RSS
“We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That’s a lot of jobs; that’s a lot of new economic activity.” So intoned Hillary Clinton, during the first presidential debate at Hofstra University, New York, on September 26.
Where have we heard this before? Like Clinton, President Obama hasn’t a clue how a viable market is created and sustained. Solyndra, if you recall, was awarded $527 million from taxpayers. Each of the temporary, unsustainable jobs created by Solyndra and touted by Obama cost $479,000. Obama thought this was sufficient to secure a profitable market for the product.
Clinton is every bit the cretin when it comes to the market economy.
Donald Trump, however, is good at this; business is his bailiwick. He has spoken so well in interviews about the unviable nature of the green energy industry (unless, of course, it’s privately funded and the risk is neither subsidized nor socialized). Trump can’t allow the arrogant certitude begun with Obama and Solyndra to continue with Clinton.
For Trump understands how demand is generated and sustained. How many times has he recounted on TV, for example, that so expensive are solar panels, that by the time these panels have paid for themselves—also known as “a return on investment”—it’s time to replace them? In a May appearance in Bismarck, North Dakota, on the occasion of his reaching and surpassing the magic delegate threshold (chronicled in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed”), Trump spoke eloquently about deregulating energy.
Clean coal can be restored, he remarked, if regulations are reduced. The money quote Trump should repeat, from that appearance: “Free-up coal and let the market work. Market forces are a beautiful thing.” Indeed they are.
Back to the larger principle:
When Clinton dares to mention the environment and how much money she’ll steal from you and me to enrich and entrench global bureaucracies who’ll adjudicate environmental affairs—Trump must bring it back to America First. And to immigration.
NumbersUSA has studied and documented in detail the impact of an annual influx of 2-3 million people (counting the illegal intake), on our American ecosystems.
According to “Roy Beck’s celebrated demonstration of the population consequences of current US immigration policies,” the devil is in the unsustainable numerical details. In the four decades prior to 1965—which is when the Act that heralded the age of legal mass immigration was undemocratically enacted—America welcomed an average of 178,000 immigrants each year. Beck calls these years the Golden Era of immigration, characterized as they were by tight labor markets, which encouraged capital investment, and increased productivity and hence wages. America was solidly middle-class. Like others in prosperous developed countries, Americans had “chosen family sizes that allowed for a stabilized U.S. population.”
Formulated by federal fiat in 1965, the new immigration policy saw an exponential increase in the number of legal immigrants admitted annually into the US. Throughout the 1990s immigration averaged 1 million legal immigrants a year. Combined with the number of illegal arrivals, the annual intake exceeded 3 million. As a result of this increase, “every aspect of American society has changed,” attests Beck.
As on most matters of national identity—language and faith, for example—elite and public attitudes diverge on immigration. “In nineteen polls from 1945 to 2002,” writes Samuel P. Huntington, “the proportion of the public favoring increased immigration never rose above 14 percent.” Between 70 and 80 percent of Americans want immigration cut—not because they are “deplorable,” to go by Mrs. Clinton’s libel—but because they experience mass immigration first-hand.
Indeed, government immigration policy reflects America’s “denationalized elites,” who are committed to transnational and sub-national identities. From their vantage point, cultivated usually from the serenity of their stately homes, these open-border libertarians and utilitarians will often tout the advantages of high-population density.
Apparently, Cairo and Calcutta are models for the specialization that comes with an increased division of labor. However, if American history (circa 1894) is anything to go by, the scarcity and high cost of labor helped propel this country into its position as the world’s leading industrial power. These factors, observed historian Paul Johnson, “[G]ave the strongest possible motive not only to invent but to buy and install labor-saving machinery, the essence of high productivity, and so mass production.”
History notwithstanding, Clinton’s open-ended immigration policy amounts to a philosophy of act globally, trash locally. Thus when Clinton so much as mentions the environment, Trump ought to bring it back to America’s natural resources; remind her that non-traditional rates of immigration have required doubling the expenditure on infrastructure—building twice as many schools, sewage treatment plants, roads and streets. “The majority of all new additional infrastructure needs over the past quarter century are the result of Washington’s immigration policies,” notes the aforementioned Mr. Beck.
In California, a school will have to be built every day in perpetuity to keep up with the unremitting influx. Urban sprawl, traffic congestion, overcrowding, pollution, and rural land loss—there isn’t a community in the US that’ll escape the social and environmental degradation witnessed in California and Florida.
Look, the destruction of this country’s social fabric has never bothered leftists or environmentalists. But what of its natural treasures? They claim to care about those. At the current rate of immigration, 40 percent of America’s lakes and streams are no longer fishable or swimmable. What will be their fate in the middle of the century?
If Trump had advisers who coached him in argument, debate would proceed as follows: No sooner would the woman, The Hildebeest, begin to prattle about working with “our global partners” to save the planet—than Trump would pounce.
He’d ask her to tell the American people what she imagines is the impact on the environment of the millions rushing the southern border, and then defecating and despoiling their way to their destinations in the US. This vivid description is not mine, but courtesy of a Time magazine cover, in which the reporters bewailed “a land on the southern border turned into a vast latrine, revolting mounds of personal refuse everywhere and enough discarded plastic bags to stock a Wal-Mart.”
Clinton and her gangreens are cosmopolitans, citizens of the world. Population explosion they consider a global—not a local—affair. They’ll gladly trash Americans for their lavish lifestyles, but about the imperiled quality-of-life across American communities they couldn’t give a tinker’s toss.
Yes, ecosystems are intertwined, but talk Trump must, and passionately so, about the natural environment around us and what Hillary Clinton’s annual deluge of immigrants and refugees is doing to our country’s ecosystems and their critters.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Most people don’t give a shit about the environment, for better or worse. Let her beat that dead horse.
Trump would destroy the Clinton by the simple method of having full spectrum dominance of short range radio frequencies.
Crank it up and have her screaming on the stage.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/first-presidential-debate-hillary-clinton-sick/
AND
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/09/27/whats-that-underneath-hillary-clintons-jacket-at-926-debate-with-trump/
America First – is dismantling Wall Street’s monstrous grip over American politicians and world economy for the benefit of a hundred fat-cats – most Zionist Jews.
The US and EU is not hated by the world over immigration – 60% of which happened to be Muslims uprooted by Western proxy wars for the Zionist entity.
Remember how the Occupy Wall Street protest were while supported by immigrant workers – but viciously condemned by the Jewish Lobby and Israelized internal security agencies.
Toronto-born American Jewish columnist David Brooks claimed that OWS is anti-Jewish. In an Op-Ed published in ‘The Jew York Times’ (October 10, 2011), entitled ‘The Milquetoast Radicals’, he wrote: “Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the (Canadian) magazine Adbusters, previously best known for 2004 essay, Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?, an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews and their nefarious grip on policy. If there is a core theme to Occupy Wall Street movement, it is that the virtuous 99 percent of society is being cheated by the richest and greediest 1 percent….
https://rehmat1.com/2011/10/16/is-occupy-wall-street-movement-anti-jewish/
Hillary’s concern for the environment (I presume you mean Hillary, not Ilana, by ‘her’) is rubbish, she sure improved the environment in Libya, for one (not!).
People who don’t care about the environment are ignorant pigs, generally the super-rich who stand to make a profit from raping the environment, or people from the bottom of the gene pool, usually immigrants in my experience overseas.
They go fishing, they dump the unused bait in formerly lovely rock pools, the bait putrefies, the pool dies.
They go on a picnic, finish eating, stand, walk away, and leave all of their rubbish in place.
Plenty of Japanese slobs in Tokyo, too, but a minority, I can shame them at times. Plenty in the provinces, too.
Not caring about the environment is a sign of ignorance or the version of neoconservatism that poses as being somehow radical.
Quite a few of the dimmer neocon columnists in Western countries use, for example, driving a 4wd in the way most calculated to damage the landscape as a ploy to make themselves out to be imaginative rebels. No doubt, that inspires many of their dimmer fans to feel better doing the same.
What about you Jason, do you believe there are no meaningful ways to care for the natural environment?
Solar power is a joke. Here is an article from Pierre, South Dakota, on the city using ten acres of land to setup a solar farm. It is going to provide 3% of the city’s power needs. Pierre has a population of less than 15,000. Trump needs to hit her on the combination of this and the immigration issue.
http://www.capjournal.com/news/pierre-commission-approves-solar-farm-project-at-airport/article_ae1359be-172c-11e6-bed3-6b905a200f54.html
Yes, I wish he would talk about the environment but it’s not such an easy problem to explain, let alone fix.
For example:
Australian naturalist Peter Andrews points out that the first humans to arrive in Australia would have found it entirely green, fertile and forested (like so much of the Earth at that time) exerting a natural cooling effect on the planet. Now for the most part, it’s a sun baked desert.
And the process is continuing. As Chris Maser says, ,” Each year, an area 80% the size of the State of Oregon burns in the Brazilian Amazon alone”, and this is a lot, considering that tropical rainforests are one of the world’s oldest ecosystems, occupying only 7% of the Earth’s surface but home to more than 50% of all the Earth’s species”.
Andrews goes on to suggest that the key is rebuilding green cover (the maximum ground surface covered in green plants – of any kind) with leaves and dead plants being returned to the soil, and quickly rebuilding fertility and habitats with their associated wildlife.
Pipelines don’t make the slightest difference and are just an opportunity for leftist Counter Cultural flag waving, obscuring the fact that protecting and rebuilding the natural world is a CONSERVATIVE CONCEPT.
Politicians and the public don’t have a clue. Every US citizen whether they have a flower box or a 1000 acre ranch can commit to rebuilding green cover and BTW it would also promote classless national unity around a worthwhile cause.
It’s also a broader problem. The Swiss for example, have had a deep Democracy since the Middle Ages, and the reason that it works for their communities (rather that special interests) is involvement down to the lowest level, with a legal obligation to meet and discuss opposing views + largely local funding for schools, welfare etc.
British academic, Kenrick Jones, interviewed Monsieur Kyburz, Lord Mayor of the 46 Communes of Geneva and Mayor of the Commune of Carouge, who stated that the driving force behind all Swiss democracy is the principle of subsidiarity i.e. devolving power down to the smallest viable unit that can support it. “So in Geneva,” said the Lord Mayor, “each Commune has as much power as it can usefully exploit.”. He also notes that participatory democracy can be frustrating and costly but that citizen involvement makes it more than worthwhile.
The suggestion is that it comes down to the active commitment of every citizen, regardless of the subject – environment, Democracy or whatever.
On my travels by rail, I see many places that were once rice paddies, now fields of solar panels.
Not a nice sight, I gather herbcides are used to keep the vegetation under them down.
Reasons are generous payouts for feeding power into the grid (when they can), and children not wanting to keep the farm going.
Sad.
Renewables will always be useless much of the time, except for hydro in water-rich places.
Here, the main power plants are hydro, nuclear (although most are still mothballed post Fukushima No. 1), gas turbines. Output and fuel consumption are adjustable with gas and nuclear power. So non-hydro renewables can make a useful contribution at times.
Doesn’t work at all with coal-fired plants as the main ingredient, no way to really tune them.
Biggest problem with the idea of renewables, purely from the PoV of effiency, is that there is no efficient means of storage. Several concepts, none works as of now.
It may well have worked out in a world where the Islamic world and sub-Saharan Africa weren’t attempting to wage demographic warfare, but in the world we live in, they do.
So, things are hopeless, and a huge crash is inevitable.
If it does work for the masses, then it probably also works partly because of its relatively small scale.:
The concept was recognized by the prominent Anti-federalist, “Brutus,” (Robert Yates),who wrote,
Large, centralized bureaucracies are anathema to those who desire democracy and freedom. In fact, its useful to note that democracy itself can be, probably more often than not, antagonistic to political freedom.
I’m a devotee of environmental awareness, and as such, I like to do some desultory fact-checking.
The Brazilian state of Amazonas covers about 606,000 square miles. Other Amazon-encompassing states are Amapa, Roraima, and Para, together being about equal in size to Amazonas. Thus, we have about 13 million square miles of “Amazon basin”. It’s probably somewhat less, but let’s not quibble.
80% of Oregon, at 98,000 square miles, is 80,000 square miles — call it.
Do the division, you get 15 years to burn the whole thing. The Amazon basin should have been burned to the ground, utterly devastated, a long time ago.
Hey, be eco-friendly — we all should do our parts. But, DON’T BULLSHIT!!
I should have been more concise,
“3% in summer if the weather is fine,
just about nothing the rest of the time.”
Still, I stick by the points in my earlier post.
LOL. More BS from a true BS artist.
Vegetation doesn’t grow under solar panels because the panels block sunlight. Vegetation requires sunlight in order to grow. There’s a square mile of solar panels 4 miles from my house. Vegetation underneath them ….. zero.
Anyhoo, LOL all over again. You do this a lot. It’s sometimes entertaining on a slow day, but mostly I just skip your comments.
Nope. Works fine, lasts a long time, just not cost-effective for large-scale power distribution. In properly-sized applications, it’s a very good treatment for power requirements.
It is possible that future development will improve efficiency to the point where solar is viable for large-scale projects. There’s no good reason to stop research and development on something with the potential of solar. Don’t be a Philistine.
Fishing is one of my favorite pastimes and I don’t believe this at all. Source of your information, Ilana? I don’t need this to be against illegal and third-world immigration, H1-B and H2-B visas replacement of domestic employees. I understand that both the dems and republicans have worked to destroy our social and economic fabric. That is why I want the traitors dead.
In my experience most people at least claim to care about the environment, as long as they don’t have to change their lifestyle at all (even if that change doesn’t objectively result in a decreased standard of living).
Restored?
When was it ever clean, in any sense?
While I’m all for free markets, I’m also aware that there never has been any such thing on a large scale. nor are the prospects good as far as I can tell.
The nearest thing the US has ever come to that is a free-for-all market where the biggest thieves did what they pleased and damn everything else. In fact it started long before there was a US.
United States is still a White majority (60%) country.
According to UN environment agency – “United States, not only is it one of the worst countries in terms in of CO2 emissions, but also with regard to water pollution and endangered species”.
Americans (6% of world population) consume 40% of world food and produce 50% of world garbage.
https://rehmat1.com/2008/09/27/capitalism-at-the-best/
He may have meant the whole Amazon rain forest 2.100.000 sq miles (as of now) but I don’t know how much bigger it was in 1992 when he wrote his book – or what happened afterwards (Chris Maser: “Global Imperative, Harmonizing Culture and Nature).
You’re right that it can’t be the Brazilian Amazon alone.
It’s not that I don’t understand motivations — but let’s not get carried away.
What bothers me is the claim of “burning”, particularly 80,000 square miles a year. Ever been in the Amazon basin? Maybe in the southern segments, in a dry season, you could get some decent burn going, in the sense of primitive “slash and burn agriculture” — assuming that the Brazilian interior is being penetrated at such a rate and for not-entirely-clear reasons, by that method. But, burn that wet jungle? Don’t think so.
I lived in Brazil for many years. There is a lumber industry that accounts for some significant degree of deforestation — for good, bad or indifferent, granted. But, burning? Valuable lumber? Don’t think so.
Well, gee, aren’t you glad? Food for you to eat, and garbage to return to the soil. At least we keep our garbage local — it’s not climbing fences, fording rivers, piling-in friends and relatives by the thousands on H1B visas, and flying in to LA to get birthright citizenship for Junior.
CO2 is not a pollutant and is necessary for life on this planet. It is also a minor greenhouse gas. AGW is junk-science fraud, and the UN environmental agency is a crackpot political agency, not a scientific one.
So when the demographics flip and the white population is then in the minority, all of a sudden the climate issue will be resolved, and the US no longer is the environmental culprit, because people of color and not inclined to defile the environment, such as white folks, and produce huge amounts of garbage. Is this what you are saying? Authenticjazzman, pro jazz performer, conservative and “Mensa” member of forty-plus years. (DT 2016)
Well, why not mark me as automaticallly never to read? Ron Unz offers this unique option here.
Your words. We have a slight difference, I post annoying things at times, knowing that they are, but always true, you carry on like a stomping bully. I was trying to find your worst quotes to feed back to you, but they have been deleted.
The above quote from you is enough to display your idiocy and trollishness.
I can imagine you, slumped over your keyboard, pizza boxes in the background, umpteenth sugary drink of the day in hand, playing at being a troll.
Sorry, I am immune.
Tank you for the clear and fact-based post.
I read “13 million square miles.” Did you mean 1.3 million square miles? If so, your math checks.
Otherwise, I like the way you question statements of “facts.”
If Hillary mandated 500 million solar panels we would have 1.5 per US resident. At 100W per panel and an average of 5 hours per day of full sun, that would generate 0.75 KWhrs of energy per per person. About 1 horsepower-hour. Enough to run gadgets or to fill a partially discharged car battery, but not enough to run a big household appliance or industrial equipment. With our deteriorating electric grids, it might actually be a good idea for many people. Unfortunately, when WaDC gets involved in a project they usually manage to mess it up.
You have no idea, and are purely a troll and a moron.
The soil under the solar panels is still fertile (if it was in the first place, which it very much is, in the places I mention). The panels are at fixed angles, ergo, sunlight reaches the ground much of the time.
Lord, I can tolerate but not like Rehmat’s one-third-truths, but you are a cretin nonpareil.
Ah, immune, I see. That’s why you dedicated three paragraphs to personal attacks, one quote from a comment addressed to someone else (Miro) on a different topic entirely, and not one word to correcting your error.
You’re too funny, and too typical, to just Ignore.
I checked Wikipedia for the area of the Brazilian state, Amazonas, which is slightly less than half of the Amazon basin. Miro contributed that the total area of the Amazon basin is approximately 2.1 million square miles, which seems about right.
I don’t know where “13 million” came from. Did I do a typo error somewhere? I don’t recall listing that figure.
……Whoops, found it. My error, sorry. Let’s just stick with Miro’s 2.1 million total area. 🙂
I almost never read the name of the “commenter”.
But as soon as I read “Zionist Jews”, I said, “Is that Rehmat?”……yep.
Hey Rehmat, you could show even more disdain by NOT capitalizing “Zion” or “Jew”.
Power companies don’t want no stinking solar energy.
Fill up Switzerland with a bunch of non-white Third Worlders and get back with us on why things work for the Swiss.
So what’s the problem? The school building will not bring economic growth and jobs? congested roads and urban sprawl are not a sign of progress?
That’s the whole point. It’s probably not going to happen.
Anyone can launch a Popular Initiative to invite Third World immigrants into Switzerland if they collect a certain percentages of signatures. The next step is a Commission of Inquiry (long and detailed) that airs the issue and questions the different affected parties prior to a referendum vote.
The system covers any issue. In a 2005 referendum same sex couples were granted the same legal rights as heterosexuals but were not allowed to adopt children. In 1994 a successful Popular Initiative led to the banning of heavy lorries passing through alpine villages en route to Italy (vote 51.9% for, 48.1% against).
Hey, I know, let’s keep using oil until it runs out and we have to fight resource wars over the oil and NG fields!!!
If a small fraction of the tax subsidies and cash given to coal, oil and the nuke industry had been showered on the renewable energy fields, the USA could be like Costa Rica, supplying over 90% of our electrical needs that way instead of barking like mad dogs at the Full Moon, trying to outbutch each other over which dwindling energy supply is better to use, oil or NG.
We could toss caution to the wind and got all coal, like China, and be like Peking, which has coal smog so bad, on certain days, one has to wear a mask to walk outside.
Let’s not even think about the dozen or so Fukushimas in the USA, nuke power plants that are past their SAFE operating date, but since we’re so broke, fighting these wars for Wall Street and Israel, we don’t have the funds to replace these ticking time bombs, so let’s watch football, drink beer and not think!!!!
What I’m trying to say is that the Swiss system is very good at excluding Washington style Special Interest insiders. It passes legislation that reflects the needs and wishes of the whole community.
Of course it was Thank you 🙂
Oh, dear, not FRENCH!! Egads, the pure classiness!!
LOL. As I mentioned, there is a square mile of solar panels about 4 miles from here. Close placement of the panels prevents a situation where “sunlight reaches the ground much of the time.”
Maybe you could make a field trip, confirm that for yourself? Golly, no herbicides in use.
Keywords: “troll”, “moron” ,”cretin”
Why is Syria lucky to have a decent man as her president while the US has been suffering either a biblical imbecile (Bush the lesser) or political opportunists like Obama and Clinton?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3lihkh182I
Video Linktranscript: http://thesaker.is/interview-of-president-al-assad-to-denmarks-tv-2-moderate-opposition-is-a-myth/
It is possible that future development will improve efficiency to the point where solar is viable for large-scale projects.
Hmm – How many square feet of 100% efficient solar panels would it take to power an average American’s life – home and car.
How do they handle entropy in this renewable energy thing. Sounds like perpetual motion.
My suggestion is thorium breeder reactors, either gas cooled, or molten salt with a bit more work.
I have no idea, nor am I particularly interested. Frankly, I believe fusion power to be the only viable option. That might happen someday — after all the people who make a lot of money from existing power sources have gotten all there is to get.
Thanks! I appreciate your consistently informative comments as well!
“Biggest problem with the idea of renewables, purely from the PoV of effiency, is that there is no efficient means of storage.”
It’s remarkable how seldom this obvious problem comes up in discussions of “clean energy.” Solar and wind are obviously not reliable enough for base load needs, and have even less potential to be ramped up for peak load needs (not to mention that peak load is usually around 5:30 PM, which hardly matches well with peak power output from either).
The inescapable conclusion is that any power grid based to a significant degree on “renewable energy” would require vastly more storage capacity that current systems, which have minimal need for storage of electrical energy. Giant banks of batteries? Thousands of new dams, with pumped storage (water pumped uphill during off-peak hours, then run through the turbines for peak load)? It’s not a trivial problem. Yet it is dealt with largely by ignoring it, because everyone knows that “clean energy” is an obvious moral good that trumps all practical considerations.
JJS: “…it’s a very good treatment for power requirements.”
@Art: “Hmm – How many square feet of 100% efficient solar panels would it take to power an average American’s life – home and car.”
JJS: “I have no idea, nor am I particularly interested.”
1. Makes assertion about the viability of solar power.
2. Challenged to provide a minimal amount of technical knowledge to back up said assertion.
3. Admits near-total ignorance, changes to completely different unsupported assertion.
4. Heh.
Wrong. To wit: “It is possible that future development will improve efficiency to the point where solar is viable for large-scale projects.”
Wrong. Made no “said assertion”. Said: “It is possible”.
Wrong. Admitted to not knowing, or caring “How many square feet of 100% efficient solar panels would it take to power an average American’s life – home and car.” And again, not an assertion.
Mr. No, you are lying. In every respect, in every element, pure invention, pure lies. You are Ignored.
“Where have we heard this before? Like Clinton, President Obama hasn’t a clue how a viable market is created and sustained. Solyndra, if you recall, was awarded $527 million from taxpayers. Each of the temporary, unsustainable jobs created by Solyndra and touted by Obama cost $479,000. Obama thought this was sufficient to secure a profitable market for the product.
Clinton is every bit the cretin when it comes to the market economy.”
Elon Musk, your fellow countryman and huckster supreme, is pulling the same crap with his worthless cars and solar panels….living off the public dole.
how to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change.
Video Link
and while you are at it, look at Joel Salatin as one of the prime ones of “them that’s doing it”.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/07/roaming-charges-intimations-of-apocalypse/
“Hillary offers no solutions at all. She only mentions climate change in order to tweak Trump about his pig-headed climate change tweet being a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Tim Kaine is even worse. As governor, Kaine protected Virginia’s strip-mining coal industry and moved to expand offshore drilling. As senator, Kaine introduced legislation to overturn Obama’s post-Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling moratorium. His solution to fighting climate change is to build a new fleet of nuclear power plants.”
the crow has spoken.hurricane will move out to sea and there it will call out for crows….birds of storm to gather and circle
.a storm of crows.as the west wind blows.
So tell me Moshe – What are; a Zionist or a Jew?
While Zionist can be found in every religion and mostly among atheist – Jews are only whose mother happened to be Jewish.
For example, in 2012, Vienna’s Jewish community demanded an investigation into the remarks made by the anti-Muslim Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache and his associate Klaus Nittmann.
When the Jews and country’s leaders were attending the annual Holocaust memorial service – White-supremacists held a ball at the Viennese palace which attracts guests who include the anti-Jew fringe. Hundreds of Jews and non-White people gathered against the event. Police recorded only isolated violent incidents on Friday from demonstrators outside the Viennese palace.
Heinz-Christian Strache was quoted as saying the protests reminded him of Kristallnacht and the far-right ball-goers were “the new Jews.”
Freedom Party’s former popular leader, Jorg Haider, was allegedly assassinated by Israeli Mossad in a “car crash” on October 11, 2008. Only 16 days earlier, Haider had blamed the Zionist bankers for world’s problems for which he was awarded the title of being ‘anti-Semite’ by Israeli lobby Anti-Defamation League (ADL) even though Haider’s No.2 man, Peter Sichrovshky, was Jewish. On October 16, 1996, Sichrovsky was elected as one of six members of the European Parliament on the Freedom Party ticket.
Three-years-ago, following Israel-Firster Swiss MP Geert Wilders, Strache also had demanded that the Austrian parliament pass a ban on minaret construction and Muslim Hijab – it was hailed a good sign by the Zionist media in the West. In 2010, the Freedom Party even produced a video game, “Bye Bye Mosque”, which had drawn sharp criticism from Austria’s Social Democrats, Green Party and Muslim community….
https://rehmat1.com/2012/01/31/the-new-jews-rant-offends-austrian-jews/
rehmat
your obession with jews,your posting on many websites over many years,your convincing arguements makes me wonder why you have not started your own blog or website.
give it some thought.
Great video. Thanks. Peter Andrews talks about plants that can grow in low quality soils and how these can start positive cycles putting desertification in reverse.
He’s concerned about animals in paddocks harming green cover but the video solves this problem by keeping them moving.
rehmat says …..”jorg haider” and then “mossad”
rehmat….read this little horror story about haider linked below.i like the way you try to make haider look good at the expense of “the jews”.
personally i loath pedophiles and for that matter cultures that engage in sexual abuse of young children.as they say…there is no compulsion in relegion…know what i mean.
http://codshit.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/why-austrias-jrg-haider-was.html
When a communist party USA member (otherwise known as the Democrat party) talk about investment in “clean energy” or anything else that just means a transfer of wealth from the white tax paying animals to their cronies and special interest groups, racial or other.
Yeah, I just love how those white California illegal alien loving liberals are fleeing the former golden state due to mass immigration and it attendant problems like crime, congestion and overpopulation. It’s getting so bad that even Mexicans are now fleeing the problems created largely by their own presence.
Fuel cells can go some of the way, in some situations.
Toyota has a concept car where the drive is from a fuel cell under the bonnet, or from batteries in the boot.
When I saw it, I thought ‘Where can one put anything?’
Clearly a work-in-progress, but as always, as also. with electric vehicles, from where comes the energy for charging?
Well, the hope of “future development” has been ongoing for the last 30 years or so.
Solar power works in orbit and for small-scale robot expeditions out to Jupiter, that’s true.
Here on Earth, where there is weather, historical infrastructure (that is does not transport electricity losslessly), demand for continuous electrical power, scant ways of storing energy and economic constraints that amazingly don’t go away through subsidies or fake job creation (as fake as “military jobs” for that matter), solar power stays problematic.
Might as well:
1) Grow plants
2) That you then burn
I’ll stick with that. A practice of making didactic and sweeping statements like “solar power will never amount to a sack of beans” can put egg on the face somewhere down the line. Frankly, I don’t measure my self-worth in terms of how adamant my opinion may be on any subject.
Personally, I believe better returns would come from investing in development of fusion power. Also, I think that coal, oil, and conventional nuclear are dead ends. But, that’s just me.
Ilana Mercer is a immigrant, too.
Was the second debate the last hurrah for Trump?
That is what the elitist Republican Party mouthpiece – FoxJews – is saying (along with every other Jew MSM outlet). They are all for the elite Democrat establishment candidate. (Three or four FoxJews on air personalities are still 100% with Trump.)
Clearly the Republican elite establishment wants to lose the presidential election.
Clearly the Democrat elite establishment worked to defeat Sanders.
The men of the people – Trump and Sanders – were both dumped-on by their political party.
The Democrat party will go on – but what about the Republican Party?
The Republican Party is a traitor to the average American individual – PERIOD.
Should we just make a protest vote for the Libertarian Party?
Quoting Art : “Men of the people – Trump and Sanders”. Trump okay, but Sanders no fucking way, he’s just another communist nutcase who wants to see venezuelen/cuban conditions in the US, and him self immune, and well-off, as the head honcho.
I can vividly recall a photo report on F Castro from the the sixties presenting him with his collection of Alfa Romeos, which he zipped around in on his privat roads, while the rest of his subjects consummed potato soup and used leaves for toilet paper.
This scathing revelation of the the lie of communistic “Solidarity” was suddendly dropped as the medias realized they had made a huge counter-productive mistake in releasing it.
Fact is none of these wannabe communist liars have ever seen a “Workers paradise” from the inside, I have, I had visited several countries behind the wall in the early seventies, and it is a ugly depressing apparition.
Of course this all boils down to the deranged concept held by each new generation of commies : “They, the Russians and Chinese, Cubans, whoever, they were the wrong ones, and they really did not want to create a “True” communist heaven on earth, and we, the new generation of marxists, we are the right ones, and we will get it right this time”. And of course anyone with an ounce of sanity see through this lunacy, and must come to the conclusion that they, the commies, are nuts. Authenticjazzman, pro jazz performer, conservative and “Mensa” member since 1973. DT 2016