Redford's Misused Opportunity

HuffPo gives "select contributors" access to post blog on its site to address issues it values or deems worthy of consideration by the rest of us hoi polloi.


Recently Robert Redford logged-on to voice his opinions on Keystone XL. Actually, they could hardly be called "his" opinions, as the post simply regurgitated some of the many, mostly wrong, bases for the more generalized opposition to which we have been exposed for the last 5 years.


"Here's Why Keystone XL Is the Wrong Choice for Our Nation"




Redford, as with so many of his "brethren," has been given a forum available to very few, but offers little balance and much misrepresentation in exchange for such largesse.


The world will have to rely upon fossil fuels for at least the next 50 years as the primary source of energy as populations grow, countries become more developed, and "renewables" continue to falter.
Even at maximum production and deployment, "renewables" will only make up a tiny fraction of energy needs in the coming Century, by anyone's reasoned estimation.


The Alberta resources will be developed and exploited regardless of what Redford, Obama,  Congress or "environmentalists" do.


There are already thousands of pipelines crossing the Plains, and accidents are few and far between.  The alternatives for transport, rail and truck, are more expensive and more dangerous.


Of course, underlying 99% of the Keystone XL opposition is the belief that Man is causing "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, for which "the science is (far from)settled," and for which few are working toward adaptation instead of avoidance.


The dogmatic rigidity of the CAGW faith reviles even consideration that there are alternative explanations than fossil fuel use for changes in the climate, or that there are other "catastrophic" threats that demand more immediate attention and resources.


What a waste of bandwidth!  

Obama's Foreign Policy Failure

Andrew Racevich, once a lukewarm Obama  supporter, has published his take on why Barack Obama's foreign policy initiatives are seen as such failures.  From the "Cairo initiative" to the re-kindled Iraq was on terror, Columbia University's "George McGovern Fellow," cites numerous instances where Obama's proclamations failed to result in positives or even measurable results:
"when it comes to foreign policy, this very smart man was not quite smart enough to appreciate the magnitude of the problems he inherited, to understand how little he knew, and to recruit a team with sufficient talent to help him bridge the yawning gap between the first two."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9403672/barack-obama-anatomy-of-a-failure/


Commenters have noted that the core of Obama's lack of success, or even initiative, have been pointed out by the likes of Dinesh D'Souza, who was subsequently singled-out and prosecuted for campaign funding / IRS / tax-related issues.

You don't have to reach out to others, such as D'Souza, for proof of Obama's "anti-colonial" intentions. All you have to do is read "Dreams FROM My Father."  Obama made it very clear, BEFORE he was elected, what his outlooks, beliefs and motivations were.  Those who failed to take heed now scratch their heads, wondering 'What happened,' when it right in front of them all along.
I learned long ago that the only way for conservatives to truly understand what "progressives" seek is to study their more-private words, rather than their speeches and proclamations; and to scrutinize their actions, past and present; then use them against them.
I saw this coming in 2008, and told you so.

Khadijah Lynch tries to hide "no sympathy" tweets

Earlier this month, Brandeis Afro-American Studies (?) student Kadijah Lynch revealed her hate for the U. S. and her contempt for others who don't share her opinions.


She later revealed her inability to understand the public nature of the social media by claiming that anyone who repeated her opinions or connected her to them would be guilty of "slander."


What an ignorant, privileged, idiot!


Here's a touch of what she publicly tweeted, starting with Nov. 25, 2014:
Khadijah Lynch @punQross3
 “the fact that black people have not burned this country down is beyond me"


After the execution of the NYPD officers, she exulted:
Kadijah Lynch @punQross3
“lmao, all i just really dont have sympathy for the cops who were shot. i hate this racist fucking country,”


Later, she admonished anyone who thought this was worth sharing:
These tweets are [my] “own personal opinion” and [do not want my] tweets "publicized in any form and if you do not abide my wishes i constitute your disregard as slander."


She has now closed THAT account, and deleted all her "opinions.


This was after she had published her disdain for the school nurturing her beliefs and worthless "studies" (and, I suppose, those who are paying her way):
"a social justice themed institution grounded in zionism. word. thats a fucking fanny dooley,”


She has now regained the confidence to resume tweet posts:
Khadijah (خديجة)Protected Tweets  @punQros3  
     poet. revolutionary. crazy cat lady. black feminist thot/thinker. afro punk.

"@punQros3's Tweets are protected. Only confirmed followers have access to @punQros3's Tweets and complete profile. Click the "Follow" button to send a follow request."

If this is what 3 years of the Brandeis "Afro-American Studies" program produces, who would want to "follow" this idiot, anyway?

NYPD Slowdown vs. Prosecutorial Discretion

While one of the reasons for NYPD frustration may be the Mayor's perceived lack of support, the primary reason for the decline in enforcement is tied to unionization of civil servants.


"Work slow downs" and "teacher flu" absenteeism are the direct result of and (wrongly) accepted tactics of union efforts to persuade public employers to accede to their demands. You get what you pay for.



What I find most interesting from the NYT editorial, though, is the admonishment:
"The police are sworn public servants, and refusing to work violates their oath to serve and protect." 



This seems both hypocritical and galling when the same editorial board has nothing but praise for the


Obama administration's refusal to enforce immigration laws. What of the presidential oath to "faithfully enforce" the laws of the land. I do not recall an exception for immigration, national origin or "prosecutorial discretion" anywhere in the Constitution, or in the oath Obama took at his inaugurations.
 
If "discretion" is a valid excuse for non-enforcement, it would seem more properly exercised in the cases of public urination than those of detention and deportation of criminal illegal aliens



What hypocrites!.

Scalise and bias

 

Much has been made of Rep. Scalise’s alleged appearance before EURO, or whether he even spoke to the organization at all.

The original post, from the son of a Scalise opponent, picked up by WaPO and HuffPo (those bastions of truth and accuracy), has been challenged by his “sponsor” as inaccurate.  It appears now that Scalise spoke to the sponsor, Knight’s, and Scalise’s  neighborhood association at the Metairie hotel 2 hours BEFORE the EURO event!

 

So, a then-state representative knowingly/unintelligently/accidentally spoke about budget issues 2 hours before a “White Supremacist” event 12 years ago?

 

But what if a presidential candidate‘s “spiritual mentor” was an anti-American, anti-White racist (Jeremiah Wright)?

What if one of his political mentors was a convicted terrorist (Bill Ayers)?

What if his most-trusted advisors on science and the environment were Communist (Van Jones), Socialist (Carol Browner), a de-development/population control  advocate (John Holdren), or a “stealth infiltration by covert agents” gov’t propaganda advocate against free speech (Cass Sunstein)?

What if he openly associated with a tax-evading, falsely accusing, race-baiting “race advisor” (Al Sharpton)?

 

Would any of that merit similar “outrage” and calls for resignation from office?