Tuesday, August 28, 2018


Plantation life in the American South?

SLAVERY: 
What They Didn't Teach in My High School

Larry Elder

TOWNHALL


July 12, 2018


A man I have known since grade school changed his name, years ago, to an Arabic one. He told me he rejected Christianity as "the white man's religion that justified slavery." He argued Africans taken out of that continent were owed reparations. "From whom?" I asked.

Arab slavers took more Africans out of Africa and transported them to the Middle East and to South America than European slavers took out of Africa and brought to North America. Arab slavers began taking slaves out of Africa beginning in the ninth century -- centuries before the European slave trade -- and continued well after.

In "Prisons & Slavery," John Dewar Gleissner writes: "The Arabs' treatment of black Africans can aptly be termed an African Holocaust. Arabs killed more Africans in transit, especially when crossing the Sahara Desert, than Europeans and Americans, and over more centuries, both before and after the years of the Atlantic slave trade. Arab Muslims began extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did. Arab slave traders removed slaves from Africa for about 13 centuries, compared to three centuries of the Atlantic slave trade. African slaves transported by Arabs across the Sahara Desert died more often than slaves making the Middle Passage to the New World by ship. Slaves invariably died within five years if they worked in the Ottoman Empire's Sahara salt mines."
My name-changing friend did not know that slavery occurred on every continent except Antarctica. Europeans enslaved other Europeans. Asians enslaved Asians. Africans enslaved other Africans. Arabs enslaved other Arabs. Native Americans even enslaved other Native Americans.
Ad
He accused me of "relying on white historians" who, he insisted, had a "vested interest to lie.”

What about Thomas Sowell, the brilliant economist/historian/philosopher, who happens to be black? Sowell writes: "Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century.


"People of every race and color were enslaved -- and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.”

Sowell also wrote: "The region of West Africa ... was one of the great slave-trading regions of the continent -- before, during, and after the white man arrived. It was the Africans who enslaved their fellow Africans, selling some of these slaves to Europeans or to Arabs and keeping others for themselves. Even at the peak of the Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere. ... Arabs were the leading slave raiders in East Africa, ranging over an area larger than all of Europe."
I asked my friend if his anger over slavery extended to countries like Brazil. "Brazil?" he said.


Man's inhumanity to Man rife everywhere


Harvard's Department of African and African American Studies professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. -- who also happens to be black -- wrote: "Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage. In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone!"

African tribes who captured other tribes sold them into slavery. For this reason, in 2006, Ghana offered an official apology. Emmanuel Hagan, director of research and statistics at Ghana's Ministry of Tourism and Diaspora Relations, explains: "The reason why we wanted to do some formal thing is that we want -- even if it's just for the surface of it, for the cosmetic of it -- to be seen to be saying 'sorry' to those who feel very strongly and who we believe have distorted history, because they get the impression that it was people here who just took them and sold them. It's something we have to look straight in the face and try to address, because it exists. So we will want to say something went wrong. People made mistakes, but we are sorry for whatever happened."

Over 600,000 Americans, in a country with less than 10 percent of today's population, died in the Civil War that ended slavery. "While slavery was common to all civilizations," writes Sowell, "...only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history -- Western civilization. ... Not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all.”


And, no, even after all this, my friend did not reconsider his name change.

Note the mosque in the background

Sunday, August 26, 2018

JOHN McCAIN is DEAD
and now 
The Hurricane of Hypocrisy and Fusillades of Fatuous Fulsome 
Rhetoric Begin



~ § ~



What Part of “Illegal” Does Lizzie Warren Not Grasp?

by Joe Fitzgerald

Boston  Herald

Saturday, August 25, 2018


One of the most powerful lines ever employed in cultural discourse simply asked, “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?”

It was directed at predatory men who force themselves upon unwilling, resistant women and what made it devastatingly effective was that there was nothing coy about it — no play on words, no double-entendres, no obfuscation.

Even a dolt could understand it. So, presumably, could a defense attorney.
Well, it’s been echoing here this week after watching Elizabeth Warren, a shameless opportunist, exploit traumatized kids languishing along our southern border in order to take another bite from the anti-Trump apple.
While the ruthless slaying of 20-year-old Iowa coed Mollie Tibbetts by an allegedly illegal immigrant was forcing horrified Americans to again contemplate the importance of vetting who we allow into this country, as Kate Steinle’s killing did three summers ago, our ambitious senator rode the coattails of the tragedy to resume her badmouthing of the White House.
“I’m sorry for the family,” she condescendingly allowed before immediately transitioning to a mawkish account of pathos at our border.

“I went down and saw where children had been taken away from their mothers,” she said. “We need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat; I don’t think mamas and babies are the place that we should be spending our resources. Separating a mama from her baby does not make this country safer.”

That begs a question: Senator, what part of “illegal” don’t you understand?
We are not a heartless country; far from it. But we are a nation of laws and, truth be told, those babies were brought to those border locations by parents intent upon thumbing their noses at our laws.

Senator, please, the tears of those children, like the tears now being shed by Mollie Tibbetts’ loved ones, need to be viewed in a context larger than your own ambitions.

To simply use them for your own personal gain is cheap.
The context makes a difference.

In courtrooms you can find kids sobbing as Dad is led off to prison.
In airports you can find them weeping as Dad heads off to war.

Those tears are real and understandable, but so are the reasons that caused them to flow.

That’s why, no matter how much those kids you describe touch our hearts, we can’t scrub laws or alter policies because of them, and we surely shouldn’t be using them as props to advance our own agendas.


Seriously, senator, it’s not complicated, not if you understand what illegal really means.


Friday, August 24, 2018




Europe to Ban Halogen Lightbulbs

After nearly 60 years of lighting homes halogens will be replaced with more energy efficient LEDs



The Guardian

August 23, 2018

After nearly 60 years of brightening our homes and streets, halogen lightbulbs will finally be banned across Europe on 1 September.

The lights will dim gradually for halogen. Remaining stocks may still be sold, and capsules, linear and low voltage incandescents used in oven lights will be exempted. But a continent-wide switchover to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) is underway that will slash emissions and energy bills, according to industry, campaigners and experts.

LEDs consume five times less energy than halogen bulbs and their phase-out will prevent more than 15m tonnes of carbon emissions a year, an amount equal to Portugal’s annual electricity usage.

Philips, the lighting manufacturer estimates consumer savings of up to £112 a year from the switchover because LEDs last much longer than halogens and use far less power.

But that has not stopped a perennial tabloid crusade against interference from Brussels – and the revival of timeworn Brexiteer campaign themes.

Jonathan Bullock, Ukip’s energy spokesman in the European parliament told the Guardian: "The EU's attempt to ban halogen bulbs is wrong because consumers will suffer financially and it’s always the poorest who suffer most from these kinds of policies.”

“Customers should have the freedom of choice in bulbs and it shouldn’t be imposed by the EU.”

However, with incandescent bans spreading from California to Canberra, any post-Brexit revival might depend on inefficient Chinese bulbs – and these could add £90 to average energy bills, studies indicate.

At present, halogen bulbs are often individually cheaper than LEDs but extrapolating cost savings from that is “a false economy” according to Stewart Muir, a product manager at the Energy Savings Trust.

Ukip’s numbers “just don’t add up,” he said. “A halogen bulb may be cheaper to buy in the first place but the electricity costs will be much more expensive, whereas an LED bulb will pay for itself within a year.”

Halogen bulbs also last for just two years on average, compared to LEDs which have a 15-20 year life expectancy, he said.

The average British home has about 10 halogen lamps and uses each lightbulb for around three hours a day, according to government figures from 2012.

The emissions cost is staggering. Buildings account for about 40% of our energy consumption – and lighting currently accounts for around 15% of that. That gives it a carbon footprint higher than aviation and shipping combined.


Eliot Whittington, the director of the Prince of Wales’s corporate leaders group, which campaigns on the issue, said: “The science is clear. We can’t allow the human costs of climate change to reach the levels they will, if we fail to act. You ban things that threaten public safety and the wasteful use of energy is dangerous for us all in the end.”

How Do You Feel About This Issue? Should the Free Market Be Allowed to Work Its Magic?

- OR -

Do You Favor Government Intervention to Make Sure You Do What's Best for the Environment?

Wednesday, August 22, 2018



Trump’s Character 
and Trump’s Presidency


 August 19th, 2018


A few days ago, I had a dust-up on Twitter with National Review’s Jonah Goldberg. Our conflict was about Trump’s fitness to be president, a subject that has been broached millions of times on social media by other internet partisans. Twitchy posted the exchange and promoted it this way: “It’s On! Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz Duke It Out Over Trump’s Character.” 

The donnybrook led to 500,000 impressions on my Twitter feed, including legions of anti-Trump zealots eager to demonstrate how creative they could be in devising insults to throw at me for defending Trump: beyond dumb, in need of psychiatric help, and probably receiving payments through offshore bank accounts.

As it happens, I’ve known Jonah for more than 20 years, admired his wit and insights, promoted his books, and put him on my platforms. I was distressed when he joined the NeverTrump chorus, but never wrote a critical word about him—hoping, I guess, that as Trump systematically undid the damage that the Obama regime had inflicted on the country, Jonah would return to his senses.

Other NeverTrump conservatives, on the other hand, just jumped to the other side. Bill Kristol even went so far as to collude with the Brennan-instigated witch-hunt by spreading talking points from the Steele dossier. It was easy to write these renegades off, though still wondering how they rationalized the betrayal of their lifetime principles, or were able to deny that they were doing so.

Afraid to Get Their Principles Wet

But a group of NeverTrumpers like Jonah adopted a less radical stance and conceded that many or even most of Trump’s policy actions were actually conservative, and ones they agreed with. What made them NeverTrumpers was his horrible, defective character. Most prominent among this group was Bret Stephens, whom I have also admired and promoted in the past. At the end of Trump’s first year, Stephens wrote a column for the New York Times—the position being an obvious reward for his defection—called “Why I’m Still A Never Trumper.” In it he praised Trump’s major policy actions since entering the White House. But then he attacked Trump’s bad character, which was unpresidential and indefensible. And averred: “I still wish Hillary Clinton were president.”

When I read his column, the first question that popped into my mind was: How can indefensible and unpresidential bad character lead to such admirable presidential decisions? I am not aware of any attempt by Stephens or Jonah or similar NeverTrumpers to provide an answer.


The posture of these NeverTrumpers is transparently self-serving. It preserves their intellectual credentials as “conservatives,” and simultaneously takes them out of the line of fire from an increasingly vicious Left whose goal is to destroy Trump and his presidency, and—incidentally—conservative America. Sitting on the fence affords them new career opportunities—appearances on CNN and MSNBC and columns in the New York Times

All that’s required is that they avoid taking sides in the political war that is engulfing the country. All this reminds me of a memorable Trotsky sneer about liberals, whom he accused of being reluctant to step into the stream of political conflict because they were afraid to get their moral principles wet.

So, when this tweet from Jonah appeared on my feed, I abandoned my self-restraint and answered it:





Re-asking a question I've been posing for three years: Please come up with a definition of good character that Donald Trump can clear.

This was followed by a retweet and a new comment:


This is easily the most triggering question you can ask of Trumpist snowflakes
]


I don’t know whether it was the snide-ness of this comment or its absoluteness that triggered me, but it seemed so pigheadedly self-righteous, so oblivious of the complexities of human character, not to mention the nuclear dimensions of the Left’s war against Trump that I responded—and in doing so walked into a hornets’ nest.


He has an amazing family. He's loyal to a fault. He loves the country that gave him a privileged life, He works around the clock for ordinary Americans, & their security. He would never appoint a treacherous individual to head the CIA. Wake up Jonah.Its a war and you cant be neutral.

Which drew this retort:


This is total nonsense David. He’s not loyal to a fault. He’s not loyal to his wives. Read up on how he treated Roy Cohn ffs. He doesn’t work around the clock. He won’t read and won’t stop watching TV. I can’t tell if your head is up your ass or his.


  
The nastiness of that last sentence shocked me.
 Evidently the hatred of Trump is so fevered it can burn through two decades of cordiality and acquaintance. I wonder if Jonah would be so hostile to someone who shared his view of Trump’s character but thought Trump’s policies were racist, and tyrannical.

Two Episodes in Trump’s Favor

As it happens, I am well aware of the vulnerabilities of what I tweeted. I should never have written it and fallen into the Twitter trap. Tweets don’t provide enough space to account for the complexities of this subject or provide sufficient examples to make one’s case. “Character” is notoriously mercurial, and complex to judge. As it happens, in referring to Trump’s loyalty I had in mind two episodes. The first was the topic of the week, Omarosa. Why did he stick with such a wretched individual for so long, despite warnings from everyone around him that she was no good? Loyalty to a fault.

The second was when the Left showed its teeth in his first days in the White House, and maliciously attacked Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions as white nationalists and racists and even neo-Nazis. Any other Republican, freshly in office, would have thrown them under the bus, however false the accusations. Trump’s fortitude, his refusal to back down under withering fire, is also a character trait, and an admirable one—actually the key to his success where Bush and congressional Republicans had repeatedly failed. Loyalty.

Making Compromises, Keeping Promises

Since Jonah brings up Trump’s three marriages let me ask the question: who can see inside another person’s marriage? I thought, moreover, that since Reagan—who had two wives—entered the White House and performed as a conservative hero, Republicans would have gotten over their puritanical prejudices. All politicians have flawed characters. It’s the nature of the job, which requires compromises, prevarications, dirty deals, and the like. In Trump’s case, what is important is not his loyalty to his wives (and none of them seem to be complaining) but his loyalty to the cause he champions and the people who support him.

Has Trump kept his promises to his supporters? Has he stayed the course he set for himself of making America great again? That loyalty is the character trait that matters most in a leader, and should matter most in any assessment of Trump. He has taken great personal risks and incurred great personal costs. His reputation for example, was pretty good before he ran against Democrats and their media, who fueled an epidemic of hate portraying him as a racist and neo-Nazi.

I’m betting there isn’t another Republican who would not have wilted under these attacks. Who would have had the fortitude to stay the course, and keep his promises. That’s really good character. And it’s presidential.



[About the Author: David Horowitz is the founder and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of the Black Book of the American Left.]



Tuesday, August 21, 2018



BISQUICK CHICKEN POT PIE

INGREDIENTS 

1 cup cooked chicken, cut into bite sized pieces
1 2⁄3 cups frozen vegetables, thawed
1 (10 ounce) can cream of chicken soup 
1 cup Bisquick baking mix 
1⁄2 cup milk
1 egg

DIRECTIONS

Preheat oven to 400°F.
Mix chicken, veggies and cream of chicken soup together and spread into bottom of non greased 9-inch round glass pie pan.

Mix remaining ingredients (Bisquick, milk and egg) and pour on top of chicken mixture.


Bake in oven for 30 minutes or until top turns golden brown.




To a Leftist on Our Need for the  ELECTORAL CCOLLEGE Thank you for at last making an honest ATTEMPT to address the points raised in a simple...