The First 100 Days

ap_16315299287682_tnmnteIf you know American history, you know that the first hundred days of a new president – especially one much different than his predecessor – have a legendary quality. That’s been true since 1933 when Franklin Roosevelt forced through all sorts of ’emergency’ measures (most of them unconstitutional) to supposedly relieve the depression. That they didn’t work is in some measure irrelevant.

But Donald Trump has picked up the idea in his “Contract with the Voters of America”. Some highlights.

FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees
to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health).

THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

And then seven actions

FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.

SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.

FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.

SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.

And Five more to do with security and “The Rule of Law”

FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.

SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.

FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.

FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”

And there is also this



Looks pretty conservative to me, better, in fact, than could be expected. In fact, there are things here I don’t agree with, but I can live with it, it almost has to be better than what is happening now.

Do note that he’ll be lucky to get more than a fraction of the things listed here, but instantly upon inauguration is the best shot he’ll ever have at it.

via Here Is Trump’s Contract With The American Voter — The First 100 Days | Truth Revolt

Why Conservatives Should Start Breaking The Laws That Oppress Us

gandgiThis carries on something that I have been speaking on at the Watchtower, you can find those articles here, and here, and do read the comments as well, many points are clarified there. This is from The Federalist.

Take a look at this sentence from a Daily Mail article reporting on Donald Trump’s “Contract with the American Voter” given this past Saturday. “Included [in the contract] are six anti-corruption pledges, seven actions related to jobs and trade and five on immigration and the ‘rule of law.’”

Why is “rule of law” in scare quotes? Is this really where we’re at in our thinking? The rule of law is some niche idea conservatives include in their wish list—like a “culture of life” or a “free market”?

Perhaps it alludes to the typical reader’s comprehension—“Psst, there’s this thing conservatives refer to as ‘the rule of law.’ Haha, I know, right? I mean, everyone on the right side of history knows laws are for fools, but just so you know, some of the true believers are still out there.”

Regardless, it certainly fits everything we’re seeing this election season, both in the presidential campaigns and in our culture.

Hillary Clinton gets exonerated for mishandling classified information by claiming not to understand a system I learned literally my first day in the Army Reserves… as a freaking chaplain! “I made a mistake.” Oh, that’s what breaking the law is called.

The Left Is Above the Law—Whatever the Law Might Be

We could go on and on, listing the litany of laws the Left routinely ignores: immigration laws in sanctuary cities, abortion laws regarding the trafficking of body parts, bribery laws with the Clinton Foundation. Or we could bring up obvious cases of corruption: like the FBI giving special treatment to Hillary, or the IRS targeting conservative nonprofits. But if a tree falls in the woods, and the media don’t report it, does it make a noise?

via Why Conservatives Should Start Breaking The Laws That Oppress Us

He does a very good job of explaining the concepts of Gnosticism, as one would expect from clergy, and how the ‘Archons’ who built the modern world have been replaced by the Archons of the left, which bear no relation to reality, or God. His conclusion is that we need to start disobeying their laws. I think he is correct but would add that we need to remember that there may well be a price, likely a high one, attached to doing so. We should not forget that Dietrich Bonhoeffer died a very cruel death when he was hanged at Flossenburg Concentration Camp.

But I fear that the God’s of the Copybook headings are approaching quickly

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Let’s close with Pastor Burfeind

Several years ago—I think it was during the Obamacare debates, when Democrats were doing all their “sausage making” shenanigans—I was at a red light at the end of my road. The light is unbearably long. No one was coming from either direction.

I said to myself, “F*** it,” and turned left on the red light. At that moment the red light became an icon of everything I was coming to hate about government: a coldly mechanized totem of inefficient government management, pretending to be the height of rational governance.

How easy it was to break the law their laws.

State Senator writes to Ohio Power Siting Board

Seems pretty rare these days, a politician writing the plain truth. Refreshing, too. here it is.

Dear Ohio Power Siting Board,

As a non-voting member of the Ohio Power Siting Board, I write to place of record my response to the October 24, 2016 comments of the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) regarding Rule 4906-04-08 and proposed OAC 4906-4-09.

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was the impetus for the modern environmental movement dating back to the early 1960s. She documented the dramatic decline in songbird populations by reason of DDT use in rural areas. It is beyond ironic that some 50 years later, the environmental movement has come full circle in its zeal to support wind energy whose 500 foot tall towers support (occasionally) whirring blades that have done untold harm to avian populations throughout rural America.

Most of the OEC’s October 24 letter is wholly misdirected. Its complaint is with the Ohio statute that was changed in 2014 to require setbacks to be measured from property lines rather than from the nearest habitable residence. There is nothing the OPSB can do about that, and to the extent that OEC is inviting the OPSB to disregard Ohio law, is asking OPSB to defy the duly elected General Assembly of the State of Ohio and to exceed its powers.

More fundamentally, OEC is simply incorrect when it argues that “Ohio’s wind setbacks for residences was already the toughest in the country” prior to the 2014 change and now are even tougher. OEC has adduced no proof whatever that these allegations are true. They are false. Enclosed please find a thorough but somewhat outdated compendium of wind setback requirements around the country and the globe, the slightest perusal of which will disclose that Ohio’s setbacks were and are quite mainstream.

Also enclosed is a new report by the Manhattan Institute detailing over 100 newly enacted or proposed restrictions on wind farms up to and including bans and moratoria, which are surely stricter than mere setbacks. Finally, I enclose articles detailing that Germany’s largest state of Bavaria, and the entire nation of Poland, have now implemented a restriction that no turbine can be placed within 2 kilometers of any residence.

Equally feckless is OEC’s argument that the setbacks have “effectively placed a moratorium on new wind development” or “made it uneconomic to develop them.” This is because there are approximately a dozen wind farms that were certificated before the 2014 setback law changed and those projects are exempt from the 2014 law change as long as they build in conformity with the plans for which they were certificated.

Yet, despite this, there are only two operational wind farms in Ohio. Clearly, the new setback law does not explain why the other previously-certificated wind projects have not moved forward.

Finally, OEC argues that the noise and shadow flicker requirements in the proposed rule should not be measured from the nonparticipating property boundary, but rather, from the nearest home or “sensitive receptor.” As does the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition (MAREC), OEC has implicitly adopted the audaciously unsupportable standard that one’s property rights end at the outer boundary of one’s physical home.

All residents of homes in nonparticipating properties are not bedridden invalids; I dare say that few are. They enjoy their yards, farms, and woods and are entitled to the full use thereof free of excessive noise and shadow flicker. If wind farms cannot be developed without borrowing or stealing their neighbors’ nonresidential property in order to satisfy the setback, health, and safety requirements, then perhaps they should not be developed at all. The nonparticipating landowners, as well as the birds of the air and the animals in the fields, would be quite grateful for that.


William J. Seitz

Nice to see a man stand up and speak like a man, even if he is a politician. Thanks, Senator.


via Ohio State Senator Seitz to Ohio Power Siting Board on Wind Externalities – Master Resource

Has the internet made us too dumb to understand #Dickileaks?

from Bookworm Room

from Bookworm Room

This has bearing on the Clinton Scandals, including Dickileaks, but it is not its prime thrust. It tells you something about us and not something we want to know.

You know what the most interesting thing about the #Dickileaks revelation is? The fact that social media has effectively managed to stifle it.  Although the topics have changed in both Facebook and Twitter since I started looking at them last Friday, the one thing that hasn’t changed is that both sites’ trending feeds ignore the fact that the FBI — while looking at the computers seized from “Weiner the Pederast,” who is the estranged husband of “Huma the Muslim Brotherhood Scion,” who has long been surgically attached to “Hillary the Corrupt” — found a trove of political emails of the type Hillary was supposed to have turned over to the FBI and to Congress.

Pretty much true, by the way, not much in my feeds either, although blogs are a different story. Then again, I personally, for good or ill, refuse to pay much  attention to them. To me, the format leads to unsupported statements and simple arguments about nothing of importance. I’ve better ways to spend my time, and it’s addictive. To continue

The sad reality, though, is that our new media’s financial incentives discourage deep analysis. Even those people who are trying to pay attention are getting hit by what one writer labels the “TL;DR” factor.

That “TL;DR” acronym stands for “too long; didn’t read,” which could be the motto for much of the internet. Chris Byrne explains how our culturally short attention span has worsened thanks to the internet’s economic incentive for low-word count (i.e., minimally analytical) articles with screaming headlines. This leaves Americans incapable of understanding, or even being interested in, complex issues (such as Hillary’s shenanigans):

You may have watched in dismay, as some of your favorite online writers published work, suddenly went from a few good posts a week, to 20 posts a day, most of it nothing but clickbait or damn near it?

Well… now you know why.

Their editors and publishers are making them write to maximize clicks and views and shares. Who cares about accuracy, depth, or insight… most people never read past the headline or first paragraph anyway right?

Long form news, analysis, essays, editorials, and commentary (and related background historical, scientific, and other detailed information and exposition pieces) have largely been replaced with tweets, teaser videos, memes, 200-350 word skim pieces; and lots and lots of 50 to 150 word bare blurbs, with inflammatory or otherwise emotionally manipulative …if not outright false… headlines, and lots of links to monetizing partner sites.

Basically, clickbait makes money, and everything else loses money, unless they have alternate monetization.

via Has the internet made us too dumb to understand #Dickileaks?

That’s so true, one can see it here. My posts average 800 – 1000 words, Jess’ are a bit shorter, usually around 600, but mine have occasionally gone 3000 as well when I need to go through something, but it’s not amenable to splitting into parts. I’ve come to believe that one reason this blog doesn’t particularly grow is that the articles are too long, and not SEO friendly enough, as Book outlined above.

What am I going to do about it? Not a damned thing. It’s how I write, and what I feel is doing an honest job. I just wish there were more of you out there.


hillary-and-weinerSo, while we were off having a life, this blew up. From the Bookworm Room, mostly because I haven’t caught up yet.

I go out to have coffee with a friend and — boom!! — Dickileaks breaks. I honestly don’t think there could be anything more perfect than learning that more of Hillary’s illegal emails showed up, this time on the phone of a serial flasher and possible pedophile. In a weird election season, this is the most appropriate denouement possible.

So the question is: Why now? Why this?

My own theory is that Dickileaks came about because Comey was terrified that those FBI agents with integrity enough to care about the disgraceful investigation and it’s more disgraceful premature closure were threatening his career. The newly revealed emails allowed Comey to reopen the investigation without losing face over his past decisions. It’s also entirely possible that the new emails are so explosive that, even if Comey could tamp down FBI disconnect over the prior investigation, he couldn’t do so with this one.

What I’m also wondering is whether this new batch of emails is sufficiently different — in location and content — as to circumvent the prior immunity deals that Comey earlier handed out like freebie coupons at a mall. If the immunity deals stand, it seems to me that this investigation will go nowhere fast . . . which would, of course, explain why Comey opened it up. That is, it would just be more Kabuki theater from the guy who’s been the beneficiary of Clinton Foundation money. With that most recent revelation about his ties to Clinton, Inc., not to mention boiling discontent in FBI ranks, Comey had to do something, and the best “something” to do is the kind of thing that ultimately turns out to be nothing.

Read it all at: “Dickileaks” – Bookworm Room.

Yeah, those questions are important. It could be enough to put Hillary in prison, it could also amount to nothing. The biggest difference this time, I think, is that various things have come together, in other words, the Weiner and Clinton stories intersected, and that makes it hard to ignore for the media, after all even those fools know that sex sells, and child pornography amongst the famous (or maybe infamous is the right word) sells even better. So we’ll see.

I also note that Assange has said that the next Wikileaks release will put Clinton in jail. We’ll have to see about that as well.

I’ve also noticed that Obamacare is making for a spectacular crash.

My heavens, what an interesting election, no time for coffee breaks, is there?

Camille Paglia: Bring on the Revolution

Camille Paglia

Camille Paglia

Emily Hill had a chance to interview Camille Paglia for the Spectator recently in London. As usual, many oxen were gored, and I found it quite refreshing. I often disagree with Professor Paglia, but I always enjoy a clear position, argued vigorously. Some bits…

[…] It’s only on turning to Hillary Clinton that she perpetrates an actual murder: of Clinton II’s most cherished claim, that her becoming 45th president of the United States would represent a feminist triumph.

‘In order to run for president of the United States, you have to spend two or three years of your life out on the road constantly asking for money and most women find that life too harsh, too draining,’ Paglia argues. ‘That is why we haven’t had a woman president in the United States — not because we haven’t been ready for one, for heaven’s sakes, for a very long time…’

Hillary hasn’t suffered — Paglia continues — because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’

She sounds here, more conservative than me, but in a lot of things we do agree, we’re both pro-freedom to do pretty much what you want, her standard of ‘scaring the horses’ may be somewhat higher than mine, however. In any case on Hillary Clinton I surely agree, her career is more like something out of Mad Men than anything to do with feminism, however defined. And yes, I too rather liked Bill Clinton, until the whole Lewinski thing showed that he too lied about everything.

She continues:

Paglia’s feminism has always been concerned with issues far beyond her own navel and the Hillary verdict is typical of her attitude — which is more in touch with women in the real world than most feminists’ (a majority of Americans, for example, have an ‘unfavourable view of Hillary Clinton’ according to recent polling).

‘My philosophy of feminism,’ the New York-born 69-year-old explains, ‘I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’

Exactly what I believe.

Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’

All of a sudden, the professor seems excited. Perhaps, like all radicals in pursuit of the truth, Paglia is still hoping the revolution will come.

I think Ms. Hill may have a point, Paglia, like a lot of us, may well think it time for The Revolution 2.0, or as a good Lutheran would put it, a Reformation. Besides, I have to respect a person who shares my hero worship of Katharine Hepburn and Amelia Earhart, even if I’m not as taken with Germain Greer.

via ‘The woman is a disaster!’: Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton. Do read the whole thing.

%d bloggers like this: