Special Opinion to the Mirror written by Chas Cornweller.

I’d been thinking lately of re-reading, George Orwell’s book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. I had read it once back in High School, after the required reading of Animal Farm. But it was Nineteen Eighty-Four that left me in a mild stage of psychological shock. I was sixteen at time. I am not wholly sure what the catalyst was, but I am pretty sure it was the pre-conditioning of my Vietnam years. The falsehoods of those years from our government and the final stages of the Nixon administration and the eventual lies told to the national press and the American people. Once I grasped the full meaning of Orwell’s masterpiece, it possibly dawned on me. This could happen to America and my world. Ah, the innocence of youth!

Now don’t misunderstand, I was raised a well-adjusted child in a strong middle-class family in a small town in rural America. I went to church most every Sunday. I had plenty of same-aged friends, plus cousins and a family that was close. I also had a paper route during these formative years and a natural inquisitiveness that led me to read those headlines and delve deeper into their portent meanings. So, by the time I was sixteen most of my world-view was shaped by a daily reading of world events coupled with a weekly rendering of current events before my civics class. There was no talk of “fake news” in those days. In fact, historically (and unless someone has altered the entire history of the world since the mid-fifties until the late seventies) I would venture to say almost ninety-five percent of what I saw, read and believed has come to pass as historic fact. Four administrations of presidents DID lie about the objectives and results of a war half-way across the world. ALL of those young college students were correct in deducing that the draft was for naught.

President Nixon was a crooked politician and rightly was well on his way to being impeached. Fortunately for America, he took the honorable route and resigned his presidency. But, in the year nineteen and seventy-two, the issues were not so black and white. And the nation was divided. The war on poverty and the war for social justices were just as bleak and critical then as they are now. But the lie was then, well, we’re winning the war on Social Justice. We’re going to win the war on poverty, as well. Today, these same wars continue. But hindsight being twenty-twenty, we can see all the reasons why they failed, can we not?

America has been wandering in the wilderness since the closing days of World War II. It is interesting to read somewhere…that when Germany and the Soviet Union entered into an uneasy truce (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939) that the collective world held its breath and prayed for peace. But, when Germany invaded Russia in nineteen and forty-one, suddenly the Soviet propaganda was that World War Two was a Capitalist Fraud. It certainly appeared that way to Communists around the world. But, again, in hindsight, we all know it was Hitler’s goal all along to eliminate the Bolsheviks. But what was the true intent of World War Two? Obviously, Japan had a different intent than Nazi Germany. But if you look closely enough, both Germany and Japan had rightful justifications for their intentions. This is the double-sided curse of history. Just as, if you look closely enough at America’s history, you will see a dark and horrendously bloody side to its birth and growth as a super-power nation. But most will not look, nor care too. They can’t handle that truth. Which brings me to our wandering these past seventy-odd years as a megalithic drunken giant welding an oversized and bloody sword. Anyone who dares to cross our path and tries to usurp any amount of power from this giant will face its wrath. To the extent that it sometimes has been to our own detriment. Case in point: Research one OSS member A. Peter Dewey and his relationship with communist aligned troops (Viet Minh) and how America came so very close to resolving closure with the Vietnamese people and the French colonials. Ah, but history is not kind. And America was so fixated on rooting out communism from every nook and crevice, ears were closed along with eyes and imaginations in nineteen forty-five. Peace died the day Dewey was killed accidentally by the Viet Minh and therefore, twenty years later, so had fifty-three thousand of America’s youth. Look it up…research the facts.

So, what does this have to do with the book Nineteen Eighty-four? Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. Perhaps somewhere in the middle? You see, we’ve been at war nearly twenty years in the Middle East (Disputed Lands in Orwell’s book). We’ve been told we are there to win the hearts and minds (build schools, hospitals, preach Democracy and goodwill) of these people. We set out to bring Afghanistan into the twentieth century. We set out to free the Iraq people from a despot (which, incidentally we helped to prop up as dictator during the Iran-Iraq conflict – historically speaking). So, yes, he was our problem. Nearly twenty years of our military presence has brought us to where? Just this past week, another major attack on our embassy in Bagdad and the killing of Iran’s General Soleimani supposedly to ratchet down the violence in the area.

At what point, how could all of this have been prevented? At which junction, in the drunken ramblings of this fierce and all-powerful giant, did we take a wrong turn? When was peace on the minds of the ones who are responsible for this mess? And just who is responsible? Was it Truman, when he insulted Soviet Minister Molotov at the White House on April 23^rd, Nineteen Forty-Five? Perhaps it was Neville Chamberland caving to Adolf Hitler in giving him the western portion of Czechoslovakia in Nineteen and Thirty-Eight? We could go back to the unfortunate and highly ill-advised Treaty of Versailles of Nineteen-Nineteen. One could argue that this treaty set Germany on the course for the Second World War and so on and so forth. Maybe it was France and England carving up the Middle East just prior to the First World War ending. So many crossroads. So many ill-advised decisions. So many empty-headed politicians guiding the multitudes towards oblivion.

Now, of course, I sit at my computer with complete twenty-twenty hindsight on all of these historic and infamous moments, so it’s easy to say what went wrong. But, here’s the rub; I spoke up to anyone who would listen in Two Thousand and Three and warned that it would not go well in Iraq if we invaded a sovereign nation (unconstitutional by the way – Congress or no Congress) without provocation from that nation. Many I spoke with, agreed. Many did not. It is now history.

I have been saying for years, that this nation’s reliance on oil and oil product is much like a drug addict’s desperation and needs. America claims it is protecting its vital interest in this region. The oil does not belong to us! It would be comparably the same if Japan had staked a claim with the Bush family during the nineteen-fifties and then placed a standing army in Texas and Oklahoma to guarantee unlimited access to that oil. The Bushes get mega-rich, while the rest of this country withers. Meanwhile, Japan occupies our sovereign lands. Do you not understand how much this must chafe at the people of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait? The drunken giant indeed.

So, perpetual war…at least until the wells run dry? Try asking the Ministry of Peace. I am sure we are finally gaining the upper hand within those disputed lands. As long as Eurasia doesn’t interfere.  Feeling that generous helping of prosperity and wealth yet? If not, try the Ministry of Plenty. Perhaps you’ll get lucky with one of those many lotteries they like to put in front of us.  If you still feel like you aren’t getting the answers you need, or you feel your news feed has let you down. (you know, it’s all fake news) try the Ministry of Propaganda. I am sure you’ll find what you’ll need from them and if not, it’s all soon to be there, in the history books. Fresh from the publications of the Ministry of Truth.

As a sixteen-year kid, I could not understand my anxiety by reading just one book. Little did I know then, what I know now. I was reading the future. It does cut close to the bone.  Interesting to me, it was Animal Farm that opened that door. Ironic.   

Are places like Harvard or UVA just hedge funds masquerading as universities? Take Harvard, where $40.9 billion is under active management in its endowment, and it buys things like vineyard water rights.

The school to prison pipeline has been surpassed by the school to debtor’s prison parkway. High schools have failed inner-city and rural kids so now they kick education down the road to the colleges and tell every kid they must attend college. The brainwashing starts in grade school. Calling them “public” schools is the real propaganda. They are government schools.

Yes, we are told that college is necessary for success, and if you can’t afford it, well we have these things called ‘student loans’ backed by the US government. In essence, the biggest predatory lender is the US government.

Progressive Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders seek to gain power and buy votes by addressing symptoms, not root causes of problems. Making college “free” would make it even more expensive.

The problem with college debt is that colleges are “selling” educations that are more expensive than they are worth. If people received jobs that validated the costs of those educations, they’d be able to pay it back with no issue.

Students and their parents are not understanding return on investment of education and taking out far too much debt versus the product’s worth.

This is made worse by the government being willing to lend with no direct criteria (for example, loaning more for an engineering degree vs. a Gender Studies degree).

Forgiving college debt on the tax payer’s dime does not address these problems and shirks personal responsibility, transferring it to other people. If there should be any responsibility transfer, it is to the colleges.

Let the colleges forgive the loans, since they sold ones that didn’t generate an ROI.

Next, and more importantly, get the government out of the lending game, make colleges have skin in the game, increase education and transparency on ROI of education debt and debt in general and allow loans to be tied to relevant factors (GPAs, degrees, etc.).

It’s not just college though, the same goes for healthcare. We need to address the cost of healthcare, not just try to make it “free”, which we know will ultimately bloat costs and decrease quality.

Example: What are the costs for the following procedures on average?

Lasik surgery, breast augmentation, and knee replacement.

Lasik-less than $2k an eye, breastwork is $3700 (less than $2k a boob),
but knee replacement is averaging $49,500 per knee (around $100k for both knees).

Knees are covered by health insurance but boob jobs aren’t. It’s a competition. Allowing for competition, transparency and having the recipient pay brings costs down.

The left is good at pointing fingers, but they are not addressing the root causes of problems to find solutions. We have to stop throwing money at symptoms.

Warren knows this, and Grifter Bernie doesn’t care to understand it- it’s not part of his game.

This is not just a Democrat problem. The Republicans are just as bad. They have not been able to put a simple healthcare plan forward that could pass Congress in 15 years, during which time they have whined about the ACA like little children.

When it is all said and done, we need free-market solutions. Competition and transparency bring prices down and quality up.

 Opinion piece by Charles Landis.

This is the second of a series of commentaries on topical  issues related to  the 2020 election process. The 1619 Project is a narrative promoted by the NY Times in an effort to rewrite our history and the Project as being  the TRUE history of our founding. Identity politics is the most salient identifier in the Democrat Party agenda and the Project endeavors to reduce all of our history from founding to Trump to issues of slavery and race.The Times narrative asserts the true founding of the United States began in 1619, not 1776, with the arrival of a  Portuguese ship at what is now Fort Monroe near Jamestown with a cargo 20 Africans from Angola, Africa.

They were sold for provisions and required to work on plantations in the colony. Thus, according to the Times (erroneously), they were the first slaves in America and slavery began with the English colony of Virginia. Note. Slavery in America began with the Spanish in Florida and Mexico. Also, at that time, nearly every colonist was under an indenture contract and required to work for seven years before freed. Many did not live beyond their indenture period.

The Africans, however, were brought against their will and, because they had no contract, they were  forced to work more years and freed at will of their masters. It was not until 1661 that there was codification of Africans being  bonded for life. Relationships were based mostly on ownership of property not race.

To understand more about this, read my essay on Anthony Johnson, one of the Angolans, in my book. An Introduction to the History of the Virginia Eastern Shore.Thus, the Times Project argues, the struggle for democracy, equality, civil rights, and social justice began with slavery in 1619 and not with the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The white founders, and as well the founding documents, were full of contradictions and lies. The Declaration of Independence was written by a white nationalist slave holder and the Revolutionary War was fought  because the founders feared England would ban slavery; white supremist slave owners needed cheap labor to work their plantations.

 Th 1619 Project Manager and principal writer is Nikole Hanna-Jones, a Times reporter, assisted by other Time staffers  and sociologists who contributed essays and poems. She says she fact checked with the Smithsonian  and dismisses criticism by historians  as being in the DNA of white nationalists.

 The Times Project further argues that the evil and brutality of industrialization and capitalism, the greed of Wall Street, and all of the battles for social and economic justice arose out of the plantation system in the Southern colonies. The great wealth and power of the American economy was built on the backs of African American slaves. The demand for free universal health care, public education, women’s suffrage et al  began with black legislators during Reconstruction.

   While the 1619 Project has been acclaimed by leftist media, it has been much criticized by such highly regarded historians as Gordon Wood, James McPherson, and James Oakes. Each of these historians deplored that the Times would do this without consulting any historians of whole period and with intention to have movies made and the Project taught in high schools. Gordon Wood said “none of the leading scholars of the whole period have been consulted” in writing the 1619 Project. And, he was “disappointed and disheartened at the reductive nature of the 1619 Project.

It was so wrong, in so many ways”. James McPherson, says of the 1619 Project “biased and narrow of the country’s history”…”one sided account which lacks context and perspective” …and “ left most of history out”.James Oates says “ to connect chattel slavery to capitalism is over simplistic.”The preeminent historian on slavery and the Civil War , Eric Foner, substantially contradicts the thesis of the Times 1619 Project. In his recently published book, The Second Founding, (2019,) he explains how the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (1865-1870) remade the Constitution.

These Amendments were passed by the Congress in the Reconstruction period after the Civil War (1865-1877 and there were no African Americans in the Congress. Historians and constitutional scholars agree that these  Amendments were the building blocks upon which social and civils rights were, and continue to be, built and progress… not as the narrative of the Times 1619 Project promotes.

After reading articles written by Hanna-Jones and listening to her and other lectures on the 1619 Project, I consulted my library and re-read two books by highly regarded historians on  the history of western civilization and colonization of  the  Americas:  “Civilization, A New History of the Western World”, by historian Roger Osborne, and  “American Colonies, The settling of North America” (2001) by historian Alan Taylor. 

In “Civilization, A New History of the Western World”, historian Roger Osborne,  chronicles the history of Western civilization from ancient Greece to today. His view of western civilization is a history of invasions of “lesser” peoples, their lands and cultures, and of genocide. He concludes that modern western civilization (post-medieval) could not and cannot co-exist with any other culture; unable to learn from other cultures without destroying  or dominating and making them part of the western ways.In “American Colonies, The settling of North America (2001) historian Alan Taylor explains that during the sixteenth and early seventeenth the Europeans believed their own peasants and lower class folks were little better than Native Americans and Africans.

Their belief in superiority was primarily based upon cultural considerations and Christianity; in time, by assimilation into western ways and conversion to Christianity, they could become equal to the lower order of English/European. By the late 1600s, because of the demand for cheap labor by the plantation system and growth of the African slave population, legal codes were introduced in the South that bound  African slaves for life with severe treatment.

 Western civilization may be defined as a cultural heritage stretching back 2500 years; from ancient Greece to the frontier of Silicon Valley; greatly influenced by  Judeo-Christian traditions. Contrary to the  narrative of the  Democrat/Socialist party ( ie as narrated in the NY Times 1619 Project) the belief in white supremacy did not begin  with slavery in the early colonial period of Virginia and progression to the election of Donald Trump. Racism, the identification of Africans as slaves and inferior to whites, began with the explorations and colonies of Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. First in the plantations of the Azores and Madeiras, then to  the Caribbean and to Spanish America (Florida, Mexico, and the Southwest)  and in the seventeenth century in the English colonies of North America.

In ancient Greece and Rome there was a belief that their civilizations were superior to all other civilizations in the known world. Herodotus, considered the first historian, writing in the mid-fifth century, referred to non-Greeks as barbarians…lesser peoples. During the Crusades (more broadly considered the period between the 11th and 13th centuries) the European invaders into the Muslin Eastern  Mediterranean were considered of the Christian race.

Muslims were considered as pagans. The formation in Europe of sovereign nation sates in the 16th century was based upon cultural, linguistic, and geographic identities where each believed their nation and culture were superior to the other nations. The formation of sovereign nation states in turn led to exploration and colonization in Africa and the American continents.

For 2500 years, from Ancient Greece to exploration and colonization of lands far distant from Europe, there developed a pride in the  accomplishments of Western civilization: art, literature, architecture and , importantly, weapons technology which gave superior fighting power to conquer and subjugate. While slavery had existed from the time of Babylon, the discovery of new lands and primitive peoples across the Atlantic in the sixteenth century convinced Europeans to identify with Greek and Roman civilizations and belief they were a civilized people surrounded by barbarians.

The belief in white supremacy is also the belief that the progress of humans and civilization was a linear progression from the stone age and social Darwinism.The Europeans did not invade the interior of Africa to capture slaves;  one tribe raided another for the purpose of capturing slaves which they traded for guns   and ammunition. First the slaves were sent to plantations in the Azores and Madeiras and then to the Caribbean and North and South American colonies.

In North America, Native American tribes raided other tribes and sold captives which were transported to plantations in the Caribbean.      While there are many dark chapters  in the history of western civilization, the development of the constitutional guarantees of liberty, from Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence, American Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Reconstruction Amendments is the great progression in western civilization and something that all can be proud of.

The period 1619 t0 2019 is part of that progression. It is for that reason that the 1619 Project is so disappointing; they do not rise above identity politics.   At an event commemorating the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the Angolans in Virginia, Governor Northam announced his formation of a commission to “review educational standards for teaching black history” because Virginia has “for too long told a false narrative of ourselves.” There is reason to suspect this will become his 1619 Project.     

Opinion by Paul Plante.

“DEMOCRATS DECLARE WAR ON AMERICA!”

The last time they did this, they being the Democrats, and that being renouncing our American values, and our Republican beliefs, and declaring war on We, the American People at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861 when the secessionist Democrats opened fire with 50 cannons upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, the Democrats had their own Constitution which stated thusly in their Preamble, to wit:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

end quotes

The oath all loyal secessionist Democrats who adhered to the Democrat constitution, was as follows:

“I, (name) aged (________), born in (state), appointed from (county, state), do solemnly swear or affirm that while I continue in the service I will bear true faith, and yield obedience to the Confederate States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against their enemies, and that I will observe and obey the orders of the President of the Confederate States, and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and Articles of War.”

end quotes

Now, that is an indication of just how seriously the Democrats take not being a part of the same United States of America that We, the People who cleave to the United States Constitution the Democrats have again renounced are a part of – they truly are more than willing to go to war with us over the issue, as they did back then, and as they did again on 18 December 2019 when Democrat Congresswoman from sanctuary city San Francisco, California walked onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives appropriately dressed for the occasion in a spiffy black designer executioner’s outfit made specially for her for the occasion by top Democrat designers, and walked up to our United States Constitution, and like Leon Czolgosz did when he shot President McKinley, she figuratively pulled out a gun and at point blank range, fired a fatal shot into our Constitution – BANG!

And then, just to make sure our Constitution is really dead – BANG!

In goes a second shot, with the two Articles of Impeachment Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and “Jumping Jerry” Nadler fabricated out of cobwebs, moonbeams and cosmic dust particles with which to remove sitting American president Donald Trump from office for daring to investigate CORRUPTION in Ukraine involving Democrat presidential frontrunner Joe Biden.

In essence, this was a mob hit on Donald Trump and nothing more, but that mob hit on Trump by the Democrats was really a mob hit on us, We, the American people, and accordingly, constituted an ACT OF AGGRESSION by the Democrats that was tantamount to an ACT OF WAR!

Interestingly, Czolgosz claimed to have killed McKinley because he was the head of what Czolgosz thought was a corrupt government, which today is Nancy Pelosi’s ostensible reason for going after Trump, and on October 29, 1901, the unrepentant killer’s last words were “I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people — the working people,” which is how Nancy Pelosi wants us to view Trump today – as an enemy of the “good people,” meaning Democrats.

Going back to the last time the Democrats declared war on the United States of America, this according to the United States Senate website, in November 1860 a deeply divided nation teetered on the brink of civil war.

end quotes

In December of 2019, once again, and thanks again to the Democrats, a deeply divided nation again teeters on the brink of a civil war, and on 18 December 2019, that brink may well have been surpassed with the shots fired into our Constitution by Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler with their bogus “articles of impeachment” based on FABRICATED EVIDENCE.

Getting back to those times, so that we have our own history as a guide, on November 10, 1860, James Chesnut of South Carolina became the first senator to leave the Senate to support the Confederacy.

On December 20 South Carolina seceded from the Union and on that same day, the Senate established a “Committee of Thirteen” to examine plans to save the Union, which is something we need for them to do again today!

On January 9, 1861, Mississippi became the second state to secede and that action prompted Senator Jefferson Davis to address the Senate on January 10, imploring his colleagues to allow for peaceful secession of the Southern states.

The, on January 21 five senators from Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, led by Davis, bade farewell to the Senate.

The secession of Southern states and the withdrawal of their elected representatives forced an unprecedented constitutional crisis in Congress.

end quotes

And here we are again today, with another unprecedented constitutional crisis in Congress provoked by Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Democrat “constitutional scholar” Jamie Raskin, and the Democrat party.

Getting back to history, on March 14, 1861, senators debated what to do with seats left vacant by their Southern colleagues.

Did the states or their representatives have the right to leave the Union?

Some senators, such as Maine’s William Pitt Fessenden, insisted that Southern states did not have the right to withdraw from the Union.

By leaving the Senate, Fessenden argued, Southern members had effectively resigned their seats.

Others, such as Delaware’s James Bayard, believed states did have the right to secede and that seats held by Southern secessionists no longer existed.

The Senate should not declare their seats vacant but simply strike their names from the roll.

After a heated exchange, the Senate sided with Fessenden and passed a resolution declaring the seats of six of their departed colleagues “vacant” and authorizing the Secretary of the Senate to strike their names from the Senate roll.

In July the Senate debated the fate of Southern members whose terms had not expired and who had not formally notified the Senate of their withdrawal.

An intense debate followed. Senator Milton Latham of California opposed expulsion, insisting that it reflected poorly “upon the personal character of the individual” and implied “turpitude.”

The author of the resolution, New Hampshire’s Daniel Clark , urged his colleagues to pass the resolution and “deny here, on the floor of the Senate, the right of any State to secede,” by expelling Southern members “from the councils of the nation.”

The Senate approved Clark’s resolution on July 11, 1861, expelling 10 absent members by a vote of 32-10.

Senators barred four more members for disloyalty during the course of the war.

On December 4, 1861, the Senate expelled John Breckinridge of Kentucky for taking up “arms against the Government he had sworn to support.”

On January 10, 1862, the Senate voted unanimously to expel Missouri’s two senators, Waldo Johnson and Trusten Polk, for “sympathy with and participation in the rebellion against the Government of the United States.”

On February 5, 1862, the Senate passed a resolution to expel Indiana’s Jesse Bright for disloyalty to the Union based on a letter he addressed to “His Excellency Jefferson Davis,” in which Bright introduced his acquaintance, a Texas arms dealer, to the president of the Confederacy.

A few states, such as Missouri and Kentucky, elected new members to replace those who were expelled.

The Unionist government in Virginia sent two senators to Capitol Hill.

Many desks remained unoccupied in the Senate Chamber throughout the war years and into the Reconstruction era, serving as painful reminders of the nation’s disunion.

end quotes

DISUNION, people!

Thanks to the Democrats declaring war on We, the American People and OUR United States Constitution on 18 December 2019, here we are, all over again!

Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante

Well, what a week this has been, people!

Donald Trump, an elected American president, has been brought up on criminal charges by the Democrats in the House of Representatives on a serious charge that carries a penalty of five years in a federal prison because he dared to look into Democrat corruption, but that news is small beans besides the news that little Greta Thunberg, the “climate activist” who Time magazine just made the “TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR,” an honor they bestowed on Adolph Hitler in 1938, was in Madrid, Spain at the UN Conference of Parties (“COP”) on what Greta calls the “climate crisis” caused by what the Democrats in this country call “carbon pollution”, where she was said to have given a very moving and emotional speech that brought the house down and earned her a standing ovation from all the media in attendance who fawn on her every utterance, as well as from all the politicians from the “poor” countries who are hoping her emotional address will serve to shake loose some big bucks flowing from our pockets, because we are “rich,” to theirs, because they are “poor” (“from those who have to those who want”), and because her message was aimed at We, the American People, as an engineer, I thought it necessary to give little Greta some needed help in getting her message to us across, as it is quite serious, so with the courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, I’ll give it a go, after setting forth this portion of little Greta’s speech to the UN global climate crisis crowd on 11 December 2019 aimed at us, to wit:

For about a year I have been constantly talking about our rapidly declining carbon budgets over and over again.

But since that is still being ignored, I will just keep repeating it.

In chapter two, on page 108 in the SR 1.5 IPCC report that came out last year, it says that if we ought to have a 6% to 7% chance of limiting the global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, we had on January 1, 2018, 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit in that budget.

And of course that number is much lower today as we emit about 42 gigatons of CO2 every year including land use.

With today’s emissions levels, that remaining budget will be gone within about eight years.

These numbers aren’t anyone’s opinions or political views.

This is the current best available science.

Though many scientists suggest these figures or too moderate.

These are the ones that have been accepted through the IPCC, and please note that these figures are global and therefore do not say anything about the aspect of equity, which is absolutely essential to make the Paris Agreement to work on a global scale.

That means that richer countries need to do their fair share and get down to real zero emissions much faster and then help poorer countries do the same, so people in less fortunate parts of the world can raise their living standards.

end quotes

And there it is, people, we have been told in no uncertain terms by little Greta what it is we must do to save the world for Greta and her friends to enjoy – we have to get down to ZERO EMISSIONS, pronto, and no excuses accepted, or little Greta and her friends won’t like us on Facebook, which is some serious **** indeed.

So, if we don’t want little Greta feeling bad about herself because we greedy Americans have stolen her childhood from her because of our profligate lifestyles over here that are going to cause the world to end in 2030, we need to do our part in this drama by going to ZERO EMISSIONS of carbon dioxide, which means first of all, NO MORE RESPIRATION by humans in America because every time we exhale, and don’t try to kid us that you don’t, because it is a scientific fact that we all do, we emit the toxic and noxious carbon dioxide that is destroying the world and killing people in other countries which is quite upsetting to little Greta, so we have to stop exhaling now.

If we all stop breathing in this country, which would be our fair share to this effort, that alone will remove gigatons of carbon pollution from the atmosphere, and since that is simple and easy, that is where we should start.

And then, no combustion of any sort, period!

No stick matches, no BIC lighters at Garth Brooks concerts, no campfires, no bar-b-cues, because all of those things emit carbon dioxide, so that to get to zero emissions as is our duty to the rest of the world, NO MORE FIRES of any kind, people, which would include oil-burning furnaces and propane or natural gas.

There are more gigatons of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere, which should make little Greta euphorically happy.

And after that, I don’t think we need to worry about much else, because what little Greta really is asking for from us is that we as a nation and as a people commit suicide by going to ZERO EMISSIONS to save the world for little Greta and her friends, because with zero emissions of carbon dioxide, life on earth is not possible!

As for me, I’m thinking that I’m taking a pass, myself, on committing suicide to make Greta Thunberg in Sweden feel good about herself and all warm and squishy inside while I sit here in the winter cold freezing and starving.

As for anyone wishing to ride the Greta Train to Eternal Paradise, where life is beautiful all the time, step in line, grab yourself a cup of Kool-Aid, and don’t mind the bitter taste, it’s a new flavor is all, and after a moment, everything for little Greta will be just fine!

The impeachment effort against President Trump hinges on his motives, and has he used that power for personal gain?

The questions about Hunter Biden and his involvement with Burisma Holdings, the company that paid Hunter Biden tens of thousands of dollars per month to serve on its board, was on the Ukrainian prosecutor’s radar before Mr. Trump became president. The question is whether the Obama administration, including Vice President Joseph Biden, used America’s power to influence Ukraine’s government.

These questions are matters of established public concern. A president has a right to seek answers about them.

Trump’s actions are coherent with what he has stated for decades. He believes that America’s leadership class has harmed the country even as it has enriched itself and entrenched its power through the federal bureaucracy and career politicians.

Insular Washington inside-the-beltway dealings, from foreign policy to the ways in which career politicians and their families can make millions off their connections, are seen by Mr. Trump and his voters as the source of the country’s problems.

Both parties have contributed to endless wars and declining manufacturing–and the Deplorables have felt most of the pain.

This corruption is part of the fabric that makes up politicians like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and the Bush Dynasty. They are the “deep state.”

Mr. Trump can be a bull in a china shop, but like it or not, he is an outsider that was elected as a force for change. (Mr. Trump, unlike many of the politicians like Obama and Biden made his fortune before entering politics.)

Which makes it clear why he is being attacked by the corrupt political class and the media outlets that protect them. Trump is being impeached for things that are among the Executive Branch’s well-established powers.

 In 2016, Vice President Biden used the threat of withholding aid to pressure the president of Ukraine at that time, Petro Poroshenko, to dismiss the country’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin.

Mr. Shokin was widely perceived as corrupt by the United States and international officials. Mr. Biden potentially stood to gain something himself from the prosecutor’s firing.

Even then, those powers of the Executive Branch allow for the ability to delay supplying congressionally authorized aid. Even using a delay to get foreign leaders to cooperate with an administration’s demands is not itself an offense of the kind that the Constitution demands for impeachment.

This year, challenger, Volodymyr Zelensky, who had painted the incumbent as corrupt, won the Ukrainian election.

Trump then tries to get Ukraine’s new leader to look into Burisma, the Bidens and Mr. Shokin’s dismissal, that is, fight corruption–something he said he was going to do.

Trump’s opponents treat deep state mechanics as if they were laws. But Mr. Trump openly campaigned in 2016 as someone who would “drain the swamp” and end the legal but corrupt trade in money and influence.

The people also voted for Trump to change America’s foreign policy. The Democrats and Republicans, along with the Civil Service had embroiled the country in endless wars and dubious adventures such as Libya (which cost an ambassador his life) and Syria. Everyone knows that Trump has open disdain for career officials serving in places like Ukraine. He also believes this is something he was elected to take care of. What we have thus far seen in the impeachment hearings makes it clear. The objectives of deep state and career bureaucrats are different from the President’s.

But, Trump is the President, and he gets to make policy decisions, not worthless rats like Lt. Col. Vindmen.

Asking Zelensky, elected on an anti-corruption agenda to account for Ukraine’s dealings with the Bidens is perfectly legitimate. Exposing the corruption of the Obama Administration is in the legitimate interest of the United States.

Helen of Troy is known to those who study ancient history as the “Face The Launched A Thousand Ships,” while Hillary Rodham Clinton is known to those who study contemporary history as “The Face That Launched A Raft Of Bull****,” and out of that raft of bull****, with the aid and assistance of some of the very best architects the Democrats could scrounge up from the ranks of the Democrat party to be sure of their loyalty, the Democrats fabricated the most elaborate House of Cards this nation has ever seen in all of its history, to cover over Hillary Clinton’s dirty dealings with the Russians to make Mother Russia stronger at the expense of the United States of America, and now that the bull**** the Democrats used as glue to hold their House of Cards together is drying out with age, and the House of Cards is coming tumbling down around their ears as we, the American people, get to watch the sick and silly show in real time with technicolor and surround sound, and here I am referring to a CNN article entitled “Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena” by Jeremy Herb and Manu Raju on June 25, 2019, where we were treated to the following BLOCKBUSTER NEWS, to wit: 

Robert Mueller will testify before Congress on July 17 after House Democrats issued a subpoena for his appearance, a move that paves the way for a reluctant special counsel to answer questions publicly for the first time about his 22-month investigation into President Donald Trump.

The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees announced Tuesday that Mueller had agreed to testify after they issued subpoenas for his testimony, and Mueller would appear in public before the two panels next month.

“Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign’s acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates’ obstruction of the investigation into that attack,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

end quotes

And of course that statement from Schiff and Nadler that “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel” is itself pure horse****, as can be expected from those two clowns, as we can see by going back to a poll in The Hill on 12/19/2018, where we had as follows concerning the Mullet and his report, to wit:

In a new Hill.TV/American Barometer poll released Friday, 58 percent of registered voters said they believe that Mueller’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election is unbiased, while 42 percent characterized the probe as biased.

As might be expected, the results were split largely along party lines.

Of respondents that identified as Republicans, 77 percent said they think the Mueller probe is biased and designed to hurt the president while only 23 percent saw the investigation as fair.

Democrats were even more lopsided in their support for the special counsel.

Eighty-seven percent of those surveyed who identified as Democrats called Mueller fair with just 13 percent describing him as being biased.

Independents continue to view Mueller positively with 60 percent saying he is unbiased and 40 percent saying the opposite.

“The polls are remarkably consistent on Mueller and the job that he’s doing on the Russia investigation,” Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute told “What America’s Thinking” host Joe Concha. 

However, it is possible that public confidence in him may wane over time, she added.

“What I think we’re beginning to see just little hints of is fatigue with the investigation and we’ll be watching that going forward, but at this point, he has strong support for continuing the investigation and he seems to rise above politics in Washington right now.”

end quotes

So, as of 12/19/2018, some six months ago now, the American people were already showing signs of fatigue with the Mullet and his report, and today, as we shall see, that has the Democrats panicking, which then takes us to an article in The Hill on 5/7/2019 entitled “Pollster: Mueller report publication had little effect on public opinion,” where we have as follows:

The publication of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report about the circumstances surrounding Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has not significantly changed public opinion about President Trump and the investigation as a whole, pollster Mallory Newall said Tuesday. 

“Some Americans are always going to care, but they have cared already.”

“They have cared long before the Mueller investigation and question about [Trump’s] finances.”

“Other Americans are going to believe that — they don’t trust the media.”

“They don’t trust what they are saying, and they believe the president.”

“This is not an issue for them,” Newall, the research director at Ipsos Public Affairs, told “What America’s Thinking” host Jamal Simmons.

“It speaks to which tribe you are listening to, and which tribe you belong to,” she said.

Fifteen percent of respondents to an Ipsos/Reuters survey conducted in April said the Mueller report had changed their minds about the Trump campaign and/or Russia’s involvement in the presidential race, while 70 percent said that the Muller report did not change their mind.

“I think what it shows, more than anything, is the deep political and tribal splits right now,” Newall added.

end quotes

And then we have an article from CNBC entitled “Not innocent, not guilty, no consensus’ – The Mueller report has not changed Americans’ minds about Trump and Russia: NBC/WSJ poll” by John Harwood published May 5, 2019, which informs us as follows concerning who cares about the Mullet Report today, to wit:

So far, at least, release of the Mueller report hasn’t changed public opinion about President Donald Trump even a little bit.

That’s the conclusion of the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, taken following public dissemination of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings on Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential obstruction of justice since then. 

Fully eight in 10 Americans say they’ve heard the news, but virtually no minds changed.

“The public has reached a hung jury,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the NBC/WSJ poll with Republican counterpart Bill McInturff. 

“Not innocent, not guilty, no consensus.” 

Twenty-nine percent say Mueller has cleared the president of wrongdoing, the same proportion who had predicted that before the report’s release. 

A 42% plurality says Mueller did not clear Trump, while 29% remain unsure.

Nor have numbers moved on the matter of potential impeachment by Congress.

Just 17% say enough evidence exists for the House to begin impeachment hearings, virtually identical to responses to the same question in March. 

Another 32% want Congress to continue investigating and decide on impeachment later.

Taking those two together, that means 49% want Congress not to drop the issue. 

A matching 48% has heard enough to say flatly that the House should not pursue impeachment.

end quotes

So that is hardly conclusive that “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel,” and what it really shows is that it is a minority of Americans who really care at this point in time what the Mullet has to say that has not already been said over and over and over a hundred times now, as the Democrats flog the bejaysus out of this dead horse in a futile effort to get it to run faster, out of desperation, which takes us to a NEWSWEEK article entitled “WHO REALLY CARES ABOUT MUELLER REPORT? NEW POLL FINDS ONE-THIRD OF VOTERS DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO WILLIAM BARR IS” by Daniel Moritz-Rabson on 4/18/19, as follows:

Almost one-third of registered voters had not heard of Attorney General William Barr days before a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report was set to be released to Congress and the public.

Thirty percent of 1,005 people interviewed in a Fox News poll said they had never heard of Barr, who has been at the center of a political firestorm surrounding Mueller’s investigation since he was sworn in two months ago.

The poll, which was released on Wednesday evening before a Thursday morning press conference about the report, seemed to hint at a political divide in the country.

“Dear Hyperventilating Beltway Folks, Please note the strong showing of ‘Never Heard Of.'”

“This is where most normal people are on this story,” Dante Chinni, the director of the American Communities Project at George Washington University, tweeted.

Barr’s release, last month, of a summary of the Mueller report similarly evoked concerns among Democrats that the attorney general was protecting the president. 

The summary said that Mueller did not conclude that either Trump or his associates had conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 presidential election, and while the evidence was insufficient to determine whether Trump had obstructed justice, the report did not exonerate him.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi harshly described Barr’s summary.

“We don’t need you interpreting for us.”

“It was condescending, it was arrogant, and it wasn’t the right thing to do.”

“So, the sooner they can give us the information, the sooner we can all make a judgment about it,” she said last month.

At a news conference on Wednesday night, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler accused Barr of operating in a partisan manner by briefing the White House on the contents of the report before offering a version to lawmakers.

“The central concern here is that Attorney General Barr is not letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, but is trying to bake in the narrative about the report to the benefit of the White House,” Nadler said.

end quotes

And that essential background brings us back to the CNN article entitled “Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena” by Jeremy Herb and Manu Raju on June 25, 2019, to wit:

Mueller’s testimony is poised to be the most-anticipated congressional hearing in years, and represents a huge moment for House Democrats who have wrestled with whether to dive into a politically divisive impeachment process following the Mueller investigation and White House stonewalling of congressional probes.

end quotes

And there we have it, people!

Can you just imagine it – the Mullet’s testimony is poised to be the most-anticipated congressional hearing in years, and it represents a huge moment for House Democrats who have wrestled with whether to dive into a politically divisive impeachment process following the Mueller investigation!

Why, this is even bigger than the Beatles coming on the Ed Sullivan Show or Woodstock, people!

A once in a lifetime opportunity, so be sure to not miss it. 

And now we must pause for station identification and a word from our sponsors, but don’t go away, for this political thriller called “The Decline And Fall Of The Democrat Party” is just getting to the interesting parts, and we will be right back with more.

Special Opinion by Charles Landis

In the ES  News, May 24, 2019, guest columnist Daniel Fountain writes about why he thinks some still get indoctrinated in the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. He argues it is because the United Daughters of the Confederacy and others have been untruthful about the history of the Confederacy. Mr. Fountain is a history professor, and he should have been more truthful.

There was no referendum on decision of Southern states to secede from the Union. 854 men, mostly wealthy plantation owners, were selected by the state legislators to attend conventions  to decide on secession. 697 voted for and  157 voted against; thus a small group of rich and powerful men (697) decided for 9 million mostly poor people, not the voters.

My grandfather and five of his sons joined the Confederate Army. They had no vote in secession or to fight. Like most, all they knew was South Carolina fired on a Union fort in Charleston, and Lincoln had mobilized 15,000 troops and was going to invade the South. Slavery had been accepted for over 250 years, was legal under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (Dred Scott) said slaves were property. Note. Until the Revolutionary War ¾ of the immigrants were indentured or bonded, and many did not live much beyond the indenture period. Some of my ancestors (from Palatine) came to America in boats where the death rate was higher than on slave ships.

 My grandfather was severely wounded at Petersburg, and three of his sons were killed. There is a memorial to my grandfather, as captain of the Granville Graves of North Carolina, and the other fallen soldiers. My grandmother and three of daughters (aunts) were among the Daughters of the Confederacy who helped erect this and other  memorials. One of my aunts went on to become administrative assistant to General Omar Bradley when he headed the Veterans Administration. There are countless testimonials to all the good works she did on behalf of veterans of every war from the Civil War to World War II and after. (Including FDR, General Bradley, and awards from veteran organizations).

Yes, slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War, but the primary purpose of Lincoln was to preserve the Union. Lincoln only freed slaves in states in rebellion. HE did not believe the black man was the equal of the white man. He was a segregationist.

A quarter of the Union Army were mercenaries from Germany, Ireland, and Scandinavia. My ancestor’s homes were looted and razed, their crops destroyed, and I have a letter written by grandfather telling of the hardships during the occupation reconstruction. They fought because they were being invaded. Period.

The memorials are not for the Lost Cause but for veterans and all the lost blood.

This opinion is special to the Mirror by Paul Ewell

Interesting story in the Eastern Shore Post written as an attempt to mislead the general population about the facts concerning the Menhaden Industry. I’ve tried to steer clear of politics and controversial issues on here as much as possible but I refuse to keep quiet about this particular issue.

This continual banter about the detrimental effects of Virginia’s Menhaden Industry is nothing more than an attack on the commercial fishing industry as a whole. Why we do we continue to hear so much about this particular industry?

It’s simply because it is the only commercial fishing segment in Virginia not controlled by the VMRC. Neither the VMRC nor the recreational fishing lobby can touch this industry and, quite frankly, it’s driving them crazy (think the Trump Effect for comparative purposes). 

Consider this. The science community (yes, that’s right) continues to contend that the menhaden population is NOT overfished. This is, based on scientific evidence, not disputable. Of course, the recreational folks, many of whom are, in fact, engaged in and dependent on the commercial aspects of the recreational rockfish industry, are continually spouting off about the rockfish population. Rockfish were not overfished.

As any waterman with experience will tell you, generally (though not in every scenario) fish are cyclical. And, they didn’t read that in a book. You can’t replace decades of experience on the Chesapeake Bay with a book. Sorry. Rockfish are on a down cycle.

As a result (yet another turn of events), the crab population appears to be on the incline. Why? There are less rockfish to eat them, of course. Understanding that concept requires no book or decades of experience, just a little common sense.

So, as I read the story in the Post I had to chuckle a little. As you read that story, please remember it is an editorial; an opinion piece and remember those age-old words of wisdom…..opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.

Have a good day and to Omega Protein and all others engaged in the menhaden industry, fish on!