|The Whatcom Excavator||
What do WE hear round the clock? Shellfish protection this, shellfish committee that ... and lots of publicly paid promotion for favored' sustainably connected eco-elites like Taylor Shellfish Farms and the other local band of uber green-gangsters, BelleWood Acres. Those who sip and dine with Gang Green fly high, while others get hosed. Another sad tale of tyranny here:
Those who have recently cruised Fairhaven posh spots or the parking lots at WWU may have noticed that the pinnacle of eco-snobbery in Whatcom County is now getting about in an electric vehicle.
Bicycling or driving a hybrid like a Prius (aka"Pious") have become not only passé but déclassé. All-electric vehicles pack the triple entendre of (a) conspicuous consumption, (b) anti-carbon zealotry, and (c) 'afforability' through government subsidy. How progressive. No matter that the $7,500 per vehicle subsidies are carried on the backs of the common folk.
Among electric vehicles, there's nothing higher in the pecking order than a Tesla. Will special supercharging stations be promoted here for them? WE wouldn't be surprised a bit to see that happen... Read on.
Getting Juiced by the Roadside
A plan for keeping up with the Teslas.
October 17, 2016 | By CAMERON SMITH
Greenville, Alabama, is a small city of about 8,000 right off I-65, south of Montgomery. It’s best known for Bates House of Turkey, a popular lunch stop on the way down to the white-sand beaches of the Gulf Coast. It's also an important stop on the map for Tesla owners.
During a business trip, I happened to stay at the Greenville Hampton Inn. Arriving late at night, I saw a phalanx of gleaming white sentinels standing beneath the humming lights of the parking lot. My first reaction was to wonder if aliens had established a spaceport in Greenville. (It wouldn't be unreasonable for Bates's turkey to have an interstellar cult following.) Upon further inspection, I noticed the word "TESLA" in red letters on each of the six slender machines.
These were "superchargers," a new sort of electrical fuel pump that gives a Tesla electric car a battery charge, in just 30 minutes, sufficient to get to the next charging station. Limited range being the single biggest drawback of plug-in electric vehicles, Tesla is tackling that problem head-on: Instead of waiting for gas stations to build the electric infrastructure, the company is providing its customers with their own network of charging stations across the country.
Tesla's charging infrastructure is crucial for the vehicles to be able to drive cross-country. But the "supercharger" stations, like so much in the world of electric vehicles, are buoyed by federal tax credits and, in many parts of the country, state incentives too. Conservatives have been dubious about plug-in electric vehicles given the policy experience they've had with them thus far, which has all been about government meddling in markets. There's no shortage of subsidies and tax incentives for buying electric. Buy a plug-in vehicle and the federal government picks up $7,500 of the cost through an income tax credit. It's hard to justify such subsidies—particularly for products such as Teslas that most people can't afford even after taxpayer help.
The hope is that by expanding its charging network, Tesla will expand its customer base to the point that the subsidies will no longer be needed for the business to make sense.
But even if it does, Tesla's supercharging stations only serve its own customers. If average Americans want to buy an electric vehicle, there isn't a network of superchargers to serve their needs. That makes electric vehicles less practical. Consumers' choices are limited not by technology, but by infrastructure.
For all the progress that has been made with plug-in technology, electric cars may not be beyond the need of incentives to sell at all. Take the Nissan Leaf, the bestselling all-electric vehicle in America. With a base price of slightly less than $30,000 before all the subsidies, it doesn't have much range, just some 84 miles per charge. By comparison, Nissan's Altima costs $7,000 less and can drive cross-country, stopping only for quick gasoline fill-ups. The Leaf limps along with 107 horsepower; the Altima's base-model four-cylinder engine produces 182 horsepower. It's a measure of the market's eagerness for electric cars that they have sold at all.
How do the makers of electric vehicles compare with other disruptive technology companies? Uber and Lyft have radically disrupted the taxi and limousine business. Airbnb is a force in hospitality. But these these new businesses have done their disruption without government subsidies—indeed, in the case of Uber and Lyft, much of their progress has been accomplished in the face of government regulators trying to hobble them.
But if we want to see a functioning free market in electric vehicles, one free from distorting subsidies, credits, and incentives, we should at the very least look to remove federal regulations that throw up unnecessary roadblocks to the new technology.
For example, an obvious place to install electric-vehicle chargers is at highway rest stops. But such commercial charging stations would be against federal law. Section 111 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code severely restricts commercial activity at interstate rest stops (with exceptions for service plazas built before 1960), limiting rest-stop commerce to such things as vending machines and travel information.
Why not allow charging stations at rest stops, permit providers to charge customers, and generate tax revenue in the process? Electric-vehicle drivers would have a predictable, secure, familiar location to charge their cars on lengthier trips. And instead of subsidizing the stations, governments might charge rent. It would be a bipartisan change: Republicans could support cutting government restrictions on commerce and Democrats could support emission-free vehicle technology without pushing yet another subsidy.
We ought to look for ways to free the marketplace and encourage competition by removing hurdles to innovation. It's a harder path than subsidies or tax credits, but it's the difference between eradicating market distortions and imposing new ones.
Cameron Smith is state programs director and general counsel for the R Street Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based free market think tank.
The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say bureaucrats can hound and harass citizens 'til the cows come home. But these did, and lower courts have turned a blind eye. This case wouldn't have been taken-up by PLF if it didn't have substance. We'll find out how much of a banana republic this has become...
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.; October 5, 2016: The Supreme Court is being asked to hear the important First Amendment case of Bob Bennie, a Lincoln, Nebraska, financial analyst and Tea Party member who was targeted for retaliation by state financial regulators because he expressed political opinions in the press that they didn’t like.
In his petition for certiorari just filed with the Supreme Court, Mr. Bennie is asking the justices to hear his lawsuit over regulators’ retaliation against him, and to direct all courts, henceforward, to review such cases in a way that is strongly protective of First Amendment free speech rights. He is represented, without charge, by attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a national watchdog organization that litigates for limited government and individual rights. Also assisting as local counsel is attorney Gene Summerlin, a partner with Husch Blackwell LLP.
In payback for Bob Bennie’s exercise of his free speech rights, a vendetta campaign was launched
The regulatory crusade against Bob Bennie started after the Lincoln Star Journal, in 2010, quoted him making controversial, negative comments about President Obama, to the effect that he was “a communist” and an “evil man.” After that article appeared, officials with the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance launched a series of retaliatory actions. They repeatedly contacted his then-employer, LPL Financial, to complain about his political views and to ask LPL to sanction him; they threatened LPL by saying “the Department may invoke whatever administrative action deemed necessary and appropriate under its authority against both Mr. Bennie and/or LPL Financial to insure compliance"; and one regulator went so far as to tell a colleague that he hoped Bob Bennie “will eventually hang himself along with LPL.” Bennie was ultimately let go from LPL.
Courts give state agency a pass — even while admitting bureaucrats retaliated against constitutionally protected speech
Bennie filed the current case — a federal civil rights lawsuit — in 2011. The district court agreed that regulators retaliated against Bennie for his constitutionally protected comments. However, the court still ruled against him on the key legal test for determining whether a plaintiff may prevail in such cases — i.e., would a person of “ordinary firmness” be chilled in the further exercise of First Amendment rights by the government’s retaliatory actions? The district court held that the retaliation against Mr. Bennie would not have such a chilling effect on the average person of “ordinary firmness.” The court came to this determination despite evidence that Mr. Bennie subsequently muted his controversial comments and despite the fact he was dismissed from LPL after the state began applying pressure to the company.
The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision on a 2-1 vote. But the panel did not conduct an independent inquiry into the facts of this case, instead simply relying on the district court’s findings in holding that a person of “ordinary firmness” would not be chilled by what happened to Mr. Bennie.
“Our First Amendment rights can be cancelled out if government can punish people for exercising those rights,” said PLF attorney Wen Fa. “That is what happened to Bob Bennie — he was the victim of a vendetta campaign by bureaucrats because they were offended by his political views. You don’t have to agree with his comments to grasp the importance of the principles he is fighting for in this case. If we value First Amendment freedoms, government cannot be permitted to penalize people for using those freedoms — and the courts at every level must go the extra mile to guard against such abuses of public-sector power.
“Unfortunately, Bob Bennie’s free speech rights didn’t get the respect and protection they are due when he was before the appellate court,” Fa continued. “Instead of conducting its own rigorous, independent review of the case, the Eighth Circuit simply rubber-stamped the findings of the trial court. When First Amendment freedoms are at stake, no court can be allowed to rely on some other court’s work. We are asking the Supreme Court to take this case and affirm that, when government retaliation against free speech is alleged, every court must do its job, fully and vigorously, to protect victims and hold violators to account."
“The right to free speech is an essential element of freedom in the United States,” said Bob Bennie. “I am grateful for the assistance of Pacific Legal Foundation in fighting to protect the First Amendment. I am also thankful to the many constitutional law experts who have written amicus briefs in support of this case when it was before the Eighth Circuit. I firmly believe that if we as citizens don’t fight to protect our rights, the nature of government bureaucrats is to take those rights away.”
The case is Bennie v. Munn. More information, including the petition for certiorari, is available at PLF’s website: www.pacificlegal.org
Wen Fa, Principal Attorney PLF
firstname.lastname@example.org, (916) 419-7111
Damien M. Schiff, Principal Attorney PLF
Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
email@example.com, (916) 419-7111
Take a few minutes to see how the Cross family who have always been great local stewards of their property and caring animal lovers were crushed by the Bellingham office of WA Ecology. Ozzie the horse is dead now and the llama's gone, but this family will never forget how wrongfully this played out - how they were targeted without even a hint of evidence of pollution, absolutely none. Everyone with animals in rural areas are in danger of injustice. How can this be stopped?
The way things are going there's not much good news to share. But this will put a smile on your face. A case very much worth following is underway thanks to the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of Common Sense Alliance over on San Juan County. PLF has filed a request for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court questioning San Juan County's demands that citizens give up the use of their property for buffers. As most readers know all too well already, citizens have been confronted with the same demands here. What you may not know is that Whatcom County Planning & Development staff and county legal are fully aware of the prior cases that the PLF has fought and won: Koontz and Nollan/Dolan - but they keep on plundering, turning a blind eye. A fair-handed outcome of this new certiorari case could turn the tide. It's worth the fight.
Read on below (and - please consider supporting the PLF for taking on incredibly important fights like this [here's another doozie].) Thank heaven somebody has the noogies to take on these cases.
Washington state exaction scheme before
the U.S. Supreme Court
Brian T. Hodges, Atty. - August 19, 2016
San Juan County’s scheme to force shoreline property owners into dedicating water treatment buffers is now pending on a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Common Sense Alliance v. San Juan County. As you may recall, in order to address a Washington state statute requiring that cities and counties adopt measures to protect the shorelines from new harm, San Juan County adopted an ordinance that requires all shoreline property owners to dedicate a “water quality buffer” designed to filter stormwater runoff before it reaches the shoreline—regardless of the fact that much of the runoff comes from neighboring properties and streets. Setting the wisdom of such a scheme aside, the county’s approach to the water quality assurance violates one of the most basic protections provided by the Takings Clause, the purpose of which is “to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear the public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.”Armstrong v. United States (1960). Thus, the importance or wisdom of a public policy goal is irrelevant to a takings analysis.
PLF’s petition argues that San Juan County’s water quality buffer constitutes the type of exaction that the U.S. Supreme Court has held subject to heightened security in Nollan v California Coastal Commission (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), and most recently inKoontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013). The petition drew impressiveamicus support. And in June, the Court ordered San Juan County to file a response to our petition.
Unsurprisingly, the County’s response dodged the question presented by our petition—whether a legislatively-imposed dedication is subject to Nollan and Dolan. Instead, the response argues that, for a variety of reasons, its buffer scheme should not be subject to constitutional scrutiny. According to the County, the buffer demand is an everyday land use regulation—like a setback or height restriction—and the government should be allowed to demand that homeowners dedicate land to mitigate for public problems without limit and without compensating the owners.
PLF’s reply brief (check it out), filed earlier this week, puts those tired arguments to rest:
The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions clearly applies here. Washington law recognizes buffers as a valuable, freely-alienable property interest. Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.130; see also Klickitat County v. Wash. State Dep’t of Revenue, No. 01-070, 2002 WL 1929480, at *5-6 (Bd. Tax App., June 12, 2002) (Buffer area constitutes property; the holder of the conservation interest must pay property taxes). Therefore, a demand that an owner provide a buffer as a mandatory condition of permit approval appropriates a valuable property interest. See Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1018-19 (1992) (conservation buffers deprive the landowner of a distinct property interest and may result in a taking). The buffer condition plainly puts that property interest to a public use.See, e.g., Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]here is little doubt that the preservation of the habitat of an endangered species is for government and third party use—the public—which serves a public purpose.”). Thus, this case presents the precise type of condition that Nollan/Dolan demands be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Koontz, 133 S. Ct. at 2594-95.
We expect the Court to conference on this case in September.
WE wondered what had become of this troublesome ass who busied himself leaving a trail of tears down the west coast for four miserable years (Obama's Secretary of the Interior, 2009-2013). We reported about the demise of a small oyster farm in northern California. There was the absurd classification of Chuckanut Rock, Lummi Rocks and Lummi Island's Carter Point as "national conservation areas" (NCA's) by the BLM, and the San Juan Islands as a national monument (worry how that's going down for the folks out there). Anyway, it seems this notorious crony hack has resurfaced.
Hillary’s Headhunter: Sleazeball Ken Salazar
National Review, Michelle Malkin
August 17, 2016
He’s threatened reporters, distorted scientific evidence, and ignored the law. Now Hillary has hired him — of course.
The Loathsome Cowboy rides again. Ken Salazar, President Obama’s disgraced former interior secretary and a former U.S. senator from Colorado, was named Hillary Clinton’s White House transition chair on Monday.
The pick confirms that a Clinton presidency would not only be Barack Obama’s third term ideologically, but also culturally. As in the Democratic culture of corruption.
Ken Salazar is a thug. Before stepping down as Obama’s interior secretary in 2013 “to spend time with family,” Salazar threatened violence against a Colorado Springs Gazette reporter who had the audacity to challenge one of the ten-gallon-hat-wearing bureaucrat’s cronyism-tainted deals.
At issue: How rancher and reported Salazar business associate Tom Davis profited handsomely from the Bureau of Land Management’s Wild Horse and Burro Program. Not long after Salazar took office, Davis paid $10 apiece for more than 1,700 federally protected horses who roamed on public lands. He then turned around and sold them for slaughter near the Mexican border for $154,000, despite having signed a contract prohibiting him from doing so.
When Gazette reporter David Phillips (now at the New York Times) asked about the controversy at an Obama Election Night event in November 2012, Salazar snapped: You know what, never do that. This is a — this is the Obama — You know what, if you do that to me again, I’m going to punch you out. OK? Don’t ever, ever, from the Gazette or anybody else do that to me again. Set me up. You know?
Caught on tape by Philipps and another witness, Knuckles Salazar issued an “apology.” But neither he nor Davis, who said he had previously hauled cattle for Salazar for years, ever answered for their actions. An inspector general determined Salazar’s department “failed to follow its own policy of limiting horse sales and ensuring that the horses sold went to good homes and were not slaughtered.” No penalties, no prosecution, no nothing. Ken Salazar is a liar.
He trampled the rule of law, defied court orders, and doctored scientific conclusions in the name of environmental protection. Have you forgotten? After the BP oil spill in 2010, the Obama White House imposed a radical six-month moratorium on America’s entire deepwater-drilling industry. The sweeping ban — inserted into a technical safety document in the middle of the night by Obama’s green extremists — cost an estimated 19,000 jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages.
The order was supposedly based on recommendations from an expert oil-spill panel. But that panel’s own members (along with the federal judiciary) called out Obama’s environmental team for misleading the public about the scientific evidence and “contributing to the perception that the government’s findings were more exact than they actually were.” Salazar and eco czar Carol Browner oversaw the false rewriting of the drilling-ban report to completely misrepresent the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.
Federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana blasted the Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. Feldman singled out the Salazar-run agency’s culture of contempt and serial “determined disregard” for the law.
“Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness,” Feldman wrote, Salazar’s doctored report was “misleading” and the experts who wrote it called it a “‘misrepresentation.’ It was factually incorrect.”
Once again, Salazar evaded accountability despite continued obstruction and repeated refusal to cooperate with nearly 50 public-records requests from Congress regarding his post–BP spill decisions.
Ken Salazar hates American consumers and workers. He infamously told the Senate in 2008 that he would refuse emergency drilling requests in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge even if gas prices reached $10 a gallon. He arbitrarily pulled nearly 100 oil leases in Utah — costing the state thousands of jobs — based on bogus eco-claims that were refuted by the Interior Department’s own inspector general. Offshore and onshore, Salazar waged war relentlessly on the energy sector and the American West.
Ken Salazar is a job-killing, truth-sabotaging, law-skirting, media-bullying corruptocrat who just won’t let go of power. In other words: a perfect headhunter for America’s Evita Peron.
— Michelle Malkin is a senior editor at Conservative Review. Her email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
This piece, written by historian Victor Davis Hanson, was posted a few months ago. It seemed rather dark. But on reflection (it's very bright) WE thought it might help put the current state of national and local affairs in perspective. The nature of mankind is tremendously important to understand. Many mistakes have been made; all too many are repeated. At a minimum, learn. And again, never lose your perspective.
America In Free Fall
June 20, 2016 10:52 am
By Victor Davis Hanson // Defining Ideas
Before the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), where Philip II of Macedon prevailed over a common Greek alliance, the city-states had been weakened by years of social and economic turmoil. To read the classical speeches in the Athenian assembly is to learn of the democracy’s constant struggles with declining revenues, insolvency, and expanding entitlements. Rome between the First Triumvirate (59 BC) and the ascension of Caesar Augustus’s autocracy (27 BC) was mostly defined by gang violence, chaos, and civil war, the common theme being a loss of trust in republican values. Russia was in a revolutionary spiral for nearly twenty years between 1905 and the final victory of the Bolsheviks in 1922, ending up with a cure worse than the disease. And Europe between 1930 and 1939 saw most of its democracies erode as fascists and communists gained power—eventually leading to the greater disaster of the outbreak of World War II.
The United States has seen periods of near fatal internal chaos—in the late 1850s leading up to the carnage of the Civil War, during the decade of the Great Depression between 1929 and 1939, and in the chaotic 1960s. Something similar is starting to plague America today on a variety of political, economic, social, and cultural fronts.
The contenders for president reflect the loss of confidence of the times. Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. Yet scan the record of big government redistributionism here and abroad—from Chicago and Detroit to the insolvent Mediterranean nations of the European Union and failed states like Venezuela—and there is no encouraging model of socialist success. Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination—if she is not the first nominee in American history to be indicted, on possible charges of violating federal intelligence laws, and perhaps perjury and obstruction of justice. Donald Trump has neither political experience nor a detailed agenda, but has charged ahead on the basis of his vague promise to “make America great again”—a Jacksonian version of Obama’s equally vacuous 2008 promise of “hope and change.”
President Obama, in response to attacks on his record by Trump—and by Bill Clinton, who has spoken of “the awful legacy of the last eight years”—is entering the campaign to brag about the current economy.
But to do so, President Obama must ignore a number of liabilities that are soon coming due. Under his tenure, he did not address the unsustainable actuarial realities of Social Security and Medicare. The federal debt doubled in a manner never seen prior and can be now serviced only through de facto zero-interest rates, which in turn ossify economic growth. Due to tax hikes, new financial and business regulations, and the socialization of the health care system, per annum GDP growth under the President’s tenure will go down in history as the worst since the Great Depression. He ignored the Clinton-Gingrich compromise formula of a quarter-century ago of balancing budgets by cutting defense, capping spending, and raising taxes. Instead, Obama slashed defense spending and hiked a number of taxes, but ignored entitlements, ensuring $500 billion annual deficits—deemed successful because they were less than his first-term normal of $1 trillion annual shortfalls. The President points to the 5 percent unemployment as proof of his success, but that figure reflects Obama-era methodologies of not counting all those who have given up looking for jobs. In May 2016, a record 94,708,000 Americans were no longer in the labor force—the highest percentage of non-working Americans since the Great Depression.
Abroad, it is hard to identify a single region or U.S. national interest where things are not worse than prior to 2009. In the Middle East, few believe that the Iran deal will prevent the theocracy from obtaining the bomb; indeed, Iran has never been more active in creating chaos and threatening war. American intervention in Libya, American withdrawal from Iraq, and American neglect of Syria helped to ensure a general Middle East implosion. Reset with Russia empowered Vladimir Putin’s ongoing agenda of reabsorbing former Soviet republics. China is building artificial island bases in the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea to recalibrate the balance of power in Asia—on the understanding that American failure to challenge this bellicosity has translated into de facto acceptance of it. And due to financial disasters, unchecked immigration, and populist revolts against Brussels, the European Union in its present form seems unsustainable. The only mystery is whether its unwinding will come with a slow whimper or abrupt bang.
In President Obama’s interview with The Atlantic and his chief foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes’s disclosures to the New York Times, it is evident that the administration holds a general contempt for the American-led postwar order—and the Washington bipartisan and trans-Atlantic establishment (“the Blob”) central to its stability. By any fair measure, President Obama believes that the U.S. does not, and perhaps never has, possessed the moral stature or the wherewithal to lead the Western world, which should be more equitably left to regional powers such as China, Iran, Russia, and Middle Eastern autocracies to adjudicate the affairs in their own environs.
The result has been near anarchy, not just in the natural rise of anti-American rivals, but in the fright of former allies and neutrals who are being forced to make the necessary realist adjustments with old enemies—or in the case of many Westernized allies, to perhaps privately reconsider the once taboo idea of acquiring nuclear weapons for the sake of deterrence.
But perhaps the three most telling symptoms of the current chaos are race relations, immigration, and the status of our universities and colleges—three interconnected issues that often inspire riots, demonstrations, and suppressions of free speech.
President Obama has largely ignored the old ideal of the melting pot and in its place preferred a salad-bowl multiculturalism of competing ethnicities, tribes, and races, whose activism wins concessions from local, state and federal governments. Casual comments and references by Obama—like “bring a gun” to a knife fight, the “bitter clingers” of Pennsylvania, and “typical white person”—stoked racial tensions. So did Attorney General Eric Holder’s crude referrals to “my people” and a “nation of cowards.”
The Ferguson and the Baltimore riots, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the systematic carnage in Chicago all embody paradoxes: facts are sometimes less important than allegations; the police are the culprits of urban violence both for responses that are too aggressive and too passive; and in a static economy, inner city youth can’t find jobs because they have criminal records and lack the skills that would make them employable.
Apparently, the Obama administration never considered that a multiracial America united by one culture was an historical exception. Everywhere else, multiculturalism and tribalism without assimilation, integration, and intermarriage have proved to be an abject and usually violent catastrophe: most recently, in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, Rwanda, and the Middle East. Europe’s attempt to emulate a multiracial United States is ending in utter failure with unchecked immigration, multicultural incoherence, and rising Islamism.
The recent California riots at Trump rallies, along with the widely reported crimes committed by illegal aliens in sanctuary cities, reveal the wages of unchecked immigration that is increasingly neither diverse and meritocratic nor legal and measured—the traditional requisites that promote rapid and full integration. Over one in four Californians was not born in the U.S.—a statistic that becomes worrisome when coupled with the state’s policy of sanctuary cities and new educational curricula that emphasize grievance and separatism rather than assimilation and unity. When rioting youths in San Diego, Fresno, and San Jose burn or deface American flags, as they have been doing in recent weeks, and wave Mexican flags instead, then we are witnessing a tragic farce, the consequences of decades of ethnic-chauvinism, multiculturalism, and cluelessness of the norms and realities outside of America.
American immigration policy is not so much “broken” as increasingly neo-Confederate and illogical. Three-hundred state and municipal jurisdictions have declared themselves, in good 1850s fashion, immune from federal law as sanctuary cities, while over 1 million illegal aliens have at some point been arrested, and make up nearly 30 percent of the federal inmate population. In Orwellian terms, illegal immigration largely from Latin America and Mexico, is called “diversity,” nullification of federal laws is known as “sanctuary cities,” and foreign nationals residing illegally are referred to as “undocumented migrants.” Ultimately the central paradox of immigration is the strange nexus of anger and grievance against the United States by immigration advocates—and the overriding desire nonetheless to enter and reside in such a purportedly unattractive place.
The universities in some sense are the embryos of social unrest. The 1960s free speech and free love movements, with their rampant drug use, advocacy of unchecked and raucous expression, and resistance to authority have strangely given way to today’s speech codes, safe spaces, micro-aggressions, and trigger warnings. Yesterday’s “anything goes” hippie student is today’s Victorian prude who cannot quite square the circle of relaxed sexuality and drugs with the demands that the university act in loco parentis for perpetual adolescents.
This election year so far has emblemized the perfect storm of unrest and confusion—and an even more worrisome response to it. In the past, when 51 percent of societies no longer believed in or wished to defend their collective values and traditions, there were no longer reasons for them to continue. And so they did not—a warning we should heed.
George Monbiot is zealous about climate change, re-wilding, veganism, and putting an end to modern life as we know it. He's an author and blogger at The Guardian. WE think readers should become familiar with the guy because he's a creature who closely resembles the invasive species that has infested Whatcom County over the last twenty-thirty years. You know, the totalitarian ilk with visions of eco-villages dancing in their heads seeking zero-tolerance and the imposition of restrictive enforcement actions on everyone who sees our world in a different light. He describes his mission this way,
"It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves."
He may walk his talk, driving thrifty cars on book tours, opining at TED conferences, and eating roadkill. In a free society the right to make personal choices should be equal and inalienable for all. But his vision of individual rights, like the vision of those now sitting on county council, is not so fair or just. The totalitarian elites feel justified in their actions with an immense and superioristic rush, knowing what's best and saving the planet from the masses, the cretins who dare to disagree.
George Monbiot Eats Roadkill to Save The Planet
Watts Up With That
August 12, 2016
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Prominent Guardian Environment Reporter George Monbiot, who sometimes shows up at prominent climate events, no doubt after a long journey by sail, has decided to eat Vegan supplemented with Roadkill to “reduce his impact” on the global climate.
I’ve converted to veganism to reduce my impact on the living world
The world can cope with 7 or even 10 billion people. But only if we stop eating meat. Livestock farming is the most potent means by which we amplify our presence on the planet. It is the amount of land an animal-based diet needs that makes it so destructive.
An analysis by the farmer and scholar Simon Fairlie suggests that Britain could easily feed itself within its own borders. But while a diet containing a moderate amount of meat, dairy and eggs would require the use of 11m hectares of land (4m of which would be arable), a vegan diet would demand a total of just 3m. Not only do humans need no pasture, but we use grains and pulses more efficiently when we eat them ourselves, rather than feed them to cows and chickens.
This would enable 15m hectares of the land now used for farming in Britain to be set aside for nature. Alternatively, on a vegan planet, Britain could feed 200 million people. Extending this thought experiment to the rest of the world, it’s not hard to see how gently we could tread if we stopped keeping animals. Rainforests, savannahs, wetlands, magnificent wildlife can live alongside us, but not alongside our current diet.
Then something happened that broke down the wall of denial. Last September I arranged to spend a day beside the River Culm in Devon, renowned for its wildlife and beauty. However, the stretch I intended to explore had been reduced to a stinking ditch, almost lifeless except for some sewage fungus. I traced the pollution back to a dairy farm. A local man told me the disaster had been developing for months. But his efforts to persuade the Environment Agency (the government regulator) to take action had been fruitless.
I still eat roadkill when I can find it, and animals killed as agricultural pests whose bodies might otherwise be dumped. At the moment, while pigeons, deer, rabbits and squirrels are so abundant in this country and are being killed for purposes other than meat production, eating the carcasses seems to be without ecological consequence. Perhaps you could call me a pestitarian.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/09/vegan-corrupt-food-system-meat-dairy
I quite like Monbiot, or at least I find him more entertaining than most greens.
Sometimes he shows a flash of common sense, such as when he defended nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima. Then he goes and blows it by saying something wild, such as telling everyone the corrupt media are keeping the end of the world a secret.
At least Monbiot is going to get enough protein, unlike some Vegans I know. The number of wild deer currently running around the British countryside, and all those impatient drivers trying to beat the rush, Monbiot is not going to starve – unless increasingly punitive British attempts to price driving out of reach of ordinary people finally succeed in clearing the roads of traffic.
Here's a quote from one of his blog posts...describing how he butchered roadkill:
Here's a quick discussion about competition and the self-sustaining nature of free markets, from the Right Angle trio. It's a nice break.
WE focus on local. It's a presidential election year, everyone here votes, so this video just released by Breitbart is relevant.
Brietbart News a few days ago, July 28, 2016:
PHILADELPHIA – Hillary Clinton said that “We are going to follow the money” in her Democratic National Convention speech Thursday night.
Clinton was referring to getting money back into our country through foreign trade. But that sound-bite might as well refer to the revelations that Clinton and her husband Bill chased money all around the world — including money from corrupt foreign governments."
This forum is moderated. Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion. Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted. You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address. Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.
Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.