Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, January 10, 2026
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 713)

Bernie Sanders

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a political rally at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum at Alliant Energy Center in Madison, Wis., Wednesday, July 1, 2015. (Michael P. King/Wisconsin State Journal via AP)

While his policy ideas are horrifying, Bernie Sanders’ campaign is the source of some amusement. He claims to represent a different vision, but his voting record according to the National Taxpayers Union is virtually identical to the ratings received by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they were in the Senate.

He’s not even a real socialist, at least if we use the technical definition of this poisonous ideology, which is based on government ownership of the means of production. That being said, Democratic operatives such as Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sound like fools on TV because they don’t even know the difference between genuine socialism and big-government redistributionism.

Political-Cartoon-Sanders-Hillary

But I will give Sanders credit for his recent challenge to Republicans. He was being badgered about his supposed socialist orientation on a political news show and he turned the question on its head and asked whether Republicans would be willing to identify as being pro-capitalist.

Here’s an excerpt from a report in The Hill.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says he’s tired of questions about whether he’s a socialist, asking why more people don’t want Republicans to defend themselves as capitalists. “Look, when one of your Republican colleagues gets on the show, do you say, ‘Are you a capitalist?’” the Democratic presidential candidate said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “Have you ever referred to them as capitalists?”

I think this is a good idea.

I’d like every single GOP candidate to be asked some version of Sanders’ question.

And if any of them displayed the slightest hesitation before offering a loud and unapologetic “yes” in support of capitalism, that would be a very good indication that they shouldn’t be trusted anywhere close to the Oval Office.

After all, how could anyone support big government over markets after watching these videos narrated by Don Boudreaux, Walter Williams, and Deirdre McCloskeyOr, how could anyone pick socialism (or any other form of coercive statism) after reviewing how market-based economies out-perform big-government economies?

Heck, I repeatedly ask my left-wing friends to identify just one big-government success story. I don’t ask for 10 nations that prospered with large governments. I don’t ask for five countries that might be considered successful examples of statist prosperity.

Mitchell-Challenge

I just plead with them to give me one case study. And the only response is chirping crickets. Why? Because no nation has ever become rich during an era of big government.

So, if any Republican candidate showed the slightest hesitation before extolling the glories of free markets, that person should be booed off the stage. By the way, I can’t resist commenting on one other part of the story in The Hill about Sanders. The Vermont Senator apparently was asked to identify nations that are role models.

Did he list North Korea and Cuba, countries that actually still have genuine socialism?

Nope.

Did he list Venezuela or China, countries that have partial government ownership of the means of production?

Nope.

Instead he picked Denmark and Sweden.

The senator said he admires the social programs in nations like Denmark and Sweden, and he thinks “we can look to those countries” for guidance.

Since both those countries still have large welfare states with high tax rates and lots of redistribution, his answer is somewhat understandable.

But what about government ownership of the means of production and control over the allocation of resources? In addition to having big governments, is there a lot of intervention in markets?

Hardly. Indeed, if you take the data from Economic Freedom of the World and remove the fiscal policy variable (and thus measure the degree to which markets are allowed to operate), then Denmark and Sweden are both among the world’s top-10 nations for free markets.

And both rank above the United States!

So we have two nations that are more free market than America while also having bigger government than America. I’m not sure how to characterize this so-called Nordic Model, but it’s definitely not socialism. The bottom line, though, is that you get the most growth when you have both free markets and small government. In other words, genuine capitalism.

That’s obviously not the agenda of Bernie Sanders, though I hope Republicans will be forced to answer his question and tell us whether they favor capitalism.

While his policies are horrifying, Bernie Sanders’

jp-morgan-building

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. headquarters in New York City. (Photo: Reuters)

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) posted third-quarter revenue declines that missed expectations and sent shares down 0.6% to $61.16 in after hours trading. The largest U.S. bank by assets reported a profit of $6.8 billion, or $1.68 a share juxtaposed to a profit of $5.57 billion, or $1.35 a share, in the same period of 2014.

Excluding $2.2 billion of tax benefits and other one-time items, earnings came in at $1.32 a share, below analysts’ expected earnings of $1.37 a share. Revenue fell 6.4% to $23.54 billion, while analysts had expected $23.69 billion.

“We had decent results this quarter. We saw the impact of a challenging global environment and continued low rates reflected in the wholesale businesses’ results, while the consumer businesses benefited from favorable trends and credit quality,” said Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO. “Overall, our risk management discipline and diversified platforms across the businesses are serving us well.”

Trading revenue decreased 15% to $4.34 billion from $5.07 billion in the third quarter of 2014, and the report follows comments from Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) executives that revenue at their units trading equities, bonds, currencies and commodities were expected to fall about 5% in the third quarter.

However, worth noting, overall costs decreased 3% to $15.37 billion from $15.8 billion in the third quarter of last year. Banks have been under continued pressure to keep costs in check as interest rates have remained low, which limits the profit margins in lending businesses.

“We continue to focus on our commitments, optimize our balance sheet and manage our expenses,” Dimon noted. “We are also building the businesses for the future, dedicating resources to controls, cybersecurity and technology.”

The bank’s legal expenses still totaled $1.3 billion in the third quarter, which is higher than the $1.06 billion it reported in the same period a year ago. It is also far more than the $291 million it recorded in the second quarter. Return on equity, or a gauge of J.P. Morgan’s profitability, was 12% in the third quarter compared with 10% a year earlier. J.P. Morgan faced some questions from analysts and investors earlier this year over whether it might be better for shareholders if the global bank broke itself up into smaller, more manageable units.

The bank continued to cut its workforce last quarter amid burdensome regulations and the need to offset legal fees, axing 1,781 people and putting their workforce at 235,678. That includes reductions across its consumer & community banking and corporate divisions. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported the bank began to eliminate more than 5,000 jobs as it looks to save on expenses.

“Our position of strength allows us to make significant investments to transform the businesses we operate, deliver better experiences to our customers and clients, gain share and be positioned to be a long-term winner,” Dimon added.

J.P. Morgan kicks off the third-quarter earnings season for large U.S. banks, offering investors and analysts a snapshot of a quarter that is expected to be characterized by a decline in bond trading amid summer market swings and continued pressure on revenue.

Though shares of J.P. Morgan Chase hit an all-time record high of $70.61 in July, they’ve shed 13% off their high. On a year-over-year basis, they are down 1.7% juxtaposed to a 5.1% loss in the KBW index of bank stocks over the same period.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) posted

Hillary Clinton Will Stay the Frontrunner, Even if She Has a Bad Night in Vegas

CNN-Democratic-debate-Las-Vegas

People walk near the stage set up for the Democratic Presidential candidates, former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Hillary Clinton, Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee, a day before the CNN Facebook Democratic Debate at the Wynn Las Vegas on October 12, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The debate is scheduled for tomorrow and is the first debate for the Democratic presidential contenders. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The media is upping the stakes for frontrunner Hillary Clinton going into the CNN Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, but the hype is likely unfounded. To be sure, the pre-debate drama is arguably more than one might expect, considering there are half the candidates as the GOP field and even less media scrutiny, but the chances of a real shakeup are minimal.

While Republicans have already had two presidential debates, the gathering Tuesday in Las Vegas will mark the first of only six total for their learned friends across the aisle. Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have been calling for, and have even accused the Democrat National Committee and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of scheduling fewer debates to protect the frontrunner. To be sure, Democratic voters overall agree, but they also already predicting a victory for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is still the overwhelming favorite of likely Democratic voters nationwide, with 75% who say she is the likely nominee including 40% who say it’s very likely. By comparison, only 10% think Joe Biden is very likely to be the nominee, and nine percent (9%) feel that way about Sanders. O’Malley will deliver liberal red meat, but is already triangulating his future position in a Clinton administration.

The remaining Democratic candidates, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb–both of whom are ex-Republicans–haven’t even registered a single point on the PPD average of national nomination polls. But there is really more to it than that, as the polls are just symptoms of the fundamentals at play in the Democratic primary, which we have outlined on the PPD Election Projection Model.

In our first expanded analysis of PPD’s Presidential Election Projection Model, we explained why–despite the email controversy and big crowds flocking to Sanders–the former secretary of state is still solidly favored (88%) to be the Democratic nominee in 2016. While Sanders has been cutting into her lead in the early voting state of Iowa and now leads Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire, they are both white states.

The bottom line and hard truth is that after Iowa and New Hampshire, the electoral calendar is all downhill for the socialist’s campaign. The next two states are Nevada (Saturday, Feb. 20) and South Carolina (Saturday, Feb. 27), where the share of white voters will drastically decrease. Sanders has shown no ability to change the fundamentals that determine the victor in modern day Democratic primary contests, including an ability to broaden his appeal beyond white liberals.

Further, it is a simple fact that there is a strong correlation between establishment support for a candidate and the eventual winner of the Democratic nomination. That is to say, candidates who enjoy the most support from a party’s power-brokers, such as congressional endorsements etc., tend to earn the nomination. That is particularly true with the Democratic Party. Roughly one-sixth of the estimated 4,483 delegates up for grabs in 2016 will be “superdelegates,” or party leaders able to pledge delegates not bound by voting outcomes in their state.

They will have a say in who the party’s nominee will be, whether voters like it or not or if she has a bad night in Vegas. Unsurprisingly, the polls continue to bare out the fact that fundamentals matter.

The media is upping the stakes for

Trump Takes to Twitter to Rail Rubio

Donald-Trump-Marco-Rubio

Left: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a town hall event Thursday, Sept. 17, 2015, in Rochester, N.H. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty) | Right: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., discusses Russian aggression during the CNN Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (PHOTO: AP)

Billionaire frontrunner Donald Trump responded to a report that Sheldon Adelson is looking to back Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in the 2016 Republican nomination. Adelson, a billionaire Las Vegas casino mogul, is leaning increasingly toward supporting Marco Rubio, according to left-wing POLITICO.

Trump took to Twitter, as he often does, to say Adelson “feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!”

It is no secret the junior senator is trying to win the financial support of other uncommitted megadonors, as well as those who are now backing fellow Floridian Jeb Bush. Adelson, who literally kept Newt Gingrinch competitive in the 2012 nomination fight against inevitable nominee Mitt Romney, has the potential to give tens of millions of dollars. He spent some $100 million that cycle in support of Republican candidates. Last week, Rubio held a meeting in one of Adelson’s lavish offices at the Venetian Las Vegas, one of a number of five-star luxury casinos owned by the megadonor.

However, it is exactly that setting and scene that Trump has been able to capitalize on. The ability to self-fund his campaign has allowed him to genuinely claim he is the only one in the race that cannot be bought, prohibiting him from doing what he feels is the right thing for the country and the American people.

Frontrunner Donald Trump responded to a POLITICO

2016-democratic-candidates-caricature

2016 Democratic candidates caricature from left to right: Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lincoln Chafee.

Despite having less than half the candidates as their rivals and far less media scrutiny, there’s no shortage of drama ahead of the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nev., on Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state and frontrunner, is under heavy pressure from donors and party superdelegates to outperform her primary opponents, particularly Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been cutting into her lead in the early voting state of Iowa and now leads in New Hampshire. While Sanders has said he will not bring up Benghazi, the email scandal or her recent flip-flops, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has made no such commitment and is starting the attacks early.

O’Malley hit Clinton over her latest flip flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade deal that she touted as secretary of state. O’Malley said he opposed the deal eight months ago and didn’t just come out against it “on the eve of a debate because polling told me to do it.”

Hillary released a statement last Wednesday stating she could no longer can support the deal she called the “gold standard in trade agreements” just as recent a 2012 speech in Australia. She even listed it in her book as one of her key accomplishments. However, under assault on her left flank, has backed away from supporting a number of her past positions, including the Keystone XL pipeline.

Clinton used the historic trip to America by Pope Francis to quietly announce her new-found opposition to the pipeline while speaking to a small group of supporters in Iowa. It marked a complete 180 on the former secretary of state’s position while she was serving out her tenure.

Vice President Joe Biden, who is likely to enter the race after the debate, has a podium on stage in Las Vegas just in case. Clinton’s camp over the weekend suggested he should just serve out his term while he is on top, and even indicated that he would have a cushy diplomatic position if he just so happened to decide against a run.

Worth noting, Mrs. Clinton is still the odds-on favorite on PPD’s Election Projection Model and will remain so unless another candidate can gain traction with minority voters. However, it is also worth noting that her fundraising advantage has narrowed significantly. Clinton has raised roughly $75 million this year, juxtaposed to Sanders’ $15 million. However, Sanders hauled in a whopping $26 million in the third-quarter alone, nearly matching Clinton’s $28 million.

Meanwhile, Rep.Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, a critic of Obama’s foreign policy and vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, saying she was disinvited to Tuesday’s Democratic debate after calling for more of them. Tulsi told The New York Times on Sunday that DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s chief of staff rescinded the invitation just a day after Gabbard appeared on MSNBC calling for more than the currently scheduled six debates. A DNC spokesperson, of course, pushed back on that claim with their own version of events.

“The focus of the debate in Nevada as well as the other debates and forums in the coming weeks should be on the candidates who will take the stage, and their vision to move America forward,” said Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the DNC. “All that was asked of Ms. Gabbard’s staff was to prioritize our candidates and this important opportunity they have to introduce themselves to the American people.”

While Tulsi, a twice-deployed 33-year-old Army combat veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, was unavailable for comment Monday because she was participating in a ceremony promoting her to military police major with the Army National Guard, PPD has been told by two separate sources that her claim is absolutely true. O’Malley, too, has criticized the party for protecting Clinton with a light debate schedule.

Despite having less than half the candidates

Obama-UCC-Statement

President Barack Obama gives a press conference in response to the shootings. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/EPA)

President Obama’s intrusion into the mourning community of Roseburg, Oregon, in order to promote his political crusade for stronger gun control laws, is part of a pattern of his using various other sites of shooting rampages in the past to promote this long-standing crusade of the political left.

The zealotry of gun control advocates might make some sense if they had any serious evidence that more restrictive gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes. But they seldom even discuss the issue in terms of empirical evidence.

Saving lives is serious business. But claiming to be saving lives and refusing to deal with evidence is a farce. Nor is the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association the real issue, despite how much the media and the intelligentsia focus on them.

If there is hard evidence that stronger gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or reduce murders in particular, the Second Amendment can be repealed, as other Amendments have been repealed. Constitutional Amendments exist to serve the people. People do not exist to be sacrificed to Constitutional Amendments.

But if hard evidence shows that restrictions on gun ownership lead to more gun crimes, rather than less, then the National Rifle Association’s opposition to those restrictions makes sense, independently of the Second Amendment.

Since this all boils down to a question of hard evidence about plain facts, it is difficult to understand how gun control laws should have become such a heated and long-lasting controversy.

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence, just within the United States, since gun control laws are different in 50 different states and these laws have been changed over time in many of these states. There are mountains of data on what happens under restrictive laws and what happens when restrictions are lifted.

Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.

The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

Among the other facts that gun control zealots consistently ignore are data on how many lives are saved each year by a defensive use of guns. This seldom requires actually shooting. Just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant is usually enough to get him to back off, often in some haste.

There have been books and articles based on voluminous statistics, including statistics comparing gun laws and gun crime rates in different countries, such as “Guns and Violence” by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University. Seldom do these factual studies back up what the gun control zealots are saying.

Why would an ultimately factual question about the consequences of gun control laws divide people along ideological lines? Only if at least one set of people were more devoted to their vision than to the facts.

This shows up when gun control zealots are asked whether whatever new law they propose would have prevented the shooting rampage that they are using as a stage from which to propose a new clampdown on gun ownership. Almost always, the new law being proposed would not have made the slightest difference. That too is part of the farce. A deadly farce.

So is the automatic assertion that whoever engaged in a shooting rampage was a madman. Yet these supposedly crazy shooters are usually rational enough to choose some “gun-free zone” for their murderous attacks. They seem more rational than gun control zealots who keep creating more “gun-free zones.”

Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

The zealotry of gun control advocates might

Ben-Carson-GQ-article-Fox-and-Friends

Fair people are disgusted with GQ columnist Drew Magary’s vile denunciation of Ben Carson and his comments on the Oregon shooting, but it shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with leftist vulgarity and double standards.

Not only did GQ print the post, in which Magary wrote “f— him,” but also it titled the piece “F— Ben Carson.” So much for civility, decency, tolerance, intellectual heft and — oh, yes — racial sensitivity. GQ tweeted a link to the column, which means it wants people to read it.

Imagine the outcry if a conservative similarly described a black liberal politician in a prominent publication. Liberals would call for the heads of everyone involved — writer, editor, publisher and the publication itself — and few conservatives would defend such language.

The context of the quote is not mitigating. Magary also wrote: “You know, the only thing more alarming than Donald Trump leading the Republican presidential field is the fact that Ben Carson is the guy right behind him. … The Good Doctor made it clear this week that he is not only willing to replicate Trump’s signature brand of hot-garbage-spewing, but he’ll say even DUMBER s—.”

Liberals are apoplectic over Carson’s comments on the shooting not because he said anything wrong but because he doesn’t toe the liberal line on gun control. More than that, it’s that he is black and rejects liberal dogma. Even worse, he’s running for president on a platform that expressly condemns that dogma and offers a better way. Worst of all, his campaign is resonating, and this just can’t be happening.

The most troublesome aspect of this phony flap is the left’s delusional double standard on race. Liberals can slander a black person with impunity — because leftist culture says liberals are incapable of racism — and no evidence, not even a smoking gun, can overcome this presumption.

But conservatives are presumed racist and have the burden of proving otherwise, even if they don’t say anything at all, much less something that could be distorted into a comment unfavorable to minorities.

What’s maddening is that many liberals actually believe this insanity, as I’ve learned in various personal encounters. Others know it’s not true but cynically use it for political purposes.

In a television debate with Eric Bolling, Geraldo Rivera made my point, saying: “I think that in Dr. Ben Carson’s case, the people are not reacting to him as a black man” but are reacting to “ideas like the Garden of Eden is the literal place that existed long, long ago (and) that there is no such thing as evolution. … To run for president of the United States and believe in creationism” — as opposed to “evolution — is kind of weird.”

Let’s put aside Rivera’s statement that it’s weird to believe that God created the universe and mankind, though it is duly noted, and focus on his casual assertion that people aren’t being, rude, crude or demeaning toward Carson because he is black.

Ordinarily, I’d accept that statement because I believe that liberals who insult Carson mainly can’t stand him because he’s conservative, not because he’s black. But seeing as they’ve established the standard, let’s hold them to it.

It particularly galls them when minorities reject liberalism. It’s reasonable to infer there’s a bit of condescension at play here because to believe blacks must be liberal is to suggest that they are — or should be — monolithic creatures and that those who deviate are somehow inferior. Many leftists apparently believe that conservative blacks have forfeited any right to be insulted, including on racial terms.

You need look no further than leftist cartoonists depicting Condoleezza Rice as a parrot on President George W. Bush’s arm and, as one commentator described, “as a semi-literate mammy” with “big lips and bucked teeth” or liberal talk show hosts calling her “Aunt Jemima.” But if you want to look further, you may recall Joe Biden’s reference to Barack Obama as “clean,” “bright” and “articulate.”

I am not a Geraldo Rivera hater and even like some things about him, but I was appalled at his comments. No, not that he assumed liberals aren’t attacking Carson because he’s black but his obvious implication that Republicans, in criticizing Obama, are racially motivated. Indeed, many liberals have insisted that conservatives criticize Obama because he’s black, not because he is orchestrating the wholesale destruction of America.

In my view, there is no question that Rivera sincerely believes that many conservatives, by virtue of their conservatism, are racist, both toward blacks and toward Hispanics. But his sincerity doesn’t make his wrongheaded beliefs true.

I have long believed that if Republicans could make inroads into the pernicious liberal lie that their principled opposition to Democratic statism is based on race, the entire political landscape would change overnight. That is why many liberals who know better will keep fanning these flames of hatred and continue slandering black conservatives, especially those they deem a threat to their hold on power.

if Republicans expose the lie that their

Firefighters-US-Forest-Service

PHOTO: U.S. Forest Service firefighters stand near flames in the Angeles National Forest, Sept. 2013. (PHOTO: DAVID MCNEW/GETTY)

Upon running the entire 2,190-mile Appalachian Trail in record time, a marathoner broke several rules at the finish line on top of Maine’s majestic Mount Katahdin. Among them was public consumption of alcohol — in this case, Champagne. Another was littering by shaking the bottle and spraying Champagne every which way.

Less appealing liquids have undoubtedly been deposited on those boulders, but one can sympathize with the highly annoyed response of the Baxter State Park authorities. Their rules limit groups hiking the trail to 12 people. The speedster was greeted by a far larger number, including invited media. His clothes and a supporting van, meanwhile, were covered with corporate logos.

The physical feat was undeniably impressive. But it had zero to do with the point of the trail, which is to let humans connect with relatively unspoiled nature. For this runner, the wilderness was used as a stage, a backdrop for promoting his excellence.

Like the national parks, America’s celebrated trails are drawing big crowds — not only the Appalachian on the East Coast but also the Pacific Crest Trail on the West. Though their popularity can be seen as a good thing — they expand the constituency for conservation — it also alters the encounter with wilderness into something a bit more industrial.

Ecotourism has become big business. Some outfitters and guides do a fine job of balancing the humans’ wants with protection of the wilds. Others are intent on maximizing profit by sexing up what is usually a slow-moving experience, even to the point of prodding wild animals to perform.

For example, the giant manta rays swimming around the Big Island of Hawaii have become a major moneymaker in the district of Kona, according to The Washington Post.

At night, boat operators deposit large groups of diving tourists into the waters around the fragile reefs. They shine lights, which attract the plankton on which mantas feed. The rays soon appear and, as promised in the brochures, put on quite a show.

The boats have been known to drop anchor on the fragile reefs. And dive masters have used tongs to move spiny urchins so that tourists could comfortably sit on the coral. Some mantas are getting injured, and others are losing their fear of humans, which endangers them in other circumstances.

An up-close and personal encounter with a manta undoubtedly makes for an exciting Facebook entry. If seeing these creatures in their primeval habitat is the objective, however, one cannot do better than going to the Imax and watching a professionally produced wildlife documentary.

Clearly, some people can’t enjoy nature unless a sport is attached — hence the controversial move in Congress to open more waterways in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to paddlers. Both parks already allow non-motorized boating on certain stretches.

What’s the problem here? After all, we’re not talking about Jet Skis and speedboats.

The problem is that even human-powered watercraft can damage trout and other wildlife habitat. They can introduce invasive aquatic plants. The problem is that politicians are trying to take science-based judgments out of the hands of park professionals. The problem is that “hand-propelled” watercraft include pack rafts, often used for thrill rides over rapids and carrying groups of people.

Members of American Whitewater, a river access group, are reportedly split on this matter. Limiting human activities in wilderness areas can involve tough calls.

It helps to remember that there are places in this big earth for every kind of sportive activity — from breaking human speed records to driving 7,000-horsepower yachts. If the thumb must come down on the scale, let it rest on the side of nature.

Ecotourism has become big business, impacting the

Temple-Mount-Getty

General view of the Dome of the Rock, part of the al-Aqsa mosque compound on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem on April 16, 2014. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images/Thomas Coex)

Experts are saying a New York Times article published on Thursday questioning the Jewish connection to Temple Mount “was based on ignorance, simple ignorance.” The article attempted to cast doubt on whether the biblical Jewish temple ever existed on the Temple Mount, which is a claim often made Hamas terrorists and their politically connected sympathizers in the Palestinian Authority.

The aim: undermine any historical evidence that supports Israel’s right to exist.

The Times later amended the title and content of the article—“Historical Certainty Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place”—to instead focus on the issue of where precisely on the Temple Mount the Jewish temple once stood, which is a point of debate even among biblical scholars and archaeologists.

“It was based on ignorance, simple ignorance; you cannot ignore all the literary evidence” of the existence of Jewish temples on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount site, Prof. Gabriel Barkay, co-director of the Temple Mount Sifting Project and emeritus professor of archaeology at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, told TheBlaze by phone Sunday.

Professor Barkay said the Times’ view was of a “temple denial” and cited extensive and detailed descriptions of the Second Temple built during the first century B.C in ancient Jewish texts, in the writings of the first century Roman-Jewish scholar Josephus and by Greek and Roman historians. The first Temple, Solomon’s Temple, is described extensively in the religious texts, as well.

“I don’t have any doubt about the existence of the temple,” Barkay added. “We have inscriptions on the prohibitions of Gentiles to enter the temple which got preserved. We have the outer walls of the Temple Mount which are still standing, the Western Wall is one of them.”

Barkay noted that even Islam texts refer to the Jewish Temple.

“Muslims themselves built the Dome of Rock [on the Temple Mount] as a replacement of Solomon’s Temple, and they call Jerusalem the ‘City of the Temple’ in Islamic literature,” he added.

Experts are saying a New York Times

Turkey-bombing

Oct. 10, 2015: Bodies of victims are covered with flags and banners as a police officer secure the area after an explosion in Ankara, Turkey. (Photo: AP)

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said an investigation into a suicide bombings at a peace rally in Ankara would be focused on the Islamic State (ISIS). At least 128 people died and over 200 more were wounded in bombings Saturday during peaceful protests in the Turkish capital, which the prime minister said was an attempt to overshadow upcoming snap elections.

“We are focusing on [Isis] in our investigations. We are zooming in on one name that points to a certain criminal organisation,” Davutoğlu said. “But one cannot just say that we should round up an entire sleeper cell and throw them [in jail]. We must act according to the law.”

The prime minister declared three days of national mourning after the attack, which was likely carried out by two bombers and was the largest terrorist strike in recent Turkish history. The blasts hit a peace rally that drew participants from across the political left, including members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP).

“These attacks will not turn Turkey into a Syria,” Davutoglu said.

Protesters were calling for peace between the Turkish government and Kurdish PKK militants, with whom the Turkish government has resumed hostilities. In a statement released on Monday, the HDP’s leaders said the ruling Justice and Development Party, or the AKP, was using “escalation of violence” as a strategy to push the leftists back under Turkey’s high electoral threshold for entering parliament.

They link the Ankara bombings to the Suruc attack and the fatal bombing of an HDP electoral rally in June, labelling them a “chain of massacres”, and call on the international community to take “a firmer stance” with Turkey’s government.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said an

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial