1. The Google CEO leads the company “without political bias”
2. Google did not try and turn out Latino voters in key states
3. Users can opt out of Google’s invasive tracking services
4. Google does not discriminate against competitors
5. Google has diverse perspectives
| The DCNF asked 31 businesses, foundations and individuals agitating for climate action if they’d support banning private jets. In fact, all but two of the 26 corporations were silent when asked by TheDCNF if they would support a ban on private jets to help cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with what the United Nations says is needed to meet the Paris accord. |
| For years we have lived in a climate of ‘You can’t say that’. You can’t criticise mass immigration — that’s xenophobia. You can’t oppose the EU — that’s Europhobia. You can’t raise concerns about radical Islam — that’s Islamophobia. You can’t agitate against climate-change policy — that’s climate-change denialism, on a par with Holocaust denialism, and anyone who dares to bristle against eco-orthodoxy deserves to be cast out of polite society. And yet now, in this populist moment, people are daring to say precisely these unsayable things. They’re standing up to the EU. They’re demanding that immigration become a democratic concern rather than something worked out for us by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. And now they’re even grating against the hitherto unquestionable religious-style diktat that we must all drive less, shop less and do less in order to ‘save the planet’. |
| Instead of the confident leader, lecturing and preening on the global stage, [Macron] is barricaded in his palace, a sort of latter-day Marie Antoinette. French people can’t afford diesel? Let them buy Teslas. |
In an astonishing statement to the New York Times in 2015, Justin Trudeau declared, "There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,'' and consequently that "makes us the first post-national state." ... One only has to look to recent events in France and the European project, in general, with Brexit a clue as to why nations are no longer keen on abandoning their autonomy for the lofty ambitions of leaders on the world stage. ... Brian Mulroney, one of our nation's elder statesmen, recently offered Trudeau some wisdom: It's the job of the Canadian prime minister to look after Canada first and the rest of the world next. |
 |
Anetta Kahane is a former secret police informer for the Communist
Government of East Germany. She now heads Germany's cyber spy
force charged with rooting out Nazi's, as identified by such signs as
sending the daughters to school with braided hair, or of having
athletic sons.
|
This "deal" will cost the British taxpayer £60 billion; require that the British still comply with EU rules without having any say in what those will be, and worst of all, it permits the British to leave the EU only if the EU agrees. It commits the British effectively to subjugation by the EU in perpetuity, with no recourse should the British change their mind. It is a prison. It is also the first step of the EU toward its dream of global governance: unaccountable, untransparent, unelected by the public, and with no way out. David Brown, Gatestone InstituteWhat's the alternative? No deal, obviously. Without a "deal," the UK's membership of the EU will lapse on March 29, 2019, without, according to the House of Lords, any legal obligation for the UK to make any payment to the EU. After that, the UK should just trade with the EU on a tit-for-tat basis. The EU with an $11 billion trade surplus with the UK is not going to screw its own exporters by putting tariffs on British Biscuits and Whiskey if that means equal tariffs on German cars and French wine.
1. This is not the full legal advice on the May’s deal. It is a very selective piece of advice solely on the Protocol, art. 184 and 5. So no other issues are considered. Parliament asked for the full legal advice on the deal, not just part of the deal. Where is it?Such is the swindling shyster who today rules as Britain's Prime Minister. Time for someone to command her, in the name of God, to go.
2. May’s deal envisages the UK being in backstop indefinitely. It is staggering that she sought to conceal this advice from MPs or the public. “The Protocol is intended to subsist even when negotiations have clearly broken down…. despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangements, in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely. It is May’s duty to inform parliament in unambiguous terms. How can she claim to have fulfilled this duty? (Para. 16)
3. The backstop is not an insurance. It is the expected destination. Remember when we were told that the backstop is “just an insurance”, that it was unlikely that we’d need it? The legal advice makes clear that the backstop is both likely and in full contemplation of the parties (Para. 5). So everyone knows we are likely to go in. It is wholly wrong to for the government to pretend otherwise.
4. May says that promising to negotiate ‘in good faith’ will result in a future deal. The legal advice accepts that this phrase is meaningless. Her deal places the EU under no obligation at all. “All they [the EU] would have to do to show good faith would be to consider the UK’s proposals, even if they ultimately rejected them. This could go on repeatedly without such conduct giving rise to “bad faith” or failure to use best endeavours.”
5. The UK will never be able to leave the Customs Union without the EU’s agreement. May’s deal “does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement.” And as for the time limit? Forget it. “This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.”
6. May’s deal may violate EU law. Under Article 50, the mechanisms that EU member states are allowed to leave, a transition agreement cannot be open-ended because that means it is not temporary. So this dodgy backstop might be illegal under EU law. “There may be, therefore, some doubt as to whether the proposed Protocol is consistent with EU law, and that uncertainly will increase the longer it subsists.”
7. The EU may have the power to tap the UK for even more money given the expense of the ties that will still bind us. “The legal and administrative arrangements required to underpin the Protocol would be enormously complex, particularly in the light of proposed GB / NI flexibilities and will require considerable resources. These are not something to which the Commission will readily commit in the long term.”
8. The UK has no proper legal protection so is being asked to ‘trust’ the EU. “Given the lack of any effective means of termination” to the backstop, “the UK may have to trust in seeking a satisfactory outcome from negotiations.”
9. The ‘arbitration panel’ is useless in practice (Paras. 25 to 28) certainly when it comes to deciding if the UK can ever escape. “ it is extremely difficult to see how a five member arbitral panel made up of lawyers who were independent of the parties would be prepared to make a judgment as political as whether the Protocol is no longer necessary.
10. There is no legal protection for the UK: a solution to this (if it comes) would have to be political. But if we sign May’s deal, we are in a legally binding treaty – the EU now refuses to bend or change rules for us. It has refused every day of the negotiation. There is no basis to conclude the EU will change once we are controlled by them in the backstop.
| A persistent characteristic of civilizations in decline throughout history has been their self-strangling by slow, swollen, and stupid bureaucracies. The current atrocity of crippling student debt in the US is a direct product of an unholy alliance between college administrations and federal bureaucrats — a scandal that ballooned over two decades with barely a word of protest from our putative academic leftists, lost in their post-structuralist fantasies. Political correctness was not created by administrators, but it is ever-expanding campus bureaucracies that have constructed and currently enforce the oppressively rule-ridden regime of college life. In the modern world, so wondrously but perilously interconnected, a principle of periodic reduction of bureaucracy should be built into every social organism. Freedom cannot survive otherwise. |
| The EU is set to criminalize speech that criticizes migration. In a press conference, European Parliament Member, Marcel de Graaff, raised the alarm over an international conference in Marrakech, Morocco on Dec. 11 and 12 where the U.N. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is to be signed: “The criticism of migration will be a criminal offense...Media outlets that give room for criticism of migration,can be shut down. ... It will become impossible to criticize Ms. Merkel's 'Welcome Migrants Politics' without risk of being jailed for hate speech.” Source |
| To celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ, the Robious Middle School in Midlothian, Virginia, has banned any Christmas carols that mention the name of Jesus. School administrators reportedly explained they had made the decision to “avoid singing anything of a direct sacred nature” in order to be “more sensitive to the increasing diverse population at the school.” Source |
... those who existed during the distant time in which the fundamental epics of our culture emerged were much more concerned with the actions that dictated survival that with anything approximating what we now understand as objective truth. Before the dawn of the scientific world view, reality was construed differently.As anyone who has ever read the great Greek, Roman, or Chinese philosophers knows, as anyone who is familiar with the great Christian theologians and philosophers of the Middle Ages will recognize, it is massively false to assert that objective truth was invented circa 1518 AD, or that reality was construed differently before then. This leads the critical reader to wonder who, or what, could possibly be the source for this astonishingly incorrect claim.
Jordan B. Peterson: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
I outlined this in some detail in Peterson, J.B. (1999). Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. Routledge, New York.This is a remarkable hall of mirrors that Peterson is building around himself. He goes the New Atheists one better. Whereas Richard Dawkins liked nothing better that to quote Daniel Dennett quoting Richard Dawkins, and to praise a Sam Harris book chock full of quotes from Richard Dawkins, Peterson simply cuts out the middle man and appeals directly to himself as the relevant authority on the nature of reality.
T.R. Beale, aka Vox Day: Jordanetics
