1. The dog days or dog days of summer are the hot, sultry days of summer. They were historically the period following the heliacal rising of the star system Sirius, which Greek and Roman astrology connected with heat, drought, sudden thunderstorms, lethargy, fever, mad dogs, and bad luck.
Mad dog is slang term used to describe someone as “wild and crazy.” It is often used as a nickname or to describe a kind of mean stare.
It’s also slang for “cheap, high-alcohol wine,” referring to the brand MD 20/20 in particular.
4. what does mad hatter mean: Mad as a hatter” is a colloquial English phrase used in conversation to suggest (lightheartedly) that a person is suffering from insanity. … Dementia causes symptoms similar to madness and death often occurred with the accumulation of mercury in the body.
Mad Hatter The Character
The Mad Hatter is one of the most famous Disney characters ever to be imagined and portrayed on the big screen. He is not your typical character as his name suggests but over the years, he has become one of the most well-loved Disney personalities because of his quirkiness and peculiarity in nature.
The phrase mad as a hatter dates back to the early 19th century when fine hats were the talk of the town. As it symbolizes social status, the hat makers were taking a big health risk in producing such wonderful head pieces. In an effort to create fine felt hats, they would use a mercury-based compound in creating the hats.
The problem with this was that long-term exposure meant serious physical side effects. This would develop over time and come out in different forms. It can manifest in terrible mood swings, slurred speech, tremors, memory loss, and other neurological problems. This was where the term “mad as a hatter” originate from.
Hatter is quite fashionable and impossible to miss in the movie. He is a wild-eyed character with a bow tie on top of a strange suit. Of course, he wears a nice large hat with a card bearing the text “In this style 10/6.” It is the price tag of the hat which is indicative of his trade. This amounts to ten shillings and six pence.
In Hatter that seems to constantly annoy the young Alice was very much different from the more recent character. He took on the role of a guide and at times, a protector to the older Alice when she fell down the rabbit hole again. Together with the March Hare, they are in a never-ending tea party as punishment by Time when the Queen of Hearts found them guilty of trying to murder time.
In the latest installment Alice Through The Looking Glass, “Hatta” is again on the wrong side of the law for something he has yet to commit. What is surprising in this movie is that Alice does not seem to recognize him despite looking exactly the same.
As the name suggests, the mad hatter is a seemingly insane character that gives out riddles and dresses fashionably. His obsession with tea time as well as tea parties is a result of trying to sing for the Queen of Hearts where he was found guilty of murdering time. That and his endless conflicts with the Wonderland’s Queen has left him wondering about the passage of time.http://www.the-madhatters.co.uk/mad-hatter-character/
It is interesting to note that the character was never directly referenced as the Mad Hatter in the book. This was just a description by Cheshire the Cat when he tries to warn Alice in the forest. He mentioned that the hatter had a somewhat unstable frame of mind, thus, making him mad.
President Donald Trump met with several victims of the communist regimes of Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea on Nov. 7, the National Day for the Victims of Communism.
Trump and several other White House officials, including his domestic policy assistant, Joe Grogan, met with the victims in the Oval Office to “honor the victims of communist regimes and help highlight the evils of communism,” said Judd Deere, White House deputy press secretary.
Nov. 7 marked 102 years since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the first country that was taken over by communism.
Since then, communist regimes have caused more than 100 million unnatural deaths, excluding casualties of war, according to The Black Book of Communism.
“These movements, under the false pretense of liberation, systematically robbed innocent people of their God-given rights of free worship, freedom of association, and countless other rights we hold sacrosanct,” stated a Nov. 7 White House release.
“Citizens yearning for freedom were subjugated by the state through the use of coercion, violence, and fear.”
The individuals invited to the White House included Sirley Avila Leon, a Cuban refugee who in 2015 survived an assassination attempt by the communist regime’s secret police. The assailant cut off her arm and maimed her legs. She became a dissident advocating for regime change. She’s lived in Miami since 2016, according to Memory of Nations, a database of post-World War II life stories managed by Czech charity Post Bellum.
Venezuelan-born Daniel Di Martino also attended. He left the socialist country in 2016.
“My experience in a socialist country taught me that any country can go through what we experienced, and my goal is to stop it from ever happening again,” he says on his website.
Another guest was Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, a Vietnamese blogger known under her pseudonym, Me Nam (Mother Mushroom). She’s the coordinator of the Vietnamese Bloggers Network and has been arrested and physically assaulted for her criticism of the Vietnamese communist regime for corruption and human rights violations, according to Front Line Defenders, a human rights advocacy group.
The president also met Grace Jo, a North Korean defector whose father was tortured to death after he tried to bring food for his family from neighboring China. Her family tried to escape North Korea through China multiple times since she was a child, but each time were captured and returned. Her grandmother and younger brothers died of starvation, she told WTOP.
Why did George W Bush pull out of the Kyoto Protocol?
Despite the huge amount of fossil fuel funding upon which George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, insiders in the monopoly-dominated oil industry remained unsure that he would fight for them – and against climate scientists.
Bush had suggested during his candidacy that CO2 should be treated as a pollutant and, therefore, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act – even if the international Kyoto Agreement was not economically favourable for America.
Bush’s fence-sitting was strategic: swing states such as Florida were environmentally conscious and speaking out would likely give Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore the advantage.
But, optimistic environmentalists remained hopeful while wary oil-men were worried that it demonstrated a willingness to agree to the broad principles of the treaty.
A Rumoured Speech
Shortly after his inauguration, a rumour circulated that Bush planned to include a line reinforcing his earlier pledge in a forthcoming speech.
Word of the speech reached the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Koch- and Exxon-funded think tank that helped donate to Bush’s presidential campaign. CEI set to work. As their founder and president, Fred Smith later told Newsweek: “We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out.”
Despite the think tank’s best efforts, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman testified, on 27 February 2001 at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subcommittee, that she was in favour of regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.
A week later, she signed a joint statement at the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting which said: “We commit ourselves to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.”
The President’s Position
At this, the denial machine set in motion. Haley Barbour, a lobbyist for a utility firm that stood to lose if greenhouse gases were regulated, urged Vice President Dick Cheney in a March 1 memo to persuade Bush not to align with the “eco-extremism” of those who saw carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
A group of far-right Republican senators wrote an open letter to their new president. In light of Whitman’s testimony, they asked that Bush clarify his position on climate change, “in particular the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.”
Aware of the rising tide against her, Whitman went to the Oval Office to fight her case on the morning of March 13. But, Bush had already composed his response, shortly to be sent via Cheney to the senators, which he read to her.
“I do not believe,” read the letter, “that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”
Information from the Department of Energy had shown that consumers’ energy bills might be affected, and that this warranted a re-evaluation of his earlier pledge, “especially… given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of and solution to global climate change.”
Whitman left defeated, just as the puppeteer Cheney arrived to hand-deliver the President’s response to the senators.
By the end of the month, the world’s biggest polluter had pulled out of Kyoto.
Whitman, who later said the decision was “the equivalent to ‘flipping the bird’ frankly to the rest of the world,” was the one to deliver the news. “We have no interest in implementing that treaty,” the former New Jersey Governor told assembled journalists.
Though the terms of the treaty would be finalised in Bonn that July, they would be made all but useless, with the world’s largest polluter out of the game.
Years later, freedom of information disclosures revealed the industry’s input to this decision.
A briefing note prepared for Paula Dobrianksy, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, ahead of her meeting with Glenn Kelly of the Exxon-bankrolled Global Climate Coalition, states: “POTUS [President of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you… Interested in hearing from you, what type of international alternatives to Kyoto would you support?”
The Trump administration notified the international community Monday that it plans to officially withdraw from the Paris climate accord next fall, a move that will leave the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases as the only nation to abandon the global effort to combat climate change.
President Trump has long criticized the 2015 accord and insisted that the United States would exit it as soon as possible. As recently as last month, Trump called the agreement “a total disaster” and argued that the Obama administration’s pledges to cut carbon emissions under the deal would have “hurt the competitiveness” of the United States.
In a statement Monday afternoon, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration had sent official notification of its plans to the United Nations.
1a: a political theory that absolute power should be vested in one or more rulersb: government by an absolute ruler or authority : DESPOTISM2: advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles3: an absolute standard or principle
The left is becoming more unapologetically totalitarian every day. Every freedom-loving American should be alarmed.
From hounding conservatives out of restaurants to spitting on Trump supporters at rallies, from firing employees for politically incorrect statements to fining people for “misgendering” a person, the left is on a path toward absolutism.
Even some former and current leftists have recognized this intolerant trend and broken from their colleagues, lamenting their intolerance of opposing ideas and disturbing mission to suppress dissenting opinion.
Just the other day, three incidents typifying the left’s authoritarianism popped out at me as I was surveying the morning news.
The Federalist reported that venues in three North American cities — Toronto, Brooklyn and Portland — canceled screenings of a movie about Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson because of leftist criticism. Peterson exploded onto the scene in recent years with his no-nonsense, brilliant and clear-eyed critique of insane cultural trends, especially those concerning gender.
Peterson’s book “12 Rules for Life” is wildly popular, and there are countless viral videos featuring his encounters with various leftist interviewers, panelists and audience members who have tried and failed to entrap him on a number of issues, and been reduced — in every case — to blundering, ineffectual bullies. If you haven’t partaken of these videos, you owe it to yourself to witness one arrogant leftist after another being gobsmacked by the simple weapon of unadulterated logic. These videos are irresistibly contagious and imminently satisfying for those longing to see intellectually defenseless, virtue-signaling finger waggers brought to their knees through the medium of polite debate.
Peterson, you see, won’t kowtow to the leftists’ demand that we embrace the tenets of gender ideology, which teaches that gender is less about biology and more about personal identification. He refuses to support laws that criminalize one’s failure to use a person’s preferred pronouns, such as “they” instead of “she.”
Peterson has the temerity to say that men and women are biologically different, and that gender is not a fluid, human construct. That doesn’t sit well with the left, who not only insists that we accept its cockeyed ideas as normal but also advocates imposing them on us by force of law
an you get your mind around the irony of the left banning a movie about Peterson because he’s dangerous? Who is more dangerous: a person who peaceably expresses an opinion that happens to be supported by thousands of years of human experience and common sense, or those who try to ban his voice or even a movie about it? This is “1984”-level scary, and it’s getting worse by the hour.
On what possible grounds is the left arguing that Peterson’s views are dangerous? He doesn’t advocate violence; he isn’t a rabble-rouser or revolutionary. He simply states his opinion instead of genuflecting to the despotic left.
But they claim that if Peterson’s views are openly expressed, he might convince other people that he’s right, and that could lead to the proliferation of conservative thought. Peterson’s “conservative perspectives on feminism and gender,” according to an opinion piece in The New York Times, “are very popular among young men and often are a path to more extreme content and ideologies.” Think about this. Conservative speech is dangerous because it is a slippery slope to the adoption of conservative ideas? This must be satire. Do these clueless cranks know how ridiculous they sound?
Again, who is more extreme and dangerous: Jordan Peterson, who advocates the silencing of no one and expresses mainstream opinions, or leftists, who are actively trying to censor Peterson?
Please don’t make the reckless mistake of dismissing this crusade against Peterson as exceptional. This is the left’s pattern, and it is becoming more aggressive all the time.
The second and third incidents I came across are further proof that the left is increasingly Stalinist. In the most recent Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Kamala Harris pushed for the suspension of President Trump’s Twitter, speciously alleging that he is trying to obstruct justice and intimidate and threaten witnesses. You see,
the left always has some urgent rationale to smother conservative speech — whether it’s to prevent the incitement of violence or obstruction of justice. But it just wants to shut us up.
Those who would silence the other side are the very definition of dangerous. Don’t take Harris’ musings lightly, even if she is mostly posturing to gin up more support from the Trump-hating Democratic base. It is instructive that efforts to muzzle speech almost always come from the left, not the right, because the left is insecure about the popularity of its kooky ideas.
The third incident involved demagogue and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who said in a CNN forum on LGBT issues that churches and religious organizations should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage. If I have to explain how outrageous this is, the country is in even greater danger than I imagined.
Sasse resolution: Church beliefs should not jeopardize tax-exempt status
One U.S. senator is looking to bring up a vote on protecting churches from attempts to police their beliefs, after a presidential candidate said churches should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has introduced a resolution in the Senate expressing support for freedom of conscience (S.J.Res. 58). He said on Wednesday that his measure aims to put senators on the record on protecting the tax-exempt status of houses of worship, amidst attempts to condition that status on a church’s support for same-sex marriage.
Introduced Wednesday, the joint resolution recognizes the importance of religious freedom to the framers of the Constitution and the role of religion in the history of the U.S., and says that the government cannot condition religious protections such as tax-exempt status upon certain viewpoints it deems “correct.”
The resolution states that “government should not be in the business of dictating what ‘correct’ religious beliefs are; and any effort by the government to condition the receipt of the protections of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States, including an exemption from taxation, on the public policy positions of an organization is an affront to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
President Trump Threatens To Pull Funding From Sanctuary Cities In California?
A federal appeals court in California ruled Wednesday that President Trump acted beyond his authority when issuing an executive order attempting to penalize “sanctuary cities” for refusing to cooperate with the administration’s immigration crackdown.
The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, barred the Trump administration fromdefunding San Francisco and Santa Clara County, the case’stwo plaintiffs, butit did not uphold a nationwide injunction issued late last year by U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California. Instead, by a vote of 2 to 1, the three-judge panel sent the case back to the district court for additional fact-finding on the order’s nationwide impact.
Trump officials threaten to withhold highway funding from California for its ‘chronic air quality problems’
The move could put billions of federal transportation dollars in jeopardy.
rump administration officials threatened this week to withhold federal highway funding from California, arguing that the state has not shown what steps it is taking to improve its air quality. The move by the Environmental Protection Agency escalates the fierce battle between President Trump and the left-leaning state, and could put billions in federal funding in jeopardy.
In a predated letter sent late Monday to the California Air Resources Board, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler suggested that the state “has failed to carry out its most basic tasks under the Clean Air Act” and needs to either update its plans to tackle air pollution or risk losing federal money.
resident Donald Trump Tuesday tweeted a threat to cut off funding to help victims of California wildfires.
Can Trump do it? The answer is complicated.
Trump’s idea was blasted by Democrats as a callous, empty threat and even California Republicans released statements saying it was the wrong approach to the problem of forest management.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House acknowledged Thursday that it held up military aid to Ukraine as President Donald Trump pushed the country’s new leader to investigate the Democratic National Committee in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, a central question in the House impeachment inquiry.
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said that Trump did nothing wrong in linking the aid to Ukraine’s investigation. He said the probe would simply be part of the Justice Department’s ongoing review of the 2016 election.
House Democrats, who are investigating whether the president engaged in a political quid pro quo when he asked the new Ukraine president to do a “favor,” immediately called it an admission of guilt.
Secrecy has always been a pretty effective incubator for corruption, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s sneaky, secretive “hearings” on impeaching the president, literally held in a dank Capitol basement outside public scrutiny, are producing it in abundance.
Schiff’s secrecy act thus far not only shuts out the public, but excludes relevant opposition members of Congress from so much as listening to this Schiff show. Congressmen from the “wrong” party, such as Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, an interested party with a right to be there as a member of the House Judiciary Committee if anyone does, have just about literally been kicked out.
In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, pressed former United States special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld and that they believed their relationship with the U.S. was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
When Volker repeatedly declined to agree to Schiff’s characterization of events, Schiff said, “Ambassador, you’re making this much more complicated than it has to be.”
Star chamber, comrades? No wonder congresspeople are starting to call this a “Soviet-style” impeachment.
It’s unprecedented (and outrageous) enough that the whole thing is done in secrecy, given that this is a process voters are entitled to see done in public, given that the aim is about overturning the results of their 2016 election. Like creepy crawling things that thrive in darkness, they’re operating under a rock to keep the public in the dark about their plans to nullify the 2016 election.
Beyond this unprecedented secrecy, now Schiff’s going even farther, trying to shove words into witnesses’ mouths, egging them on to agree to things they didn’t witness to fill his black book and then yelling at them when they refuse to say exactly the words he wants to hear.
Is it any wonder that Republicans are starting to call this a “Soviet” impeachment? Far from this being about finding any truth, these secret hearings are to distort, reverse, or lie about actual witness testimony. Any witness whose words don’t match what Schiff wants to hear in those secret hearings not only gets browbeaten by Schiff, but may get his testimony “purged,” effectively becoming the equivalent of a Soviet “non-person.” It’s a matter of forcing a Vishinsky-like submission on all players to Get Trump. That’s the message with this latest Washington Examiner revelation.
It comes on top of legitimate questions raised about whether Schiff should even be holding these hearings, given that he’s not on the House Judiciary Committee. That’s the committee that up until now has always handled these things. Democrats have taken the fact that they can hold their hearings any way they like to bizarre new stretches of rules, minus precedent, knowing well there can be no legal challenges. It’s for that reason that Republicans have called it a “make up as you go along” impeachment.
Worse still, it’s not about high crimes by the president; it’s about politics. House speaker Nancy Pelosi already has moved to make the whole thing political by refusing to take a formal vote for impeachment or an impeachment hearing. Why do that when she’s got a predetermined outcome from the crazed Adam Schiff? She’s specifically protecting her moderate flank from fallout by the voters in purple districts, knowing very well that impeachment is unpopular with them and they’ll boot those representatives from the House if they go on record to join the crazies.
This is why so much is being done in the darkness. As the Soviets did. Heck, it’s as the cockroaches do. And it’s way past time to flip on a light.
In the heart of the socialist world, life is sustained not by the paternalistic state but by pure, unfettered capitalism.
Democratic hopeful Elizabeth Warren recently argued that Americans have a “social contract” that obliges them to take a “hunk” of our hard-earned wealth and “pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Much of the Democrats’ ideologies echo those of Hugo Chavez—one of the most notorious Socialists of contemporary times. Chavez’s policies created a modern nation full of “millionaires”; indeed, the Venezuelan Bolivar is so heavily inflated, the government had to hack a few zeroes off to control their “immense wealth.”
Meanwhile, Venezuelans are leaving the country in droves, armed with accounts from the supposed utopian life they are fleeing. What the rest of the world is coming to learn from these harrowing experiences of centralized, universal policies is that capitalism finds a way.
In the heart of the socialist world, life is sustained not by the paternalistic state but by pure, unfettered capitalism.
OIL FOR SOCIALISM: THE TRUE FOUNDATIONS OF THE BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION
Elected in 1998, Hugo Chavez implemented his grand socialist vision in 2000 through anti-poverty initiatives called the “Bolivarian Missions.” Chavez sought to provide educational services, free health clinics, and other forms of state-funded support.
Year after year, under Chavez’s socialist regime, the national reserves depleted, and Venezuelans began to starve.
What started out as small-scale endeavors quickly snowballed into dozens of unilaterally implemented government-run social programs, ranging from universal healthcare to education and culture programming. Chavez bypassed the legislature, putting in place policies that effectively established complete societal control—and he used the country’s vast natural resources to fund his scheme.
As global oil prices steadily increased during the early aughts, reaching over $30 a barrel in 2003, Venezuela, which has the largest oil reserves in the world, became one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Chavez took full advantage of this. Venezuelan’s robust oil industry, which had been nationalized in the mid-1970s, became the fuel for his “utopian dream.” In 2002, using a general strike as a justification, Chavez swiftly replaced 19,000 employees of state-owned natural gas and oil companies with new employees loyal to his regime.
Starting in 2006, under the pretense of wealth redistribution, Chavez nationalized other key industries, such as cement, communications, electricity, steel, and several sectors of food production. In other words, all of the essentials a modern society needs.
Unfortunately, with complete governmental control over society, Venezuelanimports began to decline at an annualized rate of -22% from 2012 to 2017. It wasn’t long before the stockpiles started to shrink. Year after year, under Chavez’s socialist regime, the national reserves depleted, and Venezuelans began to starve.
Empty shelves in a Venezuelan grocery.
THIS IS WHAT A SOCIALIST “UTOPIA” LOOKS LIKE
In 2019, with a food shortage dramatically effecting the entire country, the government is trying hard to maintain its ideological narrative, enacting campaigns to encourage local communities grow their own food. This has done little: nothing has been done to solve the issue of mass starvation.
Both the variety and quality of the food distributed continuously decrease. The milk is questionable—at the best of times.
As the Venezuelan state grew closer to its ideological comrade, China, they took a page out of the Red State’s book. In 2018, the state introduced the Fatherland ID, a new citizen card that uses QR codes to enact tighter surveillance and control over the population. Not only does it contain all personal information about the cardholder, but it is also now the system through which welfare checks and distributions are handed out.
For those who can afford to purchase goods, each citizen is assigned an ID number which determines the day of the week that they can shop for groceries. The idea is to give stores a chance to resupply, but production is so low that supplies remain scarce. Certain items are prescribed price freezes by the state, but there are tight restrictions on the quantity of food that can be accessed with your ID card, which makes flexibility impossible when a family’s need fluctuates.
For the destitute, food distributions come in the form of ‘CLAP’ boxes, crates of food that are passed out in an attempt to satisfy local supply and demand. Both the variety and quality of the food distributed continuously decrease. The milk is questionable—at the best of times.
The breadlines are also very real. From toilet paper to food, acquiring any basic necessity requires waiting in line for hours, just for a single item. And when you finally get to the front of that line, there is no guarantee that what you lined up for will be there waiting for you.
Creative use of the worthless Venezuelan Bolivar.
BLACK MARKET CAPITALISM
‘Black markets’ carry a negative connotation due to their association with illegal goods. But, by definition, every transaction which is not documented and processed by the socialist government is illegal. The bolivar Venezuela had a 1,698,488% inflation rate in 2018, which led to farmers bypassing the government and going to the cities to sell or barter directly with consumers. To bypass governmental choke-hold on economic transactions, black markets have become a daily part of Venezuelans’ lives.
“With a malfunctioning public system that’s broken and corrupt to its core … people have come up with unique and elaborate ways to establish a parallel black market of its own.”
I spoke with Kaleb Caruso, a Venezuelan dissident, about the black market economy. Caruso said that “with a malfunctioning public system that’s broken and corrupt to its core … people have come up with unique and elaborate ways to establish a parallel black market of its own.”
Venezuela’s black market has two primary sources of goods: theft and exchange through unsanctioned markets.
Even as foreign imports continue to shrink, the costly private courier services that bring in life-saving medication and highly desired goods are subject to frequent pillaging. What is lost in transit is often thought of as ‘a service fee.’
Communities have organized distribution systems that bypass the state to receive supplies. These logistics networks often feature foreigners residing in Venezuela. Although the transactions are not sanctioned by their home states, foreign embassies and consulates play a considerable role in helping keep the influx of foreign imports alive.
Consumers and black market proprietors connect through social media. Using services like Facebook, a direct message to the right person can give you access to hard-to-find goods.
Because it is not subject to state scrutiny, prices are unregulated. This isn’t to say that products come cheap; there is a price to pay for subverting the ultra-authoritarian state. But what it does mean is that almost anything can be found that can’t be obtained through state-sanctioned means.
In other words, the only thing keeping Venezuela going is pure capitalism.
Venezuelan protests in 2017.
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN SOCIALIST UTOPIAS
“The government has had a love-hate relationship with the black market. It has cracked down hard at times, but at the same time, it’s left alone because it helps alleviate the state’s own deficiencies and mishandling of the economy, the latter being a normal part of their relationship nowadays,” says Caruso.
Democratic hopefuls want to design their policies around Socialism—but pay little mind to the human suffering these policies can and have enacted worldwide.
“A former colleague of my mother had to steal human serum albumin from a cold storage, concealing it in her purse and hoping that the National Guard soldiers wouldn’t ask questions.” Kaleb recalls, as his mother, who was one of Venezuela’s experts on pain and palliative care, suffered a long and grueling battle with cancer and passed away in 2018.
“Yes, it was a felony … but when your loved ones are suffering and you feel powerless to act, when you turn on the television and see the Socialist regime insist that everything is a lie and that there is no health crisis in spite of what you’ve seen and gone through over the years, that’s when you suspend your moral beliefs, your social inhibitions, and you become empowered by despair to do anything and everything so that maybe, the person you admire and love the most gets to smile once more.”
Democratic hopefuls want to design their policies around Socialism—but pay little mind to the human suffering these policies can and have enacted worldwide. And if the example of Venezuela shows us anything, it’s that capitalism, no matter the extent to which it is suffocated by central planning, finds a way.https://humanevents.com/2019/10/11/capitalism-always-wins/
The campaign of former secretary of state and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reportedly pressured Ronan Farrow into dropping a story that would ultimately uncover the long list of sexual assault accusations against embattled film producer Harvey Weinstein
Journalist Ronan Farrow’s forthcoming book, “Catch and Kill,” sheds light on the allegations and the former Democratic presidential nominee’s alleged role in attempting to cover up the bombshell story.
According to the book, which is set for an Oct. 15 release, Weinstein reportedly tried to use Clinton — a family friend — to kill the 2017 exposé that ended Weinstein’s career.
Prior to putting the story to bed, Clinton’s campaign publicist Nick Merrill reportedly reached out to Farrow admitting that the “big story” was a “concern” for the Clinton campaign. Weinstein, a big donor to both Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns, reportedly had reached out to Clinton in an effort to quash the story.
Nearly an entire week passed after Farrow’s New York Times investigative report went viral before Clinton issued a statement condemning her friend’s alleged behaviors. In her statement, Clinton appeared to deny all knowledge of the allegations against Weinstein despite her publicist calling the report into question with Farrow months prior.
Her statement read, “I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.”
She also insisted that she would donate Weinstein’s campaign contributions to charity.
Farrow would go on to win the Pulitzer Prize for his work in the Times.
Farrow also insisted that Clinton’s campaign withheld access to her when he was attempting to interview the presidential hopeful for a foreign policy book he was writing at the time.
This isn’t the first time the public has been told that Clinton and her campaign were aware of the forthcoming allegations against Weinstein.
Actress and producer Lena Dunham revealed that she told Clinton’s campaign that trouble with Weinstein was brewing.
“I just want you to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point,” Dunham allegedly told Kristina Schake, the Clinton campaign’s deputy communications director at the time.
“I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fundraisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault,” the actress claimed to have added.
Merrill would later dissociate the campaign from Dunham’s remarks, insisting that the campaign had never been made aware of such rumblings — and then turn the blame to Dunham herself for not outwardly reporting the allegations against Weinstein.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
Greta Thunberg became the poster child for climate hysteria and fraud by sailing across the Atlantic in a supposedly “zero-carbon” yacht, the Malizia II, which in fact was made out of petroleum products from stem to stern, as pointed out by CFACT:
Malizia II does not have a diesel auxiliary engine, as other boats in its class do. It drags turbines through the water and uses solar to recharge batteries. This does not make it “Green.”
Malizia II, like the rest of the yachts in the Imoca 60 class, is constructed from high-tech carbon fiber composites to make it ultra light and fast. It is the ultimate play thing of the wealthy elite. These boats are made of hydrocarbons, not to mention all the energy it took to make them.
Carbon fiber composites are primarily made from propane and petroleum. This boat was pumped out of the ground.
Like the current clown-car group of Democrat presidential candidates and Hollywood liberals who fly private jets to climate conferences, Thunberg’s fossil-fuel supported stunt was not about climate and not about real sacrifice. It was about shaming the Industrial Revolution and capitalism, things which have reduced planetary poverty to historic lows and fueled technologies that have raised the global standard of living to historic highs that more people than ever before share in.
It is not about climate. It is about creating a climate of fear, a picture of imminent planetary doom that can only be forestalled by government’s control of every aspect of our lives from the energy we use, to the food we eat, to the land we use, to our modes of transportation.. Everything from cows to combustion engines are bad.
That is the mantra behind both the Green New Deal and Thunberg’s trip. And if it sounds familiar, it should, for it is the direct descendant of the mother of all sustainable development plans known as Agenda 21.
Agenda 21, as Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) noted in a June 7, 2012 editorial, was a fundamental assault on the rights our Founding Fathers fought for, the basis for the freedoms and democracy that we enjoy. It is all for surrendering those rights on the altar of “social justice” and planetary salvation:
One of those is property rights. “Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market,” Agenda 21 says.
“Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”
The planet is in peril, don’t you know, and humanity is the plague infecting it. The globalists are hammering out an agenda that will determine not only how many people there will be, but where they will live, how they will live, and what governments will permit them to do in order to save the planet.
Agenda 21 failed in its announced goal to eradicate poverty and save the earth, but it did serve as a justification for world governments to enhance their power at the expense of the freedom of their people. Its successor, Agenda 2030, is no less ambitious in its goal for global government control, according to the preamble of the document outlining the agenda:
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.
Agenda 2030 was the death knell for freedom and independence around the world. It is a blueprint for world government of the U.N., by the U.N. and for the U.N. Its goals and targets leave no aspect of human life and activities immune from power grabs by government. The Green New Deal will make it happen here.
President Obama embraced Agenda 2030 when he addressed the Sustainable Development conference:
“We suffer no illusions of the challenges ahead, but we understand this is something that we must commit ourselves to,” Obama said in a speech to the assembly. “In doing so, we recognize that our most basic bond — our common humanity — compels us to act. An impoverished child in a distant slum or a neighborhood not that far from here is just as equal, just as worthy, as any of our children, as any of us, as any head of government or leader in this great hall.”
Private land ownership and land use are a prime target. What property we can develop, what energy we can extract, and what houses we can build are fair game. But private property is a prime tenet of American freedom — something Democrats and globalists seek to eliminate or control. Alabama was the first state to recognize the threat of Agenda 21 and ban its implementation with the sovereign state, As Investor’s Business Daily, one of the few national publications to highlight this threat, noted:
After Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s stunning triumph over the excesses and abuses of public-sector unions, the London Telegraph’s James Delingpole, an indefatigable opponent of global warming fraud, opined in a piece titled, “How Wisconsin And Alabama Helped Save The World,” that we should take note of “an equally important but perhaps less well-publicized victory won in the Alabama House and Senate over the U.N.’s malign and insidious Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 is one of those compacts, like Law of the Sea, Kyoto and New START, that are supported by an apologetic administration with a fondness for the redistribution of American power and wealth on a local and global scale.
…Alabama recently passed Senate Bill 477 unanimously in both of its houses. The legislation bars the taking of private property in Alabama without due process and says that “Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21.”
In a piece on Watt’s Up With That, Nancy Thorner calls the Green New Deal “the boldest tactic yet to advance U.N. Agenda 21″:
Enter the Green New Deal, the boldest tactic yet, as proposed by AOC when the Democrat Socialists took control of the House in the 2018 midterms. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal are not unlike the positive-sounding objectives of Agenda 21: to protect the environment and make a better life for all of us.
In that the forces behind Agenda 21 were becoming both impatient and scared because after 27 years Agenda 21 had not yet been realized, coupled with growing apprehensive that people around the world were starting to wise up to the real nature of Agenda 21, permitted the clock of deception to be removed to reveal the true goals of the Green New Deal, socialism and global control as a way to advance Agenda 21.
Something wicked this way comes and it is called the Green New Deal. The direct descendant of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, it will, if fully implemented, complete President Obama’s promised fundamental transformation of America from the land of the free to the home of the impoverished and enslaved.