUT: 1

The Israel hater Bernie was on Fox tonight. I give him credit for appearing. BUT:
1. The Fox crew did a terrible job confronting his nonsense. Backed off tough questions and let him pontificate and not answer.
2. They allowed a lady in the audience to provide a PHONY definition of socialism, that had nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the government controls the means of production and distribution of income. That what needs to be pointed out. That never works well.
3. No one asked “when socialism has actually been tried in the 20th century, in: Russia, China, N Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Cambodia etc it led to the murder of tens of millions of it’s own citizens and the incarceration of millions as political prisoners. He pretends Venezuela is not a great example of how socialism destroys a country, and makes everyone starve. Instead he pretends the Scandinavian countries are socialist. They say they are capitalist and they are CUTTING taxes now because they see the failure of their overextended government programs.
4. He pretends that single payer health care will give us all better care, not worse care as it has in every country where socialized medicine is tried. He says medicare for all. It actually will be more like VA care for all. When rich people get sick in England or Canada, they come to the US for treatment.
5. His main lie is that the trump economy only works for the rich, like him. Sorry. Obama gave us the worst ever economic growth over 8 years. Trump, by doing the opposite, has brought us record low unemployment and rising wages for working and middle class.
Bernie’s notion is the whole economic pie is x big, cannot get bigger and we have to rearrange the pie piece sizes, taking some pie from some and giving it to others. Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty by showing the pie can grow so everyone’s pie slice can get bigger. Bernie doesn’t understand that if you remove the incentive to get a bigger piece, everyone suffers. https://www.facebook.com/sandersevil/
1. The Fox crew did a terrible job confronting his nonsense. Backed off tough questions and let him pontificate and not answer.
2. They allowed a lady in the audience to provide a PHONY definition of socialism, that had nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the government controls the means of production and distribution of income. That what needs to be pointed out. That never works well.
3. No one asked “when socialism has actually been tried in the 20th century, in: Russia, China, N Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Cambodia etc it led to the murder of tens of millions of it’s own citizens and the incarceration of millions as political prisoners. He pretends Venezuela is not a great example of how socialism destroys a country, and makes everyone starve. Instead he pretends the Scandinavian countries are socialist. They say they are capitalist and they are CUTTING taxes now because they see the failure of their overextended government programs.
4. He pretends that single payer health care will give us all better care, not worse care as it has in every country where socialized medicine is tried. He says medicare for all. It actually will be more like VA care for all. When rich people get sick in England or Canada, they come to the US for treatment.
5. His main lie is that the trump economy only works for the rich, like him. Sorry. Obama gave us the worst ever economic growth over 8 years. Trump, by doing the opposite, has brought us record low unemployment and rising wages for working and middle class.
Bernie’s notion is the whole economic pie is x big, cannot get bigger and we have to rearrange the pie piece sizes, taking some pie from some and giving it to others. Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty by showing the pie can grow so everyone’s pie slice can get bigger. Bernie doesn’t understand that if you remove the incentive to get a bigger piece, everyone suffers. https://www.facebook.com/sandersevil/

Trump is more of a Zionist than Aipac, or the Conservative and Reform Movements,

Trump is more of a Zionist than Aipac, or the Conservative and Reform Movements, that are in a tizzy that Israel might not cooperate with the UN, in its own destruction, by going along with a palestinian terrorist state.   https://worldisraelnews.com/trump-peace-plan-leaves-out-palestinian-state-report-says/?utm_source

Sunday, April 14, 2019

shameful effort by American Jews to pressure trump to pressure bibi




From Larry Greenberg
The likely opposition of the majority of American Jews toward annexation of the 600,000 Jews living in the settlement blocs outside the green line manifests their slavish allegiance to the Democrat party and failed ideas, ignorance about the real situation and shameful disregard for our fellow Jews.

It is clear that for the foreseeable future there is no Palestinian partner that would sign any kind of peace agreement that would spell the end of conflict and end of their claims against Israel. Furthermore, it is commonly acknowledged that were there to be any kind of agreement, with or without "land swaps," these areas would be part of Israel. And why would that have to be the case? The Palestinians have consistently asserted that no Israelis would be allowed to live in their state. And no Israeli would feel safe living as a minority in land controlled by Fatah-Hamas;.
Refraining from annexing these areas has not induced and is not inducing the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table. Annexing them now won't change what exists on the ground. When will it be time for Israel to stop acting in its interests in the hope that concessions will alter the mentality and actions of the Palestinians? Withdrawal from Gaza and ceding governing authority to the PA in Area A has not moved the Palestinians closer to the necessary conditions they must accept.
As for American Jews, it is disgraceful to be more concerned about the interests of a still unregenerate, unreconciled enemy than our own co-religionists. Especially shameful are American Rabbis and US congressmen who who cravenly agitate for the failed two-state formula and dare to lecture Israelis about how to manage their affairs. Kol ha-kavod to Rabbi Newman-Kamin and others who are now wedded to non-starter ideological nonsense."

Friday, April 12, 2019

Were Hebrews Ever Slaves in Ancient Egypt? Yes , Did the Exodus happen? Yes

read these 2 and be convinced

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/were-hebrews-ever-slaves-in-ancient-egypt-yes-1.5429843

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/history-ideas/2015/03/was-there-an-exodus/

The legacy of Barack Obama (and it's not a good one)

The legacy of Barack Obama (and it's not a good one)

Barack Obama
The legacy of Barack Obama was certainly historic, but for all the wrong reasons.
President Barack Obama’s election in 2008 represented a new chapter in history. His meteoric rise to the presidency was swift and shocked not only a nation, but also the political elites, including Democratic favorites such as Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. But as we look back on the eight years that Obama served as president, we see a much different picture — a picture that’s certainly historic, but for all the wrong reasons.
The legacy of Obama represented one of the most racially divided times in our nation’s history. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in July of Obama’s final year in office, 69 percent of Americans said that race relations were bad and that “six in 10 Americans say that race relations were growing worse, up from 38 percent a year ago.”
The legacy of Obama represented a time when race-related riots were on the rise. We can’t forget the scenes on television in Baltimore and Ferguson, or the violence that erupted after the deaths of Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Manuel Diaz, and Kimini Gray. Images taken from each of these events resembled combat zones, with police in riot gear while angry citizens burned cars, smashed windows, and vandalized storefronts.
The legacy of Obama represented a time when our enemies and allies abroad viewed us as weak. Shortly after his inauguration, Obama embarked on a worldwide apology tour throughout the Middle East and criticized America.
The legacy of Obama represented a time when homegrown domestic terrorism was on the rise. We can’t forget the horrific scenes or the carnage in places like Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and Orlando.
The legacy of Obama represented a time when Islamic State recruitment was on the rise. By fulfilling campaign promises to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, he didn’t take into account the void that would leave, as well as the opportunity for ISIS and our enemies to fill it.
The legacy of Obama represented a time when embassy officials were attacked in Benghazi that resulted in senseless deaths, including our Amb. Chris Stevens. The Obama administration failed to heed the warning signs in advance, and as a result, innocent Americans were killed. Stevens even warned Obama’s State Department about an escalation in violence and the need for additional help. But those pleas were ignored.
The legacy of Obama represented a time of failed agreements such as the Iran nuclear deal. Not only did the president lie to Congress about the details of the deal, but he also ordered planes to secretly deliver billions of dollars in cash to Iranian officials.
The legacy of Obama represented a time when his landmark Obamacare legislation, which was meant to provide healthcare for all, still left 27 million Americans without insurance. And when he famously said, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” that promise turned out to be a lie as well.
The legacy of Obama represented a time when America made terrible financial deals, like the more than $2.2 billion in defaulted energy loans at taxpayers expense, including the now infamous $500 million loan to Solyndra, where company executives misled Energy Department officials and later went bankrupt. And who can forget when Obama said, “It's here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”
The legacy of Obama represented a time of personal enrichment. In 2009, when everyday people were recession-weary, Obama arranged, just days before his inauguration, a $500,000 advance for a future book deal. Never before in our history had a president or president-elect negotiated a book deal before or during their time in office.
The legacy of Barack Obama was certainly historic, but for all the wrong reasons. As a candidate, he campaigned on “hope” and “change,” but as president, America was left with no hope and very little change. In 2008, he sold the dream. But for eight years, America was left living the nightmare.
A legacy for sure — but not the kind to be very proud of.
Mark Vargas (@MarkAVargas) is a tech entrepreneur, political adviser, and contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog.

REPARATIONS FOR American slavery are a misbegotten idea, unworkable and unjust

REPARATIONS FOR American slavery are a misbegotten idea, unworkable and unjust, but every now and then they come back into vogue as a political talking point.
In 1969, the radical civil rights activist James Forman made headlines when he seized the pulpit of New York's Riverside Church and issued a "black manifesto"demanding $500 million in reparations for African enslavement. Thirty years later, Randall Robinson, founder of the black social-justice organization TransAfrica, revived the reparations movement with his bestselling book The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks.
Now progressive Democrats, or at least some of the ones running for their party's 2020 presidential nomination, are going through another such phase. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, California Senator Kamala Harris, and former San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro have all indicated in recent weeks that they support some form of reparations to benefit the descendants of American slaves.
"I believe it's time to start the national, full-blown conversation about reparations," Warren saidat a CNN event in Mississippi, where she endorsed legislation to create a commission of experts to propose a system of compensation for slavery. Castro, interviewed on MSNBC, likened reparations to payments made when property is seized through eminent domain. Under the Constitution, he said, "we compensate people if we take their property. Shouldn't we compensate people if they were property sanctioned by the state?"
Slavery was a toxic evil, and its bitter impact didn't end with emancipation. But any attempt to discharge the moral crimes of the 18th and 19th centuries with monetary payments in the 21st century is doomed to fail. The logistical and definitional obstacles alone would be a nightmare. The majority of white Americans have no ancestral link to antebellum slavery — they are descendants of the millions of immigrants who came to the United States after slavery had been abolished. Of the remainder, few had any slaveholding forbears: Slavery was abolished in most Northeastern states within 15 years of the American Revolution, while in most of the West it never existed at all. Even in the South at the peak of its "slaveocracy," at least 75 percent of whites never owned slaves.
That's just where the complications start. To whom would reparations be owed? Millions of black Americans are recent immigrants or the children of those immigrants, and have no family link to slavery. Are they entitled to compensation for what slaves endured? How about whites whose ancestors were slaves? Or blacks descended from slaveholders? What of the 1.8 million biracial people who identified themselves in the last Census as both black and white? Should they expect to collect reparations, or to pay them?
There is no commission of "experts" wise enough to untangle such moral and philosophical snarls — certainly not now, a century and a half after slavery ended in the horrific bloodbath of the Civil War. It is a great shame that Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's laudable efforts to provide former slaves with grants of land ("40 acres and a mule") was never implemented, and the collapse of postwar Reconstruction in the face of ferocious Southern resistance is one of the colossal tragedies of American history. But aching unfairness is a leitmotif of the human condition. And so is the statute of limitations on the sorrows and cruelties of the past
The time for reparations is when the victims who suffered can still, in some sense, be "repaired" — when those who themselves were abused or enslaved or cheated can be offered a measure of redress.
A good example is the reparations paid by the German government to still-living Holocaust survivors who endured slavery and forced labor during the Nazi years. Barack Obama, who opposes the reparations for American slavery, noted the obvious differences between the cases in a 2016 Atlantic interview: "Reparations were paid to Holocaust victims . . . small population, finite amount of money that it was going to cost. Not multiple generations but people, in some cases, who are still alive."

The same goes for other instances of reparations widely seen as equitable and fair: the 1988 payment by the US government to each surviving Japanese-American who was locked in an internment camp during World War II, North Carolina's $10 million fund to compensate victims of its longtime practice of forcibly sterilizing people deemed "feeble-minded," and the amounts belatedly paid to the deceived patients of the infamous Tuskegee Study, in which government doctors purposely denied treatment to 399 black men infected with syphilis.
Those were attempts, however belated or inadequate, to make amends to the people who were actually hurt; they received reparations for what was done to them.
Reparations for slavery are wholly different.
To demand compensation for African Americans who were never slaves is not a demand for individual justice but for racial group entitlement. To insist that white Americans in 2019, by virtue of their color, owe a debt for the slavery and repression of centuries past is to preach collective guilt. Few heresies are more antithetical to our aspirations to equality, tolerance, and individual rights. Few are more likely to inflame tribal resentment and contempt.
The terrible injustices of our past must not be denied. But they cannot be rectified by working new injustices in the present. Talking up reparations may win easy applause for unscrupulous presidential candidates. But it won't heal America's racial divisions, or move us toward a more perfect Union.