Is the draught broken? Perhaps but this we do know ‘While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease’ Genesis 8:22 .
Media
All posts tagged Media
From the Clayton County Register 24 January, 1935
‘Clayton Co. Treasurer’s Office Robbery
The unsuccessful attempt to rob the county treasurer’s safe here a week ago last Friday has been cleared up by the confession of three men captured in an attempted bank robbery at Ottawa, Ill., last week Wednesday. A fourth member, included in the confession of the three men, is dead as the result of a running gun battle after the yeggs (a slang term used in reference to safecrackers/robbers in the early 1900s) were discovered in the Leonore, Ill., bank.
The dead member of the gang is Melvin Liest, 40, of Rockford, Ill., for four years a member of the Dubuque fire department. In a hospital in LaSalle, Ill., Arthur Thielen, 41, a former Dubuque taxicab driver, lies dangerously wounded, a bullet in his abdomen. In the LaSalle county jail are Fred Gerner of Rockford, Ill., formerly a resident of Clayton; and a brother-in-law of Thielen. With him also is John Hauff, who claims to be from Chicago. The latter is the one who first confessed implicating the others in the attempted robbery here. After his confession had been gotten the others admitted their guilt.
Hauff’s confession gave a clear account of the time spent here in Elkader and vicinity from the time they arrived until they left after their unsuccessful attempt to loot the treasurer’s safe. According to his story in the LaSalle county jail last Sunday, the gang arrived here Wednesday afternoon, January 9th. They came to Elkader via Prairie du Chien and the Marquette bridge avoiding Dubuque because Liest was known there.
They spent Wednesday afternoon here in town and since the attempted robbery a number of people reported to authorities that an out-of-state car was observed on the streets. While the car was parked on lower Front street near the Niemeyer Bros. store, Liest spent about an hour in the court house, getting the lay of the land, according to Hauff. While Norbert Niemeyer took no particular pains to observe the number of the license plates he felt certain the number was Wisconsin “77-070.” A check on the plates last Sunday revealed that he had not been far off for the number was “77-080.” Both the car and the plates were stolen, county officials have found.
The group ate their supper Wednesday night in the Riverside Café and that evening attended the show in the Rivola theatre where they signed fictitious names on the bank night record in the presence of Donna and Kathleen Dinan. They claim to have spent the night in their car but evidence points to the fact that they spent, at least part of the time, in the Pony Hollow school house just south of town. There is evidence that a fire had been started in the stove and the rope from the flag pole and bell were taken by the gang to use in getting out their car which had been stuck. Their story admits that they broke into the school house.
Thursday morning they claimed to have eaten breakfast in Garnavillo. Thursday night they admit breaking into the court house about nine o’clock, and it was not until after they had broken into the vault that they went to get the torch and gas tanks from the county garage. Hauff stated that he kept guard at the west entrance of the court house while Thielen guarded the east entrance. Gerner and Liest continued the job in the vault.
Just about the time the gas pressure in the tanks began to give out, Liest suffered an attack from the gas. He walked from the vault into the main hall and there fell over in a faint. His pals carried him into the air and after he recovered he wanted to return to finish the job. His pals, however, resisted and they left immediately along the same route they had taken when they came to Elkader. From here they finally landed in central Illinois where they attempted the bank robbery at Leonore, which resulted in the death of four men and the serious injury of two others; with one gangster in a hospital and two others in jail.
Besides Liest the dead are: Charles Bundy, 42, cashier of the Leonore State Bank; Glenn Axline, 32, newly elected sheriff of Marshall county, Ill., and Charles Seipp, 50, a director of the bank and a member of the township supervisors. Seipp died last Sunday. Renof Brown, a member of the posse, and Robert Ness, a 16-year-old farm boy were injured in the running gun fight.
Gerner, who is supposed to have suggested the robbery here is a former Clayton county boy. He lived near Clayton and at one time attended the Guttenberg school. February 25, 1925, he was indicted on a charge of larceny by a grand jury in this county. The following month he was sentenced to a term of six months in the county jail. During the time he was serving his sentence he was used as a trusty to drive a truck on road work and also did odd jobs around the court house. His familiarity about the court house and the county garage is what led officials to believe, for a short time, that the gang had had a local contact.
After the reports of the Leonore attempt Sheriff Palas and State Agent Joe Burke felt that there might be a connection between that job and the one attempted here. They followed those clews and Sunday went to Ottawa and LaSalle where they obtained the confessions as already outlined.
Sheriff Palas left here Saturday afternoon with the Misses Donna and Kathleen Dinan for the purpose of identifying any or all members of the gang. The Misses Dinan did identify Gerner and Hauff but were uncertain about Thielen. Since the three are charged with a graver offense in Illinois than they would be here no effort will be made to bring any of the remaining trio to this county for trial.
Several local people have reported that there were five in the car when the gang was in Elkader but the confession of Hauff and the other two implicates only four men. Local officials appreciate the assistance of Sheriff Ralph Desper of Ottawa and the co-operation of Chief of Police Gillis and Sheriff Ryder, both of Dubuque.
~Clayton County Register, Thur., 24 Jan. 1935′ http://iagenweb.org/clayton/court/DistCt_1935news.htm
Harry and Meghan are the ‘wokest’ of the Royals so far! Even though they are sort of leaving Royal duties they will never be average as far as their bank accounts are concerned.
‘Prince Harry’s net worth is on people’s minds now that he and his wife, the former Meghan Markle, have announced they are stepping back from their duties as senior Royals to become “financially independent.”
Despite that statement, Prince Harry already has significant wealth. His money derives largely from the inheritance he received from the estate of his mother, Princess Diana. The former Princess of Wales left both of her sons wealthy men in their own right. In addition, Harry also has many of his expenses paid by his father’s properties, the Duchy of Cornwall, income which he appears to want to still receive, according to the announcement that he and Meghan put on their new website, Sussex Royal.
What is Prince Harry’s net worth? How rich is the prince?
A lot of the Royal Family’s wealth is caught up in property that its members could never sell (it’s not like you could ever put Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle on the market, for example.) However, the Queen has other assets and draws money from some of the properties, making her worth about $425 million) Harry is still sitting on a fortune of his own, and his marriage to Meghan Markle added more wealth to his already impressive net worth due to her career as an actress. He and Meghan were also receiving money from the sovereign grant, which they now say they’re relinquishing.’ If interested the whole article is at https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/prince-harry-net-worth-2020/
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes, even the poor Hummus is not safe from the loony Leftist desire to inflict damage to Israel and its supporters. Now, ‘In a refreshing change of pace, Dickinson College in Pennsylvania actually stood up to radical leftist students who came up with a silly proposal to make the campus more woke. In a startling shift from the nonsense we’ve seen at the University of Missouri, Yale, Evergreen State College, and many, many other academic institutions, the administration of Dickinson College did not immediately fold like a cheap table when social justice warriors tried to ban hummus from the campus.
Wait, they tried to…ban hummus? 
Yes, as the social justice movement grows in power, it also grows in silliness. In this instance, students came up with a resolution to ban Sabra Hummus from the campus as part of the wider Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement – an anti-Semitic effort to punish the state of Israel for daring to exist.
“Sabra Hummus is a brand partially owned by the Strauss Group, which is a company that financially and morally supports the Golani and Givati bridge of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF),” the students wrote in the resolution. “These brigades of the IDF commit human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and the support of Sabra products helps the Strauss Group support the Israeli Defence Force brigade which maintains a cycle of oppression for Palestinian people in violation of international law.”
Under ordinary circumstances, the college would 100% support this trash proposal for fear that the students would turn on them, lock themselves in the cafeteria, and begin screaming that they were made to feel “unsafe” from the Zionist Nazis in the administration. So it was with a breath of relief that we read Dickinson College’s statement distancing themselves from the proposal and condemning the ideas behind it.
“As an institution that deeply values global diversity and civil discussion and debate, Dickinson opposes this boycott. In 2014, we rejected the call from the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli universities and instead maintained our ongoing relationships with three Israeli institutions,” the university said in a statement.
“We reject the current call for boycott on the same grounds,” they continued. “Students have committed to continue with the open dialogue and active listening that they demonstrated during the discussion. We are confident that as they grapple with this and other complex issues they will continue to seek out and consider multiple perspectives and draw on the critical thinking and analysis skills they are developing here at Dickinson.”
We suppose that the students could still arrive at a point where they ban Sabra Hummus from the campus, but at least they won’t have the eager support of the administration while doing so. For once, we’re left with the impression that there are actually a few adults in the room at an academic institution. How novel.’ http://unfilteredpatriot.com/college-stands-strong-against-student-proposed-anti-semitic-hummus-ban/
The following is from an Australian Senator bringing her constituents up to date concerning the Religious Freedom Bill. This will not turn out good for those who have religious beliefs based on the Christian Scriptures. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:18, 24, 26, 27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here is what the Senator wrote; ‘Australians of family and faith want to be able to live their lives in accordance with their faith and their convictions. The growing body of cases in Australia of people facing harassment, intimidation and persecution because of their religious beliefs and actions highlights the need for positive religious freedom laws. Some are even losing their livelihoods.
Indeed, since the 2017 same-sex marriage campaign and postal survey, people who hold and practice traditional values of marriage and family have been intimidated and harassed.
When freedom of speech, thought, conscience and belief is framed only as an “exemption” to other rights, they are “read down” against positive rights, rendering them subordinate to those other rights. A regime of positive rights in the form of religious freedom legislation would give greater effect to the right to manifest one’s freedom of thought, conscience and belief as outlined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Consequently, in June 2019, I launched a petition in the Australian Senate calling for the enactment of a Religious Freedoms Act to protect the right to freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion.
To date more than 30,000 original hardcopy signatures have been tabled in the Senate and I thank you to those of you who have signed my petition. My petition is ongoing and more signatures will be tabled this year.
I have continued to regularly speak in the Senate and in other forums on the need for protection of religious freedom as well as working with faith leaders and their communities toward this end.
On 29 August 2019, the Federal Government released its first exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills. Following almost 6,000 submissions and strong pressure from religious leaders, experts and stakeholders from across the faith spectrum, on 10 December 2019, the Federal Government released its second exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills.
The second exposure draft Bills are available at: http://ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/religious-freedom-bills-second-exposure-drafts.aspx
Whilst the Second Draft did address some changes, there are still major issues of concern including:
- The current draft bills DO NOT include or define religious bodies as being involved in “commercial activities”. Therefore, no full legal protection is provided to aged care facilities, retirement villages, residential colleges, school boarding houses, camps, conference facilities or marriage counselling organisations being operated by religious organisations. Protections should extend to all bodies which are conducted in accordance with, or in furtherance of, the doctrines, tenets and beliefs of a religion. That a religious body pursuing a religious purpose could cease to be a religious body because of “commercial activities” is deeply problematic. The solution is to ensure the commercial activities test MUST be removed.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal protections from discrimination to religious corporate bodies and unincorporated associations. The definition of “persons” should not just include corporate bodies, but there needs to be a mechanism by which a religious belief can be attributed to a corporate body in light of judicial rulings that a corporate body cannot have a belief. The solution is to ensure religious corporate bodies and religious unincorporated associations MUST be protected.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide full legal protections to religious bodies to preference the employment of staff that support the religious ethos of the organisation as well as to religious bodies to preference people of faith in the use of their facilities. This should include any consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. The proposal that faith-based aged care, retirement villages and hospitals only be permitted to discriminate in respect of employment, but not services, will seriously compromise their ability to act consistently with their religious ethos. The solution is to ensure religious bodies MUST be afforded full legal protections to preference the employment of staff that support their religious ethos as well as preference people of faith in the use of their facilities
- The current draft bills DO NOT extend to State vilification laws. “Vilify” needs to be defined to remove the implication that “causing harm” amounts to vilification. The interaction between the protection of statements of belief and the protections to employees against indirect religious discrimination needs greater clarity. The “reasonableness test” (clause 8) leaves open the prospect that an employer may dismiss an employee, or a professional may have their accreditation removed, even though their statement of belief is protected under clause 42. The solution is for the protection for statements of belief MUST NOT be removed or watered down but extended to include State vilification laws.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections for employees to make statements of faith at their workplace or private time without fear of retribution from their employer (no freedom of speech or religion). It will not protect you from being the next Israel Folau! Concerns remain with the $50M threshold, the principle of “unjustifiable financial hardship”, and the fact that the current drafting may in fact incentivise secondary boycotts and third-party activism. They should also apply to persons irrespective of the turnover of their employer and whether they are engaged by government. Also, reasonable statements of belief should be protected from adverse discriminatory action by qualifying bodies and others (not just employers). In order to provide adequate protection, the protections to employees and professionals should extend to reasonable statements of belief made inside and outside the workplace or in the course of their profession. The solution is to ensure genuine statements of belief MUST be protected across the board inside and outside work.
- The current draft bills DO NOT override State laws, which gives too much power to State Governments that may be hostile to religion to pass laws prohibiting certain activities. The definition of “religious activity” should exclude “criminal” rather than “unlawful” activity. “Criminal activity” means activity that constitutes a criminal offence under the laws of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory. Whilst the Second Draft excludes council by-laws from lawful religious activity, it otherwise allows State or Territory laws to override the Bill. For example, the Victorian and Queensland Governments have recently proposed to ban conversion therapy (which is so broadly defined that it includes traditional religious teaching on sexuality and prayer and pastoral care based on that teaching). Such core traditional religious practices may be made unlawful by State laws and the Bill would provide no protection to religious bodies or individuals from discrimination. Further, courts have taken restrictive views of what comprises ‘religious activity’, confining that notion to prayer, worship or the observance of religious rituals or customs. This interpretation has the potential to exclude religious statements on matters such as marriage, gender or the family from the Bill’s protections, or to exclude religiously motivated acts, or to exclude refusals to perform ‘secular’ acts that are contrary to religious teaching. In light of this jurisprudence, such activities should be clearly included within the protected notion of ‘religious activity’. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST exclude only activities that are considered criminal offences.
- The current draft bill contains a “reasonableness test” that TOO BROADLY permits “reasonable” policies and conditions that discriminate against religious people and organisations. This leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable”. The “reasonableness test” for indirect discrimination and the “comparator test” for direct discrimination is too broad and leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable” and is therefore inconsistent with the strict grounds for limiting religious manifestation in Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both tests will weaken the protections to religious believers. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST be strictly interpreted to international standards Australia has ratified as under Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal and financial protections to Charitable organisations. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Freedom of Religion) Bill 2019 proposes an amendment to the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) that will clarify that a charity may advocate for a traditional view of marriage and not fail the requirement that it conform to public policy. This needs to be extended to ensure that a charity will not breach the public interest test and will not lose its tax-exempt status due to its traditional view of marriage. The solution is for Charitable organisations espousing traditional views of family and faith MUST retain their charitable status without any qualifications, exemptions or exceptions.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections to individuals who may hold genuine beliefs (minority) that are not the view of a religious denomination (majority). For example, an alternative point of view from a person in that particular denomination could be used to declare that individual’s belief as wrong. The protections in the Bill to religious bodies and persons should not turn on whether ‘a person of the same religion … could reasonably consider [the conduct] to be in accordance’ with the beliefs. The focus should remain on the sincerity of the belief, consistent with the approach taken amongst leading Anglophone Courts across the world, including the High Court in the Scientology Case. The requirement that religious bodies and persons must act in ‘good faith’ may also allow the imposition of secular notions of reasonableness. The solution is to ensure an individual’s genuinely held beliefs MUST be protected (a major hallmark of a mature and plural society).
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide maximum protection to health practitioners who seek to exercise conscientious objections and they DO NOT provide protections to faith-based health institutions. Conscientious protection offered to a limited number of health practitioners is insufficient. The solution is to ensure health practitioners and faith-based health institutions MUST be protected to exercise conscientious objections’ https://mailchi.mp/1f1752e00177/religious-discrimination-2nd-draft-exposure-bill-more-work-needed?e=63ff15b667
‘”No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.” —Samuel Adams (1775)’
‘If not for Iowa’s distinction as holder of the nation’s first primary on 3 February, the latest Demo debate in Des Moines wouldn’t matter much. Iowa’s 3.1 million residents put it 30th in population, and the Hawkeye State suffers from the undue influence of leftists from nearby Chicago, who treat the eastern part of the state like a dude-ranch suburb.
The Iowa primary is actually composed of secret closed caucuses promising a prize of 49 delegates, of which 41 are pledged, so all eyes are on Iowa until its caucuses conclude.
Last night was the seventh dull debate, but the first of the election year. It was hosted by the Democrat Party’s public-relations firm, CNN. Participants included frontrunners Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg, along with outliers Amy Klobuchar and billionaire leftist Tom Steyer.
That’s a large field of candidates given how close we are to voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, and it reflects both the lack of unity and strength within the Democrat Party. It’s now a uniformly white field of candidates after New Jersey Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker dropped out — except, of course, for “Honest Injun” Warren, who has been certified 1/1024th Cherokee or some other indigenous flavor.
Noticeably absent from the “oh so important” Iowa Demo debate was Michael Bloomberg, the mega-billionaire former nanny-state New York City mayor whose political platform is laughably focused on his abjectly hypocritical concern for “income inequality” and his dangerous gun-confiscation agenda.
In order to qualify for the debate, candidates had to first demonstrate broad-based funding support from 225,000 unique donors (at least 1,000 of whom had to be from each of 20 states). Second, they had to meet popular political polling thresholds.
Bloomberg made the polling thresholds (5th place at 5.8%), but he’s intentionally not soliciting individual donations. However, his ad buys now total more than $200 million, almost as much as the rest of the Democrat field’s combined $222 million — effectively doubling their collective strategy to defeat Donald Trump.
Fact is, Bloomberg had no intention of being on the debate stage with his fellow leftists, because that is not his objective.
The stage podium Bloomberg wants is the big one at the Demo convention in July, where he is betting that it will be tough for any of the candidates to win a majority of the party’s delegates. That will enable him to broker a path not for his own nomination but more likely for his preferred candidate. That brokering will take place behind the scenes.
And given Bloomberg’s $52 billion net worth, he will have an outsized influence on which candidate ultimately wins the nomination. After the convention he has vowed to spend hundreds of millions more on advertising to defeat Trump.
Sidebar: This is yet another example of why I believe a candidate should not be able to make limitless donations to their own campaign or on behalf of others (buy the office). They should be subject to the same limits imposed on every other American — $2,800 in a primary and general election.
Who, then, will win Bloomberg’s convention favor and affection?
Biden’s views align most closely to those of Bloomberg, and he is the “establishment candidate.” Thus, he is biding his time as the mainstream Demo favorite, pacing his campaign accordingly and benefiting from a mainstream media that seems shockingly disinterested in the fact that Biden is virtually non compos mentis.
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls, and the 78-year-old Vermont socialist is leading in Iowa and California, while tied for the top post in Nevada and New Hampshire. Notably, he’s also surging in fundraising, having raised more than $34 million last quarter, compared to Buttigieg’s $25 million, Biden’s $23 million, and Warren’s $21 million. As I warned a year ago, “Take Sanders’s 2020 Campaign Seriously and Literally.”
Democrat Party poobahs are certainly taking him seriously, and they’re concerned about a repeat of 2016, when Hillary Clinton and the DNC conspired to sandbag Sanders in order to secure the nomination for her. The end result of their malfeasance was, of course, a shocking Electoral College victory for Donald Trump and the sudden onset of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The “Sanders Surge” is thus creating a lot of heartburn for the Demos, who know that his nomination could be “an epic nightmare for them.”
I believe Bloomberg is positioning himself as an insurance policy against Sanders’s nomination.
Warren is doing her best to move Sanders out of the way, and their dustup will benefit Biden.
Moreover, in the RealClearPolitics polling average (the poll to watch), Biden has a substantial national lead over Sanders (27% to 19%) and has marginal leads over Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
But regardless of whether Biden, Sanders, or Warren win the nomination, Bloomberg is and will remain a looming threat to American Liberty.
I profiled the threat he and his club of wealthy leftists pose to Liberty in a column two years ago: “The Archenemies of Liberty — Soros, Steyer, Bezos, and Bloomberg,” noting that this megalomaniac has “an insatiable narcissistic quest for power, including centralized government power.” Typical of rich leftists, he does not want to play by the rules, just dictate the rules for others.
Whomever Bloomberg and his sidekick Tom Steyer back at the convention, that nominee will be beholden to them and most certainly will comply with their wishes. We call this arrangement a “quid pro quo.”
And on that note, the Demos’ “urgent” articles of impeachment, which were held hostage by Nancy Pelosi for more than a month, are on the way over to the Senate this week.
Some are suggesting that Pelosi’s delay was intended to help Biden’s candidacy, because now Sanders and Warren will be distracted by their obligatory attendance at the Senate impeachment trial just ahead of the early primaries. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said: “This is the dirty little secret that nobody is talking about, why the speaker held these papers. … This benefits Joe Biden. This harms Sanders, who … will be stuck in a [Senate] chair” instead of out campaigning.
Shades of the 2016 Sanders sandbagging…
In response, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff declared, “Impeachment has nothing to do with politics or the presidential race.” Seriously, that is the best reply he could script. (Big Lie playbook rules: When trying to deflect from the truth, always leave the denial to a cutout at least two steps removed from the originator of the lie!)
Moving forward, Bloomberg will also be noticeably absent from the unending flood of upcoming Demo debates: 7 February in New Hampshire, 19 February in Nevada, and 25 February in South Carolina. Again, he’d rather buy ads than engage in debates.
Finally, while I’m neither a gambler nor a prognosticating political pretender, if I was, I would suggest you keep your eye on this potential combo ticket: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I know, crazy, right? I think Biden will be Bloomberg’s water boy, and he’ll have to go younger and non-white in order to abide by his party’s obsessions with race and identity. Booker would be another option, but I suspect Biden’s advisers will insist he go female, and Harris is that default.
Of course, in the unlikely event that Bernie survives the slings and arrows of the DNC, he could choose metrosexual Beto O’Rourke, who can pass as both female and Mexican.’ https://patriotpost.us/alexander/67925-bloombergs-brokered-demo-convention-gambit-2020-01-15
The Climate Scammers don’t want the facts to get in their way to control you and your life!
‘Climate science is structured in a way where the desired result is predetermined. In this video I show what is wrong with the process.’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ENOwIGjzE
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Most of us want clean air, clean drinkable water and a rubbish free environment. However, what the climate scammers are pushing really has nothing to do with any of the three. The climate scammers want to restrict our living standards and tax us for the privilege of living a lifestyle technology has provided so far. The climate scammers want to replace God the Creator.
Drought and famines have occurred on this earth for millenniums. Here are some Scriptures showing such.
Genesis 12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
Genesis 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
Genesis 41:56, 57 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. 57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
1Kings 17:7 And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.
Famine is usually caused by the lack of rain so one should get the point by now that God is in control! This Climate Scam is all about doing away with God, more taxes, and more government intervention into the lives of the people. In the following video John MacKay speaks to that point. Even though this was a talk he gave in Scotland back in 2007 it is as relevant today as it was then.
‘When Jorge Galicia and Andrés Guilarte tell college students socialism is no utopia, they speak from experience.
The two young intellectuals were born and raised in Venezuela and over the last decade saw their country transformed into a place they barely recognize.
As exiles seeking asylum in America today, they’re telling any young person who will listen: the virus is socialism.
“No one else can know what happened in Venezuela but a Venezuelan, and we are experts on that,” said Guilarte, 25.
Galicia, 24, adds “I definitely see America committing a lot of the same mistakes Venezuela committed.”
Galicia and Guilarte are currently visiting college campuses nationwide warning young people against socialism, and told The College Fix in a joint telephone interview on Wednesday their message could not be coming at a more critical time.
“The majority of students in college say they support socialist ideas,” said Galicia, citing a recent poll which found sweeping support among young people for the system.
“Maybe they don’t know exactly what is going on in Venezuela,” Galicia said.
So Galicia and Guilarte are telling them.
“It’s a warning,” Guilarte said of their message. “We are eyewitnesses of the falling of the country. We are telling them we used to have rights like you have here. You can go to the supermarket, buy everything, you can have money for the month.”
“We used to be just like everybody else. But now [in Venezuela] we’ve ended up at the bottom of every single economic index you can find. You don’t have to take for granted your liberties — and you don’t have to wait until you lose them to fight for them.”
Galicia echoed those sentiments, saying he tells students while they might be naturally drawn to socialism, it offers a false promise.
“Who in the world wouldn’t want to have free health care, free college tuition, free whatever — the thing is those kinds of offers are not sustainable in the longterm,” he said. “I know it is tempting, but do not fall into that trap. You need to learn from other people’s experience. Keep your liberty protected, because what you have, it’s a beautiful country.”
Galicia traveled to America in October 2018 and Guilarte in January 2019. Both men were student political activists involved in liberty-minded campus groups in Venezuela, and came to the U.S. to take part in various academic-intellectual programs.
But the recent massive upheaval in Venezuela has prompted them to delay their return and seek asylum here, they said, adding they do hope to one day return to their home. They have family there, and remember a Venezuela from years ago, before its total collapse in 2013.
“Before that the country was still kind of functional,” Galicia said. “After 2013, you started to see the scarcity of medicine, food supplies.”
They paint that picture and more when they give their talks, which are done separately. Each man gives his own story to his respective audience. Their speaking project is funded and coordinated by The Fund for American Studies and is titled “Venezuela: My Story … Your Future?”
The program launched in October and the two have given a handful of talks at campuses so far, with many more scheduled in the coming months at universities in states such as Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, and even in Washington D.C.
The Fund for American Studies touts the program as a chance for students to “hear the real-life stories of Venezuelan asylum seekers.”
“Andrés and Jorge had to leave their lives in Venezuela after an oppressive regime crippled the economy, caused widespread starvation, blanketed the nation in blackouts, and silenced and jailed those who dared to speak out and criticize the government. With an eyewitness perspective they answer the question: How did a country with so much wealth and promise completely collapse?”
The men told The College Fix they explain to students how socialism is at the root of all the oppression, turmoil and poverty — and how America is headed in the same direction.
“It is important to teach young audiences, they are the most vulnerable audience when it comes to being engaged with socialist ideas,” Galicia said. “American youth aren’t exposed to any hard times. We as the youth are always looking for a revolution, looking for a way to change the system. Maybe they feel socialism is the way to do that. They haven’t been through any actual crisis. The youth is going to be the decision makers of the future. If they are engaged in socialist ideas, it only shows a horrible future for America if we have to convince them socialism is not the way.”’ https://www.thecollegefix.com/meet-the-two-venezuelan-exiles-warning-college-students-against-socialism/
‘Racial literacies vs white supremacy – educating and researching together against racial silencing, racial violence and racial capitalism’ https://acrawsa.org.au/2019/10/27/racial-literacies-vs-white-supremacy-educating-and-researching-together-against-racial-silencing-racial-violence-and-racial-capitalism/
The following is an old but very relevant article from the Front Page Magazine August, 2016.
‘When a pair of black separatists recently murdered five police officers in Dallas and three others in Baton Rouge, they were aiming, by their own proclamation, to carry out righteous retribution against an American society which they deplored because of its deep-seated “white skin privilege,” a concept first popularized by Bill Ayers and his fellow Weatherman radicals who, in the early ‘70s, aimed to foment a violent race war against a supposedly Klan-like “Amerikkka.” Although their terrorist tactics and aspirations made the Weathermen a fringe group, their views on race proved, over time, to have legs. The notion of white skin privilege became an article of faith among progressives, accounting for everything that was racially wrong in America, beginning with its constitutional framework.
Even those liberals who initially resisted the concept of white skin privilege as a slander against a noble country that had just gone through an unprecedented civil-rights revolution, eventually embraced it to explain why racial disparities persisted even as overt racists vanished from public life and institutional barriers were toppled. Civil-rights professionals, meanwhile, were faced with yet another problem: how to remain relevant and prominent in an era when white racism was being dismantled and delegitimized in a manner never before seen in human history.
The common solution to these dilemmas was to depict the nebulous concept of “white skin privilege” as a thread woven so deeply into the fabric of American culture, that it could never be fully extracted; to claim that whites, no matter how earnest or well-intentioned, would never be able to truly shed the racism that infected their hearts. In other words, to claim that real racial healing could never occur, even in a thousand years, because whites, by definition and DNA, would remain racists, even if unwittingly, until the end of time.
Out of this mindset grew the academic field of Whiteness Studies—a.k.a. Critical Whiteness Studies—which first made its way onto college campuses in the early 1990s. And from its inception, this discipline bore no resemblance whatsoever to other group-identity-based curricula like Black Studies, Chicano Studies, and Women’s Studies. Whereas those fields steadfastly celebrated their respective groups and emphasized their status as innocent victims of societal oppression, Whiteness Studies depicted whites uniformly as malevolent oppressors of people with darker complexions. They weren’t Italians, or Brits, or Poles, or Germans—they were just depraved white miscreants, best known for their many crimes against humanity. As Jeff Hitchcock, the co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture, said in 1998 at the Third National Conference on Whiteness: “There is plenty to blame whiteness for. There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color. There is no crime that we have not committed even against ourselves…. We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.”
And absolutely nothing has changed in the field of Whiteness Studies in the years since then. Last fall, for instance, University of Colorado associate professor Amy Wilkins candidly explained that her Whiteness Studies class was in essence “an advanced course on racial inequality.”
The_ Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education_ describes Whiteness Studies as “a growing body of scholarship whose aim is to reveal the invisible structures that produce and reproduce white supremacy and privilege.” Central to this definition is the notion that the average white person is largely unaware of his own racism, and that he must be helped to overcome the dreaded “ignorance of one’s ignorance” which prevents him from even recognizing “racism as a system of privilege” that benefits him at the expense of others.
The writings of feminist Peggy McIntosh are renowned in the field of Whiteness Studies, where professors and course readings often make reference to her famous metaphor of white skin privilege as an “invisible knapsack of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.”
Whiteness Studies professor Lee Bebout of Arizona State University, for his part, says that “white supremacy makes it so that white people can’t see the world they have created.”
Not long ago, the University of Wisconsin–Superior sponsored an “Unfair Campaign” whose slogan—“It’s hard to see racism when you’re White”—was promoted aggressively via billboards, online videos, and posters. One poster showed a group of white students with the words “Is white skin really a fair skin?” written on their faces.
University of Wisconsin English professor Dr. Gregory Jay informs us that “Whiteness Studies is an attempt to think critically about how white skin preference has operated systematically, structurally, and sometimes unconsciously as a dominant force in American—and indeed in global—society and culture.” Moreover, he contends that telling white people that they’re racists whether or not they realize it, will ultimately foster interracial harmony: “I believe that Whiteness Studies must be part of the general effort to eradicate prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, and racism.”
With similar detachment from reality, Portland Community College claims that its annual “White History Month” initiative condemning the many evils of “whiteness” will help to “change our campus climate” for the better.
At Scripps College in Claremont, California, all incoming students receive a “survival guide” designed to alert the newcomers to the racism lurking quietly in the dark corners of white people’s hearts. One entry in this manual, titled “Dear White Students,” declares that “we as white students, must identify the ways that we are engaging in the perpetuation of white supremacy and work to unlearn our racism”; that racism is often manifested in “subtle ways through language” and “the perpetuation of white supremacist values like perfectionism [and] individualism”; that “reverse racism does not exist because there are no institutions that were founded with the intention of discriminating against white people on the basis of their skin”; that the “anger” of nonwhites “is a legitimate response to oppression, as is … a general distaste or hatred of white people”; that “we [whites] do not get to dictate how people of color respond to racism, nor do we get to delegitimize reactions that make us uncomfortable”; and that “our comfort is not more important than the safety of our peers of color.”
In other words, white students are advised to metaphorically lie down, belly-up, in contrite supplication, and to hold that pose for the remainder of their lives.
The common themes that run through all of the aforementioned programs and courses are Universal White Guilt on the one hand, and Universal Black Innocence on the other—flip sides of the same racialist coin. More than that, they are the twin centerpieces of the leftist mindset which aims to pit various groups of people against one another by dividing them neatly into oppressors and oppressed, victimizers and victims, evil and good. This tribal mentality, which sees human beings as members of mutually hostile groups rather than as individuals, is as contrary to the American ideal of individual rights and liberty as any mentality that has ever existed.
Moreover, it’s precisely this same tribalism which is promoted endlessly by the grievance mongers who constitute the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement that inspired the gunmen who recently murdered those eight police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. And the college classroom—the very place where young people are routinely indoctrinated with the type of racist rhetoric that pervades the field of Whiteness Studies (as well as Black Studies, for that matter)—is where this tribalism is most likely to find minds that are receptive to it. As the _Washington Post_ puts it, BLM’s “strongest foothold may now be … the American university.” Given these sobering facts, a legitimate case can be made for the idea that much of the trillion-plus dollars in student-loan debt that young people have racked up, has been money that was entirely wasted.’ https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ugly-racism-whiteness-studies-programs-john-perazzo/
whatyareckon 