“NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says the U.S. is within 10 years of having a continuous manned presence on the moon, which will lay the groundwork for expanding space exploration to Mars.
“Right now we’re building a space station, we call it ‘Gateway,’ that’s going to be in orbit around the moon — think of it as a reusable command module where we can have human presence in orbit around the moon. From there we want reusable landers that go back and forth to the surface of the moon,” Bridenstine told Hill.TV’s Jamal Simmons and Buck Sexton on “Rising.”
“We think we can achieve this in about 10 years, the idea being prove the capability, retire the risk, prove the human physiology and then go on to Mars,” he continued.”
This is a Trump initiative:
“The move is part of President Trump’s Space Policy Directive, which calls for revisiting Moon exploration.
Bridenstine emphasized the importance of Trump’s directive, saying building a sustainable and continued presence on the Moon represents a “proving ground” for further space exploration.
Unlike Mars, he said the Earth and Moon are always on the same side of the sun. Mars on the other hand is on the same side as Earth only once every 26 months, meaning that astronauts will have to be on Mars for two years before being able to complete their mission and return home.
“The moon represents a proving ground, it’s the way we can reduce risk, we can prove technology, we can prove human physiology, we can develop the capabilities to utilize the resources of the moon to survive on the surface of the moon and then we take all of those capabilities and we replicate them at Mars,” he said.”
I cannot for the life of me understand the people who don’t value a robust and active space exploration program.
Space exploration serves the cause of humanity, of taking our species to new heights and ultimately to new worlds.
The history of mankind has been a story of venturing forth into the unknown, and space is the greatest unknown of all.
Our space program is essential and must not only continue but be expanded. We must push to the moon, to Mars and beyond. It’s what human beings do.
The video is somewhat long, but the gist of it is that Portland is covered in feces, infested with druggies and teeming with hordes of Antifa scum.
Portland’s pussy of a Mayor Ted Wheeler has completely lost control of his city. Human waste contaminates the streets, gaggles of insane leftwing mobs block off streets and prevent commuters from getting to work (pictured above), and the homeless are on every block.
Portland is a city that has lost control. The forces of civility are decency have lost, and the barbarians have won.
It’s a very scary thing for the normal, civilized folk when their government has lost control of the city. People simply commuting to work in the morning find streets blocked off by shrieking protesters, and you can’t even take a drink from a public water fountain because junkies use them to wash off heroin needles.
On top of this, the Mayor regularly orders police to stand down when Antifa are disturbing the peace and harassing passers-by.
When you live in a big city, you only walk out your front door every day because of your underlying assumption that things are under control. You have that assurance in the back of your mind that the dregs of society—the killers, gangsters, junkies, hobos, terrorists, etc—are not running rampant. You want to know you’re not going to get attacked on the subway, or poked by a dirty needle, or accosted by a crazy person.
But now, civilized folk are on the run in Portland. The inmates are running the asylum.
It’s not just Portland, either. Leftists have ruined San Francisco as well.
In many of these cities, it’s not even so much about which political policies anymore (although bad leftists policies are the main reason things have gotten so bad), but about something far more basic and essential: whether those seeking political office can reclaim their cities from the barbarians that have taken over.
Policies take a backseat when the main question in a city is, “Can citizens even live normal lives here anymore?”
Liberal politicians are talking about banning straws and plastic bags while their cities have become almost unlivable for normal people.
If you watch the video above–and you really should–you’ll see some of the mentally insane denizens of Portland starting around the 7:30 mark. These people do not belong on the streets. They belong in mental asylums and restrained in straitjackets, away from the civilized folk.
The worse our cities become, the less people are going to like the solution. If things continue spiraling out of control, it will take genuine authoritarians to come around and clean things up. The more out of control things get, the messier it will be to get things back under control.
We don’t want a strongman to come to power and institute martial law, do we? Well, unfortunately the worse our cities get, the more likely it becomes that the civilized folk, made increasingly desperate by the chaos and lawlessness, turn to a strongman.
Cities like Portland and San Francisco need hardass rightwing police chiefs to run for mayor on platforms emphasizing law and order and reclamation, like now.
And it’s not just America where the cities are being overrun by barbarians. I recently visited Frankfurt, Germany and walked through a neighborhood not far from the main center of town that was almost completely overrun by migrants and lowlifes. The streets were filthy, the buildings sprayed over with graffiti, the covered with trash and empty beer bottles, and you generally felt unsafe while walking around. I tried to take a picture of one of the worst streets when a group of migrants saw me and started yelling “FOTO! FOTO!” at me, so I got out of there as quickly as possible. This was all I was able to get:
It’s a little blurry but you can see just how bad things look.
I was at a bar and the bartender had recently moved to Frankfurt from Poland, and he was quite blunt about the state of the city: the migrants were ruining it. He said his ex-girlfriend couldn’t stand the city and left because there were “too many migrants”.
This is because of open borders policies.
Portland, San Francisco and Frankfurt are what happens when leftists are in power. The lowlifes always take advantage of bleeding-heart “compassionate” leftist policies.
We normal folk just want law and order. I think this is a lot of what Trump was getting at in his campaign.
In his inaugural speech he mentioned “American carnage” and was panned by the media. The media live in posh neighborhoods in DC and New York so of course they wouldn’t know shit. But so many of our cities are really messed up.
Part of me wonders if this is just the inevitable result of our increasingly urbanized society and world. Big cities are the norm now. The story of the past 150 years has been one of increasing industrialization and, as a result, urbanization. The industrial revolution completely changed the way society is organized. No longer do we mostly live on farms and in small villages; we now gravitate to highly-populated urban areas where all the jobs are. In 1800, 94% of Americans lived in rural areas and just 6% lived in urban areas. By 1990, only 25% of Americans were in rural areas, while 75% lived cities. That is a massive, massive break from historical norms (going back to the dawn of human civilization) and it has taken place over a relatively short period of time in the context of history (i.e. the past 5,000 years or so).
It has taken place all around the world, too:
Maybe crime, disorder and depravity are unavoidable parts of living in a big city. Bigness–in cities, institutions, organizations, etc.–breeds a lack of accountability. When there are too many people in one place, everyone gets lost in the shuffle, and the miscreants take advantage of the anonymity and chaos.
But a large part of the reason so many formerly-great Western cities have gone to shit is because the leftists in charge have lost control.
Sooner or later, the civilized folk will stop tolerating all the madness and chaos. The longer we wait, the uglier the process will be.
“A new study suggests that white Americans who hold liberal socio-political views use language that makes them appear less competent in an effort to get along with racial minorities.”
In other words, they dumb themselves down because they assume black people are mentally inferior and cannot comprehend intelligent words.
“According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.”
“Compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges” = in contrast to non-liberals, i.e. conservatives and moderates.
“Dupree and her co-author, Susan Fiske of Princeton University, began by analyzing the words used in campaign speeches delivered by Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to different audiences over the years. They scanned 74 speeches delivered by white candidates over a 25-year period. Approximately half were addressed to mostly-minority audiences—at a Hispanic small business roundtable discussion or a black church, for example. They then paired each speech delivered to a mostly-minority audience with a comparable speech delivered at a mostly-white audience—at a mostly-white church or university, for example. The researchers analyzed the text of these speeches for two measures: words related to competence (that is, words about ability or status, such as “assertive” or “competitive”) and words related to warmth (that is, words about friendliness, such as “supportive” and “compassionate”).
The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
The researchers didn’t stop with politicians. They even studied everyday white liberals, just normal people in day-to-day situations:
“They designed a series of experiments in which white participants were asked to respond to a hypothetical or presumed-real interaction partner. For half of these participants, their partner was given a stereotypically white name (such as “Emily”); for the other half, their partner was given a stereotypically black name (such as “Lakisha”). Participants were asked to select from a list of words for an email to their partner. For some studies, this email was for a work-related task; for others, this email was simply to introduce themselves. Each word had been previously scored on how warm or competent it appears. The word “sad,” for example, scored low for both warmth and competence. “Melancholy,” on the other hand, scored high for competence and low on warmth.
Here’s the key finding:
The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.”
So when white liberals talk to black people, they just automatically assume black people are dumb and can’t handle Big Words.
White liberals have the Savior Complex. They believe minorities are so incompetent and inferior and stunted that they require benevolent white liberals to get by.
Most conservatives are probably not surprised at all by this, of course. I’ve been saying for a while that white liberals, with their “soft bigotry of low expectations,” are the most racist people of all.
White liberals don’t view minorities as equals. It’s technically a white supremacist mindset, but in their view it’s different because they feel bad about it.
“Andrew Kenny says that whites treat blacks like animals. When a dog misbehaves, we don’t blame the dog; we blame the owner for improper training. In Africa, when blacks behave badly, Kenny says colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, globalization or multi-nationalism is blamed for not bringing up blacks properly. Liberals saw South Africa’s, apartheid and other human rights abuses as unjust because blacks were suffering at the hands of whites. They hold whites accountable to civilized standards of behavior. Blacks are not held to civilized standards of behavior. From the liberal’s point of view it might even be racist to expect blacks to adhere to civilized standards of behavior.”
Interestingly enough, the Yale Study was published on November 15, almost two weeks ago. Are you surprised you’re only now hearing about it, and that the Democratic media basically ignored it? Me neither.
On a somewhat related note, I’m sure you’ll enjoy this:
Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke about negotiating with President Trump to fund the border wall:
Sen. Chuck Schumer tells reporters at his on-cam presser that Democrats’ position is $1.6 billion for wall funding – far less than the $5 billion Trump wants – but he won’t say if Democrats are shutting the door on anything more, saying he’s not going to negotiate in public.
Let’s hope the final figure ends up being closer to the $5 billion Trump wants, but overall it’s going to be like pulling teeth to get this wall funded given that we just lost the House. President Trump really needs to find a way to get through to these Democrats on the matter.
I’m no expert on negotiation, but I do know one thing about people: they will generally only work with you and cut a deal with you if it is in their best interest to do so.
This has been the defining problem for the immigration/border wall debate these past two years. President Trump needs Democrat support if we are ever going to get the border wall funded and built, given the fact that we lost the House and only have 53 of the required 60 votes in the Senate. The problem is that Democrats want more immigration–legal and illegal–because it works to their benefit. They get more votes and more cheap nannying/housekeeping.
On its face, it might seem completely impossible to get any Democrat support for the wall. But perhaps it’s not all that far-fetched.
See, white Democrats have for the past two decades been under the assumption that the “browning of America” will work only to their benefit. Their reasoning is that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and since the Hispanic share of the US population is increasing with each passing year, it will only continue to benefit them.
But then something happened this past summer, and I don’t think we really understand its full significance yet. I’m talking about when Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez defeated incumbent Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley in the primary. At the old Medium site, I wrote that it was a glimpse into the future of American politics in that the district went from majority white to majority nonwhite, and this demographic shift, rather than political “issues”, was the reason Crowley lost to Ocasio-Cortez.
Simply put, the majority-Hispanic district realized it didn’t have to keep voting for the old white guy anymore. They had the numbers to replace him with “one of their own”. And those aren’t my words, they’re Ocasio-Cortez’s words. Her campaign slogan was, “It’s time for one of us.” She’ll claim it means a “real person” from the neighborhood rather than an out of touch career politician, but what she really meant was a fellow Hispanic rather than some old white guy. Just look at her campaign poster:
You can see it right here at the bottom: “One of us/Una de las Nuestras.”
Joe Crowley even complained that Ocasio-Cortez was making the election about race:
If you believe, as I and many others do, that democracy in a diverse society devolves into little more than a racial headcount, then what happened to Joe Crowley in the Bronx was not only unsurprising, but a sign of things to come.
This is the key to getting Democrat support for the wall.
The answer is to target white Democrats in majority-minority districts and appeal to their self-interest.
Point to Joe Crowley as Exhibit A that if we don’t get immigration under control, then white Democrats will be run out of power.
White Democrats believe that no matter how “brown” America gets, the “New Americans” will still keep voting for white Democrats. White Democrats, like the racists they are, believe they are entitled to nonwhite support (white Democrats have a serious Savior Complex generally) and will remain at the top of the pyramid indefinitely. They envision a party of nonwhite voters, but with white politicians (i.e. themselves):
Ocasio-Cortez has just shown us that is not going to be the case. The future will not resemble the pyramid model they envision. More majority-minority districts–and states–will come be represented not by white Democrats but by nonwhite Democrats.
Trump should say quite clearly to white Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: “If we don’t get immigration under control, then what happened to Joe Crowley is going to happen to you, eventually.”
I really think they’ll listen to that.
Maybe more old white Dems need to go the way of Joe Crowley for them to really grasp what’s going on, but eventually they’ll understand.
At that point I think you’ll see white Democrats come around to the border wall and become more hawkish on immigration. They’ll realize it is in their self-interest.
“I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. …I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. ‘Creeper! Get away from me,’ one woman imagined thinking. ‘Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding.’”
“Surveys, such as this by YouGov, show that large numbers of women consider normal introductory behavior to be sexual harassment. Twenty-eight percent of young women (age 18 to 24) consider paying her a complement to be harassment; twenty-eight percent consider winking at her to be harassment. Forty-eight consider placing your hand on a woman’s lower back to be harassment. Young men deal with young women, aware that a large fraction are primed to see them as predators.”
So these women want their prince charming to come along and sweep them off their feet out of nowhere, and yet they’re more likely to tell that potential prince charming to get lost than they are to swoon over him.
I wrote last week about the epidemic of porn addiction and how it is killing real-life sex. That’s something men are inflicting upon themselves (and women, by definition).
But this, right here, is a scourge that women are inflicting on themselves–and men, of course. Women have become caught up in a mass panic over men, and wouldn’t you know it, these women are finding it ain’t so easy to meet decent guys these days.
There’s this widespread perception in society that Every Man Is A Potential Rapist and, as the quote above points out, men are aware of it, and so go to great lengths to avoid being a “creeper”–and often that means just avoiding women altogether.
A lot of this has to do with the widespread belief in the false stat that 1 in 5 women are raped. So many women believe this, and act accordingly. They think that at any moment they could be raped.
But do you really think 1 in 5 women have been forcibly raped by a stranger? That is such a rare thing to happen, and yet we’re led to believe that it happens all the time, everywhere. But it doesn’t. Just think of all the women you know in your life and it becomes pretty clear almost immediately that the stat is a lie.
Crime statistics show that the rape rate in the US is about 0.5 out of every 1,000 people. Additionally, only 26% of rapes are done by strangers. Most rapes are carried out by people the victim knows: 38% of rapes are done by friends/acquaintances, 26% by current or former intimate partners, and the remaining 7% are by relatives.
The odds of being raped by a stranger are very low, but perceived by women to be very, very high. This is by design: feminists created the rape culture myth to ruin relations between men and women. Because women who are in healthy, traditional relationships with decent alpha males are highly unlikely to be hysterical and shrieking in the streets with pussyhats on their heads. Happy, satisfied women are the death of feminism.
Feminists need women miserable, unsatisfied, and alone. That’s how they become feminists. The single, mad-at-the-world, 30+ catlady is their ideal target.
As for men, feminists prefer them to be cowed, submissive betas, and for two reasons: one, because they’ll roll over on demand, and two, because they ultimately cannot satisfy their women, both physically and emotionally.
Even if we grant that many rapes go unreported, the rate is still not anywhere near 1 in 5. Christina Hoff Sommers (aka “Based Mom”) cites reputable studies that put the actual college campus rape rate (where there is said to be a “rape culture crisis” disproportionate to society at large) at 1 in 40, not 1 in 5.
It’s a full-time job debunking all these leftist lies. If we had an honest media worth anything, they’d be doing it, but unfortunately the media today is the source of the lies and misinformation.
Rhodes’ tweet is particularly rich given the fact that in 2013, the Obama administration, which he was working for at the time, did exactly what the Trump administration is doing today:
Did we hear any hysteria over the Obama Administration GASSING INNOCENT REFUGEES? No. In fact, we didn’t hear jack shit.
There’s a reason they’re all using the phrase “gassing.”
We’ve all heard the phrase “gassing” before. It’s mostly used to describe how Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews–he “gassed them.”
And back in 2003 in an effort to sell the Iraq War, proponents reminded us that Saddam Hussein was an evil man who “gassed the Kurds.”
So it’s no wonder leftists are trying to say Trump is “gassing” the migrant caravan.
It’s really quite something to see them all using the same phrase:
Trump, asked if he's comfortable tear gassing migrant children at the border, responds: "They had to use, because they were being rushed by some very tough people." (via CBS) pic.twitter.com/cOvhAiQrpL
Some of them aren’t just implying THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE HITLER!!!11!! Some are just outright saying it:
#MomsWickedTruth my 90 yr old mother says “I told you he was like Hitler. This gassing at the border-you know who else gassed women and children? Hitler. I thought we destroyed the Nazis in World War II, but look what’s going on here. I never thought I would see this. So sick.”
To these mendacious pieces of work, there’s no difference between using non-lethal tear gas to disperse rock-throwing invading hordes and using lethal gas to systematically exterminate a race of people detained in death camps.
Keeping up with their dishonesty is a full-time job.
And have you noticed that lately, the Dems have just said “fuck it” and are now calling everyone in the caravan “refugees”?
Their 2019 Newspeak dictionary has changed “undocumented immigrant” to simply “refugee” because the term “refugee” evokes sympathy.
Let in the refugees! They’re all fleeing misery and evil!
Classifying all prospective immigrants as refugees works to the left’s benefit because we have the moral imperative to take in refugees.
Even though the “refugees” were offered asylum in Mexico and said, “Nah, fuck that, we want to go to America to get all that awesome welfare and bang those sexy American chicks.”
Not very refugee-like behavior. It would be like if someone got sick and demanded to be rushed to the hospital, but upon arriving they said, “I don’t like this hospital. I want to go to a different one.”