Opinionated Blogs (1,909)

Image address:

Somebody has to go to Moscow and talk to Putin, to at least get a ceasefire in place and allow humanitarian supplies to come in. There are only two people who have ever impressed Putin on the world stage enough to pull this off: Xi Jinping and Donald Trump.

Mr. Xi leads Russia's only important ally. And Mr. Trump, whatever some Americans think of him, dominates world opinion in a way nobody has since Ronald Reagan. Uniquely, he is seen now as likely to return to the presidency.

Mr. Xi won't lift a finger to help. Why would he? Mr. Trump, though, would be happy to lead a delegation to give this a try.

Right now, Old Joe is hiding away in Delaware, and Team Biden, Blinken, Klain, Wendy Sherman is still trying to do a sell-out deal with Iran. That's why Saudi Arabia won't increase oil production. Waiting for these folks to get the message and do something smart may be a long time in coming.

But perhaps with all the newfound courage among our NATO leaders, one or two of them can ask Trump to go visit Putin on their behalf. Making a deal with Trump instead of Biden could be just the kind face-saving gesture that would entice Putin to stop the shooting.

As long a shot as this may be, I figure the odds are better than what I suspect Team Biden may actually be planning: sending Kamala Harris over to beguile Putin with her feminine charms.

Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial. This startling fact is kept from the public by a determined effort on the part of alarmists and their media allies who are determined to use the language of crisis and emergency. The goal of Net Zero emissions in the UK by 2050 is controversial enough as a policy because of the pain it is causing. But what if that pain is all to prevent something that is not doing net harm?

The biggest benefit of emissions is global greening, the increase year after year of green vegetation on the land surface of the planet. Forests grow more thickly, grasslands more richly and scrub more rapidly. This has been measured using satellites and on-the-ground recording of plant-growth rates. It is happening in all habitats, from tundra to rainforest. In the four decades since 1982, as Bjorn Lomborg points out, NASA data show that global greening has added 618,000 square kilometers of extra green leaves each year, equivalent to three Great Britains. You read that right: every year there’s more greenery on the planet to the extent of three Britains. I bet Greta Thunberg did not tell you that.

The cause of this greening? Although tree planting, natural reforestation, slightly longer growing seasons and a bit more rain all contribute, the big cause is something else. All studies agree that by far the largest contributor to global greening – responsible for roughly half the effect – is the extra carbon dioxide in the air. In 40 years, the proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 has gone from 0.034 per cent to 0.041 per cent. That may seem a small change but, with more ‘food’ in the air, plants don’t need to lose as much water through their pores (‘stomata’) to acquire a given amount of carbon. So dry areas, like the Sahel region of Africa, are seeing some of the biggest improvements in greenery. Since this is one of the poorest places on the planet, it is good news that there is more food for people, goats and wildlife.

But because good news is no news, green pressure groups and environmental correspondents in the media prefer to ignore global greening. Astonishingly, it merited no mentions on the BBC’s recent Green Planet series, despite the name. Or, if it is mentioned, the media point to studies suggesting greening may soon cease. These studies are based on questionable models, not data (because data show the effect continuing at the same pace). On the very few occasions when the BBC has mentioned global greening it is always accompanied by a health warning in case any viewer might glimpse a silver lining to climate change – for example, ‘extra foliage helps slow climate change, but researchers warn this will be offset by rising temperatures’.

Read more:

Music ..

Not just medium to establish a person's hidden talent , or just to express someone's intimate emotions , or just to impress and impact a mass audience , or just to create entertainment for celebration of special moments , or just to find a way to earn for survival through performance ..

It's not just a piece of Art to realise and cherish ..

It's infact the lesson of life .. When it shows the direction to all the lost souls during world-wide blind-folded darkness ..

And the Legend , who made us realise all these deepest and eternal truth , was none other than the heavenly Nightingale , Sreemati Lata Mangeshkar ...
Who was not just a performer , not just an artist , but a devotee of Music ..

Today is that unfortunate but inevitable day , when we lost our Nightingale ..

But

We know for sure , the Voice of Nightingale will never been lost ..

A Heart Broken Tribute To Nightingale , Sreemati LATA MANGESHKAR ..

Maybe the weirdest part of the Joe Rogan–Neil Young fight is the ridiculous position Neil Young has staked out on "illegal" drug use.

For those of you under age 50, Neil Young was a moderately famous Canadian rocker from years ago who, like his band mate David Crosby, was notorious for ingesting loads of controlled substances and living to tell the tale.

There is a hilarious send-up of Young by SCTV at the end of this sketch that gets it dead-on.

Drug arrests were a big part of his earlier career, although in the last decade he claimed to be exploring a new perspective of sobriety after spending most of his life stoned out of his mind.

Young at least remembered he still has the rights to all his music, and he is petty about licensing deals, so seeing him pull out of Spotify over his Joe Rogan/ivermectin snit was actually nothing new. Apparently, old buddy David Crosby tried the same thing, only to be told he no longer owns the rights. Well, they always said smoking dope makes you stupid, and left-wing, geezer rockers are Exhibit A.

Of course, Neil Young and the other has-been singers are not necessarily against all drug use. They just seem to want to focus on one drug: ivermectin — a cheap, super-safe medicine with no narcotic buzz, that's been around since the 1970s. The worst that can happen to someone taking ivermectin for COVID-19 is that he doesn't do any better than someone not taking anything. But more evidence keeps coming in every day from around the world that the drug is helpful in treating the virus.

Contrast this with Young's 1970s attempt to address heroin use, "The Needle and the Damage Done," a vapid tune about a drug death, where heroin is some sad thing that just happens. Like a traffic accident. He saved his real anti-drug outrage for today, against a safe medicine being prescribed by doctors across the world for a short-course, off-label use.

Andrew Breitbart was famous for saying, "Politics is downstream from the culture" and thus the left is really good at polluting the culture for its political ends. But I think this episode proves yet again what a double-edged sword that may be. An absurd figure like Neil Young is left to tamp down dissent for the leftist-lockdown orthodoxy of our ruling class. This failing Florida newspaper is typical of the out-of-touch partisans, reduced to rooting on ancient, brain-addled rockers to carry their message. Most Americans though, are repelled, not impressed.

But to a certain extent, you can't blame them. Biden is ready to clean house, starting with HHS, over his messed up COVID-19 policies. He could just go ahead and hire the entire Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young bunch as their replacements. They already have more real-world experience with pharmaceuticals and hospitals than Tony Fauci, and as for policy-making, they couldn't do any worse.

Image address:

“Wannabe Gangster” Tries To Rob Man At Gunpoint In His Driveway – Gets Big Surprise.

Armed Texas homeowners are no joke.

During his final day on Earth, a home invader was taught one final lesson that could have added decades onto his life: Don’t mess with a Second Amendment patriot in Texas.

Had this particular thug been schooled on the God-given constitutional rights bestowed on every American citizen, perhaps he would have thought twice about bursting into a Texan’s home and pointing a gun in the homeowner’s face.

However, in a moment of true southern hospitality, the homeowner felt obliged to teach his unexpected guest how the Second Amendment works.

According to police, a man in his 20s stopped his car in front of a home in the 200 block of Pleasanton Circle in San Antonio’s South Side neighborhood around 12:55 p.m. Thursday.

The suspect then came out with a gun in his hands and the homeowner may have been taken by surprise, but he was prepared and wasn’t about the become another victim.

The suspect who is yet to be named by the police, was found dead later!
The homeowner had a permit for the gun which makes hs legal battle easy!

Remember, many states strictly forbid the use of deadly force to protect your property.
Criminal Consequences

Let’s look at the potential criminal consequences you could face if you decide to confront these types of perpetrators with force or deadly force.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.

“Trespass” occurs when a person enters onto or into property, knowing that entry is forbidden or remains on the property after being told to leave by someone with authority.
“Theft” or “Interference with Property” occurs when a person takes another’s property with the intent to deprive them of that property and without the owner’s consent.

Going back to the example above, if you grab your firearm, go outside and fire a shot at the trespasser or someone merely creeping around your yard, you will likely find yourself facing a serious felony. In these circumstances, Texas Law only permits the use of force, not deadly force.

Now, what if the trespasser sees you, but instead of running away, he comes toward you with a weapon in one hand and your property in the other? It’s important to note that this is no longer a mere trespass. It has quickly changed to an attempted murder or an aggravated robbery. This distinction is important when we discuss the use of force or deadly force because if you choose to use deadly force and fire upon the perpetrator, your conduct will likely be justified.

Remember, the starting point for using force or deadly force in Texas can be boiled down to two things: reasonableness and immediate necessity.

So, when can you use deadly force in Texas to protect property? Texas law allows you to use deadly force to protect property if you would be justified in using force, and you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of specific enumerated property crimes. These are arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Turning to the second example we discussed earlier, the sound of breaking glass and finding your front door wide open. It is very likely that you’ve discovered the imminent commission of one or more of the crimes where Texas law allows the use of deadly force. The bad guy is no longer a mere trespasser and his conduct is elevated to the point where he’s probably committing or attempting to commit burglary or worse.

Verdict:

This man has every right to exercise his second amendment rights in this situation!

Pelosi Family ‘Has Done a Lot of Business in China Since the COVID Outbreak’ — Won’t Allow Hearings on COVID Origins

Peter Schweizer, author of Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win, said House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went soft from her previous anti-Chinese Communist Party position after “her husband and son started seeking deals in Beijing.”

He added that while her family “has done a lot of business in China since the COVID outbreak,” she had refused to allow congressional hearings to discuss the origins of the COVID virus.

Schweizer said, “Nancy Pelosi used to be pretty anti-Chinese Communist Party early in her career, and then her husband and son started seeking deals in Beijing. And it’s interesting, you’ll remember the last time China held the Olympics in 2008, Nancy Pelosi was in favor of a boycott. And then, lo and behold, her husband was partner in a couple of limousine companies that got major contracts in China to ferry VIPs around the Olympics, and Nancy Pelosi suddenly went from boycotting the Olympics to saying that she was opposed to a boycott for the Olympics.”

“Look, Nancy Pelosi’s family has done a lot of business in China since the COVID outbreak,” he added. “She has refused to allow a single congressional hearing to even discuss the origins of the COVID virus. Why on earth would the Speaker of the House take that position?”