Eric Florack on April 22nd, 2019

I notice that the leftist press, in its desperation to discredit attorney general Barr, finds it appropriate to bushwhack him outside a church after Easter Sunday services.

I notice also, Fox news Sunday with Chris Wallace asking Rudy Giuliani, “Who made you God?”

If you find yourself unable to imagine the press treating Democrats this way, I submit to you that you have made a rather crucial discovery.

Eric Florack on April 22nd, 2019

Predictions from 1970 Earth Day.

1) “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald

2) “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

3) “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial

4) “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

5) “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

6) “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

7) “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

8) “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine

9) “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

10) “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich

11) “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

12) “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

13) “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

Bonus round:

According to an EPA statement made in 1983, ( in picture) today’s environment in New York is tropical and Florida is underwater today.

And before you start in with charges of my being a science denier, let’s look at the scientific credentials of Mr Seidel.

Mr. Seidel has a degree in economics and urban studies from Columbia University and a law degree and master’s in city planning from Rutgers University

Gee.

Sounds pretty scientific to me. With a degree in economics from the liberal Haven of New Jersey I can understand why the EPA would hire him as an environmental scientist.

Obviously his qualifications have nothing to do with science and his hiring is most likely politically motivated.

Now, if you look closely you may notice that all of these things are about as true as the charges of Russian collusion.

There is something of a pattern there that I just can’t put my finger on…

Eric Florack on April 20th, 2019

Eric Florack on April 20th, 2019

Let’s get this straight, once and for all….

There is no political center and never has been. Until such time as you wake up and deal with that reality, none of the rest of this business is going to make any sense whatsoever.

The only thing in the middle of the road has already been flattened.

Eric Florack on April 19th, 2019

With a hat tip to Kim Preistap… We look at the Washington Examiner… Which in turn is talking about the New York Times

On Monday, as Notre Dame Cathedral was ablaze, Paris Fire Department chaplain Rev. Jean-Marc Fournier braved the flames to rescue both a famed relic as well as consecrated hosts intended for Holy Communion. These hosts are known more commonly as the “Blessed Sacrament” or the “body of Christ.”

To be clear, Fournier, CNN, and the French reporter all tell a story wherein the chaplain rescued the crown of thorns and the Blessed Sacrament. Nothing else. Now, here is how the New York Times initially recounted that story on Wednesday with direct quotes from Fournier [emphasis mine]:

“I had two priorities: to save the crown of thorns and astatue of Jesus,” Father Fournier supposedly said.

[…]

As the chaplain began removing a statue of Jesus, he said, his colleagues were fighting the fire from the cathedral’s towers. The flames had started to threaten the wooden structure around the belfry — putting the whole cathedral at even greater risk.

With the statue in hand, Father Fournier, alone in the nave, gave a benediction to the cathedral, he said.

[…]

As for Father Fournier, he said he hoped to hold thatstatue of Jesus again soon. “Preferably in a safe place,” he said. “One that has a roof

It would be one thing for the Times to bungle some esoteric detail regarding the minutia of Catholic theology. But apparently not knowing that the “body of Christ” is in reference to consecrated hosts, which embody the most fundamental belief of a religion practiced by an estimated 1.3 billion people, is embarrassing and borderline inexcusable.

I would only add to this that the idea that these people are hypercritical of the Christian faith and yet understand so very little about what that faith is.

if there was actually an editor and solved with this process, it’s my guess that they share the ignorance of the reporter. no shocks for the little paragraph factory in Queens.

This level of ignorance is absolutely appalling, but it’s one we in the Christian World face today.

This piece by Michael Goodwin is worth reading, but no, Michael,

I don’t know who your headline writer is, but we haven’t been set free yet. There are still Democrats out there trying to keep the hoax alive.

Eric Florack on April 18th, 2019

The Democrats seem to be taking on the air of a child who has flatly refused to eat his carrots.

With the release of the Mueller report, the gig is up, the game is over, and yet the Democrats are still trying to keep hoax alive, looking for little codicils of information, parsing every syllable looking for something that will be their aha moment.

But with the absence of proof as regards criminal activity, the Democrats are still doubling down, refusing to take no for an answer.

In other words, if the original charge proves to be baseless, the complainants will invariably lower the threshold of guilt so that even a lesser transgression will be sufficient to condemn the accused

That’s Steve Feinstein at the American Thinker.

He’s right of course, and we saw that today. The thing is, we have always known this was going to happen… They have given us every indication that they were going to pull this nonsense…

(Here’s a fun fact… did you know that every Republican president since Eisenhower has suffered under an impeachment attempt by the Democrats? Every single one. )

with Democrats unable to accept Trump’s 2016 victory (no surprise, really, in light of how they and the liberal media refused to accept George W. Bush’s election victory over Gore in 2000 or Bush’s defeat of John Kerry in 2004, blaming that on Ohio voting irregularities and unscrupulous, deceptive “Swiftboating” attacks), the Democratic Party desperately searched for a reason to explain Hillary’s defeat, a reason they could take to the general public and convince them that Trump’s election win was illegitimate. At the best, the Democrats hoped to somehow delegitimize his victory, and have it voided (by some vague, never explained, nonexistent legal mechanism); at the very least, they hoped to sully him so badly that they’d force a disgraced resignation or completely torpedo any possibility of his re-election in 2020

And now that lie has been exposed, and the collision hoax has assumed room temperature, Democrats begin lashing out.

Roger Kimball puts it this way:

But here is the existential issue that the report confronts us with. William Barr observed at one point that ‘all Americans can and should be grateful to have [the president’s innocence] confirmed.’ And yet many people, far from being grateful, will be enraged. And that is a huge problem for the Republic.

Boy, isn’t that the truth. Have you guys seen CNN this evening? MSNBC? Every single one of them seems… Vexed. Scowling. Testy. Downright annoyed.

For the last 2 years now the press and the Democrats have been feeding the country a study diet collusion hoax in the hopes of me getting the election of Donald Trump. Now as the president himself says, “game over” and what do they do? They move the goalposts..

Adam Schiff after spending almost three years telling everybody that he had solid evidence that there was collusion set of criminal level with the Russians and the Trump team, evidence he never produced, by the way and still hasn’t, he’s now down to:

“Those acts of obstruction of justice, whether they are criminal or not, are deeply alarming in the President of the United States, and it’s clear that special counsel Mueller wanted the Congress to consider the repercussions and the consequences.”

What are those actions? Supposedly trying to get Robert Mueller fired, trying to shut down the investigation. But even as the Mueller report itself suggests, the president was expressing frustration, and that if he were truly serious about doing those things they would have been done. Else the staff that didn’t perform as directed would have been fired. That didn’t happen because Trump was never serious about it.

Apparently, the Democrats don’t understand words spoken in anger, just like they don’t understand sarcasm.

(Keep in mind, these are the people who took seriously Trump’s comments about “Hey Russia, why don’t you send us Hillary’s emails?”)

Robert Mueller and his team of Democrat Party lawyers couldn’t come up with enough ammunition for the Democrats despite nearly three years of time frame and no particular limitations on budget. so he and his team decided to punt the ball down the field a bit and let the Democrats in Congress go to town.

And so now it’s down to the Democrats in the House trying to pursue the impeachment of Donald Trump on a non criminal case of obstruction of an investigation for a crime that never happened.

I’m telling you true, the master of political thrillers, Frederick Forsyth couldn’t make up anything like this to write about.

No, I don’t think that even the Democrats believe they’re going to be able to sell this line of crap to most of the American people. I think at this point they’re simply trying to keep their base mollified.

Eric Florack on April 18th, 2019

Paula Bolyard at PJM:

Andy McCarthy on Fox just now: “The special council did not resolve the prosecutuoral decision on obstruction, so this is a decision for Barr to make.”

McCarthy added that Barr believed “they couldn’t conceivably make an obstruction case” against Trump that would reach a reasonable doubt standard.

Anything anything else that you here today is Democrats trying to keep the hopes alive because they know darn well they simply cannot sway voters without it.

As I said about a week ago,

I’m starting to think the timing of these things and the arrest yesterday morning of Julian Assange, are linked somehow to that Ukrainian investigation. I get the sense that this investigation has been ongoing for at least several weeks now, and what we’ve seen in the last 48 hours is preparatory to a larger scale investigation. There’s little I can point to yet, but my Gateway Pundit has been doing fabulous work for a long time now, and is IMV, more credible than the New York Times.heart tells me that’s where this is going.

For one thing, DOJ might not be able to get a conviction against Julian Assange, (indeed, as I suggested above they probably won’t, given the precedent… And that’s something that they would certainly know better than I…) but the charges would be useful in holding him and leveraging him as a witness for the prosecution in the Ukrainian case. Similarly, the charges against Greg Craig while somewhat more substantial, still only seem useful in an investigative sense.

It’s starting to look like I wasn’t far wrong. From the Washington Times this morning:

Julian Assange should be let off the hook for releasing stolen material through his WikiLeaks website if he agrees to testify in person before lawmakers investigating his publication of Democratic Party documents, Sen. Rand Paul said in an interview

published Wednesday.

“I think that he should be given immunity from prosecution in exchange for coming to the United States and testifying,” said Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican.

“I think he’s been someone who has released a lot of information, and you can debate whether or not any of that has caused harm, but I think really he has information that is probably pertinent to the hacking of the Democratic emails that would be nice to hear,” Mr. Paul told a writer for The Gateway Pundit site.

First of all, I must say the Gateway Pundit has been doing fabulous work for a long time now, and is IMV, more credible than the New York Times.

Obviously, I think Rand Paul is onto something here. He understands (as I did when I wrote the above) that Julian Assange being willing to testify openly about his source material would be the Democrats worst nightmare. Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Democrat party’s involvement with the Ukraine, Bradley Manning’s involvement, and why the Obama Administration granted clemency to him/her/it, and so much more.

No, I don’t think Julian Assange is innocent here. Far from it.  But as I said the other day,

I’m unsure how he’s going to be convicted of much of anything, particularly as I read the court rulings as regards the Pentagon papers and Daniel Ellsberg. As I understand those court rulings, and how they fit this scenario, the real crime was committed by Chelsea Manning or whatever his name is. In this, the arguments of Assange and his lawyers, is that what he was engaging in is journalism, does make some sense… At least in terms of releasing them to the public.

Charging Manning with anything at this point is problematic because of a pardon from Barack Hussein Obama.

So….

It seems to me that the only useful aspect of arresting Julian Assange in the first place, given the precedent set by the Pentagon papers is for information.  Watch for this line of investigation to gather increasing opposition from the Democrat Party.

One thing is clear. The hunters have now become The hunted.

Now if only we can convince the Republicans not to screw this up in the name of keeping the establishment in power…

davidl on April 16th, 2019

If a rabid supporter of Bernie Sanders were to gun down a minority member of Congress, would the media be the least bit concerned? From Frontpage Mag:

The media’s pearl clutching is even more pathetic when it can hardly interrupt its own calls for the harassment of Republicans to pretend that any criticism of Rep. Omar is certain to lead to violence. After falsely claiming that President Trump was a Russian spy, that Justice Kavanaugh is a serial rapist, and that anyone who supports Trump is fair game for anything from harassment to execution, the media has as much moral authority on incitement to violence as Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

The only reason the media is emphasizing the death threats against Rep. Omar is because her rhetoric is too repulsive to defend by any conventional means. The media is trying to change the subject and smear Omar’s opponents because it’s too cowardly to make the case for anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.

Does Speaker Pelosi mean to suggest that Secret Service protection should be extended to all member of the House? I suggest not. If not, does Speaker Pelosi mean to suggest that somehow Representative Omar Ilhan(D – Somalia) as some elevated risk not shared by say Representative Steve Scalise. It was Scalise who was wounded in an attempted assasination, by rabid supporter of the would be next president, Bernie Sanders.

Eric Florack on April 15th, 2019

It was old friend Billy Beck who attracted my attention to the situation going on in Paris.

After getting an initial feel for the situation, I told him:

This is going to seem out of place I suppose yeah, but here it is. I am hearing that the place was under renovation.

That brought me back to a number of years ago to an absolutely ancient merry-go-round in a place called Seabreeze north of Rochester. That place also was under renovation, and with the ancient wood in the structure once it got going there was no stopping it.

I had many reports from eyewitnesses including some volunteers in the district the firemen were literally crying as they tried to put the fire out. The frustration and the anguish on their faces told the tale or so I was told. I even wrote an extensive piece on the subject at the time. This would have been what, 1994 I’m thinking.

Obviously, I’m not equating the two situations completely.

But for me, there is enough of a similarity there to allow me to draw on my own experience as to what the loss in Paris must be to those people, yes, including those fighting the fire.

I expect eventually to hear from the French a lot of back and forth about what specifically started the fire and the renovation process is going to play large in that conversation.

It sounds, I suppose, like I’m trying to make light of France losing part of its heritage to fire. Far from it, the incident I mention was part of local history in Rochester for over a century. It was part of the area’s soul. Certainly, it doesn’t go back as far or nearly as deep perhaps as that of Notre Dame to the Parisians… but one tends to lean on one’s personal experience when trying to wrap their minds around somebody else’s problems.

I went on to say:

I’m actually going to have to dig that article that I wrote out because there’s another point to be made here.

The owners at seabreeze went ahead and rebuilt the round. They did a wonderful job and it was rightly done. But I found for all the good work that they did, I couldn’t bring myself to tell my two boys that I had ridden that round many times as a youngster myself. I don’t know specifically why that rubs me so but it does. I suppose it’s an intangible quality.

Assuming that they rebuild at Notre Dame, and knowing the French they probably will, I can’t help but wonder if the experience won’t be similarly lacking for future visitors after a rebuild.
😞

I have, whether fortunately or unfortunately, been blessed with a life where that kind of major loss in the local culture has been few and far between. So frankly, the memory of that day in 1994 is probably the closest thing I can come to, to wrap my arms around the depth of what’s happening in Paris right now. I can only begin to calculate and not much more, the psychological loss to France.

Certainly, there is also the specter of 9/11… a certain amount of soul was ripped away from New York City when the twin towers went down years ago. That event was cause for the very first article I wrote in this blog. And yes, at that point I hadn’t spent a great deal of time in New York City, and therefore my identification with the place was somewhat limited.

But the idea of 9/11 brings to mind another issue… the possibility that this was an act of terrorism, something I’ve seen several people already allude to.

Drudge just now is running reminder headlines from the attacks on Notre Dame in 2016… Attacks that were thwarted at the time.

I’m not quite ready to jump on the terrorism bandwagon yet, though frankly it wouldn’t su rprise me if they find that to be the cause of all this, particularly given there was a fire in another ancient Church in Paris just last week, according to some reports I’ve seen.

At this point, further speculation is useless, until the local authorities get involved.

Let’s play this out very quickly;

I see huge Democrat Party losses including the White House in 2020, and here’s why.

Numerically speaking the only people that are going to be voting in the Democratic primaries, are the social justice warriors and the extremists. As a result, nobody that makes it through that process is going to win in the general election.

Indeed, the moderates who have been considering a presidential run are seriously reconsidering that possibility because it is now obvious how far left the Democrat Party has tilted. Why do you suppose for example that Joe Biden hasn’t decided to run yet? Or at least, hasn’t announced? Michael Bloomberg similarly. (Yeah, okay, we know he’s a declared independent but we also know who he’s going to side with.)

Now, the seats that the Dems won in 2016, they won not by going hard left, but by offering up moderates. You know, the ones Pelosi has to threaten, to keep in line with the hard left. Thing is, it’s not the moderates creating headlines, it’s Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and AOC… And that’s causing serious damage amongst the electorate, which I have repeatedly demonstrated in these spaces, are far more conservative than anything that either party has offered up since Reagan. Yet, we still see this headlong rush to the left:

Then, there’s the fraudulent Russia hoax and what can only be considered a palace coup, both perpetrated, as we now know, by the Democrats. That story is increasingly coming out in detail, and will play a large in 2020.. to the point where even rank-and-file Democrats, and of course independent voters, are going to be unable to support a party that attempted to remove a sitting president.

The third part of this is Democrat Party policies which end up being flakier than the shoulders on Bernie Sanders’ rumpled suit jacket. That’s evident in areas of consumer confidence, employment data, wage data, and much more. There are very few citizens today who can claim that they are not that are off over the last two years that they were under the entire eight years of the Obama Administration. You got the Democrats are championing a return to the screaming disaster was Obama era policies. Yeah, that’s going to go over large, huh?

You will have noticed by now that I have not once mentioned Donald Trump. All the reasons for the Democrats loss that’s coming in 2020, are their own doing.

Eric Florack on April 14th, 2019