We’re on the verge of a new energy revolution. Except it’s the exact opposite of the one the “experts” at places like BP (British Petroleum), the International Energy Agency and the Fake News Media are predicting.
For years we’ve been assured by politicians, energy industry specialists and green advocates that renewables such as wind and solar are getting more and more cost-competitive while dirty fossil fuels are so discredited and wrong and evil we’ll soon have to leave them in the ground.
But to believe this you’d have to believe in a world where Donald Trump and Brexit hadn’t happened; where taxpayers were still prepared to bankroll, ad infinitum, the expensive, inefficient, environmentally-damaging produce of favored crony-capitalists; where no one had access on the internet to articles showing how the whole climate change industry is such a scam.
That world doesn’t exist. Here’s the one that does.
If Marine Le Pen wins France's presidential elections in May, all talk of punishing Britain for the outrage of Brexit will become irrelevant.
French diplomacy will pirouette overnight under a National Front (FN) leader. The Élysée Palace will seek an Entente Cordiale with the British, offering a bilateral alliance on new foundations.
It will then be the European Union that faces an existential choice: whether to reinvent itself as a loose federation of nation states, or succumb to galloping disintegration
"What is the point in punishing a country? It is senseless, unless you think the EU is a prison, and you are condemned if you escape. I want to rebuild our damaged relations with the United Kingdom," she told me in an interview yesterday (02/15).
"France is the political heart of Europe, and the moment we leave the euro the whole project collapses," said Ms Le Pen, as she leans across the table in her tiny office in the European Parliament with a glint of mischief.
"A whole psychological framework is breaking down. I think 2017 is going to be the year of the grand return of the nation state, the control of borders and currencies," she said. Hearing her, you can’t help but think of Donald Trump.
Countries, states and cities all compete to attract businesses — both large and small. More businesses mean more jobs and usually greater prosperity.
On Feb. 8, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE) released its annual ranking of the 50 states “according to 55 policy measures, including a wide array of tax, regulatory, and government spending measures.”
The findings were not surprising — Nevada, Texas, South Dakota, Wyoming and Florida were at the top, while Vermont, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey and California were at the bottom.
What is troublesome is that year after year the business-unfriendly states do so little to improve their rankings. As the author of the study, Raymond J. Keating, chief economist of the SBE Council, noted: “Too many elected officials choose to ignore the basic economic realities of how government affects entrepreneurship, business, and investment.”
Politicians endlessly cry about the “need” for more taxes and regulations in order to “protect the people.” But in most places, government is already far larger than optimum, and so more taxes and regulations only make things worse.
In an effort to provide you with a new site, we launched last week. It had tested out perfectly in a test environment. Unfortunately, it had various problems once it went “live” online.
To provide you with continued access we have reverted to the original site which should function as before. Soon the articles posted last week will show up. You will see the HFR as usual later today.
We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. We value you and your participation at TTP.
Thank you for your patience.
If you Google it, the very first hit at the top of the page is this article from April 2005: America Now Functioning As ‘Krytocracy’.
The second hit is: KRYTOCRACY: A Government of Judges, Rule by the Arbitrary Feelings of Unelected Judges. You’ll note that both are about an article in TTP I had written a few days earlier.
So here we are, 12 years later, with headlines this week declaring the consequences of the blatantly unconstitutional krytocratic tyranny we continue to suffer from today. Here’s how Trump will put an end to it…
The most fun of the week was on Capitol Hill. Here’s one reason:
Attorney General Eric Holder: Justice on Hold. Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Lynching Justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Justice is back in Session…
There’s just no competition, Super Bowl 51 was the greatest ever hands down. Brady and Belichik are the greatest ever. The famously expensive Super Bowls ads, by contrast, were the worst ever. Impossibly brain-dead – anti-Trump commercials for football fans? What were these corporate board-roomers thinking?
I’ll never drink another Bud again – neither will a lot of others. Meanwhile, here’s the belly laugh of the week: Liberals in Despair over Patriots Win. How nice. Oh… and the best SP51 ad? Is there any doubt?
It was January 21, 1981, in the Cabinet Room of the White House with its windows looking out upon the Rose Garden. Having been inaugurated President the day before and 12 of his 14 Cabinet-designates already approved by the Senate, Ronald Reagan convened his first Cabinet meeting.
When the topic of the Soviet Union came up, Secretary of State Alexander Haig mentioned that US policy towards the Soviets since the onset of the Cold War in 1947 had been one of “Containment” (formulated by George Kennan). Reagan responded, “Not any longer.”
There was a quite pregnant pause of silence. Then National Security Advisor Richard Allen asked, “Mr. President, what do you think our Soviet policy should be?”
Reagan looked at him directly in the eye. “Well, Dick,” the President of the United States replied, “how about, ‘We win, they lose’?”
Those four words are what won the Cold War and caused the mighty invincible Soviet Union to cease to exist. Those four words are what will enable President Trump – and us – to do the same to the Fascist Left in America, and cause the Democrat Party as presently constituted to reside on the ash heap of history.
From the founding of our republic until now, both parties agreed a president should be able to choose for his Cabinet whomever he wants, unless a nominee was clearly unqualified, or there were serious character issues. The campaign against Ms. DeVos for a minor Cabinet post was strictly for ideological or partisan reasons.
This was the most dramatic effort (so far) by Democrats and a “mainstream” news media that has shed all pretense of objectivity and fairness to try to strangle the Trump administration in its crib. Nearly all Mr. Trump’s nominees have been opposed for no other reason than that they are Mr. Trump’s nominees.
For the first time since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the “Loyal Opposition” isn’t loyal. A Second Civil War has begun.
Author’s Note: The following is taken from my lecture on the first day of classes. My remarks are reproduced here with the hope that they will be useful to other professors teaching at public universities all across America. Feel free to use this material if you already have tenure.
Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams, your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington.
Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended.
If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.
Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You do have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so.
Last year (March 22, 2016), eight members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a demand that their Muslim staffers be granted access to top secret classified information.
The signatories to the letter were Andre Carson (D-IN), Luis Guiterez (D-IL), Jim Himes (D-CT), Terri Sewell (D-AL), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Patrick Murphy (D-FL). All the signatories were Democrats.
Some had a history of attempting to undermine national security. Two of them have been linked to an emerging security breach.
The office of Andre Carson, the second Muslim in Congress, had employed Imran Awan. As did the offices of Jackie Speier and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL); to whom the letter had been addressed.
Imran Awan and his two brothers, Jamal and Abid, are at the center of an investigation that deals with, among other things, allegations of illegal access. They have been barred from the House of Representatives network.
A member of Congress expressed concern that, “they may have stolen data from us.”
All three of the Pakistani brothers had been employed by Democrats. The offices that employed them included HPSCI minority members Speier, Carson and Joaquín Castro (D-TX). Congressman Castro, who also sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, utilized the services of Jamal Moiz Awan. Speier and Carson’s offices utilized Imran Awan.