Batty Bernie Sanders, who took his honeymoon in 1988 in the communist Soviet Union, may be the Democrat nominee for president in 2020.
And it would be a disaster for Democrats. Trump would trounce Bolshevik Bernie in the general election. Theblaze.com reported:
A fresh batch of polls show Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) starting the new year with a surge in the 2020 Democratic primary race.
According to the CBS Battleground Tracker survey, Sanders finds himself in a three-way tie with former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, each at 23 percent, among caucus-goers in Iowa. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) find themselves in a distant fourth and fifth places, respectively.
The FiveThirtyEight average of Iowa surveys finds a similar scenario with Biden slightly ahead of Sanders and Buttigieg, well within a polling margin of error.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the Vermont socialist (Sanders) leads the field with 27 percent support among the state’s primary voters. He is closely followed by Biden at 25 percent, and Warren at 18 percent. Sanders’ lead in CBS’ poll is consistent with a RealClearPolitics average of surveys showing him with a four-point advantage in the Granite State.
Don’t count this wacko Sanders out. Nikitas3.com has written many times that Sanders is next in line for the nomination since he ran in 2016 and almost beat Hillary. So don’t think that the far-left in the Democrat party is not looking for revenge after Sanders got the 2016 nomination stolen from him by Hillary.
Meanwhile Theblaze.com reported:
The CBS survey also found that Sanders’ supporters are, by far, the most enthusiastic of any of the Democratic candidates, an important factor in tight races. Among voters who said they intend to back him in the Iowa caucus, 67 percent said they were “enthusiastic” to support him, compared to 49 percent who said the same about Biden.
Woah. ‘Enthusiasm’ is a yuge factor in elections. Buckle up your seat belts. Sanders could win. And that is great news for president Trump.
Meanwhile, Trump Polls Surge
The Washington Examiner reported:
President Trump’s approval rating rose sharply days after he commanded strikes on top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Mahdi al Muhandis in Baghdad.
The president’s rating rebounded considerably since dropping during the several months that House Democrats investigated his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump notched a 45.3% approval mark, matching a local high recorded on Sept. 24, 2019, according to RealClearPolitics. His disapproval rating is down to 52.3% from a high of 58.1% on Dec. 16, 2017.
OK, so first notice that Trump’s approval numbers rose after the killing of Soleimani since a clear majority of Americans knows that killing Soleimani was the right thing to do.
Second, Real Clear Politics (RCP) averaged 10 separate polls for this 45.3% number. Nine of those polls are university or media polls (Harvard, The Economist, Politico, Reuters, Emerson, NBC, The Hill, CNN and Quinnipiac). These polls are historically biased against president Trump and against Republicans and conservatives. That means, therefore, that the real number for Trump is certainly much higher than this 45.3% average.
The only poll that has consistently shown good numbers for Trump is the Rasmussen Reports poll, which had Trump at 50% approval in this RCP average and up to 53% in other recent polls. And Rasmussen was the most accurate poll of 2016. So there you go.
It is also important to remember that president Trump does not poll well in the first place – voters are sometimes afraid to even tell a pollster that they support Trump. So you can add a few points for that.
All added up, Nikitas3.com believes that this 45.3% RCP average number is really as much as 55% or more and that president Trump is cruising to re-election.
‘Green’ Policies Make Australia Wildfires Worse
‘Greenies’ take advantage of every change in the weather to claim “climate change” or ‘global warming’. Even when it gets cold, they blame ‘warming’ as Nikitas3.com heard a liberal doing recently.
Now the ‘greenies’ are twisting themselves into a pretzel to blame the wildfires in Australia – where it is currently Summer in the Southern hemisphere – on ‘climate change’ or ‘warming’. But as we saw in the California fires it is largely ‘green’ policies themselves that have made the fires worse. Here is why:
*First, environmentalists are claiming that it is so hot and dry in Australia from “global warming” that the fires are raging worse than ever. But actual temperature records published by the Australian government show that it has been as hot or hotter many times over the last century. Meanwhile the Northeastern United States just had a brutally cold and snowy December, which the ‘greenies’ conveniently ignore.
James Delingpole at Breitbart News reports:
As Paul Homewood pointed out last month, there has been no significant long-term decrease in rainfall or increase in temperatures in the affected (Australian) regions.
Yes, it has been dry in New South Wales (where most of the worst fires are), but there have been several years, especially pre-1960, when it was drier:
First, let’s look at rainfall. All the data and graphs that follows are from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology:
As we can see, rainfall in NSW over the last three months is well below average, but no worse than several previous years on record.
The same applies to temperature. Yes, this has been a hot spring in New South Wales. But there have been times when it has been much hotter — making a nonsense of all stories in the Australian media about temperatures being the hottest evah:
Neither is the monthly average of 38.0C a record high. The three years from 1899 to 1901 all saw average December mean maximum temperatures well above 38.0C.
So there is Climate Change Myth #1 debunked – that Australia is in an unprecedented season of hot and dry weather caused by burning oil, coal and natural gas.
These ‘climate’ fear stories are also carefully crafted to ignore the tremendous global heat wave that enveloped the earth in the Medieval Warm Period for a full 400 years (900 AD to 1300 AD), which was a natural warming cycle that happened long before the burning of oil, coal or natural gas.
*Second, many Australian fires are being deliberately set. Breitbart reports:
Here’s a story from December headlined ‘Firebugs blamed for destructive Queensland fires’ — it notes:
Figures obtained by AAP reveal 98 people – 31 adults and 67 juveniles – have been dealt with by Queensland police for deliberately setting fires.
A 16-year-old boy was found to have started a fire that razed 14 homes in central Queensland and dealt with under the state’s Youth Justice Act.
Two more teens, 14 and 15, were charged with endangering property by fire over a blaze that destroyed two homes and forced hundreds to flee.
The media will totally ignore these stories in order to distract us so that we focus on ‘climate change’ alone as the real culprit.
The media also will never suggest that muslim terrorists may be setting these fires. After all, these terrorists have used arson as a weapon against the US and Europe and Israel over the past few decades and may very well be doing it in Australia.
*Breitbart then reports:
… unless you manage forested areas with controlled burns, you’re going to end up with out-of-control wildfires.
Jo Nova has a damning story about locals in East Gippsland in the state of Victoria who successfully stopped a planned controlled burn at Nowa Nowa. Two of them were pictured holding signs saying, “Spring burns kill baby birds alive” and “Stop burning nesting birds”.
These controlled burns allow foresters to intentionally burn down selected stretches of trees to create man-made fire breaks. These breaks in the forest growth can be scientifically calculated to slow or stop wildfires. These breaks can also be made by loggers with chain saws cutting down the trees and shipping them off to turn them into lumber.
But ‘greenies’ protested the controlled burns and the loggers, and, voila!, much worse fires result and 100 times as many baby birds are burned alive. This is classic environmentalism – it is vastly worse for the environment than any alternative.
*Meanwhile here is more from Breitbart:
The people most to blame for the Australian bush fires are the greens. Just like in California, their tree-hugging Gaia worship blinded them to the reality that forests need regular clearance and maintenance if they are not to become a major fire hazard. Some Australian politicians on the right side of the argument are well aware of this:
“The problems we have got have been created by the Greens,” Mr [Barnaby] Joyce told The Australian.
“We haven’t had the capacity to easily access (hazard) reduction burns because of all of the paperwork that is part of green policy.
“We don’t have access to (the water behind) dams because (the dams) have been decommissioned on national parks because of green policy. We have trees that have fallen over vehicles and block roads, so people cannot either get access to fight a fire or to get away from fires. And we can’t knock over the trees because of Greens policy.
Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has lashed the “disgraceful, disgusting” behaviour of “raving inner-city lunatics” for linking climate change to the ferocious bushfires burning across Queensland and NSW.
Yet still, in large parts of Australia, it remains illegal to remove trees from your land even in order to create fire breaks and protect your property — despite the obvious risk this ban creates to homeowners living in potential bush-fire zones. Trees have been designated a ‘carbon sink’, which supposedly offset Australia’s CO2 emissions.
This issue has long been known in Australia, as the story below shows:
Liam Sheahan is an Australian fireman who in 2002 was fined $50,000 – and paid another $50,000 in costs – for illegally clearing the trees round his home in rural Victoria. In 2009 he was vindicated when his property was only one left standing after bushfires destroyed his town.
We know this story well. But these facts will never be reported in the Fake News global media in order to promote the ‘climate change’ myth and arouse ‘warming’ hysteria.
It has been reported that California forests have 129 million dead trees in them just waiting to be ignited by lightning, by accidents, by careless campers… or by arsonists. Thus when loggers are kept out of the forests and and the forest are not cleaned up and “managed” under ‘greenie’ policies they build up huge stocks of dead wood just waiting to burn.
Meanwhile California forests are notoriously dry and flammable to start with. So it is no surprise that they are burning up.
Meanwhile here is another negative consequence of ‘green’ energy, this time about windmills. Cowboy State Daily in Wyoming reported:
The Casper landfill will soon be the home of more than 1,000 decommissioned wind turbine blades and motor housing units.
According to Cindie Langston, solid waste manager for the Casper Regional Landfill, the materials will be deposited in an area of the landfill designed to hold construction and demolition material.
CRL is one of the few landfills with the proper permits and certifications to accept the decommissioned turbine materials.
The turbine disposal project, which started this summer, is slated to continue until the spring of 2020… The wind turbine components are being delivered by InStream Environmental, a company that recycles and disposes of other companies’ waste streams. The company is retrieving the blades from two different wind farm locations.
Each turbine blade will need between 30 and 44.8 cubic yards of landfill space, using a total of 448,000 cubic yards of the 2.6 million yards set aside for construction and demolition material.
The average lifespan of a wind turbine is 20 to 25 years… Nationwide, there are nearly 50,000 wind turbines…
Nikitas3.com has said many times that the low yields, high costs and gross inefficiency of windmills are never truly exposed, such as the cost to take them down or to repair them. These costs are all covered up by massive taxpayer subsidies.
For instance we often see windmills sitting idle and we think that there is no wind, which is sometimes the case. But many windmills are not spinning because they have malfunctioned and it is too expensive to fix them. Or they are old and worn out and not in service.
Or their blades have been damaged. Windmills blades by the thousands have been destroyed by cold, snow, ice and hail and the blades are very expensive to fix. Most need to be scrapped and replaced.
Their inspection alone requires that specialized and very high-cost crews be sent out with sophisticated rope gear to suspend themselves from the windmill hub like mountain climbers to lower themselves down along the blades hundreds of feet in the air.
These crews cannot even do repairs in most cases, and often the blades are beyond repair and need to be replaced. That is a very expensive and complicated job requiring a tall crane. So the windmills sit idle and generate no power until they get replacement blades. In other words, the whole system is rigged in favor of ineffective and inefficient windmills.
Nikitas3.com calculates that it consumes up to 300,000 TONS of composite or fiberglass material (or more) to make the thousands of windmill blades for 1,000 megawatts of power. But the same 1,000 megawatts generated at a nuclear plant requires ZERO tons of composite or fiberglass since there are no blades. This is yet another reason that windmills are bad for the environment.
Nikitas3.com also calculates that windmills require up to 500 times as much steel, copper and concrete than a nuclear plant to make the same amount of power. And 1,000 times as much land. This is yet another reason that windmills are bad for the environment.
Windmills kill millions of birds every year. This is yet another reason that windmills are bad for the environment.
Windmills also cause real ‘climate change’ by slowing down the winds. This is yet another reason that windmills are bad for the environment.
Windmills are not ‘green’ – they are hugely destructive to the environment!
And to the economy of power production. Nikitas3.com calculates that the maintenance costs for windmills is up to 2,000 times higher than the cost for the same amount of power generated by nuclear.
Meanwhile Tyler O’Neill at PJ Media reported:
In 2004, The Guardian reported on a Department of Defense climate-change report that would prove “hugely embarrassing” for President George W. Bush. The report predicted that climate change could be America’s greatest national security threat. Yet these climate-change predictions, like so many others, proved nearly the opposite of the truth. Among other things, the report predicted nuclear war, endemic conflict over resources, and European cities underwater by 2020.
None of these things happened.
“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world,” The Guardian reported. The report “predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.”
“Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,” the Pentagon report concluded. “Once again, warfare would define human life.”
Among other things, the report predicted: severe drought and cold pushing Scandinavian populations southward in 2012; a “flood of refugees to southeast U.S. and Mexico from Caribbean islands;” conflict in the EU over food and water; Russia entering the EU in 2018; “migration from northern countries such as Holland and Germany toward Spain and Italy.”
By 2027, the report predicted “increasing migration to Mediterranean countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, and Israel.”
The decade of the 2010s saw the opposite of many of these predictions. Migrants from the Middle East are flooding into Europe — even Britain and Scandinavia — not the other way around. Britain does not experience a “Siberian” climate. Refugees are flooding to the U.S. through Mexico from South and Central America, not from the Caribbean or from Europe. Germany is dominating Europe economically, while Italy and Spain struggle, and migrants are flocking northward, not southward.
We know the drill. We see this nonsense every single day from the these wacko ‘greenie’ extremists. They are pathological liars.
Rich Liberals Should Send More Money to the Government, But Won’t
We often hear rich liberals talking about how much they wish that rich people were taxed at a higher rate. Yet they are free to send more money to the government any time they want. But they don’t. PJ reported about Bill Gates who said:
“When I say the government needs to raise more money, some people ask why Melinda and I don’t voluntarily pay more in taxes than the law requires. The answer is that simply leaving it up to people to give more than the government asks for is not a scalable solution. People pay taxes as an obligation of law and citizenship, not out of charity. Additional voluntary giving will never raise enough money for everything the government needs to do.”
This is a totally fake answer. Gates should simply explain why he personally doesn’t send more money but he obfuscates.
This is like all liberal behavior. For instance liberals and Democrats whine incessantly about ‘climate change’ but they themselves use more energy than anyone else, like the Hollywood goons flying around in their private jets or the elite backpackers flying halfway around the world to climb Mount Everest. When you ask them why they don’t voluntarily cut their own energy use, they never give a straight answer, as Gates did not.