Legal Notices
Platte
County Foreclosures
Local News
Archives
Between the Lines
by Ivan Foley
The Rambling Moron
by Chris Kamler
Parallax Look
by Brian Kubicki
Off The Beat
by Eric Burke
Chiefs Briefs
by Chris Kamler
Off the Couch
by Greg Hall
Letters to the Editor
"Send Your Letter"
Classifieds
Advertising
Subscriptions
 
Weekly publication dates are Wednesdays
 
52 Main Street0
P
P.O. Box 410
Platte City, Missouri 64079
816-858-0363

Fax :816-858-2313
 
TO CONTACT US
by email
Click Here!
or
by phone
816.858.0363
 
 
 
 


heading

news@plattecountylandmark.com

Kubicki

Parallax logo

by Brian Kubicki
Landmark columnist

 

DOCTOR: TRANSGENDERISM IS A DISORDER

5/18/16

•Some on the political left are certifiably crazy on transgenderism.

An essay in The Antioch Review by Daniel Harris (he's characterized in the story as a “gay writer” but I don't think it's relevant to mention) has driven the literary left absolutely nuts.

"While I fervently support [transgenders'] rights to transition," Harris writes in the piece, "I believe that the whole phenomenon of switching one's gender is a mass delusion."

It is impossible to change one's gender, regardless of how many body parts one chops off.

"Gender is not 'assigned,'" he writes, and, therefore, cannot be "reassigned" by superficial plastic surgery. "It is revealed, first by the transducer of an ultrasound machine massaging a besmeared and distended belly and then by the obstetrician as he dangles the wailing infant by its feet... One can no more change one's gender than one's species."

Notice that a transgendered man converting to a woman tries to do things to his body – his appearance – that actually reinforces stereotypes about women that are largely sexist. For example, wearing high heels is structurally designed to make a woman's frame, communicated by the movement of her body when she walks, appear more sexually alluring to men. This is why women's clothing is more revealing than men's clothing largely.

If you ask a woman why she spends so much time in front of a mirror putting on makeup every day, she will likely answer because it “makes her feel more confident; better about herself.” But the source of that confidence is in the response she will get from the opposite gender.

Now, Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner still feels a natural attraction to women, according to accounts. So why is he doing things to his body that are designed to make him more attractive to men?

Perhaps, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said, transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment.

Dr. McHugh has explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of 'assumption'” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.

He also noted a new study that showed the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people.

While the Obama administration and the major media promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves treatment.”

The political agenda of the transgender community – and the Obama Administration - seems to demand we be complicit in their convictions. We are not allowed in the liberal mind to follow the humane policy of live and let live, exhibiting acceptance and tolerance as well as fighting for their rights as human beings. Instead, we are required to act as their enablers and protect them from the truth. We are expected to support them politically and affirm their mangled concepts of selfhood.

The truth is, their salvation will not be found through acceptance of their delusion, but will instead be discovered through counseling and psychiatric therapy. To not recognize that basic fact is to do them more harm.

•The big media won't report this story accurately because of their liberal bias, but the Little Sisters of the Poor beat Obama at the Supreme Court on Monday.

The liberal big media said that the Supreme Court “punted” today by sending the Little Sisters of the Poor case back to the lower courts. Though the court didn't rule on the merits of the case, the Little Sisters won.

The Supreme Court vacated the lower court ruling holding that the Little Sisters had to provide access to contraceptives and ruled that the mandate substantially burdened exercise of their religion. Also, the court outlined the accommodation the Little Sisters endorsed and the government actually agreed to. During oral arguments, the court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners' employees, through petitioners' insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.”

Both petitioners and the government now confirm that such an option is feasible.
What I found most significant is that this ruling was unanimous. The four liberals voted in favor of the Little Sisters.

The Obama administration pushed very hard against the Little Sisters of the Poor. This is not the outcome the Obama administration hoped for.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


REMEMBER THE OZONE HOLE?

5/11/16

•Remember the ozone hole?

Dr. Timothy Ball, a well-known geologist and climate change skeptic (see www.drtimball.com) recently wrote that the ozone issue was an early misuse of science for a political agenda. Attempts to ratify the Kyoto Protocol decades ago included claims that the Montreal Protocol, designed to save the ozone layer, was a success.

Dr. Ball notes it wasn't, because there was no problem in the first place.
Chlorofluorocarbons then, like CO2 today, were never a problem.

Environmentalists used a natural change of ozone and CO2 to blame human activity. With ozone, the "urgent problem" was a slight decline in atmospheric levels over Antarctica; with CO2, a slight increase at Mauna Loa.

Both times, they funded scientists to produce the "scientific" evidence.
The word "hole" implies damage, a leak, a tear in the fabric of the sky. The objective was to blame humans for a natural phenomenon ostensibly to save the planet.

Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere when ultraviolet (UV) radiation, a small part of the total energy from the sun, strikes free oxygen molecules. The molecules are split into single oxygen molecules, which combine with other oxygen to create ozone.

The ozone layer varies considerably in different regions, at different altitudes, and over time. The so-called "hole" is a region located over Antarctica in which the ozone level is lowest during the Southern Hemisphere winter. Even then, the thickness is still one-third of the global average. It is an area of "thinning" due to natural causes.

The ozone layer is self-healing because as UV penetrates further into the atmosphere, it encounters more free oxygen. 10 miles above the surface, 95% of the UV has been expended in the creation of ozone.

The hysteria began with the environmentalist hypothesis that CFCs were destroying ozone in the stratosphere. Molina and Rowland, were scientists who published studies showing that CFCs destroyed ozone. They didn't simulate atmospheric conditions in the ozone layer, but that didn't matter. Ideology took over, and they determined to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis as proper science requires.

A major cause of changes in the size and extent of the Antarctic ozone hole are the intense wind patterns and circulations associated with the extensive Antarctic high-pressure zone and the surrounding wind pattern known as the Circumpolar Vortex.

We now know UV varies as much as 200% naturally around the average value. They also said CFCs would remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, and that recovery of the ozone would take a very long time.

They were wrong.

There are still no holes in the ozone, but the area of thinning over Antarctica continues to vary due to natural conditions.

Skin cancer is increasing because of increased life expectancy, not "the hole in the ozone." Mania about avoiding sun exposure means that scrofula (a form of tuberculosis), rickets and other bone diseases are on the rise; children and others dutifully applying sun blockers aren't getting enough UV radiation to produce vitamin D, so they are increasing their chance of getting these conditions.

The claim is still made that the actions invoked by the Montreal Protocol saved the day. Even a brief examination shows this is false. Use of environmental issues for totalitarian control has a long history.

So you now know that we have been right all along.

•www.LawNewz.com reported last week that NBC News was the second major news network to announce an upcoming interview with the notorious Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, better known by the name “Guccifer.”

Lazar, whose actions led to the exposure of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, was extradited to the United States in March. He is alleged to have posted emails that were sent to then-Secretary of State Clinton on the internet, including correspondence from close Clinton family confidant Sidney Blumenthal. Lazar was extradited to the United States just as reports indicate that the FBI investigation into Clinton's email server was in full swing. Lazar is charged with wire fraud, cyberstalking, identify theft, unauthorized access to computers and obstruction of justice.

According to the NBC News press release, Lazar was interviewed by reporter Cynthia McFadden from a Bucharest prison, where he admitted to also hacking into Clinton's private e-mail account.

Lazar openly admits in the interview hacking Clinton's private e-mail account. The same private e-mail account where federal officials found over 2,000 e-mails that contained classified information, including at least 22 deemed to contain “Top Secret” information. Clinton's campaign has already fired back, in a statement saying “There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell.”

NBC News says Lazar made these claims to McFadden during an interview in a Bucharest prison. Lazar was extradited to the United States on or about March 31, 2016. So, McFadden conducted the interview before he was extradited to the U.S. which means NBC News was sitting on these explosive claims for more than one month.

Why would a major news network sit on such an explosive allegation?

The delay cost NBC a huge exclusive, or at least seemed to prompt them to hurry and put something out as Fox News went with its own story and interview with Lazar late Wednesday.

Fox News clearly did their interview with the hacker after he arrived in the United States. As they mentioned, they visited him in a Virginia jail.

Can a President be impeached for crimes committed before they became President?

 


CHIEFS CRAZY FOR DRAFTING A DOMESTIC ABUSER

5/4/16

•I don't often talk sports here, and to be honest, this take really isn't about sports per se. However, this has been a story since the NFL Draft last weekend and it has generated a ton of interest – pro and con, but mostly con.

Tyreek Hill was drafted by the Chiefs. He attended Garden City Community College, Oklahoma State University, and the University of West Alabama. Hill ran a 4.35 sec. 40 yard sprint at the NFL Combine. He is VERY fast.

Tyreek Hill was arrested on December 12, 2014 while a student-athlete at Oklahoma State. Stillwater, OK police records indicate that Hill was arrested on complaints he assaulted his 20-year-old girlfriend. Oklahoma State dismissed him from the football team after these charges.

The Stillwater Police arrest report, which can be read here:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/osu/football/read-the-full-tyreek-hill-stillwater-police-department-incident-report/pdf_c79c04ce-06ba-533f-be0f-b71a445b958a.html

Hill's then-girlfriend, who was eight weeks pregnant at the time, claimed he “'threw' her around like a ragdoll, punched her in the face, busted her lip, punched her in the stomach, and choked her…”

The woman goes on in the report to note that Hill had been physical with her previously, but it had never been this bad, just “man handling.” She noted that he had never previously hit her.

This following part nobody I have heard has reported on.

When officers went to Hill's residence to arrest him, he told them that he was being arrested for being black and she was white.

The Chiefs have got to be crazy for drafting this guy!

The NFL is an elite job for uniquely qualified young men. There is no right to play in the NFL. If Clark Hunt, Andy Reid, or GM John Dorsey committed this crime they would either be fired or have their ownership revoked by the league.
Should the standards for their employees be any less strict?

The NFL should adopt a rule that states any players with a felony charge that is either convicted or pled down should not be eligible for the draft. Period!

•In Caracas, Venezuela, refrigerators went dead in kitchens across the country last week as the government turned off the electricity supply to help ease a power shortage that is worsening the country's economic crisis.

Venezuelans have been lined up for hours to buy scarce supplies in shops. The government imposed a four-hour blackout in eight states starting Monday and said the measure will last 40 days.

President Nicolas Maduro's government blames the power shortage on a drought caused by the El Nino weather phenomenon, which has caused the country's hydroelectric dams to run low.

Critics, however, say it is the result of economic mismanagement and inefficient running of the energy network.

Maduro is under growing pressure from the center-right opposition, which vowed to oust him when it took control of the legislature in January after winning a landslide election victory.

Venezuela's economy has plunged along with the price of the oil it relies on for foreign revenues. Citizens are suffering shortages of medicines and goods such as toilet paper and cooking oil.

Maduro blames the collapse on an "economic war" by capitalists. Last week, his government said it was shifting its time zone forward by 30 minutes to save power by adding half an hour of daylight. Maduro has even urged Venezuelan women to stop using their hairdryers.

Other measures include giving government workers an extra day off each week for the next two months. He has cut the workday for ministries and state companies and ordered them to lower their electricity consumption, along with shops and hotels.

However, analysts warn the measures will further damage productivity.

This is what happens when the government is given control over the energy sector.

•RINO King and the most despicable Republican Speaker of the House I have ever seen, John Boehner, just called Donald Trump one of this “texting” buddies in an interview last week.

Boehner called Ted Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh.”

Boehner went on: “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

What an endorsement for Ted Cruz!

Can you imagine how damaging an endorsement by a disgraced former Speaker of the House could have been if Boehner said anything nice about Cruz? If John Boehner hates you, you are going to win a lot of Republican and Conservative votes!

•I was saddened to hear that 710 KCMO laid drive-time talk host Greg Knapp off last week. Knapp, who had been at the station for more than 5 years, was a solid conservative and the absolute best interviewer I ever heard. My favorite talk radio segment EVER was when Knapp interviewed liberal Republican Margaret Hoover about her book which was trying to convince Republicans to accept gay marriage. Knapp challenged Hoover to back-up the lack of consistency of her arguments and pushed her on her repeated attempts to avoid the questions.

Knapp pushed her to the point where she broke down in tears during the interview.
It was a magnificent moment!

•Please note my email address has changed. If you want to reach me, use bfkubicki@gmail.com

 


THE NORTH CAROLINA BATHROOM ISSUE

4/27/16

•This entire North Carolina bathroom issue and transgenderism is much ado about nothing.

I don't say that because the Liberal Democrats are correct that we need to change our long-established societal rules that govern gender identity. To the contrary, the need to avoid discomforting people who have mental issues with their gender identification does not outweigh the importance of avoiding discomforting people with little children who wish to be allowed to raise their children as they deem best.

Done.

•Judicial Watch has finally accessed records of Secretary Clinton during the Benghazi Attack. Last month, their Freedom of Information Act request secured the following record of a phone call by Clinton the day after the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

On the evening (September 11) Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Whatever!

Set the scene: the 2012 presidential election was two months away. If Obama was seen as weak on American security abroad, he might lose and be a lowly One-Termer.

“S” is Secretary Clinton. In a call to then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil (“M”) she said that the deadly terrorist attack on the US compound the day before “had nothing to do with the film,” referring to the bogus propaganda movie the Obama Administration blamed on the terror attack.

S: “As you know, our diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked earlier this evening. We need your immediate help, as one of our diplomats was killed and our Ambassador, who you know, is missing. We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which understand Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility for. We also need you to provide additional capacity for firefighting as there are reports that the principle (sic) officer's residence has been bombed or set on fire. We believe that it is important for your government, as well as ours, to condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms and promise that these criminals will be brought to justice. I also need you to help us secure our mission in Tripoli. We have seen serious threats on social media sites, like Facebook, and it is important that your government take all possible measures, in an urgent manner, to secure our facilities. We need you to have people who you are confident in, who will follow your direction, and that your government trusts to secure our compounds.”

M: “Please accept my condolences for the death of the American at the compound and our sincere apologies for what has happened. We promise to find the criminals and bring them to justice. We will do our utmost to protect American buildings and every American citizen in Libya. We were just in the midst of an emergency meeting with the Prime Minister and all of his deputies to address this situation.”

After more blah-blah-blah conversation, Clinton says the following:

S: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack - not a protest…Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Boom!

•Did you notice how the picture the Obama Administration is using to represent Harriet Tubman – the Underground Railroad Abolitionist – on the new $10 bill is interestingly similar to Granny Klump from The Nutty Professor?

•About 160 countries signed the Paris Agreement on climate change last Friday.
The nonbinding agreement sets a long-term goal of keeping the increase of global average temperatures at less than two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.
President Obama followed up in March by pledging to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

The National Resources Defense Council issued a petition Thursday calling on the “Big Five” world powers — the United States, China, India, the European Union and Brazil — to “keep your climate promise.”

That's why they call this agreement non-binding. If a country chooses not to comply, the only enforcement mechanism is public shaming.

I have news for the rest of the world. I'm already ashamed enough by this president. More shame piled on by a cabal of enviro-nuts isn't going to sway me to stop using energy.

•The passing of Prince last week led to a large number of recollections of his vast musical talent.

Perhaps the best one I saw was that if Jimmy Hendrix and Carole King had a baby and James Brown kidnaped it and raised it himself, the result would be Prince Rogers Nelson.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ALLEGED THREATS MADE IN INDIANA BY TRUMP'S MINIONS

4/20/16

•RIP to a pioneering hurricane forecaster and climate skeptic, Dr. Bill Gray, who died this past weekend at the age of 86.

Tony Heller of RealClimateScience.com posted the following tribute: “A Very Sad Day For Science” –“Dr. Bill Gray has passed away. He was my hero, and an inspiration. Bill was a man of the highest integrity and character. Bill had his funding cut off by Al Gore in 1993 for refusing to go along with Gore's global warming politics. Unlike so many others, Bill chose scientific integrity over politics and money, and fought against climate fraud to his last breath.”

William Mason Gray (Bill) was an emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. He had remained active in his hurricane and climate change research up until the time of his death. Gray was famous for his seasonal Atlantic Basin hurricane forecasts and his strong disagreement with the scientific basis of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Gray was a faculty member in the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU from 1961 through his formal retirement in 2005. After retirement, he continued his hurricane and climate research as a professor emeritus.

Gray was skeptical of theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government. He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children." He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can't be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"

Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

In 1984, Gray initiated seasonal hurricane forecasts, for which he became well known, and which received extensive media coverage particularly in the 1980s and 90s. Gray graduated 70 masters and Ph.D. students, and many of his former graduate students have become prominent leaders in the field of tropical meteorology today.

Gray had strong disagreement with the science behind the human-induced global warming hypothesis and devoted the major portion of his recent years to research in this area.

•One of world's worst volcanos is again active after hundreds of years being dormant. Mount Paektu, which lies on the borders of North Korea and China, is now in danger or erupting again after its last devastating lava spill in 946AD.
That eruption was so powerful it formed a crater more than three miles in diameter, and produced enough ash that it even showered Japan almost 1,100km away.

Scientists have issued stark warnings saying it needs to be monitored as a matter of urgency, saying the threat is “very real.”

The volcano attracted interest from scientists between 2002 and 2005 when experts feared activity due to several mini-earthquakes in the region. It has now been confirmed as being active.

Some 1.6 million people live within 60 miles of the volcano!

Experts are estimating that the volcano could cause worldwide devastation.
Stephen Grand, a seismologist at the University of Texas at Austin, said: “I think the risk of a destructive eruption here is very real.”

James Hammond, a seismologist at Birkbeck, University of London, who helped on the research, said: “This volcano is quiet at the moment, but it's definitely got potential…We need to keep an eye on it.”

•Remember when the Trump campaign started accusing Cruz of “gestapo tactics” with no evidence whatsoever? Well, Trump's minions are up to it now.

Indiana State police are reviewing alleged threats against Indiana delegates who were critical of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“What I can share with you at this time is information has been referred to the Indiana State Police that alleges threatening emails have been sent to some Indiana delegates that will be participating in the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, OH,” said Capt. David Bursten, a state police spokesman. “Presently the Indiana State Police is reviewing the information to determine if it may cross the line of free speech and could be considered criminal in nature.”

Several of Indiana's delegates to the 2016 Republican national convention said they received a barrage of hate mail from Trump supporters after they expressed reservations about the billionaire real estate developer and reality TV star in a Politico story published online Saturday.

One of the emails read, “Good luck becoming a delegate…we are watching you.”
It is becoming readily apparent that Trump and his thug-followers are attempting to intimidate themselves into the nomination since they are apparently too dumb to read primary rules in each state and just too undisciplined to follow them.

But the scariest point is this: imagine if Trump were to become president of the most powerful country in the world. You think he and his people are going to stop these thug tactics in attempting to get their way – beneficial deals for the next Trump hotel or casino?

How far do you suppose that will go?

(Follow @bkparallax on Twitter)

 


WIND TURBINES ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS

4/13/16

•Go see an upcoming film on climate change.

The film is called, “Climate Hustle” and is scheduled for a one-night, national theater event on May 2. Looks like most AMC theaters will be showing the film.
Co-written by Marc Morano of Climate Depot (one of our favorite sites) and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the film takes a tongue-in-cheek look at claims made over the years about anthropogenic, or manmade, global warming.

"We're looking at hundreds of theaters, hundreds of cities," says Morano. "The global warming comedy will make its debut. We're going to have special features involved in the movie, some surprises around the film, meaning there is going to be additional stuff besides the movie when you go to the theater event."

•The Washington Times had an interesting piece last Monday where they mentioned that the Obama Administration believes extreme temperatures linked to climate change can be expected to cause a huge increase in the number of premature deaths; also known as deaths that occur before they are supposed to.
The report, completed over three years by 100 experts in eight federal agencies, estimated an additional 11,000 heat-related deaths during the summer of 2030. That number is expected to rise to 27,000 by the summer of 2100, the report claimed.

Climate change also threatens the mental health of people living in areas prone to extreme weather changes, such as hurricanes and floods, the study said.
The report further predicts an increase in air pollution and airborne allergens, as well as “extreme events,” such as droughts, wildfires and flooding.

John Holdren, President Obama's senior science adviser, said the historic global climate agreement reached last year at COP21 to curb emissions can help fight the health risks detailed in the report.

The lunacy never ends!

•Did you know that wind turbines are killing sperm whales?

Between Jan. 9 and Feb. 4 this year, 29 sperm whales got stranded and died on English, German and Dutch beaches. Environmentalists and the news media offered multiple explanations – except the most obvious and likely one: offshore wind farms.

Indeed, that area has the world's biggest concentration of offshore wind turbines, and there is ample evidence that their noise pollution can interfere with whale communication and navigation.

Of course, Britain's Guardian newspaper looked for answers everywhere but in the right place. That's not surprising, as it tends to support wind energy no matter the cost to people or the environment. After consulting with a marine environmental group, the paper concluded: “The North Sea acts as a trap.… It's virtually impossible for [whales] to find their way out through the narrow English Channel.”

Of course, that's not true. Sperm whales have the largest brains of all mammals and these intelligent animals would naturally have found their way to and through the channel by simply following the coast of England or continental Europe.
Indeed, researchers at the University of St. Andrews have found that the noise made by offshore wind farms can interfere with a whale's sonar, and can in tragic cases see them driven onto beaches where they often die.

But wind turbine noise and infrasound (extreme low frequency noise) are nearly constant, last as long as the turbines are in place and come from multiple directions, as in the areas where the whales were recently stranded.

On land, although the wind industry continues to deny any culpability, evidence is mounting that low frequency and particularly infrasound waves emitted by wind turbines have significant adverse effects on local residents, including sleep deprivation, headaches, tachycardia (abnormally rapid heart rates) and a dozen other ailments. Underwater, a milieu where sound waves travel much farther, it would be irresponsible and unscientific to argue that whales are not affected by operating wind turbines, all the more because cetaceans use their sonar to “see” what's around them.

Scientists have long maintained that it's likely that acoustic masking (covering-up) by manmade has a prevalent impact on animals' access to acoustic information is essential for communication and other important activities, such as navigation and prey/predator detection.

Blinded by this masking, whales and dolphins could seek refuge in shallow waters, away from big ships and killer whales, where they can often be stranded.
In September 2012, 19 pilot whales, a minke whale and a large sei whale beached on the coast of Scotland opposite an area where air guns were being used by ships surveying the ocean floor, as a prelude to installing offshore wind farms. A second pod of 24 pilot whales was spotted in shallow water around the same time, but they returned to sea without beaching.

Modern 8-megawatt offshore turbines are 656 feet above the waves; their rotating blades sweep across a 538-foot diameter. Those enormous blades create powerful pulsating infrasound and exact a toll on many species of marine birds, and even on bats that are attracted to the turbines as far as 9 miles offshore.

But hey…at least we're being green!

See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/04/are-wind-turbines-killing-whales/#sthash.Mnr7k436.dpuf

 


WEST INDIES CAPITALISM

4/6/16

•I am hard at work spreading capitalism across the globe, stopping off in the British West Indies to help the wealthy folks owning massive villas here understand why electric cars are nonsense.
It's a labor of love, trust me!

•I engaged a local landowner on that very subject a few days ago and was surprised to learn that though you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars clearing land with diesel fuel-driven earth movers, building luxury accommodations with coal-provided electric power driven tools, and cool said spaces with loads of refrigeration equipment, many of the elites seem to want to advance the use of electric cars to move around the islands.

They asked me why electric cars weren't a good idea. I answered that electric cars are an old technology that has served practical only for limited terrain movements like golf carts and short-trip people movement. Plus, the leading manufacturer of electric cars, Tesla, survived only by accepting $4 to $5 billion in our taxpayer money to keep their doomed enterprise afloat.

If a particular invention has merit, it will survive on its own without government assistance. Look at the incandescent light bulb. When Edison invented it, it sold in great volume, facilitated provision of an electrical distribution system, but was built and sold on the market need alone. Another more recent example is the smartphone. I look around this island and even the poorest of the poor have smartphones. There are no public phones anywhere anymore. Government didn't subsidize that.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

•I detailed this before, but it warrants re-mentioning.

Ever wonder how we got saddled with the nightmare of ObamaCare?

From Brian Sussman, frequent fill-in host for Mark Levin, the Senate in 2010 had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare.

So since the House of Representatives must originate all spending bills, they resurrected some obscure military spending bill, erased all the language in the bill, and replaced it with ObamaCare, forcing every American to purchase health insurance. If that's not ludicrous enough, after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn't have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare). So Senate leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Speaker Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point ObamaCare was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.

Remember the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act. Therefore Senate Democrats decided to change the rules. They used the “Reconciliation Rule” (this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill). This rule was only supposed to be used for budget item approvals so that such items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60. Reconciliation was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. That didn't stop them!

So both of the “Acts” were able to pass both houses of Congress and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation.

•This is what scares me most about Donald Trump. Do you really think he is smart enough or eve cares about stopping this kind of graft and corruption in Congress?

(Brian Kubicki can be found on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


IS NUCLEAR TERRORISM THE ACCEPTED COST OF LIBERTY?

3/30/16

•From conservativereview.com, we learned that the recent Belgium terror plot which resulted in the deaths of dozens of people was actually part of a broader effort to penetrate the country's only two nuclear facilities. According to the Daily Mail, Khalid and Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, the jihadi suicide bombers in last week's terror attack, were surveilling the atomic facilities for weeks and seemed to have contact with some workers within the site. Eleven workers at the nuclear plant have since had their badges revoked.

This news from Belgium shows that Ted Cruz was exactly right when he said that in addition to stopping the new flow of Islamic immigrants to the U.S., we must “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized. If nothing is done to mitigate the radicalization of the over three million Muslims already living in America, the U.S. will face what Europe is dealing with in just one generation. And if nothing is done about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS' defeat would be moot.

The facts are incontrovertibly clear that there is a huge terror recruiting problem in parts of Minneapolis and areas in Brooklyn, New York. The community leaders in these areas, assuming they truly value America and champion its ideals of freedom, should be the first ones embracing a proactive approach to rooting out the cancer of radical Islam and terror within their midst. Is nuclear terrorism the accepted cost of liberty?

It's time to wake up before it's too late.

You can see more information on this at:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/homegrown-nuclear-terrorism-in-belgium-proves-cruz-right#sthash.7ohuMFLR.dpuf

•Obama's recent trip to Cuba was an embarrassment to all freedom-loving Capitalists.

To all the Cuban-Americans who fought and scratched and endured to come to America as refugees and become legal citizens in escape from the chains of communist Cuba, I apologize to you. The leader of this country's federal government should not be praising the very reason you risked life and death to escape from that coercive country.

From climate depot, we learn that there is a radical 'Half Planet' environmental agenda calling for barring humans from half of the Earth's land mass!

A proposal that calls for barring humans from half of the Earth's land mass has actually received serious consideration from Fusion, the Univision-backed television network aimed at the millennial generation.

The proposal calls for barring humans from half of the Earth's land mass and has actually received serious consideration from Fusion, the Univision-backed television network aimed at the millennial generation.

Fusion claims the proposal might just be the answer to all our problems, and possibly might save mankind.

Specifically, they claim that humans have developed to the point where our existence “dominates” over plant and wildlife, and this basically signals that if we fail to embrace this plan, half of the species will be lost forever in a few generations.

For the record, you could move the entire population of the world to the state of Texas and the resulting population density would be the same as it is in New York City today. So, were that the case, every square mile outside of Texas around the world would have no people on it.

The Earth is not overpopulated.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/22/radical-half-planet-environmental-agenda-calling-for-barring-humans-from-half-of-earths-land-mass-floated-on-fusion-tv-network/#ixzz44F3g1zAD

•Interesting that Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and Rick Perry have all endorsed Ted Cruz. Perhaps Trump's insults, ignorance, and condescension aren't the way to unify the Republican Party after all?

Maybe the way to unify the party is to UNIFY THEM AGAINST DONALD TRUMP!

Perhaps that's what Trump has been trying to accomplish all along. Hmmmm…

•O.K., so Ted Cruz supposedly had affairs with five different women (who has time for that?) and the Trump-supporting owner of the National Enquirer wants us to care and support a serial adulterer in Donald Trump over a true conservative in Ted Cruz?

Can someone help me with the logic here?

Trump has had affairs. He has bragged about them. Trump would likely have another affair if given the chance.

But, we are supposed to be concerned about the personal marital life of a man married for many years to a woman with whom he is raising two daughters?

This is a loser issue for Trump.

I'm already tired of hearing Donald Trump blather his nonsense.

Please don't let this happen. Talk to your neighbors. Engage them. Challenge them by asking why a Big Oil CEO would be bad for America but a Big Casino/Hotel CEO would be good.

This election is too important people. It is the most important of my life, no doubt.

 


OBAMA LOOSENS CHAINS ON CUBA, WHICH IGNORES CHAINS ON ITS OWN PEOPLE

3/23/16

•Cuban president and rampant mass-murderer Raul Castro asked President Obama during his visit this week to lift U.S. trade and other restrictions instituted when the brothers assumed Communistic control of the island nation. Obama and Castro raised hands in salute and pledged to move forward trying to improve relations between the two governments.

Castro praised Obama's steps to relax controls on Cuba, but naturally called them insufficient. He asked for the U.S. to return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba control and to lift the U.S. trade embargo.

Obama claimed to press its leaders on human rights violations but once again made himself out to be some kind of Messiah that can change dictator hearts simply with the power of his presence. Raul Castro figuratively back-handed Obama by saying Cuba found it "inconceivable" for a government to fail to ensure health care, education, food and social security for its people.

What he failed to mention was that “security” in his view is the government imprisoning you or outright murdering you if you express dissatisfaction with the government.

Obama credited Cuba for making progress as a nation, but said that improving relations between the two countries means they discuss differences directly.
Of course, nothing is said about the political prisoners the Castros keep locked away. But we give them aid anyway. Just like Iran. Give them billions in aid but wag your finger at them as they develop nuclear weapons.

Pathetic!

•California's massive Ivanpah solar power plant may be forced to go dark.
A recent story in the Wall Street Journal revealed that the $2.2 billion desert project is not generating enough energy. The project's backers are asking for more time.

The taxpayer subsidized $2.2 billion solar project in the California desert isn't producing the electricity it is required to deliver to Pacific Gas &Electric Corporation (PG&E) which says the solar plant may be forced to shut down if it doesn't receive a break from state regulators.

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System uses more than 170,000 mirrors mounted to the ground to reflect sunlight to 450-foot-high towers topped by boilers that heat up to create steam, which in turn is used to generate electricity.
But the massively wasteful solar project, done with $1.5 billion in federal loans, has riled bird lovers by killing thousands of birds that burn to a crisp as they are flying past the massive reflective arrays.

PG&E is asking the California Public Utilities Commission for to forgive the power shortfall and give Ivanpah another year to figure out the problems. They warned that allowing its power contracts to default could force the facility to shut down.
Of course, the Obama Energy Department said last week it supports giving the plant, which started operating in early 2014, more time.

What a boondoggle!

•To “celebrate” Obama's loosening the chains on the Castro brothers while ignoring the chains on their people, Google is opening a state-of-the-art online tech center in Cuba, offering free Internet at speeds nearly 70 times faster than those now available to the Cuban public. President Obama says Google's efforts in Cuba are part of a wider plan to improve access to the Internet across the island.

Obama said Sunday that Google was also launching a broader effort to improve Cubans' Internet access across the island. No details were given though.
The tech center will be open five days a week, from 7 a.m. to midnight, for about 40 people at a time. The project's limited reach has symbolic importance in a country that has long maintained strict control of Internet access. The Castros claim unfettered Internet access is a national security threat. Specifically, they fear the Internet will be a tool for the United States to exert influence over the island's culture and politics.

The connection at the tech center is provided by Cuba's state-run telecommunications company over a new fiber-optic connection.

The center will feature upload and download speed of 70 megabytes per second. Yes, you heard that right, 70 MBPS. Their claim that it is “70 times faster” than existing Internet connection speeds means that their usual connection speed is 1 MBPS! Most Cubans pay fees of $2 an hour, which is almost one-tenth of their average monthly salary, for an hour of access at roughly one megabyte per second.

Cuba has one of the world's lowest rates of Internet penetration. That's freedom for you. The American President went there to celebrate it this week. It won't make a hill-of-beans worth of difference. President Obama cares not, because he can now paint himself as a leader that meets his country's enemies with open hands, even while they are standing on the backs of their own people.

•Late Monday during a press conference in Cuba, Raul Castro was asked if he would release political prisoners. He responded that if he could be provided a list of names of those prisoners he would do so. WeaselZippers.us published a list of 47 names and their duration of sentence. You can see it here…
http://www.weaselzippers.us/262819-heres-a-list-of-political-prisoners-in-cuba-right-now/

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE DEFENDERS OF TRUMP ARE A SNEAKY BUNCH

3/16/16

•I hear every day from Trump apologists that his established record of contributing to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel is to be excused as a rip on his candidacy for the Republican nomination, “Well…big business people contribute to both sides…it's what they do…”

Giving money to Democrats helps them work against conservatism. When you give a Democrat money, they use it to further their inherently evil liberal cause. You cannot excuse it by waving it off as business as usual. Donald Trump has made it more difficult for us to further the cause of conservatism.

We are back to jailing Galileo.

•If you recall, I have told the story that hundreds of years ago physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei was ordered to trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. In the 1633 interrogation, the church decided the idea that the Sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

The church handed down the following order: “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo…have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”

Along with the order came the penalty: “We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.”

Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.

Well, we're back there again.

•Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that the Justice Department is exploring legal action against global warming skeptics.

During Lynch's testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) posed a question to Lynch:

“…other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?”

Lynch replied:

“This matter [prosecuting climate skeptics] has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on…I'm not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

As a matter of fact, Lynch and Whitehouse understate the degree of persecution of dissent underway. Over a week ago, the DOJ made a criminal referral for views on a scientific dispute. The U.S. Justice Department has forwarded a request from two congressmen seeking a federal probe of ExxonMobil to the FBI's criminal division.

U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sought the probe last year to determine whether ExxonMobil violated federal laws by "failing to disclose truthful information" about climate change.

“Truthful?”

In response, the Justice Department deferred to the FBI, saying:
"As a courtesy, we have forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)," said a letter to the congressmen from Peter J. Kadzik, an assistant U.S. attorney general.

Continuing:

"…The FBI will determine whether an investigation is warranted."

Read more at: www.americanthinker.com

•One more thing about the Trump situation, and I veer from Rush Limbaugh and others on the right on this, but as you have no doubt noticed, Trump has no real substance to his campaign. There are no nuanced details on his positions about how to deal with rampant illegal immigration, how he will deal with a Congress that seems to want to fund amnesty and Obamacare, or how he will “mediate” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when the U.S. is a major ally of Israel.

However, the more he can keep the media talking about violence at his rallies and stump events, the less he has to talk about things he really knows nothing about – the issues.

And notice how his defenders have created a strawman argument in this issue of violence at his campaign events. Nobody doubts that the source of the protests is the Obama-created and Bernie Sanders' endorsed far-left crazies. They've been doing this since Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and Occupy Wall Street. This is what they do. Trump's defenders say that Trump isn't “causing these people to protest.”

But nobody is saying they are.

What Trump is responsible for are the reactions of those in the audience that react violently to the protesters by punching them or by Trump's own campaign manager allegedly bruising a female member of the media to try and keep her from asking Trump a question.

These defenders of Trump are a sneaky bunch.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him onTwitter @bkparallax)

 

 


TED CRUZ SHOWS HE CAN BE PRESIDENT

3/9/16

•I participated in the Kansas Caucus Saturday. It was extraordinary!

People in walkers, wheelchairs, and on foot stood in line for hours to register their vote for President. What caught my attention was a number of people were given the chance to leave the lines and simply fill-out a provisional ballot that would be counted later in the week. A few took advantage of that while most remained in line.

At the end of the day, turnout was staggering. In 2012, about 29,000 turned-out statewide. This time, over 79,000 Republicans voted. Ted Cruz won in a landslide.

•Thursday night's debate exhibited for many that Ted Cruz can be President of the United States.

Cruz dealt with Donald Trump in a manner that was far more important than simply finessing himself between Marco Rubio's attack dog approach and John Kasich's “Rodney King” (Can't we all just get along?) call.

Cruz made the case against Trump. He was civil while eviscerating Trump. He connected with the audience through command of the facts plus used persuasion in a human way.

The key was when Cruz asked the audience how many had been waiters or waitresses. Many Americans have spent time serving the public in a range of roles. The notion that working in retail is a job Americans won't do is absurd, and it is one that Trump parrots when attacked for hiring foreigners to staff his Florida hotels and resorts.

•Gauging this past weekend's caucus and primary results, particularly in Louisiana and Kentucky, there was clearly a movement away from Rubio and Trump and toward Cruz indicated in the day's votes which were evidently influenced by the Thursday debate evisceration of Trump.

Also, it cannot go without noting that Trump's insistence that the military would follow his unlawful orders to murder women and children or terrorists served as the most damning point in the case to be made against Trump.

This is good: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432345/ted-cruz-defeats-donald-trump-gop-debate?aPJgzXupXL2xAzFt.01

•I've had enough of Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice rejected a plea Thursday to block a contentious air pollution rule further restricting power plants.

Roberts's order came in the face of his court's 5-4 decision last year ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, is illegal.

Michigan led a group of 20 states last month — empowered by the Supreme Court's recent unprecedented decision to halt the EPA's carbon dioxide rule for power plants — in asking the court to live up to its ruling last year and block the regulation's enforcement.

The EPA responded that no judicial stay is necessary since it's working to fix the problem the court identified by next month, and the states would not suffer irreparable harm in that time.

Roberts acted swiftly, waiting less than a day after the EPA's response brief to side with the Obama administration. He acted unilaterally, electing to reject the request himself rather than take it to the full court, which may have led to a 4-4 split following Justice Antonin Scalia's death.

Those opposing the rule could still try to seek a full-court review of Roberts's decision.

•Meanwhile in Oklahoma City, people upset with more frequent earthquakes are trying to get some action.

More than five years after Oklahoma first experienced a startling increase in earthquakes allegedly linked to the disposal of huge volumes of wastewater created by hydraulic fracturing for oil, the ground continues to shake and the number of strong quakes seems to be increasing. In 2009, there were 20 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or higher, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Last year, there were 890. In 2009, no quake measured 4.0 or greater. Last year, 30 did.
Last month, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the agency that regulates the oil and gas industry, asked oil producers operating in the northwest part of the state to reduce by 40 percent the amount of wastewater they dispose of deep underground.

Scientists say natural faults in the area are being stirred by billions of gallons of water injected deep into the ground after it is used for hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. Water and chemicals are used to break oil and gas free from rock formations. A large amount of the water returns to the surface and, under federal law, must be disposed of in a way that does not affect freshwater supplies.

Note – federal law requires injecting the water underground. There are plenty of studies that show that fracking wastewater can be cleaned sufficiently just like we clean all other forms of wastewater, and put back into the hydrologic system. It is knee-jerk junk science to inject the water underground out of ignorance and fear.
Meanwhile, lawyers are flocking to Oklahoma like flies on a downed cow carcass.

“Write your story,” Little Rock, Ark.-based lawyer Scott Poynter wrote in a letter to people attending the meeting. “Describe the events that you and your family have experienced with the earthquakes. This case will take years, and you will need the story to refresh your memory. Also, it will help me keep everyone's problems straight.”

Meanwhile, have you noticed that when you have earthquakes here on the Great Plains, nobody dies due to having buildings fall on them?

Thanks to the LA Times for some of these facts.

(Twitter @bkparallax)

 


YOU NEED TO GET THE FRIED CHICKEN AT GUS'S

3/2/16

•From Red Alert Politics, who watched the Oscars so I didn't have to, we were reminded that Hollywood is of course very left-wing. This year's event was apparently quite illustrative of that fact.

The host Chris Rock addressed “controversy” that no black actors received a nomination, calling the Academy racist and giving a shout out to Black Lives Matter. He failed to mention that since 1972, 25% of Oscar hosts have been black, even though blacks are only 13% of the population.

Lady Gaga and Vice President Biden joined in the social justice warrior talking points by calling for an end to rape culture on college campuses. They made no mention about female teachers raping their male students though.

Lady Gaga followed up by singing, “'Till It Happens To You” while holding the hands of rape survivors. But she made no mention of the women that Bill Clinton has allegedly sexually assaulted.

Not to be left out, bear rape victim Leonardo DiCaprio, who finally won an Oscar for The Revenant, dedicated the award to Mother Earth and the fight against climate change.

“Climate change is real, it is happening right now, it is the most urgent threat facing our entire species and we need to work collectively and stop procrastinating,” DiCaprio said. “We need to support leaders around the world … who speak for all of humanity.”

Boy am I glad I didn't have to watch that show!

Meanwhile Little Leo took a private jet six times in six weeks last year, according to The Daily Mail. He didn't mention that.

•I tried the new-to-KC “Gus's World Famous Hot & Spicy Fried Chicken” recently, and it is fantastic!

As my long-time readers will recall, fried chicken is a particular passion of mine. I've heard a lot about the Southern tradition of “Gus's” as they opened their first restaurant in KC.

The chicken is really good. The breading is flavorful without being too spicy (As if any fried chicken could be TOO spicy!). The pieces of chicken are high quality, with none of the “unidentified parts” you see in some of the fast food versions of fried chicken.

The thing that struck me most about “Gus's” is how juicy the chicken was without even a hint of redness near the bone. These folks know how to fry chicken.

Thus far, I have only sampled the slaw and baked beans, which are O.K. It is difficult being exemplary as a side dish when the chicken is this good.

The restaurant has plenty of room to sit at tables and blues music played over a sound system the day I was there. But the chicken is made fresh upon order so it's not sitting under heat lamps. If you order carry-out, probably best to call ahead. I walked up with a fresh order and left 30 minutes later with the food.

Gus's is located in KCK on 47th Street just West of Rainbow Boulevard and a couple doors down from Joe's Kansas City BBQ. Give it a try!

•After spending billions from taxpayers, the electric car just can't cut the mustard.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance announced last week that it reduced growth forecasts for electric cars by half due to low oil prices, which of course led to drastically lower sales.

They estimate only 500,000 electric cars AND hybrids will be purchased by 2020, half of what they previously predicted. Electric cars and plug-in hybrids combined represent less than 0.5 percent of all American vehicles sold since 2011.

The price of oil would need to be above $350 a barrel to make an electric vehicle cheaper to operate than a conventional car, according to a study published Wednesday by MIT. The average price of a barrel of oil today is hovering around $30.

Even though electric cars can be eligible for up to a $7,500 tax credit, they are still incredibly expensive. Bloomberg projections estimate that it will take until 2040 for electric cars to cost less than $22,000.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/25/cheap-oil-is-killing-the-electric-car/#ixzz41E6WMXS0

•Liming Li, professor of physics, is leading a team of scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Wisconsin-Madison to study the energy budget for Jupiter, Saturn and Titan, as it impacts understanding of planetary climate and evolution.

How exactly does looking at planets a half-million and a million kilometers from Earth help us understand our planet's climate? This is how…

Prof. Li: "On Earth, the incoming energy is about the same as the outgoing energy. That means the temperature doesn't change dramatically, even with greenhouse effects…Saturn and Jupiter are emitting more energy than absorbed, so they are generating some type of internal heat. Earth and Titan are similar, with no significant internal heat."

Knowing whether the energy budget is balanced or imbalanced and how the energy budget changes with time, Li says, is important for understanding climate change and the evolution of a planet.

“Scientists think Titan's atmosphere is like the ancient atmosphere on Earth," he said. "By studying Titan's atmosphere, we can learn what has happened in the past to Earth's atmosphere.”

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


BIDEN PUTS FOOT
IN MOUTH OVER
SUPREME COURT ISSUE

2/24/16

•Do I need to mention the aggravating level of idiocy in President Obama using the Kalamazoo, Michigan shooting spree as a soapbox on which to enact more anti-gun rhetoric? Thanks, I didn't think so.

The victims' bodies were not even cold yet - despicable!

How about we just pray for the victim still fighting for their life and for the families of those whose lives have been tragically taken by this monster?

•This Supreme Court nomination fight is going to be interesting.

If you will recall, Vice President Joe Biden spoke just last Thursday about Republicans calling for Obama to pass on nominating a new Supreme Court justice until a new President is seated. Biden said those proposals don't make sense.

Biden's quote: "To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, 'God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we're not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half.'"

President Obama has said he will "do his job" as president and nominate a successor to Scalia's seat.

Biden continued: "The Senate gets to have a say, and so in order to get this done the president is not going to be able to go out (nor would it be his instinct anyway) to pick the most liberal jurist in the nation and put them on the court…There are plenty of judges who are on high courts already who have had unanimous support of the Republicans."

Nevermind the fact that none of those justices were at that time being considered for the Supreme Court!

•But how many recall during the 1992 Presidential election, then Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said President George H. W. Bush should wait to fill any Supreme Court vacancies until after the election?

CSPAN this week posted a clip of Biden's testimony on Twitter Monday afternoon.

Biden said in 1992:

“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” he said at the time.

In his testimony on the Senate floor, he said, the Senate Judiciary Committee should “seriously consider not scheduling confirmations hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“I sadly predict, Mr. President that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times,” he said. “I'm sure Mr. President, after having uttered these words some, some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it.”

Biden went onto say that delaying a Supreme Court nomination until after the election is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.

What better way is there to motivate the bases to go to the polls than to place the potential balance of the Supreme Court on the shoulders of the outcome of this single election?

•And on that subject, I can imagine the coming 4-8 years are going to see more than one sitting Supreme Court justice headed off the bench – either voluntarily or feet first. The Supreme Court is changing, for good or for evil, in the coming few months.

After winning in the South Carolina primary last Saturday, I doubt Donald Trump still believes this, but he again hinted last week at a possible third-party run, saying that the Republican National Committee is "in default" of an agreement and is not treating him fairly.

"When somebody's in default, that means the other side can do what they have to do," he said. "The RNC is in default."

Trump signed a pledge last year to run as a Republican and not as an independent.
“I signed a pledge but it's a double-edge pledge, and as far as I'm concerned they're in default of the pledge,” he said at a campaign event outside of Charleston, S.C.

During a later press conference, Trump said he was disappointed with the RNC because it stacks the room at debates "with special interests and donors."

"The RNC gave all the tickets to special interests that represented Cruz and Rubio. They had all the tickets," he said. "They walked on the stage and the place went crazy."

He said he doesn't have donors or special interests.

"I think the RNC did a very poor job," he said. "We've warned them...and they don't listen."

Good luck if Trump does run as a third party candidate because the time has long passed for an independent to get on most state ballots.

Most interesting to hear Rubio fans calling for Ted Cruz to drop out of the race so conservatives can coalesce behind Rubio in an attempt to take Trump down. Problem is, Cruz' supporters are more likely to join Trump than Rubio.

Trump and Cruz are together on immigration. Rubio is a Gang of Eight amnesty guy.

Cruz and Trump are anti-establishment. Rubio has the endorsement of just about every sleazy establishment politician currently in office.

Careful what you wish for, Rubio fans.

•Thoughts and prayers go out to Missouri U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill who announced this week that she is battling breast cancer.

•Go Royals!

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


SUPREME COURT DEALS A SETBACK TO CLIMATE CHANGE POLICE

2/17/16

•Rest in Peace to the finest Supreme Court Justice I've seen in my years following the Court. Justice Antonin Scalia was a consistent voice for originalism and the constitution in a world where many that go to the Supreme Court and Washington get changed by the liberals infesting that town. He will be greatly missed.
Now for the ensuing battle to replace Scalia on the Court…

Sen. Ted Cruz, appearing Sunday on Meet the Press, explained that he is opposed to President Obama nominating anyone to replace Justice Scalia. “The Senate's duty is to advise and consent,” Cruz said. “You know what? The Senate is advising right now, we are advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court. That we're going to have an election, and if liberals are so confident that the American people want unlimited abortion on demand, want religious liberty torn down, want the Second Amendment taken away, want veterans memorials torn down, want the crosses and stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans, then go and make the case to the people.”

Very well said.

•From loyal reader (and proud climate denier!) Gordon, a mountain in upstate New York reached a minus 114 wind chill at its summit last week!

New York City had its coldest start to Valentine's Day in 100 years on Sunday. But it seemed balmy compared to the summit at Whiteface Mountain.

The wind chill at Whiteface, near Lake Placid, made it feel like a body- and mind-numbing minus 114 degrees Fahrenheit late Saturday and into Sunday. By contrast, Central Park only mustered minus 1 degree F.

They now are claiming to understand why Al Gore's doomsday clock expired with none of his doomsday global warming predictions coming true.

A French News Agency reports that the reason the sea level rise didn't happen was because there has been so much drought in the last 10 years that the earth has been parched, becoming so dry that it is soaking up water!

It's soaking up rainwater, it's soaking up snowpack, it's soaking up the water in aquifers, and it's because the earth is basically just dying of thirst, which is part and parcel of all the heat that has happened with global warming.

From the journal, Science:

"Satellite measurements over the past decade show for the first time that the Earth's continents have soaked up and stored an extra 3.2 trillion tons of water in soils, lakes and underground aquifers..."

So global warming actually caused all of Al Gore's dire predictions to fail to occur.
So why didn't Gore's models predict the growing thirst of the planet?

•In what may have been Justice Scalia's final legislative move, the Supreme Court dealt a huge setback to President Obama last week by putting his climate change policy on hold while a coalition of coal producers and Republican-led states challenges its legality.

The justices, by a 5-4 vote, issued an unusual emergency order that blocks the EPA from moving forward with its effort to reduce carbon pollution from power plants by 32% by 2030.

The order said the EPA's “carbon pollution emission guidelines” for power plants are “stayed pending” a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which will hear the case this summer.

It is highly rare for the high court to intervene in a case pending in the lower courts. The brief order suggests that most of the justices have doubts about the legality of the EPA's policy.

The EPA regulations, known as the Clean Power Plan, would set state-by-state targets for reducing greenhouse gases from power plants. The rules would force many states to shut down older coal-fired plants and produce more electricity using natural gas or solar and wind power.

And necessarily skyrocket electricity prices.

The appeals court said it would hear arguments in June for the climate case and would probably rule in the fall, during Obama's last months in the White House.

•Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday again hinted at a possible third-party run, saying that the Republican National Committee is "in default" of an agreement and is not treating him fairly.

"When somebody's in default, that means the other side can do what they have to do," he said.

"The RNC is in default."

Trump signed a pledge last year to run as a Republican and not as an independent.
“I signed a pledge but it's a double-edge pledge, and as far as I'm concerned they're in default of the pledge,” he said at a campaign event outside of Charleston, S.C., The Guardian reported.

Trump's whine:

"The RNC gave all the tickets to special interests that represented Cruz and Rubio. They had all the tickets," he said. "They walked on the stage and the place went crazy."

He said he doesn't have donors or special interests.

"I think the RNC did a very poor job," he said. "We've warned them...and they don't listen."

The RNC has "total control" over Trump's competitors, he added.

"The bottom line is the RNC is controlled by the establishment and the RNC is controlled by the special interests and the donors and that's too bad," he said.
Sounds like a cry-baby.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


POLITICAL CORRECTNESS NOT WORTH GETTING PEOPLE KILLED

2/10/16

•I could not believe my ears last Saturday night when watching the Republican Debate in New Hampshire. The candidates – well Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie – were asked by the liberal ABC moderator if they were in favor of forcing women to register for the draft now that they've been approved for front line combat service. All three of them, seeming to want to avoid falling into the War on Women trap, said they agreed with such a change.

I was thinking that Ted Cruz probably had another view, but the moderators never asked him during the debate. However, Cruz made his feelings clear on Sunday.
Ted Cruz on Sunday said he opposes requiring women to register for a potential draft, “I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, 'Are you guys nuts?'” Cruz said Sunday, speaking at a town hall. “Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain't doing it.”

This is one of the reasons I like Ted Cruz.

We all know the odds of the draft being put back into use are virtually zero, at least as things are now. That may change, but most of us won't live to see it. Also, they're not having trouble recruiting female volunteers for the non-combat roles which need to be filled. What about combat? Nobody is talking about putting women on the front lines of combat unless they can pass extremely rigorous physical testing and very, very few women meet that standard. If the standards get lowered to allow more women to pass, our military suffers. When our military suffers, people die.

Ted Cruz is correct – political correctness is not worth getting people killed.

•Ted Cruz received another major endorsement last week.
Former US President Jimmy Carter told the UK Parliament that he wants Donald Trump to land the Republican nomination ahead of frontrunner Ted Cruz.

Speaking on a visit to Britain, the 91-year-old Democrat warned Mr. Cruz is committed to “Far Right-wing politics” which he would pursue “aggressively” if he makes it to the White House.

By contrast, Carter said, outspoken billionaire Mr. Trump has no fixed views at all.

Carter's direct quote:

“If I had a choice of Republican nominees, between Cruz and Trump, I think I would choose. Trump – which may surprise some of you,” he told an audience in the House of Lords.

“The reason is, Trump has proven already that he is completely malleable…I don't think he has any fixed opinion that he would fight for.”

Sensing an opportunity, Cruz immediately put out a campaign ad with the Carter quotes. What better evidence can a candidate put forward of the consistency of his philosophy than for a prominent member of the opposition party to step forward and admit that he is consistent in his conservative views? Plus, Carter gave the tacit kiss-of-death to Donald Trump by describing his views as “malleable” and that Trump has no fixed opinion that he would fight for?

•By the way, if you are worried about the Zika virus, start manufacturing DDT again and ship lots of it down to South and Central America. Carpet-bomb those areas with the insecticide DDT and reduce the risk of human populations to the virus. Do it now. Do not wait until, like with malaria when we gave-in to enviro-nuts and banned the use of DDT for fear of bird egg shell thicknesses, the disease comes back and kills tens of millions of people!

 


FOX NEWS IS IN THE TANK FOR RUBIO

2/3/16

•As Iowans kicked off the vote for presidential candidates this week, a new poll indicates (once again) that the vast majority of Americans don't rank global warming as the most serious issue facing the country.

A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians (Go figure – desert people don't worry about it getting hotter!!) were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent.

Americans' greatest concern was global terrorism — 28 percent of Americans polled listed this as their top issue.

The American people “get it” on global warming.

•Just heard Donald Trump being questioned by George Stephanopoulos about his position on Obamacare and government run health care in general and his answer was nonsensical. Trump was asked about his recent statements about supporting universal health care and his answer was some word-stream about people dying in the middle of the street (not on the sidewalk apparently or even in the gutter) and that he needs to do something to help those people.

Hasn't Trump ever heard of Medicaid and Medicare and the laws that force doctors, nurses, and hospitals to treat sick people that come to them for help regardless of their ability to pay? Where are all these people dying in the street?

I think the greater question to be asked is, how stupid does Trump think we the people are?

•Despite the huge push by Obama to tout his administration's global warming agenda, most Americans have been unconvinced it's the country's most pressing issue. A Fox News poll from November found only three percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern.

Experts in the United Kingdom are saying that energy bills are going to soar as “green” policies shut coal-fired power stations, causing a supply crisis, for electricity.

A report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers indicated Britain could have less than half the electricity it needs because plans to build nuclear and gas power stations are unrealistic.

The IME said 30 gas-fired plants would be needed in less than 10 years! Only four new plants have been built in a decade. That's not going to cut it, especially when one considers that shale gas development has also been delayed.

•I kind of wish we caucused in Kansas and in Missouri. It looks like a lot more fun than just voting.

•In January, 2006 — when promoting his ridiculous documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gases, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere 10 years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.”

Well, the ten years passed, we're still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse.

Again.

•Gore's prediction fits right in with the rest of his nutty comrades in the environmentalist movement. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute keeps his list of “18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions” made around the original Earth Day in 1970. Robert Tracinski at The Federalist has a nice list of “Seven big failed environmentalist predictions.” The Daily Caller's “25 years of predicting the global warming 'tipping point'” makes for amusing reading, including one declaration that we had mere “hours to act” to “avert a slow-motion tsunami.”
Last year. Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity.

Apparently, being a climate hysteric means never having to say you're sorry.

Simply change the cataclysm:

Overpopulation! No.

Global cooling! No, that didn't happen.

Global warming! No, let's change the name to climate change.

Being a warmist means never having to say you were wrong. In reality, one can respect the religious folks that warn of rapture way more than the climate hysterics. They merely ask us to believe, they don't use the force of government to dictate how we live. Pastors aren't circumventing the democratic process to impose dangerous and job-killing environmental regulations.

Think about this – ridiculous fuel-economy standards have actually cost American lives by putting less and less heavy steel into cars. Lighter weight cars are less safe.

Now the coal industry is reeling due to stringent EPA standards. Overall, the EPA's climate-change regulations are set to impose enormous economic costs. What's particularly aggravating is the hypocrisy. We have to be austere in our energy consumption but they can jet around the globe to speak to adoring audiences about the need for sacrifice. They simply refuse to walk their bold talk.

•The Iowa Caucus is now history and Ted Cruz won in impressive fashion. On to New Hampshire!

•By the way, am I the only one disgusted by Fox News' off-the-charts bias for Marco Rubio? You'd think Rubio won Iowa instead of Cruz! Disgusting! How far Fox News has fallen!

(Brian can be reached by email at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


WITH CRUZ, CONSERVATIVES WOULD REPLACE RINOS

1/27/16

•GOP front-runner Donald Trump said this week that establishment “RINO” Republicans are supporting his presidential bid now because they're terrified of Ted Cruz being the party's nominee.

Why would the non-conservative Republicans like John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham fear a Ted Cruz presidency?

The answer to that is quite simple. A president is essentially the party's leader. With Ted Cruz as President, you will start to see conservatives replace moderate RINOs in positions of power in government, and old power embodied by the likes of John McCain and Mitch McConnell do not want to have to find work in the private sector.

I REALLY want to see that!

•Recently, Trump has been ripping Cruz for being a politician incapable of working with the other side to “get things done.” Don't you hate that phrase?

When government “gets things done” our money gets spent. I want government to stop trying to “get things done.” The way I see it, the more opposition – REAL opposition – that there is in government, the more fighting there is and the less of our money gets spent.

Cruz, in response to Trump's criticism, has pointed to Trump's recent past support for liberal causes like eminent domain, which gives the government power to seize a private citizen's land.

One ad accused Trump of colluding with “Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow for a limousine parking lot at his casino.”

Trump shot back claiming, “He tells lies…He says I knocked down some woman's home … had bulldozers — I didn't knock it down some woman's home, she didn't want it.”

The facts?

Vera Coking was a retired homeowner in Atlantic City, New Jersey whose home was the focus of a prominent eminent domain case involving Donald Trump. In 1961, Coking bought the house for $20,000. In the 1970s, Penthouse magazine publisher Bob Guccione offered her $1 million to build the Penthouse Boardwalk Hotel and Casino. She declined, and Guccione started construction of the hotel-casino in 1978 around the house, but ran out of money in 1980 and construction stopped. The steel framework structure was finally torn down in 1993.

In 1993, Trump bought several lots around his Atlantic City casino and hotel, intending to build a parking lot designed for limousines. Coking, who had lived in her house at that time for about 35 years, refused to sell. The city of Atlantic City then condemned her house, using eminent domain. She was paid only $251,000 - about one-fourth what Guccione offered 10 years earlier.

Coking fought the local authorities, and eventually won. The courts ruled, because there were "no limits" on what Trump could do with the property, Coking's property could not be taken. Coking remained in her house until 2010, when she moved to a retirement home in the San Francisco Bay Area. She subsequently sold the house for $530,000 in 2014. While Trump was not the direct buyer, Carl Icahn, who held the debt on Trump Entertainment, owner of Trump Plaza, was. He subsequently demolished the house.

So Cruz is more accurate than Trump in this case. I'd say she definitely wanted the house.

•Bob Dole predicted an electoral apocalypse if Ted Cruz becomes the Republican nominee.

Cruz responded to Dole's glum warning:

“If you think of the last time we beat the Washington cartel it was 1980, it was the Reagan revolution, where millions of Americans rose up,” Cruz said. “And I would note that Mr. Dole then opposed Reagan, and said we need someone who can go to Washington who can cut a deal. Well the American people understood that's not what we needed.”

Establishment RINOs in the GOP are REALLY worried about Cruz and the base of the party. Folks, we will not win the election in November without the base.
Senator Richard Burr from North Carolina said at a private fundraiser last week he would rather vote for Bernie Sanders than Ted Cruz, according to the Associated Press.

The GOP establishment RINOs would rather hand the country over to socialists than support a consistent conservative.

Tells you all you need to know.

•How's this for an interesting fact? (From The Daily Caller.)

People who fear global warming actually use more electricity than those who don't care about the issue.

The study was commissioned by the U.K.'s Department for Energy and Climate Change and reviewed the energy use of 250 people, some of whom fear global warming and some who don't see climate change as an issue.

Researchers found claims of turning off radios, TVs, and lights when not in use was largely inflated by people surveyed. Basically, those who worried about global warming actually did little in their own lives to attempt to reduce their energy use.

From the researchers: “There is some link between households' stated behavior towards switching off unused appliances and electricity use, but there is seldom a statistically significant relationship between stated and actual behavior.”

The survey seems to show the hypocritical nature of global warming activists.

“The survey exposes the hypocrisy of many who claim to be 'green': the greater the concern people express about global warming the less they do to reduce their energy usage,” Peter Lilley, a Conservative British Parliament member, told reporters.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE 'NEW YORK VALUES' PILLOW FIGHT BETWEEN TRUMP AND CRUZ

1/20/16

•Todd Starnes with Fox News wrote a great missive last week after the Republican debate in South Carolina addressing the Ted Cruz/Donald Trump “New York Values” pillow fight that I believe cut right to the issue at hand well before anyone else did.

If you've been avoiding the debates, Donald Trump and the Mainstream Media are foaming at the mouth over the comment Senator Ted Cruz made about New York values. Trump stood on the bodies of the victims of 9/11 to defend and deflect attention on the fact that people in New York DO have more liberal values than do people in the middle of America.

We all know exactly what Cruz was talking about. It had nothing to do with the aftermath of 9/11.

As Starnes well-phrased it: “Senator Cruz was talking about cultural and political values. Duck Dynasty values versus Bill de Blasio values. He was referring to the permissive New York values celebrating public debauchery that would make the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah blush. Just ask the families from the Heartland who've been accosted by topless women in Times Square.”

Want other examples of New York values? How about Occupy Wall Street -- turning public parks into human cesspools - people defecating on police cars?
Cruz himself came out Sunday and recorded an apology.

It was devastating.

“It's been an interesting 24 hours where [they] have all demanded an apology because apparently they're unhappy about acknowledging that they have embraced New York values. And so I've heard their demands, and I am happy to give them an apology.

I apologize to the millions of New Yorkers who have been abandoned by liberal politicians. I apologize for the working men and women of New York who are denied jobs — jobs that have been plentiful just south of Pennsylvania — because Gov. Cuomo bans fracking. I apologize to all the pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Second Amendment New Yorkers who Gov. Cuomo brazenly told have no place in the state of New York because that's not who New Yorkers are. I apologize to all of the African American children who Mayor de Blasio tried to throw out of their charter schools that were providing a life line to the American dream. And I apologize to all the cops and firefighters and 9/11 heroes who had no choice but to stand and turn their backs on Mayor de Blasio because Mayor de Blasio over and over again stands with the looters and criminals rather than the brave men and women of blue.”

I was impressed.

•From The Daily Caller News Foundation, I thought it interesting to note that Obama is still 60% short of his goal of having one million electric cars on America's roads a full year after his self-imposed deadline.

American's just aren't that interested in electric cars, especially with gas prices fast approaching $1.20 per gallon.

So far, only 400,000 electric cars have been sold in the U.S. (through 2015), so Obama is still 600,000 cars, or 60 percent, short of the goal he set in 2011.

The collapse in oil prices complicated things even further by making heavier and safer SUVs, trucks and other fuel-guzzling cars much more attractive. Electric car sales fell to about 117,000 for 2015, down from 120,000 sold in 2014.

The Obama administration admitted in 2013 it would not be able to meet its goal of putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 even with generous subsidies. Market analysts with Navigant Research predict electric car sales won't top one million until 2024 — they estimate sales will hit 1.1 million cars that year.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/14/obama-still-60-percent-short-of-his-1-million-electric-car-goal-a-year-after-deadline/#ixzz3xFb8pDPy

•Interesting to note that not long ago when Ben Carson was rising in the polls, Donald Trump was quick to attack him for being "pro-abortion not so long ago."

Did you know that Trump himself was "very" pro-abortion not so long ago. In 1999, Tim Russert asked Trump if he would support a ban on "abortion in the third-trimester" or "partial-birth abortion."

"No," Trump replied. "I am pro-choice in every respect."

Trump explained at that time that his views may be the result of his "New York background" which differs from Iowa values.

During the first Republican presidential debate, Trump explained that he "evolved" on the issue at some point in the last 16 years. He explained it thusly,
"Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances…I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life."

The Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein soon after asked Trump if he would have become pro-life if that child had been a loser instead of a "total superstar." Trump replied: "Probably not, but I've never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he's such an outstanding person."

Sounds like a staunchly pro-life warrior there! Who says something like that?

Does that really surprise anyone?

(Brian Kubicki can be reached by email at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


HILLARY'S CLASSIFIED PROBLEM KEEPS GETTING BIGGER

1/13/16

•The Hillary Clinton email scandal seems to be getting worse by the day.

As the State Department, under court order, releases more and more emails from her home computer server, over 1300 classified emails have apparently been sent to others in violation of federal law.

And perhaps the most incriminating one came in an email thread from June 2011 where Clinton exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, her then-deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser. In that email exchange, she impatiently waits for a set of talking points and Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax. Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.

BOOM!

Clinton said last weekend that she never got the talking points so there is no “there there.”

But does that matter?

If you go in to rob a bank and walk out without any money, are you exonerated of the crime?

In Hillary's words, “If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

That's an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand. Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary's claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was “surprised” that a diplomatic officer used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

How about we review the relevant criminal statutes again in this case, such as 18 USC 793:

“d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document…or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits…the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document…relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits…the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust…and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Did those talking points get illegally transmitted on Hillary's order?

This explains why more than a thousand pieces of classified information have found their way into Hillary's unauthorized and unsecured e-mail system — and why the markings have been stripped from them. Hillary herself apparently ordered the Code Red, so to speak.

Somebody needs to Photoshop Hillary's face onto Jack Nicholson's body from the “YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH” tirade from the movie, “A FEW GOOD MEN.”

This is getting good.

•Did you see where the Washington Post admitted that electric cars were NOT worth the money we have spent on them?

The government has spent a lot on electric cars, but was it worth it? The obvious answer is no. There are three ways that the Washington Post notes that the investment was a waste.

“The government” - There are things we need government for. Protecting our borders and refereeing inter-state disputes in commerce are the main ones. In the economic world, private enterprise is best equipped to run the free market, not government.

“They spent a lot” - It's a common government mistake to believe that putting any amount of money into a government program will consistently produce expected results. In fact, those results are rarely achieved. Often, after they get nothing they try to fix the problem by dumping loads of more money at the problem.

“Electric cars” – Why did we need electric cars? Of course, the real reason is they were supposed to replace at least some of the gas-burning cars. We all knew going in that there was going to be no reduction in pollution. The energy needed to run electric cars has to come from somewhere. Most of it (fortunately) still comes from burning coal. But the truth is there was an awful lot of pocket-lining going on. It wasn't like the government would just come out and say, “A lot of people who were our political allies and donated lots of money during the election wanted some of that sweet 'free' taxpayer money.”

It was all a scheme, and now they are shamelessly admitting it.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


IT'S GOING TO BE CRUZ VS. HILLARY IN 2016

1/6/16

•Here we go 2016! Let's get this new year started.

•It's going to be Cruz vs. Hillary in 2016. All signs seem to be pointing that way. And don't pay any attention to those “CANDIDATE X vs. Hillary Clinton” polls. They're meaningless when she's the assumed nominee and there are still 9 candidates on the other side.

The presidential primary campaigns are shifting into high gear now that the holidays are over. Here is my updated rundown less than a month before the Iowa Caucus:

On the Democrat side, Hillary will get the nomination…IF she can stay out of federal prison.

On the Republican side, Ted Cruz is my choice. He's clearly the smartest and has the best ground game among all of the candidates.

Trump has the overall lead in the popular polls but doesn't seem to have a ground game in place. Then again, he IS essentially rewriting political campaigns and how to get the media to play for you rather than the other way around. His lead in the polls cannot be overlooked.

Ben Carson seems to be taking on water. I'm not sure he really wants to be president.

Marco Rubio is still handicapped by his complicity with the Gang of Eight's amnesty movement. While the Establishment RINOs seem to prefer him now that Jeb is essentially done, that's more of a curse than a blessing. I like Rubio but the trust factor is a tough hurdle for many base voters to get over.

Jeb Bush is cooked. He should have listened to his mother. That's good advice for all of us.

John Kasich is the son of a mailman. I still don't know what he is doing in this race.

Carly Fiorina is too fixated on being the only woman in the race on the GOP side. Her handlers should be replaced.

Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum both don't have a prayer between them.

•From ClimateDepot.com, a physics professor wrote a fantastic piece summarizing 10 reasons why human caused global warming is vastly overstated.

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today's temperatures are unusual. The “all-time” high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980's, but for many parts of the world the 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

The author, Mike van Biezen, is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science. Read the entire piece here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

The scare term, “ocean acidification” was first coined in the magazine, Nature in 2003, followed by the Royal Society in 2005, and has since been used as a fear trigger, given that actual global warming has stalled for 20 years.

Climate scientists now “calculate” that the average ocean alkalinity has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 on the scale since pre-industrial times, except that the measurement error margin is several times the alleged reduction (and each of the five oceans has its own pH characteristics). pH levels – which are a measure of acidification - at given points in time and location can swing markedly even within the 24-hour cycle.

In past geological ages carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were ten or more times what they are now (400ppm) and ocean life thrived. Indeed our current fossil fuels are the residue of vast oceanic life that thrived and died in such super-high carbon dioxide environments.

In the parts of the oceans where alkalinity is low (i.e. tending towards neutral), fish, corals, and sea flora have managed and adapted perfectly well. Freshwater lakes and rivers are slightly acidic (pH of 6 to 8), as is rainwater, pH 5.6, and drinking water, 6.5 to 7.5. Life has adapted and thrives in fresh water notwithstanding the degree of, “acidification.”

So, you can now execute a complete eye-roll when someone starts crying about acid rain.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/01/the-fishy-science-of-ocean-acidification/#ixzz3wERyeozK

•Well, congratulations to the KC Chiefs on making the NFL Playoffs. They play the Houston Texans next week at Houston. Here's to them ending a LONG drought of playoff wins!

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE SHEER INNOVATION HUMANS CAN EMPLOY IS AMAZING

12/30/15

•So, I'm watching late night cable while wrapping Christmas presents and there's this show called, “Lockup” on MSNBC that shows the inner workings of a county detention center in San Antonio. It's a pretty depressing show overall, as you could imagine when you are viewing the accounts of the lives of people who are largely devoid of hope for eventual freedom but I was struck by the raw innovation exhibited by prisoners who are in an environment largely devoid of technological resources.

From the beginning you accept it as normal that nearly every inmate is heavily tattooed. Everyone has seen a former inmate wearing tattoos.

But tattooing is not allowed in prison. So, how are they getting the tattoos?

Well, it turns out that there are a few individuals that have gathered the resources from around them: a hollowed-out Q-Ttip, a straightened-out staple, thread from a shirt, some copper wire and a bolt (to make the electromagnet that drives the device) and they make ink by cooking grease or baby oil until it's carbon-black.

The sheer innovation humans can employ – especially when necessity dictates its need – is amazing to behold. Imagine what's capable with full-access to the world's natural resources!

•Did you know that Christmas lights alone in America use more energy than entire countries around the world?

Bright lights strung on American trees, rooftops and lawns account for 6.63 billion kilowatt hours of electricity consumption every year.

That's more power than countries like El Salvador or Ethiopia use in a year.
El Salvador uses 5.35 billion kilowatt hours while Ethiopia consumes 5.30 billion and Tanzania 4.81 billion kilowatt-hours.

So, what do we do to address this “problem?” The current administration and Democrats mostly say that we need to slow-down our use of electricity. The Republicans (the smart ones, at least) say we should work to get more power into the hands of these poor countries. Corrupt governments do more to oppress people than any other force in the world. If you want to help people in under-developed countries, work to rid them of corrupt leaders.

•Also relevant to note that the 6.63 billion kilowatt hours used by US Christmas lights represents only 0.2 percent of yearly US energy consumption, or enough power to run 14 million refrigerators.

•The Washington Post on July 9, 1971 posted the following:

“The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University.”

We should know in the next 5-15 years whether he was right.

•While I generally wish to avoid talking about Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, I cannot avoid this…

For awhile now, the Sanders' campaign has been pushing that the Democrat National Committee has been helping the Clinton campaign by locking Sanders' people out of the party database.

Also, the DNC scheduled all but one of the 2015 debates on a Saturday, when most people were watching college football, surely benefitting Clinton. Sanders' sued the DNC over the database access and the DNC responded by restoring access a week ago. The campaign promises the lawsuit is about getting answers but the question is whether they actually will or not.

Ultimately, who should win the Democratic race matters little to me, because I'm not going to vote for them. They are all big government, more taxes, more spending, and are utterly incompetent on foreign policy.

But, there is no doubt that the Democrat race would be more interesting if Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren were opposing Clinton instead of Sanders and Martin O'Malley. Unless Sanders surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democrat race is largely decided. There were a significant number of people in the Democrat Party back in 2008 that did not want the Clintons in power. Where have they gone is the key question.

•From www.junkscience.com

No, despite claims to the contrary, 2015 is not New York City's warmest Christmas Dec. 25, 1889 was warmer.

The drive-by media is full of stories touting that Christmas Day's 66 degree New York City temperature was the city's warmest Christmas EVER.

But on Dec. 26, 1889, the New York Times reported that the temperature hit 65 degrees in the city on Christmas.

But 66 degrees is warmer than 65 degrees, isn't it?

Not in this case. The 2015 66 degree reading has 126 post-1889 years of urban heat island effect built into it. (Basically, more concrete in use today indicates that temperatures measured close to the ground are artificially warmer because many measurement stations are close to concrete which reflects thermal energy rather than absorbing it like soil and vegetation does.)

So a 65 degree reading in NYC in 1889 means it was warmer then than today.
Go figure! Although we have about 100 ppm more CO2 in the air today, it was warmer way back in 1889.

•BIG congrats to the chiefs on making the playoffs. Very impressive performance, winning nine straight games after a 1-5 start to the season.

Now let's go win a playoff game!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


RUBIO, CRUZ VERY DIFFERENT ON IMMIGRATION

12/23/15

•Remember those focus groups Frank Luntz runs around the debates? You remember I'm sure because he makes it a point to populate his groups with supposed “undecided voters,” which of course usually means that he's found the most politically ignorant people and plops them down in front of a camera so we can all sample their intellect on the coming election.

Well, Luntz recently had constructed a focus group composed of Muslim-Americans and some in this group have accused Luntz and host network CBS of censoring their anti-American comments.

John Nolte of Bretibart.com reported on it in a great piece recently. Some highlights follow.

“…CBS News has apparently been caught red-handed cutting footage from a focus group mediated by Establishment Republican Frank Luntz that shows American Muslims criticizing the United States…two Muslim Americans who took part in the group complained that CBS edited out parts of the discussion where they raised their own concerns — including critiques of U.S. militarism, surveillance, and entrapment. They also said that Frank Luntz, the right-wing pollster who led the focus group, silenced members of the group when they criticized discriminatory U.S. government policies.”

Another participant observed that Luntz kept saying he felt bad that no one listens to Muslims and how he wanted to give them an opportunity to talk to the general population.

But according to one female participant's Facebook page, Luntz did not just edit out the inconvenient moments that didn't fit his desired narrative, he went so far as to silence her when she tore into the American government as a racist institution that has “killed many Muslims.”

She continued…

“He also had silenced me and other participants who have routinely brought up the fact the government has enacted in state violence against the Muslim community — whether that may be through entrapment cases and surveillance programs — and our concerns about institutional racism. He shut me down when I said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton has killed many Muslims under the administration when we were discussing Trump, and ironically for a GOP strategist, he shut me down when I talked about how Democrats have enacted some of the most deadliest and discriminatory policies against Muslims. He also decided to stop letting me speak when I started talking about how Muslims should start focusing on combatting government policies rather than rushing to condemn terrorism or Islamophobia exclusively. They also cut out portions of where participants talked about media accountability when discussing Islam.”

Wow!

Read more and see the video at www.Breitbart.com

•Byron York put together a tremendous piece this week on the facts about the ongoing dispute between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on immigration.

Highlights…

The Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill passed the Senate in June 2013.

Democrats, who controlled the Senate at the time, unanimously supported the bill, while most Republicans opposed it. The four Republicans on the gang — Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake — of course voted for it, and also agreed with Democrats on a plan to kill almost all GOP amendments.
Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed just a handful of amendments to reach the Senate floor. One, from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, would have prohibited the legalization of illegal immigrants in the United States until after the administration could prove it had maintained "effective control" of the borders for six months.

Rubio voted against the Grassley amendment. Sen. Ted Cruz voted for it.

Another Republican amendment would have required the completion of 350 miles of fencing along the U.S. border.

Rubio voted against the Thune amendment. Cruz voted for it.

Another amendment would have delayed the granting of legal status until a biometric visa identity system had been fully implemented at every port of entry.
Rubio voted against the Vitter amendment. Cruz voted for it.

The Gang of Eight bill came up for a final Senate vote on June 27, 2013. Rubio, as a key author of the legislation, voted for its passage. Cruz voted against it.

These facts are important because Rubio has argued his position on immigration is similar to Cruz'.

Rubio: "The bottom line is there isn't that big a difference between [Cruz] and I on how to approach immigration," Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

In 2013, Rubio and Cruz could NOT have been more different on immigration. Rubio has been furiously distancing himself from the gang bill.

Particularly interesting to now hear Rubio say - remember the Grassley amendment he helped kill - that security and enforcement must be in place before illegal immigrants can be legalized and placed on a path to citizenship.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


PARIS TALKS CONCLUDE WITH AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT

12/16/15

•The Paris climate talks have concluded with a supposed agreement in place.
Allegedly, representatives from hundreds of nations have agreed on a sufficient amount of alleged money to be redistributed to control the allegedly out-of-control temperature rise of the planet's atmosphere.

How does redistributing wealth affect the temperature of the planet?

The final agreement includes a commitment to keeping temperature rises “well below” two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels with a target of keeping them at 1.5 degrees Centigrade.

To achieve such a ridiculous goal the world will have to start drastically reducing its use of the cheapest fossil fuels by the year 2050; abandoning them entirely by the end of the century. Those who can't meet those goals must engage in unproven and highly expensive methods of “burying” their carbon output.

Do not hold your breath for China, Russia or India to go one iota beyond simple lip service.

The deal has no means of enforcement for those governments that don't agree to go along. In all reality, a plan that guts the oil and gas industry with no realistic replacement for the energy walked away from will never see floor of Congress.

•Did you catch where actor Kurt Russell argued against an anti-gun Hollywood interviewer in promoting his upcoming movie?

Russell was interviewed by Hollywood reporter Jeffery Wells and said that it's “absolutely insane” to believe that more gun control will curb terrorist attacks.

Discussing America's “gun culture” and film producer Quentin Tarantino, Russell said he doesn't “understand [the] concepts of conversation” about “the gun culture,” after Wells asserted that most Americans fear that mass violence is becoming a “day-to-day” occurrence.

When Wells went on to say that guns are a “…metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need,” Russell let loose.

“If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists' point of view, I think you're, like, out of your mind,” he began. “I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it's absolutely insane.”

“Dude, you're about to find out what I'm gonna do, and that's gonna worry you a lot more,” the actor continued. “And that's what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I'm a hockey team and I've got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I'm not concerned about what he's gonna do — I'm gonna make him concerned about what I'm gonna do to stop him. That's when things change.”

Arguing back, Wells invoked the no-fly list, saying that the people on the list are there for a “good reason,” but that they can allegedly still “get [a] hold of a gun pretty easily.”

“They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what?” Russell retorted. “They can also get knives and stab you. [What are you] gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. [What are you] gonna do about that?”

Wells: “Just put some controls…”

Russell: “Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can't?”

Wells: “No, not so you can't, just so the idiots can't get hold of them [so easily], that's all.”

Russell: “You really believe they're not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree.”

Finally, a fearless and outspoken non-liberal actor.

•Notice how the mainstream media seems to want to attack now-frontrunner Ted Cruz by avoiding him in the debates?

This happened on a recent NPR Morning Edition interview. Host Steve Inskeep, an Obama acolyte, was blunt when discussing the new Trump idea of banning Muslims from entering America:

“STEVE INSKEEP: All this led to a bottom-line question when Senator Cruz visited our studios. [To Cruz] Which Muslims do you want to keep out of the United States?

TED CRUZ: Well, I'm not sure that's the way I would put the question. What I would say is what is the obligation of the president and commander in chief? And the first obligation is to keep this country safe.”

NPR posted the full transcript online. What that demonstrated was that NPR and Inskeep routinely sliced out (for time and surely, for political convenience) Cruz whacking away at Democrats. Here's the rest of Cruz's answer to that, sliced at mid-sentence:

“And the first obligation is to keep this country safe, and so I've introduced legislation that would suspend for three years refugees from countries where ISIS or al-Qaida control a substantial amount of territory. And the reason is simple. The FBI has told Congress that the Obama administration cannot vet these refugees.”

Then Inskeep brought in the rest of the answer:

“INSKEEP: The Texas senator wore a white shirt and orange tie. He was on his way to work in Washington. Cruz introduced legislation after the recent attacks in Paris. His bill would make it even harder than it is for refugees to reach the U.S. from five war-torn countries. Cruz says the few exceptions would include non-Muslims who are persecuted.

CRUZ: “President Obama and Hillary Clinton's plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to America when the FBI says they cannot ascertain if these refugees are ISIS terrorists or not - that makes no sense.”

Cruz had his interview carved-up by CBS's Face the Nation in January of 2014. In CNBC debate, the moderator purposely avoided Cruz on the global warming question, likely because he knew Cruz would destroy his Left-leaning premise.

Mainstream journalism at its best.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THE ENEMY ON U.S. SOIL AGAIN

12/16/15

•The liberal media has been utterly pathetic in their rush-to-judgment reactions to the radical Islamic terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, CA last week. The ones I saw ranged from calling it a Planned Parenthood attack (MSNBC said there was a Planned Parenthood clinic a couple of blocks away--1.5 miles actually) to calling it a case of a disgruntled government employee snapping (Yep, they said it. . .“workplace violence!”).

The reality is much different. We have been attacked by the enemy on U.S. soil once again.

This is a war.

(Sigh!!! I need a minute…)

•Obama hit the airwaves Sunday night to try to reassure America he has ISIS under control (and stop calling it ISIL…nobody knows what the Levant is anyway!). He reiterated the bombing campaigns they are conducting in the Middle East. He didn't mention that we are dropping leaflets 45 minutes in advance of bombing oil trucks to warn them that the bombs are coming.

What?

What's the point of warning your enemy before you hit him that you are going to hit him? Patton must be spinning in his grave!

(Aaarrrgggghhhh!...Need another minute…)

•“Let's take a step back on this climate thing for a minute and analyze things.

Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same situation occurred with the car replacing the horse, pipelines replacing trains for a time, and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Necessity breeds innovation.

Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation. The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and as they try to frighten mankind into action, their solution is to essentially tax air--carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources--wind and solar and away from cheap and efficient fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted in our constant pursuit toward improving our lives in meaningful ways during the short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.

•The media was making a big deal out of the New York Times putting an editorial on its front page last week calling for massive gun control in response to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. Apparently, this was the first time since 1920 that the paper put an editorial on its front page.

“Whoop-de-do Basil, but what does it mean?”

Does anyone care if nobody ever reads the fishwrap in the first place? I have never desired to get my hands on the New York Times. Who cares what an arrogant bunch of East Coast liberals think about anything? I've never read it and am not about to start now.

•By the way, on the subject of getting the news the earliest it is reported, Twitter wins again. I was monitoring Twitter last week working on the main PC with Twitter running in my “side mirror” when the site www.weaselzippers.com ran with a BREAKING: Active Shooter Situation Occurring in San Bernardino. I flipped the TV onto the cable news networks and none of them were onto the breaking story for at least another 20-30 minutes! Amazing!

If you want it first, monitor Twitter.

•From the superb climate site, www.wattsupwiththat.com, we learned that in the U.K., they don't like media people veering from the propaganda line.

The BBC broadcast an obscure program on state radio called “what's the point of the MET office?” which allowed the views of climate skeptics onto British broadcast radio. As a result of this massive breach of BBC policy, there has been a major internal inquiry, and several BBC officials have been sent on mandatory climate re-education courses.

The skeptic views essentially claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying.”

You would think the BBC would have more interesting ways to spend their money and time, than conducting witch hunts to root out the last vestiges of climate skepticism within their ranks. But I guess that is a decision for the BBC Trust, and of course the taxpayers of Britain, assuming anyone bothers to ask their opinion.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12033749/Radio-4-show-that-criticised-Met-Office-stance-on-climate-change-broke-broadcasting-rules.html
I hope when Ivan sends me to Climate Re-education Camp he sends me someplace warm!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE CHANGE? WE'RE CLOSER TO BEING THREATENED BY GODZILLA

12/2/15

•As I write this, world leaders are filling the skies with carbon to gather in Paris to try and figure out a way to further strangle capitalism and free markets using junk science threats of a planet on fire.

It's laughable nonsense that mankind is able to wield such power as to control the temperature of the air on the planet. We are closer to being threatened by a Godzilla-Rhodan battle than we are by an ever-changing climate.

•An old-but-still-great column by Ben Shapiro offered a great set of rules that we should hope get adopted in Paris this week. The highlights:

“According to the global left, the evidence is in: The earth is warming, and it's all your fault. Don't blame the sun. The giant ball of fiery gas responsible for all climate change over the past few million years isn't the problem. It's you…you big-spending, high-on-the-hog, corporation-supporting, First World gluttons with your shiny gas-guzzling sports cars and central heating…”

“…Well, global left, your words have finally hit home. I finally realized that correlation does equal causation after all. As one of the pig-Americans you so despise, I pledge to do my utmost to mitigate the threat of global warming.
And so, without further ado, I henceforth dedicate myself to achieving the following goals to aid Mother Earth:

EAT COWS. Turns out, cows are the climate's worst enemy. Cows, it seems, are culpable for 18 percent of greenhouse gases. Their cud-chewing, flatulence and burping create giant clouds of methane. All this time, we thought the cattle were our mammalian friends. But, fools that we are, the cows outsmarted us. While we milked them, they pursued their long-term strategy of world domination.
If we eat them faster than they can reproduce, we can sleep easy at night. Hamburgers are the answer. Steaks. Barbecue ribs…”

“…CONVINCE FELLOW GLOBAL WARMING CRUSADERS TO STOP BREATHING. Al Gore says, '[W]e should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions.' I concur. If carbon dioxide emissions are the problem, persuading global warming fanatics to immediately stop exhaling may be the solution.”

•Shapiro hit again this week with his…Reasons Obama's Climate Change Agenda Is Dangerous [Bovine Excrement]

“…We Have No Idea To What Extent The Earth Is Warming. There are major battles in the scientific community about the basic question of what level of climate change is occurring. Even the shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change' betrays that uncertainty.

We Have No Clue How Much Human Activity Causes Climate Change. In September 2014, undersecretary for science in Barack Obama's Energy Department Dr. Steven Koonin wrote…though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole….”

BOOM!

“We Have No Idea How Much Climate Change Impacts Human Life. The climate has always changed and will always change. The question is how it will hurt human beings, presumably…”

“…Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops…

The essential outcome is that we live in teepee's!

This is what they want for us.

“The Solution – Destroying Carbon-Based Fuels and Capitalism – Is The Problem. The left is in an all-out war with the two greatest forces for fighting poverty in history: cheap, carbon based energy, and capitalism. The same people celebrating the end of the Industrial Revolution economic model seem to forget that economic model, boosted by carbon-based fuels, has led to a massive drop in global poverty: in 1990, 1.9 billion people lived under $1.25 per day, as opposed to 836 million in 2015. That's because of the dominance of capitalism and the increased efficiency of technology. It's certainly not because of governmental environmental regulations.”

It's nonsense.

•I may need to revise my Chiefs forecast.

(Find Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE SUMMIT NOTHING MORE THAN A PHOTO OP

11/24/15

•The Paris climate summit being held next week is in reality nothing more than a gigantic photo op for corrupt and flunky political leaders to pretend to be environmental saviors.

Despite renewed safety concerns in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the climate summit will take place as scheduled beginning Monday, Nov. 30. Instead of paying needed attention and resources on finding potential terrorists, French law enforcement authorities will be trying to make sure a true climate carnival happens without incident.

COP21 (the 21st annual Conference of the Parties) will try to keep alive an international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Kyoto Protocol was part of that treaty. Kyoto essentially expired at the end of 2012. Since then, UN officials have struggled to regain control of the productivity of the planet so they can redistribute the generated wealth.

Every year, foreign affairs specialists and environment officials around the world spend time rehashing this treaty at taxpayers' expense. A meeting was held in Geneva in February of this year. Since then, three others took place in Bonn – in June, September, and October.

Contrary to media portrayals, COP21 is not a stand-alone event in which world leaders fly to Paris, take in a few meetings, and then close the affair by announcing that the planet has been saved.

The Paris event is unlikely to achieve anything. In early September, a “risk of failure” was publicly acknowledged by French President Francois Hollande.
The Paris climate summit is mainly just a chance for politicians to smile for the cameras and pretend they are saving the planet from the devastation of capitalism by redistributing wealth.

It's all just a cartoon.

•Did you think President Obama's response to the Paris attacks was weak?

The White House was on the defense for statements made by President Obama -- who labeled Friday's Paris massacre that left 129 dead a "setback," and Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a "rationale" for the devastation they wrought.

On Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials' words.

"I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president's actions as you do his words," Earnest said.

He noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks "sickening." Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support -- while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response. Earnest said the president is consulting on "what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies."

Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack -- an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons -- during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris. He at first suggested there was "legitimacy" to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a "rationale."

He said: "There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of -- not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn't to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people."

Radical Islamic terrorism is indiscriminate? Do these people read?

•The reason for the Hebdo attacks is the same as the Paris attacks, 9/11, and all other terrorism by Radical Islamists. Radical Islam wants to rule the world and they are trying to do it by attacking freedom and liberty, wherever it exists.

After Obama said in an interview shortly before the Paris attacks, that ISIS is "contained," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., declared in response that "ISIL is not contained…ISIL is expanding."

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who typically aligns with the president, scolded Obama in an op-ed.

"Obama's tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong," he wrote. "At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive. The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy."

What a mess!

•From The Daily Caller, a study by Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center examined the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, countries submitted to the U.N. on how much they will reduce CO2 emissions in the coming years.

“My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century,” Lomborg wrote in an article posted on the science blog Watts Up With That.

Lomborg's study argues that, at most, a U.N. treaty will avoid 0.17 degrees Celsius of projected warming. The more pessimistic scenario laid out by Lomborg is that current INDCs will only avoid 0.048 degrees Celsius of projected warming.

If the U.S. reduced emissions 80 percent by 2050, it will only stall 0.11 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100.

 


IF WE DON'T ACT, WHAT HAPPENED IN FRANCE WILL HAPPEN HERE

11/18/15

•ISIS wasted no time taking responsibility for the terrorist slaughter in Paris last week. French President Francois Hollande quickly moved to close France's borders. As usual, Obama avoided condemning Radical Islam for the attacks.
And the irony of all ironies occurred when Al Gore cancelled his long-planned Paris webcast telethon to promote climate change awareness.

“Out of solidarity with the French people and the City of Paris, we have decided to suspend our broadcast of 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth,” the group said in an online statement.

Remember in July 2008 Gore called climate change a more dangerous threat than terrorism. “I think that the climate crisis is, by far, the most serious threat we have ever faced,” Gore told ABC News.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been barfing up the same message almost every day.

I guess that's just not the case, guys, is it? If Climate Change was a greater threat than terrorism, wouldn't Gore continue with his telethon?

•Breitbart.com noted 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than Radical Islamic terrorism. Below are a few of those:

In a Jan. 15, 2008 presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next 50 years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last 50: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”

On Sept. 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children's future.

February 16, 2014, Kerry addressed students in Indonesia and said that global warming is now “perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

During a September 2014 meeting with foreign ministers, John Kerry called c limate change a threat as urgent as ISIS.

During his 2015 State of the Union address, Obama said, “No challenge? poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”

On Feb. 10, 2015, when asked to confirm if this means Obama believes “the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism,” Earnest responded, “The point the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives, of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.”

May 20, 2015 President Obama said in his keynote address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”

In his Aug. 28, 2015 weekly address, Obama said “This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now,” he said. “Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we'd do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”
During a Sept. 28 address at the United Nations, President Obama said that “We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies,” adding that “No country can escape the ravages of climate change.”

This Obama Administration is a living, breathing cartoon strip…unbelievable!

•Some taxation reality in America that ties in to the immigration debate: in 2010, $1.1 trillion in federal income taxes was collected in total. 70% of that $1.1 trillion, or about $770 billion, was collected by the top 10% of earners, which amounts to about 16 million Americans.

Now, I'm sure you have heard Democrats and pro-amnesty RINOs say that there's no way we could split up families by deporting the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently in the shadows of the country.

Ask these same “amnestians” if the 16 million taxpayers that pay that $770 billion were to suddenly stop paying federal income taxes, should the federal government separate them from their families and put them in jail? Don't think for a minute that the IRS would hesitate to separate you from your family if you stopped paying taxes. (I must give proper due to Rush Limbaugh for coming up with this point.)

The closing point to this immigration issue is we all should urge our governors to issue executive orders refuse to allow Syrian, or any other country that actively supports or fails to control Radical Islamists, refugees into their states. This is how France became susceptible to this kind of terror. If we do not act, it will happen here.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


COLLEGE ATHLETICS WERE NEVER INTENDED TO DO THIS

11/11/15

Not sure what exactly is going on in Columbia, MO but the very fine Ben Shapiro summarized some excellent thoughts on the topic. Some highlights…

It's time to cut college football.

“In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy 'institutional racism,' one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it's time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.
It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.
College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they're present for the education. They're recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze (see Louisville basketball scandal); they're given privileges no other students receive; they're routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules – see the University of north Carolina), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they're treated like campus kings.”

Shapiro excellently concludes:

“College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.”

Read more: http://www.dailywire.com/news/984/after-university-missouri-football-team-forces-ben-shapiro

•Now back to meaningful issues…

The United Kingdom has installed over 13,000 MegaWatts of wind power to date. All that wind power capacity is currently generating only 385 MegaWatts of electricity, which is less than 1% of the country's current total electricity demand.

And this…

After Obama's expected cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline project last week, the environuts celebrated that the “evil” pipeline was dead, along with all the jobs it would bring and the opportunity for the United States to capture and process much of Canada's wealth of energy rather than it being shipped to China.

Incidentally, it will be shipped there anyway when the Northern Gateway Pipeline is complete.

But as with all things in the liberal enclaves of the country, one victory is never enough. Obama's allies in the anti-energy front are primed for additional action and they've got their eyes on a much larger prize: the complete halt of any future fossil fuel exploration, at least on federal lands.

They call it, “Keep it in the Ground.”

Activists painted the Friday decision as just the beginning of a new era of activism where any additional fossil fuel projects will not be tolerated.

The “keep it in the ground” campaign has been in the works since long before Obama reached his final decision about Keystone. Activists have used the key phrase, which refers to stopping new and continued drilling of fossil fuels, in protest since at least the summer.

The “movement” has been inflated by the folks at The Guardian newspaper who have been running a campaign to convince Bill Gates and other wealthy folks to divest their charitable funds from all fossil fuel companies. These activists now want Barack Obama to use his executive authority to stop issuing new permits for coal, oil and natural gas operations on federal lands.

Before the tree huggers get too excited, however, it's worth reminding them there is an expiration date on all of these moves and it comes in January of 2017, the end of the Obama the Destroyer Era.

If Democrats veer far enough to the left to scare off the middle of the nation, as they have been under Obama's leadership, we will see a Republican working in the White House and he will be appointing new members to the Cabinet that are less than sympathetic to hurting the country any further.

I have said this many times before; if we wanted a president who would do everything in his power to harm America, that president would be doing everything Obama is doing now and has been doing for the past seven years.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


PUTIN THE CAPITALIST

11/4/15

•Steve Goreham at heartland.org recently penned a fantastic piece asking the most relevant question, “Did humans really save the ozone layer?”

World consumption of so-called ozone depleting substances has been practically reduced to zero over the last three decades – at tremendous cost I must add. But guess what?

The ozone hole is as large as ever.

In 1974, Dr. Mario Molina and Dr. Sherwood Roland of the University of California published a paper asserting that chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution from (evil) industry was destroying the ozone layer in Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were gases used in hair spray, refrigerators and insulating foams. The ozone layer is a layer of atmosphere located between six and 25 miles above the Earth's surface.

They hypothesized that human-produced CFCs migrate upward through the atmosphere to the stratosphere, where ultraviolet radiation breaks down CFC molecules, releasing chlorine atoms. Chlorine then reacts as a catalyst to break down ozone molecules into oxygen, reducing the ozone concentration. The more CFCs used, the greater the destruction of the ozone layer, according to the theory.

In 1983, three researchers from the British Antarctic Survey discovered a thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica, which became known as the ozone hole. Their observations appeared to confirm the theory of Molina and Roland.

The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet rays, shielding the surface of Earth from high-energy radiation. Scientists were concerned that degradation of the ozone layer would increase rates of skin cancer and cataracts and cause immune system problems in humans. Al Gore's 1992 book claimed that hunters reported finding blind rabbits in Patagonia and that fishermen were catching blind fish due to human destruction of the ozone layer, but of course, none of this has been factually confirmed.

So, to “save” the ozone layer, 29 nations and the European Community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in September of 1987. Over the next decade, the protocol was signed by 197 nations agreeing to ban the use of CFCs. Since 1986, world consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS) is down more than 99 percent, effectively reaching zero by 2010.

The Montreal Protocol has been hailed as an international success in resolving a major environmental issue. It has been praised as an example to follow for elimination of greenhouse gas emissions in the fight to halt global warming. But despite the elimination of CFCs, the ozone hole remains as large as ever.
During the period from September to October, just after the Antarctic winter, the ozone hole is the largest for each year. NASA recently reported that from Sept. 7 through Oct. 13, 2015, the ozone hole reached a mean area of 25.6 million kilometers, the largest area since 2006 and the fourth largest since measurements began in 1979.

The hole remains large, despite the fact that world ODS consumption all but disappeared about a decade ago.

Scientists are mixed on when the stubborn ozone hole will disappear. NASA recently announced that the hole will be half-closed by 2020. Others forecast that it will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.

Remember, nobody has EVER made measurements of an ozone layer that did not have a hole. It's highly likely that it has always existed and man is too insignificant to have affected it in any way.

So, can I have my Styrofoam containers for my hamburgers again?

•Bet you'd never imagined I'd be quoting a former KGB member for reinforcement did you?

From the Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch, Russian President Vladimir Putin believes global warming is a “fraud;” a plot to keep Russia from using its vast oil and natural gas reserves.

Putin believes “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia,” Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and Putin critic, told The New York Times.

Putin has been casting doubt on man-made global warming since the early 2000s. In 2003, Putin told an international climate conference warming would allow Russians to “spend less on fur coats,” adding that “agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that.”

Putin's comments likely came after his staff “did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate,” according to Andrey Illarionov, Putin's former senior economic adviser, who's now a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,” Illarionov said. “It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to 'fight' global warming was rather unfounded.”

So in this upside-down world, the Russians are the logical capitalistic ones while the New York Times is the voice of the oppressive anti-capitalist forces in the world!

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/russias-putin-says-global-warming-is-a-fraud/#ixzz3qGm5wUhC

 


NOW THEY'RE COMING AFTER YOUR BACON

10/28/15

•Did you know it has in fact been 10 years since a major hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States? I guess man-made global warming isn't the cause of hurricanes after all.

•The World Health Organization is at it again. This time they're coming after your bacon.

Consumption of processed meat — including hot dogs, bacon, and lunch meats — can increase the risk of cancer, according to a new statement from a WHO research agency.

The evidence mostly relates to colorectal cancer and heavy meat consumption, but while the overall cancer risk is small (ALLOW ME TO REPEAT WITH EMPHASIS – THE CANCER RISK IS SMALL!), it increases depending on the amount of meat a person eats.

The organization announced in the journal Lancet Oncology that processed meats — those transformed by salting, curing, or fermentation — fall into the same category as tobacco smoke, meaning "there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer."

This doesn't mean that processed meat is as bad for you as smoking. What it means is that according to the agency's assessment, the links between processed meat and certain types of cancer are clear and well-established. That doesn't even mean that the links are significant.

Here's a more important fact that you should know before reading such drivel: Nobody knows what causes cancer.

Specifically, the researchers found evidence that eating a 50-gram portion of processed meat daily (about one hot dog) can increase a person's risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent.

How many people eat a hot dog every day?

Now for the proper perspective - an average male non-smoker has about a 1.5% chance of contracting lung cancer in his lifetime. If that person is a heavy smoker, that risk jumps to about 17.5%. THAT is significant. But in the situation of meat consumption, an average male has about a 5% chance of contracting colorectal cancer in his lifetime and that risk increases to only 6% if he eats meat every day in large quantities.

Much of the evidence they relied on to form these recommendation about red and processed meats came from epidemiological studies on associations between cancer and meat consumption in many different countries. These sorts of population-wide observational studies are common in nutrition. Basically, researchers track a very large number of people, see how much meat they consume, and check their health outcomes over time. That's it. But because they're not as rigorous as experimental studies like randomized trials — in which researchers would randomly assign people to eat or abstain from certain foods — the studies are more likely to be biased.

So basically, it's all nonsense.

•Courtesy of www.Twitchy.com, the following headline about the tragedy in Oklahoma last weekend appeared in the Traverse City (Michigan) newspaper the Record-Eagle:

“Shooter kills 4; 30 injured”

As you no doubt know, there was no shooter, no gun, and no weapon of any kind except for an automobile.

Perhaps even more pathetic than this exhibition of liberal media bias was the lame explanation by the newspaper:

“Because of a page designer's error, a misleading headline appeared on page 3A in Sunday's Record-Eagle accompanying a story about a driver who struck and killed four people at the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade on Saturday.”

Page designer's error?

•This one has me particularly burning…

An American commando killed during a firefight with ISIS in Iraq last week is having his death denied the benefits associated with wartime armed incursion benefits. The Pentagon insists that the U.S. does not have boots on the ground.

The family of Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler will have a different view.

The Pentagon Friday announced the death of Master Sgt. Joshua L. Wheeler, a soldier who had been serving in Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. He died of wounds received during a hostage rescue mission. But in keeping with the Obama administration's insistence that the president ended combat operations in Iraq, the military issued a separate statement making clear that Wheeler's death did not indicate the presence of U.S. “boots on the ground” in that country.

Here is the text of the additional announcement:

SOUTHWEST ASIA- “Yesterday, the United States of America lost one of her finest warriors doing what American troops do best — protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of this brave Soldier,” said Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve. “We are proud of the combined forces who conducted the mission to rescue these Iraqi hostages. Their courage, skill, and sacrifice narrowly prevented yet another brutal massacre by Daesh murderers. It is important to realize that U.S. military support to this Iraqi rescue operation is part of our overarching counter-terrorism efforts throughout the region and does not represent a change in our policy. U.S. forces are not in Iraq on a combat mission and do not have boots on the ground.”

 


DEMOCRATS GENERATING LESS EXCITEMENT AMONG THEIR BASE

10/21/15

•CNN's debate among the Democrats running for president attracted 15.3 million viewers. That's way higher than the network received in the 2008 Democrat debates, but absolutely pales in comparison to the viewers the Republican debates gathered.

Fox News set a record with more than 25 million viewers for the first GOP debate on Aug. 6 and 23 million viewers watched the second GOP debate on CNN on Sept. 16.

The disparity is probably due to a Democrat field that has generated far less excitement among its base than the much larger and more interesting GOP field.
I maintain that Democrats are just less interesting.

•The Atlantic magazine wants people to view climate change as a wartime situation. They want Americans to accept a lower standard of living, of course to overcome Global Warming.

They are thinking-up all sorts of austere measures typically associated with wartime economies. They might include an end to relatively luxurious suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to everyone eschewing their cars moving into city apartments and accepting train travel.

This is what they want from the global warming movement folks. Fight it!
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/why-only-a-technocratic-revolution-can-win-the-climate-change-war/410377/

•Bernie Sanders now wants to make college education "free." The Democrat presidential primary candidate just tweeted out a message to the effect of…”…it is a crime that college loans have higher interest rates than home and auto loans…”

If Sanders can't understand the basic economics of loaning money, he is unfamiliar with the default rates for college loans versus auto loans and mortgages.
Beyond that, to simplify:

Does he understand the concept of an unsecured loan? How exactly does one go about repossessing a college education?

•Courtesy of Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com…

Founder of Microsoft and the Gates foundation, Bill Gates, has accused environmentalists of making misleading claims about comparative prices of solar energy compared to those of fossil fuels.

Bill Gates has branded the Democrat-pushed fossil fuel divestment, “a false solution” and accused environmentalists of making misleading claims about the price of solar power.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Gates criticized the global movement that has seen pension funds, universities, churches and local governments commit to pulling massive monies out of coal, oil and gas companies.

“If you think divestment alone is a solution, I worry you're taking whatever desire people have to solve this problem and kind of using up their idealism and energy on something that won't emit less carbon – because only a few people in society are the owners of the equity of coal or oil companies,” he said.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which Gates founded with his wife, is the world's largest charitable foundation and funder of medical research. It has $1.4 billion invested in fossil fuel companies.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/14/bill-gates-calls-fossil-fuel-divestment-a-false-solution/#ixzz3p32CzlkK

•At the recent CNN debate, all the Democratic candidates for president were asked to list what they consider the biggest national security threat to the United States. While most focused on the Middle East or Chin, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) chose climate change.

"The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable," Sanders said. "That is a major crisis."

Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, mentioned the unrest in the Middle East, but also pointed to climate change as an issue that exacerbates existing concerns about resources and migration.

"Climate change makes cascading threats even worse," O'Malley said. He has specifically discussed how it may be influencing the Syrian crisis on the campaign trail.

The Pentagon has said that the effects of climate change act as "threat multipliers." Climate, the Department of Defense said last year, aggravates the conditions of "poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions — conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."

This is where Democrats live folks. Islamists slamming jumbo jets into major business centers is less of a threat to American freedom and liberty than theoretical climate change.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 

 


RECENT LUNAR ECLIPSE SHOWED A BIT OF GLOBAL COOLING

10/14/15

•Remember the lunar eclipse a couple of weeks ago? On Sept. 27, millions of people around the world watched the moon pass through the shadow of Earth. Most noticed the eclipse was darker than usual. It was a sign of a little bit of global cooling.

Lunar eclipses show the transparency of Earth's atmosphere. When the stratosphere is clogged with volcanic ash and other aerosols, lunar eclipses tend to be dark red. On the other hand, when the stratosphere is relatively clear, lunar eclipses are bright orange.

This is important because the stratosphere affects climate. A clear stratosphere warms the Earth. The eclipse of Sept. 27, 2015, however, was not as bright as recent eclipses. Trained observers in seven countries estimated that the eclipse was about 0.4 magnitude dimmer than expected, a brightness reduction of about 33 percent.

Why?

A layer of volcanic aerosols in the lower stratosphere from Chile's Calbuco volcano, which erupted in April 2015, appears to have affected the eclipse. Volcanic dust in the stratosphere tends to reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 produced 0.6 C of cooling.

Have you ever heard of a coal fueled power plant actually measurably changing the temperature of the entire planet?

•They did it again!

The EPA has triggered another waste spill in Colorado!

An Environmental Protection Agency crew working at the Standard Mine above Crested Butte triggered a wastewater spill into a creek that flows into the town water supply — a small-scale repeat of the Gold King incident this year.

“Only” an estimated 2,000 gallons spilled, amid efforts to open a collapsed portal. The impact on town water is expected to be minimal.

The spill — while not a disaster like the EPA-triggered 3 million-gallon Gold King deluge that turned the Animas River mustard-yellow — raises questions about EPA procedures.

Time to defund and eliminate the EPA! They are a rolling disaster for the environment.

•In a bit of good news, the Sixth Circuit Court blocked the EPA water rule nationwide.

Several weeks ago, a federal court issued an injunction against EPA enforcement of a new rule based on the Clean Water Act, arguing that the Obama administration had exceeded its Congressional authority. The ruling only applied in the 13 states that were party to the lawsuit, however, but the administration still argued that the North Dakota court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the issue, and that only an appellate court could hear the case. Regardless, the EPA announced shortly afterward that it would continue to enforce the new rule in all other states.

The Sixth Circuit handed down its own injunction against the rule today, and broadened its effect to all 50 states.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a stinging defeat to Obama's effort to control streams and wetlands.

“We conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims,” the judges wrote in their decision, explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency's new guidelines for determining whether water is subject to federal control, based mostly on the water's distance and connection to larger water bodies, is at odds with a key Supreme Court ruling.

Get the EPA off our farms!

•Remember physicist Freeman Dyson? The famous physicist spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience.

At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published[PDF] today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 percent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the president "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but it is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

Dyson continued:

“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
I've got nothing to add…

•Ohio Governor John Kasich says the Bible tells us that we need to expand government in redistribution of wealth.

He is wrong.

The Bible says in various locations that we should not steal. Taking things from others is a sin.

Progressive taxation consists of forcing people who make more money to give a higher percentage to government than those who make less. If you do not give that money you will go to jail. That process is called theft; stealing. It's that clear.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ACTIVISTS WANT ANTI-CLIMATE CHANGE CROWD PROSECUTED

10/7/15

•From the most-excellent site, joannenova.com.au, we learn that apparently climate change is even worse than the last time they told us it was going to obliterate the planet.

Long ago, glaciers were at a constant perfect position. Life was paradise on Earth. Then mankind built the first “planet-destroying” coal powered station in 1880 and now mountains are being moved changing the very shape of the planet…apparently.

If Nature (the magazine) hadn't been hijacked by environuts, it would have kept a longer term perspective and not laced the press release for the paper with baseless speculation. Antarctica is not warming - the satellites show it isn't - and the part that is warming happens to be right over the edges of the tectonic plates where the volcanoes are. (What a coincidence, right?)

Parts of the press release follow…

“Climate change is causing more than just warmer oceans and erratic weather. According to scientists, it also has the capacity to alter the shape of the planet.
…Lead author Michele Koppes, assistant professor in the Department of Geography at the University of British Columbia, compared glaciers in Patagonia and in the Antarctic Peninsula. She and her team found that glaciers in warmer Patagonia moved faster and caused more erosion than those in Antarctica, as warmer temperatures and melting ice helped lubricate the bed of the glaciers.
'We found that glaciers erode 100 to 1,000 times faster in Patagonia than they do in Antarctica,' said Koppes. 'Antarctica is warming up, and as it moves to temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius, the glaciers are all going to start moving faster. We are already seeing that the ice sheets are starting to move faster and should become more erosive, digging deeper valleys and shedding more sediment into the oceans.'

The repercussions of this erosion add to the already complex effects of climate change in the polar regions. Faster moving glaciers deposit more sediment in downstream basins and on the continental shelves, potentially impacting fisheries, dams and access to clean freshwater in mountain communities. 'The polar continental margins in particular are hotspots of biodiversity,' notes Koppes. 'If you're pumping out that much more sediment into the water, you're changing the aquatic habitat.'

The Canadian Arctic, one of the most rapidly warming regions of the world, will feel these effects acutely. With more than four degrees Celsius of warming over the last 50 years, the glaciers are on the brink of a major shift that will see them flowing up to 100 times faster if the climate shifts above zero degrees Celsius.
The findings by Koppes and coauthors also settle a scientific debate about when glaciers have the greatest impact on shaping landscapes and creating relief, suggesting that they do the most erosive work near the end of each cycle of glaciation, rather than at the peak of ice cover. The last major glacial cycles in the Vancouver region ended approximately 12,500 years ago.”

Lesson 1 from studying geology should teach anyone who pays attention that solid ground isn't solid. It is ever changing over long periods of time.

The continents move - slowly. South Africa used to be where Antarctica is now. The North American tectonic plate is moving to the West-Southwest at about 1 inch per year. The Pacific Plate is moving Northwest at a speed of between 3-4 inches a year.

So use that article in Nature for picking-up dog doo.

•Did you hear about the letter from global warming activists trying to get the federal government to prosecute anthropogenic climate change skeptics?

Well, apparently there must have been some major blowback because the group's letter to Obama has been quietly removed from their website.

Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise posted on her blog NoFrakkingConsensus.com that the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) has taken down its letter signed by twenty scientists and researchers. “There's no explanation, no apology – just open space where this anti-free-speech document used to reside,” Laframboise wrote.

IGES's removal of its letter urging skeptics be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act comes after huge backlash from skeptics and reports of the millions in government funding the letter's lead signatory has gotten over the years.

Now when the public goes to view the letter claiming that various organizations “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” all they will see is a blank page with a note that the URL “was not found on this server.”

Hmmm…

Read more at www.dailycaller.com

(Brian Kubicki can be reached by email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


WITH BOEHNER OUT, MCCONELL IS THE NEXT ONE TO GO

9/30/15

•Something tells me it's just a matter of time before someone tries to tie global warming on Earth to the “evidence” of water on Mars. That should be highly entertaining.

•By the way on the subject of Mars, is anyone else really angered by the ads that have been playing for the upcoming movie, “The Martian” starring Matt Damon where he plays an astronaut stranded on Mars? If you haven't seen it, he utters the line, “Take that, Neil Armstrong!” presumably in reference to achieving something of significance compared to the established greatness of the first human to walk on the Moon.

I hope every audience member watching utters in response, “Bite me Matt Damon!”

•John Boehner stepping down from the speakership and Congress is not, as the Establishment would have you believe, a result of haranguing by Conservatives, or a brave attempt on his part to save the Party and America from a battle. It was a calculated move to further the Establishment RINO agenda before the on-coming stampede by angry Americans for unfulfilled promises. Boehner and his cronies talked a loud conservative game in the lead-up to the 2014 mid-term elections. “Elect us and we will hold Obama's feet to the fire!” they said. Around here, we heard it from Pat Roberts in Kansas and Roy Blunt in Missouri. Since then, Obamacare has been fully funded, Obama's Amnesty has sailed through Congress, and every other liberal agenda item has been rubber-stamped. The people have had enough.

Next one to go? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

•Presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina is another candidate that is much more conservative sounding during this campaign that her record would indicate.
She has been a past supporter of embryonic stem cell research.

She openly criticized Ted Cruz' efforts in 2013 to use Congress' Power of the Purse to defund Obamacare.

Fiorina is another one of “those” Republicans (RINO's) that refuse to step-up and admit that the Global Warming Movement is a hoax. She talks like Jeb Bush in saying she believes in “…the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity…” but she is skeptical that government can affect the issue. Those comments reek of establishment consultant advice.

On the subject of national health care, she is vocal that Obamacare must be repealed but in the past she has supported individual mandates for all people to be forced to buy health insurance.

We can do much better than Fiorina.

•People often say that bad things happen in war but this one is decidedly different. Apparently, the U.S.'s “Afghan allies” have been engaged in a sick practice the Afghans refer to as “boy play.” Afghani officers are abducting, imprisoning and raping young boys, keeping them as sex slaves, and it has apparently been standing policy for some time now that U.S. soldiers were told to turn a blind eye to the practice (even when it takes place on our bases). Some Americans have even been disciplined and removed from the service for trying to intervene.

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

In addition to Quinn having his career destroyed, the Army is now trying to drum Green Beret Sgt. First Class Charles Martland out of the service for assisting Quinn in handing a beatdown to the pedophile. And our own military admits that this wasn't just a case of a few bad apples, but formal policy for troops serving in Afghanistan.

The Army when asked for comment gave a disappointing explanation.

When asked about American military policy, the spokesman for the American command in Afghanistan, Col. Brian Tribus, wrote in an email: “Generally, allegations of child sexual abuse by Afghan military or police personnel would be a matter of domestic Afghan criminal law.” He added that “there would be no express requirement that U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan report it.” An exception, he said, is when rape is being used as a weapon of war.

So actions as atrocious as child rape are only to be stopped if they are being done in a war? Was Joseph Mengele's experiments on Jews O.K. as long as we weren't at war with the Nazi's?

Follow this story on Fox News. I haven't seen any other network covering it, which is a shame.

 


FOSSIL FUELS HAVE
CREATED AN
ENLIGHTENED POSITION

9/23/15

 


THE 'NEW YORK VALUES' PILLOW FIGHT BETWEEN TRUMP AND CRUZ

1/20/16

•Todd Starnes with Fox News wrote a great missive last week after the Republican debate in South Carolina addressing the Ted Cruz/Donald Trump “New York Values” pillow fight that I believe cut right to the issue at hand well before anyone else did.

If you've been avoiding the debates, Donald Trump and the Mainstream Media are foaming at the mouth over the comment Senator Ted Cruz made about New York values. Trump stood on the bodies of the victims of 9/11 to defend and deflect attention on the fact that people in New York DO have more liberal values than do people in the middle of America.

We all know exactly what Cruz was talking about. It had nothing to do with the aftermath of 9/11.

As Starnes well-phrased it: “Senator Cruz was talking about cultural and political values. Duck Dynasty values versus Bill de Blasio values. He was referring to the permissive New York values celebrating public debauchery that would make the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah blush. Just ask the families from the Heartland who've been accosted by topless women in Times Square.”

Want other examples of New York values? How about Occupy Wall Street -- turning public parks into human cesspools - people defecating on police cars?
Cruz himself came out Sunday and recorded an apology.

It was devastating.

“It's been an interesting 24 hours where [they] have all demanded an apology because apparently they're unhappy about acknowledging that they have embraced New York values. And so I've heard their demands, and I am happy to give them an apology.

I apologize to the millions of New Yorkers who have been abandoned by liberal politicians. I apologize for the working men and women of New York who are denied jobs — jobs that have been plentiful just south of Pennsylvania — because Gov. Cuomo bans fracking. I apologize to all the pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Second Amendment New Yorkers who Gov. Cuomo brazenly told have no place in the state of New York because that's not who New Yorkers are. I apologize to all of the African American children who Mayor de Blasio tried to throw out of their charter schools that were providing a life line to the American dream. And I apologize to all the cops and firefighters and 9/11 heroes who had no choice but to stand and turn their backs on Mayor de Blasio because Mayor de Blasio over and over again stands with the looters and criminals rather than the brave men and women of blue.”

I was impressed.

•From The Daily Caller News Foundation, I thought it interesting to note that Obama is still 60% short of his goal of having one million electric cars on America's roads a full year after his self-imposed deadline.

American's just aren't that interested in electric cars, especially with gas prices fast approaching $1.20 per gallon.

So far, only 400,000 electric cars have been sold in the U.S. (through 2015), so Obama is still 600,000 cars, or 60 percent, short of the goal he set in 2011.

The collapse in oil prices complicated things even further by making heavier and safer SUVs, trucks and other fuel-guzzling cars much more attractive. Electric car sales fell to about 117,000 for 2015, down from 120,000 sold in 2014.

The Obama administration admitted in 2013 it would not be able to meet its goal of putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 even with generous subsidies. Market analysts with Navigant Research predict electric car sales won't top one million until 2024 — they estimate sales will hit 1.1 million cars that year.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/14/obama-still-60-percent-short-of-his-1-million-electric-car-goal-a-year-after-deadline/#ixzz3xFb8pDPy

•Interesting to note that not long ago when Ben Carson was rising in the polls, Donald Trump was quick to attack him for being "pro-abortion not so long ago."

Did you know that Trump himself was "very" pro-abortion not so long ago. In 1999, Tim Russert asked Trump if he would support a ban on "abortion in the third-trimester" or "partial-birth abortion."

"No," Trump replied. "I am pro-choice in every respect."

Trump explained at that time that his views may be the result of his "New York background" which differs from Iowa values.

During the first Republican presidential debate, Trump explained that he "evolved" on the issue at some point in the last 16 years. He explained it thusly,
"Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances…I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life."

The Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein soon after asked Trump if he would have become pro-life if that child had been a loser instead of a "total superstar." Trump replied: "Probably not, but I've never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he's such an outstanding person."

Sounds like a staunchly pro-life warrior there! Who says something like that?

Does that really surprise anyone?

(Brian Kubicki can be reached by email at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


HILLARY'S CLASSIFIED PROBLEM KEEPS GETTING BIGGER

1/13/16

•The Hillary Clinton email scandal seems to be getting worse by the day.

As the State Department, under court order, releases more and more emails from her home computer server, over 1300 classified emails have apparently been sent to others in violation of federal law.

And perhaps the most incriminating one came in an email thread from June 2011 where Clinton exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, her then-deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser. In that email exchange, she impatiently waits for a set of talking points and Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax. Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.

BOOM!

Clinton said last weekend that she never got the talking points so there is no “there there.”

But does that matter?

If you go in to rob a bank and walk out without any money, are you exonerated of the crime?

In Hillary's words, “If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

That's an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand. Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary's claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was “surprised” that a diplomatic officer used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

How about we review the relevant criminal statutes again in this case, such as 18 USC 793:

“d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document…or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits…the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document…relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits…the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust…and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Did those talking points get illegally transmitted on Hillary's order?

This explains why more than a thousand pieces of classified information have found their way into Hillary's unauthorized and unsecured e-mail system — and why the markings have been stripped from them. Hillary herself apparently ordered the Code Red, so to speak.

Somebody needs to Photoshop Hillary's face onto Jack Nicholson's body from the “YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH” tirade from the movie, “A FEW GOOD MEN.”

This is getting good.

•Did you see where the Washington Post admitted that electric cars were NOT worth the money we have spent on them?

The government has spent a lot on electric cars, but was it worth it? The obvious answer is no. There are three ways that the Washington Post notes that the investment was a waste.

“The government” - There are things we need government for. Protecting our borders and refereeing inter-state disputes in commerce are the main ones. In the economic world, private enterprise is best equipped to run the free market, not government.

“They spent a lot” - It's a common government mistake to believe that putting any amount of money into a government program will consistently produce expected results. In fact, those results are rarely achieved. Often, after they get nothing they try to fix the problem by dumping loads of more money at the problem.

“Electric cars” – Why did we need electric cars? Of course, the real reason is they were supposed to replace at least some of the gas-burning cars. We all knew going in that there was going to be no reduction in pollution. The energy needed to run electric cars has to come from somewhere. Most of it (fortunately) still comes from burning coal. But the truth is there was an awful lot of pocket-lining going on. It wasn't like the government would just come out and say, “A lot of people who were our political allies and donated lots of money during the election wanted some of that sweet 'free' taxpayer money.”

It was all a scheme, and now they are shamelessly admitting it.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


IT'S GOING TO BE CRUZ VS. HILLARY IN 2016

1/6/16

•Here we go 2016! Let's get this new year started.

•It's going to be Cruz vs. Hillary in 2016. All signs seem to be pointing that way. And don't pay any attention to those “CANDIDATE X vs. Hillary Clinton” polls. They're meaningless when she's the assumed nominee and there are still 9 candidates on the other side.

The presidential primary campaigns are shifting into high gear now that the holidays are over. Here is my updated rundown less than a month before the Iowa Caucus:

On the Democrat side, Hillary will get the nomination…IF she can stay out of federal prison.

On the Republican side, Ted Cruz is my choice. He's clearly the smartest and has the best ground game among all of the candidates.

Trump has the overall lead in the popular polls but doesn't seem to have a ground game in place. Then again, he IS essentially rewriting political campaigns and how to get the media to play for you rather than the other way around. His lead in the polls cannot be overlooked.

Ben Carson seems to be taking on water. I'm not sure he really wants to be president.

Marco Rubio is still handicapped by his complicity with the Gang of Eight's amnesty movement. While the Establishment RINOs seem to prefer him now that Jeb is essentially done, that's more of a curse than a blessing. I like Rubio but the trust factor is a tough hurdle for many base voters to get over.

Jeb Bush is cooked. He should have listened to his mother. That's good advice for all of us.

John Kasich is the son of a mailman. I still don't know what he is doing in this race.

Carly Fiorina is too fixated on being the only woman in the race on the GOP side. Her handlers should be replaced.

Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum both don't have a prayer between them.

•From ClimateDepot.com, a physics professor wrote a fantastic piece summarizing 10 reasons why human caused global warming is vastly overstated.

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today's temperatures are unusual. The “all-time” high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980's, but for many parts of the world the 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

The author, Mike van Biezen, is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science. Read the entire piece here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

The scare term, “ocean acidification” was first coined in the magazine, Nature in 2003, followed by the Royal Society in 2005, and has since been used as a fear trigger, given that actual global warming has stalled for 20 years.

Climate scientists now “calculate” that the average ocean alkalinity has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 on the scale since pre-industrial times, except that the measurement error margin is several times the alleged reduction (and each of the five oceans has its own pH characteristics). pH levels – which are a measure of acidification - at given points in time and location can swing markedly even within the 24-hour cycle.

In past geological ages carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were ten or more times what they are now (400ppm) and ocean life thrived. Indeed our current fossil fuels are the residue of vast oceanic life that thrived and died in such super-high carbon dioxide environments.

In the parts of the oceans where alkalinity is low (i.e. tending towards neutral), fish, corals, and sea flora have managed and adapted perfectly well. Freshwater lakes and rivers are slightly acidic (pH of 6 to 8), as is rainwater, pH 5.6, and drinking water, 6.5 to 7.5. Life has adapted and thrives in fresh water notwithstanding the degree of, “acidification.”

So, you can now execute a complete eye-roll when someone starts crying about acid rain.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/01/the-fishy-science-of-ocean-acidification/#ixzz3wERyeozK

•Well, congratulations to the KC Chiefs on making the NFL Playoffs. They play the Houston Texans next week at Houston. Here's to them ending a LONG drought of playoff wins!

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE SHEER INNOVATION HUMANS CAN EMPLOY IS AMAZING

12/30/15

•So, I'm watching late night cable while wrapping Christmas presents and there's this show called, “Lockup” on MSNBC that shows the inner workings of a county detention center in San Antonio. It's a pretty depressing show overall, as you could imagine when you are viewing the accounts of the lives of people who are largely devoid of hope for eventual freedom but I was struck by the raw innovation exhibited by prisoners who are in an environment largely devoid of technological resources.

From the beginning you accept it as normal that nearly every inmate is heavily tattooed. Everyone has seen a former inmate wearing tattoos.

But tattooing is not allowed in prison. So, how are they getting the tattoos?

Well, it turns out that there are a few individuals that have gathered the resources from around them: a hollowed-out Q-Ttip, a straightened-out staple, thread from a shirt, some copper wire and a bolt (to make the electromagnet that drives the device) and they make ink by cooking grease or baby oil until it's carbon-black.

The sheer innovation humans can employ – especially when necessity dictates its need – is amazing to behold. Imagine what's capable with full-access to the world's natural resources!

•Did you know that Christmas lights alone in America use more energy than entire countries around the world?

Bright lights strung on American trees, rooftops and lawns account for 6.63 billion kilowatt hours of electricity consumption every year.

That's more power than countries like El Salvador or Ethiopia use in a year.
El Salvador uses 5.35 billion kilowatt hours while Ethiopia consumes 5.30 billion and Tanzania 4.81 billion kilowatt-hours.

So, what do we do to address this “problem?” The current administration and Democrats mostly say that we need to slow-down our use of electricity. The Republicans (the smart ones, at least) say we should work to get more power into the hands of these poor countries. Corrupt governments do more to oppress people than any other force in the world. If you want to help people in under-developed countries, work to rid them of corrupt leaders.

•Also relevant to note that the 6.63 billion kilowatt hours used by US Christmas lights represents only 0.2 percent of yearly US energy consumption, or enough power to run 14 million refrigerators.

•The Washington Post on July 9, 1971 posted the following:

“The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University.”

We should know in the next 5-15 years whether he was right.

•While I generally wish to avoid talking about Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, I cannot avoid this…

For awhile now, the Sanders' campaign has been pushing that the Democrat National Committee has been helping the Clinton campaign by locking Sanders' people out of the party database.

Also, the DNC scheduled all but one of the 2015 debates on a Saturday, when most people were watching college football, surely benefitting Clinton. Sanders' sued the DNC over the database access and the DNC responded by restoring access a week ago. The campaign promises the lawsuit is about getting answers but the question is whether they actually will or not.

Ultimately, who should win the Democratic race matters little to me, because I'm not going to vote for them. They are all big government, more taxes, more spending, and are utterly incompetent on foreign policy.

But, there is no doubt that the Democrat race would be more interesting if Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren were opposing Clinton instead of Sanders and Martin O'Malley. Unless Sanders surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democrat race is largely decided. There were a significant number of people in the Democrat Party back in 2008 that did not want the Clintons in power. Where have they gone is the key question.

•From www.junkscience.com

No, despite claims to the contrary, 2015 is not New York City's warmest Christmas Dec. 25, 1889 was warmer.

The drive-by media is full of stories touting that Christmas Day's 66 degree New York City temperature was the city's warmest Christmas EVER.

But on Dec. 26, 1889, the New York Times reported that the temperature hit 65 degrees in the city on Christmas.

But 66 degrees is warmer than 65 degrees, isn't it?

Not in this case. The 2015 66 degree reading has 126 post-1889 years of urban heat island effect built into it. (Basically, more concrete in use today indicates that temperatures measured close to the ground are artificially warmer because many measurement stations are close to concrete which reflects thermal energy rather than absorbing it like soil and vegetation does.)

So a 65 degree reading in NYC in 1889 means it was warmer then than today.
Go figure! Although we have about 100 ppm more CO2 in the air today, it was warmer way back in 1889.

•BIG congrats to the chiefs on making the playoffs. Very impressive performance, winning nine straight games after a 1-5 start to the season.

Now let's go win a playoff game!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


RUBIO, CRUZ VERY DIFFERENT ON IMMIGRATION

12/23/15

•Remember those focus groups Frank Luntz runs around the debates? You remember I'm sure because he makes it a point to populate his groups with supposed “undecided voters,” which of course usually means that he's found the most politically ignorant people and plops them down in front of a camera so we can all sample their intellect on the coming election.

Well, Luntz recently had constructed a focus group composed of Muslim-Americans and some in this group have accused Luntz and host network CBS of censoring their anti-American comments.

John Nolte of Bretibart.com reported on it in a great piece recently. Some highlights follow.

“…CBS News has apparently been caught red-handed cutting footage from a focus group mediated by Establishment Republican Frank Luntz that shows American Muslims criticizing the United States…two Muslim Americans who took part in the group complained that CBS edited out parts of the discussion where they raised their own concerns — including critiques of U.S. militarism, surveillance, and entrapment. They also said that Frank Luntz, the right-wing pollster who led the focus group, silenced members of the group when they criticized discriminatory U.S. government policies.”

Another participant observed that Luntz kept saying he felt bad that no one listens to Muslims and how he wanted to give them an opportunity to talk to the general population.

But according to one female participant's Facebook page, Luntz did not just edit out the inconvenient moments that didn't fit his desired narrative, he went so far as to silence her when she tore into the American government as a racist institution that has “killed many Muslims.”

She continued…

“He also had silenced me and other participants who have routinely brought up the fact the government has enacted in state violence against the Muslim community — whether that may be through entrapment cases and surveillance programs — and our concerns about institutional racism. He shut me down when I said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton has killed many Muslims under the administration when we were discussing Trump, and ironically for a GOP strategist, he shut me down when I talked about how Democrats have enacted some of the most deadliest and discriminatory policies against Muslims. He also decided to stop letting me speak when I started talking about how Muslims should start focusing on combatting government policies rather than rushing to condemn terrorism or Islamophobia exclusively. They also cut out portions of where participants talked about media accountability when discussing Islam.”

Wow!

Read more and see the video at www.Breitbart.com

•Byron York put together a tremendous piece this week on the facts about the ongoing dispute between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on immigration.

Highlights…

The Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill passed the Senate in June 2013.

Democrats, who controlled the Senate at the time, unanimously supported the bill, while most Republicans opposed it. The four Republicans on the gang — Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake — of course voted for it, and also agreed with Democrats on a plan to kill almost all GOP amendments.
Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed just a handful of amendments to reach the Senate floor. One, from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, would have prohibited the legalization of illegal immigrants in the United States until after the administration could prove it had maintained "effective control" of the borders for six months.

Rubio voted against the Grassley amendment. Sen. Ted Cruz voted for it.

Another Republican amendment would have required the completion of 350 miles of fencing along the U.S. border.

Rubio voted against the Thune amendment. Cruz voted for it.

Another amendment would have delayed the granting of legal status until a biometric visa identity system had been fully implemented at every port of entry.
Rubio voted against the Vitter amendment. Cruz voted for it.

The Gang of Eight bill came up for a final Senate vote on June 27, 2013. Rubio, as a key author of the legislation, voted for its passage. Cruz voted against it.

These facts are important because Rubio has argued his position on immigration is similar to Cruz'.

Rubio: "The bottom line is there isn't that big a difference between [Cruz] and I on how to approach immigration," Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

In 2013, Rubio and Cruz could NOT have been more different on immigration. Rubio has been furiously distancing himself from the gang bill.

Particularly interesting to now hear Rubio say - remember the Grassley amendment he helped kill - that security and enforcement must be in place before illegal immigrants can be legalized and placed on a path to citizenship.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


PARIS TALKS CONCLUDE WITH AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT

12/16/15

•The Paris climate talks have concluded with a supposed agreement in place.
Allegedly, representatives from hundreds of nations have agreed on a sufficient amount of alleged money to be redistributed to control the allegedly out-of-control temperature rise of the planet's atmosphere.

How does redistributing wealth affect the temperature of the planet?

The final agreement includes a commitment to keeping temperature rises “well below” two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels with a target of keeping them at 1.5 degrees Centigrade.

To achieve such a ridiculous goal the world will have to start drastically reducing its use of the cheapest fossil fuels by the year 2050; abandoning them entirely by the end of the century. Those who can't meet those goals must engage in unproven and highly expensive methods of “burying” their carbon output.

Do not hold your breath for China, Russia or India to go one iota beyond simple lip service.

The deal has no means of enforcement for those governments that don't agree to go along. In all reality, a plan that guts the oil and gas industry with no realistic replacement for the energy walked away from will never see floor of Congress.

•Did you catch where actor Kurt Russell argued against an anti-gun Hollywood interviewer in promoting his upcoming movie?

Russell was interviewed by Hollywood reporter Jeffery Wells and said that it's “absolutely insane” to believe that more gun control will curb terrorist attacks.

Discussing America's “gun culture” and film producer Quentin Tarantino, Russell said he doesn't “understand [the] concepts of conversation” about “the gun culture,” after Wells asserted that most Americans fear that mass violence is becoming a “day-to-day” occurrence.

When Wells went on to say that guns are a “…metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need,” Russell let loose.

“If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists' point of view, I think you're, like, out of your mind,” he began. “I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it's absolutely insane.”

“Dude, you're about to find out what I'm gonna do, and that's gonna worry you a lot more,” the actor continued. “And that's what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I'm a hockey team and I've got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I'm not concerned about what he's gonna do — I'm gonna make him concerned about what I'm gonna do to stop him. That's when things change.”

Arguing back, Wells invoked the no-fly list, saying that the people on the list are there for a “good reason,” but that they can allegedly still “get [a] hold of a gun pretty easily.”

“They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what?” Russell retorted. “They can also get knives and stab you. [What are you] gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. [What are you] gonna do about that?”

Wells: “Just put some controls…”

Russell: “Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can't?”

Wells: “No, not so you can't, just so the idiots can't get hold of them [so easily], that's all.”

Russell: “You really believe they're not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree.”

Finally, a fearless and outspoken non-liberal actor.

•Notice how the mainstream media seems to want to attack now-frontrunner Ted Cruz by avoiding him in the debates?

This happened on a recent NPR Morning Edition interview. Host Steve Inskeep, an Obama acolyte, was blunt when discussing the new Trump idea of banning Muslims from entering America:

“STEVE INSKEEP: All this led to a bottom-line question when Senator Cruz visited our studios. [To Cruz] Which Muslims do you want to keep out of the United States?

TED CRUZ: Well, I'm not sure that's the way I would put the question. What I would say is what is the obligation of the president and commander in chief? And the first obligation is to keep this country safe.”

NPR posted the full transcript online. What that demonstrated was that NPR and Inskeep routinely sliced out (for time and surely, for political convenience) Cruz whacking away at Democrats. Here's the rest of Cruz's answer to that, sliced at mid-sentence:

“And the first obligation is to keep this country safe, and so I've introduced legislation that would suspend for three years refugees from countries where ISIS or al-Qaida control a substantial amount of territory. And the reason is simple. The FBI has told Congress that the Obama administration cannot vet these refugees.”

Then Inskeep brought in the rest of the answer:

“INSKEEP: The Texas senator wore a white shirt and orange tie. He was on his way to work in Washington. Cruz introduced legislation after the recent attacks in Paris. His bill would make it even harder than it is for refugees to reach the U.S. from five war-torn countries. Cruz says the few exceptions would include non-Muslims who are persecuted.

CRUZ: “President Obama and Hillary Clinton's plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to America when the FBI says they cannot ascertain if these refugees are ISIS terrorists or not - that makes no sense.”

Cruz had his interview carved-up by CBS's Face the Nation in January of 2014. In CNBC debate, the moderator purposely avoided Cruz on the global warming question, likely because he knew Cruz would destroy his Left-leaning premise.

Mainstream journalism at its best.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THE ENEMY ON U.S. SOIL AGAIN

12/16/15

•The liberal media has been utterly pathetic in their rush-to-judgment reactions to the radical Islamic terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, CA last week. The ones I saw ranged from calling it a Planned Parenthood attack (MSNBC said there was a Planned Parenthood clinic a couple of blocks away--1.5 miles actually) to calling it a case of a disgruntled government employee snapping (Yep, they said it. . .“workplace violence!”).

The reality is much different. We have been attacked by the enemy on U.S. soil once again.

This is a war.

(Sigh!!! I need a minute…)

•Obama hit the airwaves Sunday night to try to reassure America he has ISIS under control (and stop calling it ISIL…nobody knows what the Levant is anyway!). He reiterated the bombing campaigns they are conducting in the Middle East. He didn't mention that we are dropping leaflets 45 minutes in advance of bombing oil trucks to warn them that the bombs are coming.

What?

What's the point of warning your enemy before you hit him that you are going to hit him? Patton must be spinning in his grave!

(Aaarrrgggghhhh!...Need another minute…)

•“Let's take a step back on this climate thing for a minute and analyze things.

Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same situation occurred with the car replacing the horse, pipelines replacing trains for a time, and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Necessity breeds innovation.

Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation. The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and as they try to frighten mankind into action, their solution is to essentially tax air--carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources--wind and solar and away from cheap and efficient fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted in our constant pursuit toward improving our lives in meaningful ways during the short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.

•The media was making a big deal out of the New York Times putting an editorial on its front page last week calling for massive gun control in response to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. Apparently, this was the first time since 1920 that the paper put an editorial on its front page.

“Whoop-de-do Basil, but what does it mean?”

Does anyone care if nobody ever reads the fishwrap in the first place? I have never desired to get my hands on the New York Times. Who cares what an arrogant bunch of East Coast liberals think about anything? I've never read it and am not about to start now.

•By the way, on the subject of getting the news the earliest it is reported, Twitter wins again. I was monitoring Twitter last week working on the main PC with Twitter running in my “side mirror” when the site www.weaselzippers.com ran with a BREAKING: Active Shooter Situation Occurring in San Bernardino. I flipped the TV onto the cable news networks and none of them were onto the breaking story for at least another 20-30 minutes! Amazing!

If you want it first, monitor Twitter.

•From the superb climate site, www.wattsupwiththat.com, we learned that in the U.K., they don't like media people veering from the propaganda line.

The BBC broadcast an obscure program on state radio called “what's the point of the MET office?” which allowed the views of climate skeptics onto British broadcast radio. As a result of this massive breach of BBC policy, there has been a major internal inquiry, and several BBC officials have been sent on mandatory climate re-education courses.

The skeptic views essentially claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying.”

You would think the BBC would have more interesting ways to spend their money and time, than conducting witch hunts to root out the last vestiges of climate skepticism within their ranks. But I guess that is a decision for the BBC Trust, and of course the taxpayers of Britain, assuming anyone bothers to ask their opinion.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12033749/Radio-4-show-that-criticised-Met-Office-stance-on-climate-change-broke-broadcasting-rules.html
I hope when Ivan sends me to Climate Re-education Camp he sends me someplace warm!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE CHANGE? WE'RE CLOSER TO BEING THREATENED BY GODZILLA

12/2/15

•As I write this, world leaders are filling the skies with carbon to gather in Paris to try and figure out a way to further strangle capitalism and free markets using junk science threats of a planet on fire.

It's laughable nonsense that mankind is able to wield such power as to control the temperature of the air on the planet. We are closer to being threatened by a Godzilla-Rhodan battle than we are by an ever-changing climate.

•An old-but-still-great column by Ben Shapiro offered a great set of rules that we should hope get adopted in Paris this week. The highlights:

“According to the global left, the evidence is in: The earth is warming, and it's all your fault. Don't blame the sun. The giant ball of fiery gas responsible for all climate change over the past few million years isn't the problem. It's you…you big-spending, high-on-the-hog, corporation-supporting, First World gluttons with your shiny gas-guzzling sports cars and central heating…”

“…Well, global left, your words have finally hit home. I finally realized that correlation does equal causation after all. As one of the pig-Americans you so despise, I pledge to do my utmost to mitigate the threat of global warming.
And so, without further ado, I henceforth dedicate myself to achieving the following goals to aid Mother Earth:

EAT COWS. Turns out, cows are the climate's worst enemy. Cows, it seems, are culpable for 18 percent of greenhouse gases. Their cud-chewing, flatulence and burping create giant clouds of methane. All this time, we thought the cattle were our mammalian friends. But, fools that we are, the cows outsmarted us. While we milked them, they pursued their long-term strategy of world domination.
If we eat them faster than they can reproduce, we can sleep easy at night. Hamburgers are the answer. Steaks. Barbecue ribs…”

“…CONVINCE FELLOW GLOBAL WARMING CRUSADERS TO STOP BREATHING. Al Gore says, '[W]e should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions.' I concur. If carbon dioxide emissions are the problem, persuading global warming fanatics to immediately stop exhaling may be the solution.”

•Shapiro hit again this week with his…Reasons Obama's Climate Change Agenda Is Dangerous [Bovine Excrement]

“…We Have No Idea To What Extent The Earth Is Warming. There are major battles in the scientific community about the basic question of what level of climate change is occurring. Even the shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change' betrays that uncertainty.

We Have No Clue How Much Human Activity Causes Climate Change. In September 2014, undersecretary for science in Barack Obama's Energy Department Dr. Steven Koonin wrote…though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole….”

BOOM!

“We Have No Idea How Much Climate Change Impacts Human Life. The climate has always changed and will always change. The question is how it will hurt human beings, presumably…”

“…Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops…

The essential outcome is that we live in teepee's!

This is what they want for us.

“The Solution – Destroying Carbon-Based Fuels and Capitalism – Is The Problem. The left is in an all-out war with the two greatest forces for fighting poverty in history: cheap, carbon based energy, and capitalism. The same people celebrating the end of the Industrial Revolution economic model seem to forget that economic model, boosted by carbon-based fuels, has led to a massive drop in global poverty: in 1990, 1.9 billion people lived under $1.25 per day, as opposed to 836 million in 2015. That's because of the dominance of capitalism and the increased efficiency of technology. It's certainly not because of governmental environmental regulations.”

It's nonsense.

•I may need to revise my Chiefs forecast.

(Find Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE SUMMIT NOTHING MORE THAN A PHOTO OP

11/24/15

•The Paris climate summit being held next week is in reality nothing more than a gigantic photo op for corrupt and flunky political leaders to pretend to be environmental saviors.

Despite renewed safety concerns in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the climate summit will take place as scheduled beginning Monday, Nov. 30. Instead of paying needed attention and resources on finding potential terrorists, French law enforcement authorities will be trying to make sure a true climate carnival happens without incident.

COP21 (the 21st annual Conference of the Parties) will try to keep alive an international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Kyoto Protocol was part of that treaty. Kyoto essentially expired at the end of 2012. Since then, UN officials have struggled to regain control of the productivity of the planet so they can redistribute the generated wealth.

Every year, foreign affairs specialists and environment officials around the world spend time rehashing this treaty at taxpayers' expense. A meeting was held in Geneva in February of this year. Since then, three others took place in Bonn – in June, September, and October.

Contrary to media portrayals, COP21 is not a stand-alone event in which world leaders fly to Paris, take in a few meetings, and then close the affair by announcing that the planet has been saved.

The Paris event is unlikely to achieve anything. In early September, a “risk of failure” was publicly acknowledged by French President Francois Hollande.
The Paris climate summit is mainly just a chance for politicians to smile for the cameras and pretend they are saving the planet from the devastation of capitalism by redistributing wealth.

It's all just a cartoon.

•Did you think President Obama's response to the Paris attacks was weak?

The White House was on the defense for statements made by President Obama -- who labeled Friday's Paris massacre that left 129 dead a "setback," and Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a "rationale" for the devastation they wrought.

On Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials' words.

"I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president's actions as you do his words," Earnest said.

He noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks "sickening." Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support -- while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response. Earnest said the president is consulting on "what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies."

Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack -- an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons -- during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris. He at first suggested there was "legitimacy" to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a "rationale."

He said: "There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of -- not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn't to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people."

Radical Islamic terrorism is indiscriminate? Do these people read?

•The reason for the Hebdo attacks is the same as the Paris attacks, 9/11, and all other terrorism by Radical Islamists. Radical Islam wants to rule the world and they are trying to do it by attacking freedom and liberty, wherever it exists.

After Obama said in an interview shortly before the Paris attacks, that ISIS is "contained," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., declared in response that "ISIL is not contained…ISIL is expanding."

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who typically aligns with the president, scolded Obama in an op-ed.

"Obama's tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong," he wrote. "At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive. The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy."

What a mess!

•From The Daily Caller, a study by Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center examined the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, countries submitted to the U.N. on how much they will reduce CO2 emissions in the coming years.

“My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century,” Lomborg wrote in an article posted on the science blog Watts Up With That.

Lomborg's study argues that, at most, a U.N. treaty will avoid 0.17 degrees Celsius of projected warming. The more pessimistic scenario laid out by Lomborg is that current INDCs will only avoid 0.048 degrees Celsius of projected warming.

If the U.S. reduced emissions 80 percent by 2050, it will only stall 0.11 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100.

 


IF WE DON'T ACT, WHAT HAPPENED IN FRANCE WILL HAPPEN HERE

11/18/15

•ISIS wasted no time taking responsibility for the terrorist slaughter in Paris last week. French President Francois Hollande quickly moved to close France's borders. As usual, Obama avoided condemning Radical Islam for the attacks.
And the irony of all ironies occurred when Al Gore cancelled his long-planned Paris webcast telethon to promote climate change awareness.

“Out of solidarity with the French people and the City of Paris, we have decided to suspend our broadcast of 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth,” the group said in an online statement.

Remember in July 2008 Gore called climate change a more dangerous threat than terrorism. “I think that the climate crisis is, by far, the most serious threat we have ever faced,” Gore told ABC News.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been barfing up the same message almost every day.

I guess that's just not the case, guys, is it? If Climate Change was a greater threat than terrorism, wouldn't Gore continue with his telethon?

•Breitbart.com noted 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than Radical Islamic terrorism. Below are a few of those:

In a Jan. 15, 2008 presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next 50 years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last 50: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”

On Sept. 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children's future.

February 16, 2014, Kerry addressed students in Indonesia and said that global warming is now “perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

During a September 2014 meeting with foreign ministers, John Kerry called c limate change a threat as urgent as ISIS.

During his 2015 State of the Union address, Obama said, “No challenge? poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”

On Feb. 10, 2015, when asked to confirm if this means Obama believes “the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism,” Earnest responded, “The point the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives, of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.”

May 20, 2015 President Obama said in his keynote address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”

In his Aug. 28, 2015 weekly address, Obama said “This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now,” he said. “Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we'd do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”
During a Sept. 28 address at the United Nations, President Obama said that “We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies,” adding that “No country can escape the ravages of climate change.”

This Obama Administration is a living, breathing cartoon strip…unbelievable!

•Some taxation reality in America that ties in to the immigration debate: in 2010, $1.1 trillion in federal income taxes was collected in total. 70% of that $1.1 trillion, or about $770 billion, was collected by the top 10% of earners, which amounts to about 16 million Americans.

Now, I'm sure you have heard Democrats and pro-amnesty RINOs say that there's no way we could split up families by deporting the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently in the shadows of the country.

Ask these same “amnestians” if the 16 million taxpayers that pay that $770 billion were to suddenly stop paying federal income taxes, should the federal government separate them from their families and put them in jail? Don't think for a minute that the IRS would hesitate to separate you from your family if you stopped paying taxes. (I must give proper due to Rush Limbaugh for coming up with this point.)

The closing point to this immigration issue is we all should urge our governors to issue executive orders refuse to allow Syrian, or any other country that actively supports or fails to control Radical Islamists, refugees into their states. This is how France became susceptible to this kind of terror. If we do not act, it will happen here.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


COLLEGE ATHLETICS WERE NEVER INTENDED TO DO THIS

11/11/15

Not sure what exactly is going on in Columbia, MO but the very fine Ben Shapiro summarized some excellent thoughts on the topic. Some highlights…

It's time to cut college football.

“In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy 'institutional racism,' one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it's time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.
It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.
College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they're present for the education. They're recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze (see Louisville basketball scandal); they're given privileges no other students receive; they're routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules – see the University of north Carolina), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they're treated like campus kings.”

Shapiro excellently concludes:

“College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.”

Read more: http://www.dailywire.com/news/984/after-university-missouri-football-team-forces-ben-shapiro

•Now back to meaningful issues…

The United Kingdom has installed over 13,000 MegaWatts of wind power to date. All that wind power capacity is currently generating only 385 MegaWatts of electricity, which is less than 1% of the country's current total electricity demand.

And this…

After Obama's expected cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline project last week, the environuts celebrated that the “evil” pipeline was dead, along with all the jobs it would bring and the opportunity for the United States to capture and process much of Canada's wealth of energy rather than it being shipped to China.

Incidentally, it will be shipped there anyway when the Northern Gateway Pipeline is complete.

But as with all things in the liberal enclaves of the country, one victory is never enough. Obama's allies in the anti-energy front are primed for additional action and they've got their eyes on a much larger prize: the complete halt of any future fossil fuel exploration, at least on federal lands.

They call it, “Keep it in the Ground.”

Activists painted the Friday decision as just the beginning of a new era of activism where any additional fossil fuel projects will not be tolerated.

The “keep it in the ground” campaign has been in the works since long before Obama reached his final decision about Keystone. Activists have used the key phrase, which refers to stopping new and continued drilling of fossil fuels, in protest since at least the summer.

The “movement” has been inflated by the folks at The Guardian newspaper who have been running a campaign to convince Bill Gates and other wealthy folks to divest their charitable funds from all fossil fuel companies. These activists now want Barack Obama to use his executive authority to stop issuing new permits for coal, oil and natural gas operations on federal lands.

Before the tree huggers get too excited, however, it's worth reminding them there is an expiration date on all of these moves and it comes in January of 2017, the end of the Obama the Destroyer Era.

If Democrats veer far enough to the left to scare off the middle of the nation, as they have been under Obama's leadership, we will see a Republican working in the White House and he will be appointing new members to the Cabinet that are less than sympathetic to hurting the country any further.

I have said this many times before; if we wanted a president who would do everything in his power to harm America, that president would be doing everything Obama is doing now and has been doing for the past seven years.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


PUTIN THE CAPITALIST

11/4/15

•Steve Goreham at heartland.org recently penned a fantastic piece asking the most relevant question, “Did humans really save the ozone layer?”

World consumption of so-called ozone depleting substances has been practically reduced to zero over the last three decades – at tremendous cost I must add. But guess what?

The ozone hole is as large as ever.

In 1974, Dr. Mario Molina and Dr. Sherwood Roland of the University of California published a paper asserting that chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution from (evil) industry was destroying the ozone layer in Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were gases used in hair spray, refrigerators and insulating foams. The ozone layer is a layer of atmosphere located between six and 25 miles above the Earth's surface.

They hypothesized that human-produced CFCs migrate upward through the atmosphere to the stratosphere, where ultraviolet radiation breaks down CFC molecules, releasing chlorine atoms. Chlorine then reacts as a catalyst to break down ozone molecules into oxygen, reducing the ozone concentration. The more CFCs used, the greater the destruction of the ozone layer, according to the theory.

In 1983, three researchers from the British Antarctic Survey discovered a thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica, which became known as the ozone hole. Their observations appeared to confirm the theory of Molina and Roland.

The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet rays, shielding the surface of Earth from high-energy radiation. Scientists were concerned that degradation of the ozone layer would increase rates of skin cancer and cataracts and cause immune system problems in humans. Al Gore's 1992 book claimed that hunters reported finding blind rabbits in Patagonia and that fishermen were catching blind fish due to human destruction of the ozone layer, but of course, none of this has been factually confirmed.

So, to “save” the ozone layer, 29 nations and the European Community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in September of 1987. Over the next decade, the protocol was signed by 197 nations agreeing to ban the use of CFCs. Since 1986, world consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS) is down more than 99 percent, effectively reaching zero by 2010.

The Montreal Protocol has been hailed as an international success in resolving a major environmental issue. It has been praised as an example to follow for elimination of greenhouse gas emissions in the fight to halt global warming. But despite the elimination of CFCs, the ozone hole remains as large as ever.
During the period from September to October, just after the Antarctic winter, the ozone hole is the largest for each year. NASA recently reported that from Sept. 7 through Oct. 13, 2015, the ozone hole reached a mean area of 25.6 million kilometers, the largest area since 2006 and the fourth largest since measurements began in 1979.

The hole remains large, despite the fact that world ODS consumption all but disappeared about a decade ago.

Scientists are mixed on when the stubborn ozone hole will disappear. NASA recently announced that the hole will be half-closed by 2020. Others forecast that it will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.

Remember, nobody has EVER made measurements of an ozone layer that did not have a hole. It's highly likely that it has always existed and man is too insignificant to have affected it in any way.

So, can I have my Styrofoam containers for my hamburgers again?

•Bet you'd never imagined I'd be quoting a former KGB member for reinforcement did you?

From the Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch, Russian President Vladimir Putin believes global warming is a “fraud;” a plot to keep Russia from using its vast oil and natural gas reserves.

Putin believes “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia,” Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and Putin critic, told The New York Times.

Putin has been casting doubt on man-made global warming since the early 2000s. In 2003, Putin told an international climate conference warming would allow Russians to “spend less on fur coats,” adding that “agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that.”

Putin's comments likely came after his staff “did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate,” according to Andrey Illarionov, Putin's former senior economic adviser, who's now a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,” Illarionov said. “It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to 'fight' global warming was rather unfounded.”

So in this upside-down world, the Russians are the logical capitalistic ones while the New York Times is the voice of the oppressive anti-capitalist forces in the world!

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/russias-putin-says-global-warming-is-a-fraud/#ixzz3qGm5wUhC

 


NOW THEY'RE COMING AFTER YOUR BACON

10/28/15

•Did you know it has in fact been 10 years since a major hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States? I guess man-made global warming isn't the cause of hurricanes after all.

•The World Health Organization is at it again. This time they're coming after your bacon.

Consumption of processed meat — including hot dogs, bacon, and lunch meats — can increase the risk of cancer, according to a new statement from a WHO research agency.

The evidence mostly relates to colorectal cancer and heavy meat consumption, but while the overall cancer risk is small (ALLOW ME TO REPEAT WITH EMPHASIS – THE CANCER RISK IS SMALL!), it increases depending on the amount of meat a person eats.

The organization announced in the journal Lancet Oncology that processed meats — those transformed by salting, curing, or fermentation — fall into the same category as tobacco smoke, meaning "there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer."

This doesn't mean that processed meat is as bad for you as smoking. What it means is that according to the agency's assessment, the links between processed meat and certain types of cancer are clear and well-established. That doesn't even mean that the links are significant.

Here's a more important fact that you should know before reading such drivel: Nobody knows what causes cancer.

Specifically, the researchers found evidence that eating a 50-gram portion of processed meat daily (about one hot dog) can increase a person's risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent.

How many people eat a hot dog every day?

Now for the proper perspective - an average male non-smoker has about a 1.5% chance of contracting lung cancer in his lifetime. If that person is a heavy smoker, that risk jumps to about 17.5%. THAT is significant. But in the situation of meat consumption, an average male has about a 5% chance of contracting colorectal cancer in his lifetime and that risk increases to only 6% if he eats meat every day in large quantities.

Much of the evidence they relied on to form these recommendation about red and processed meats came from epidemiological studies on associations between cancer and meat consumption in many different countries. These sorts of population-wide observational studies are common in nutrition. Basically, researchers track a very large number of people, see how much meat they consume, and check their health outcomes over time. That's it. But because they're not as rigorous as experimental studies like randomized trials — in which researchers would randomly assign people to eat or abstain from certain foods — the studies are more likely to be biased.

So basically, it's all nonsense.

•Courtesy of www.Twitchy.com, the following headline about the tragedy in Oklahoma last weekend appeared in the Traverse City (Michigan) newspaper the Record-Eagle:

“Shooter kills 4; 30 injured”

As you no doubt know, there was no shooter, no gun, and no weapon of any kind except for an automobile.

Perhaps even more pathetic than this exhibition of liberal media bias was the lame explanation by the newspaper:

“Because of a page designer's error, a misleading headline appeared on page 3A in Sunday's Record-Eagle accompanying a story about a driver who struck and killed four people at the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade on Saturday.”

Page designer's error?

•This one has me particularly burning…

An American commando killed during a firefight with ISIS in Iraq last week is having his death denied the benefits associated with wartime armed incursion benefits. The Pentagon insists that the U.S. does not have boots on the ground.

The family of Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler will have a different view.

The Pentagon Friday announced the death of Master Sgt. Joshua L. Wheeler, a soldier who had been serving in Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. He died of wounds received during a hostage rescue mission. But in keeping with the Obama administration's insistence that the president ended combat operations in Iraq, the military issued a separate statement making clear that Wheeler's death did not indicate the presence of U.S. “boots on the ground” in that country.

Here is the text of the additional announcement:

SOUTHWEST ASIA- “Yesterday, the United States of America lost one of her finest warriors doing what American troops do best — protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of this brave Soldier,” said Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve. “We are proud of the combined forces who conducted the mission to rescue these Iraqi hostages. Their courage, skill, and sacrifice narrowly prevented yet another brutal massacre by Daesh murderers. It is important to realize that U.S. military support to this Iraqi rescue operation is part of our overarching counter-terrorism efforts throughout the region and does not represent a change in our policy. U.S. forces are not in Iraq on a combat mission and do not have boots on the ground.”

 


DEMOCRATS GENERATING LESS EXCITEMENT AMONG THEIR BASE

10/21/15

•CNN's debate among the Democrats running for president attracted 15.3 million viewers. That's way higher than the network received in the 2008 Democrat debates, but absolutely pales in comparison to the viewers the Republican debates gathered.

Fox News set a record with more than 25 million viewers for the first GOP debate on Aug. 6 and 23 million viewers watched the second GOP debate on CNN on Sept. 16.

The disparity is probably due to a Democrat field that has generated far less excitement among its base than the much larger and more interesting GOP field.
I maintain that Democrats are just less interesting.

•The Atlantic magazine wants people to view climate change as a wartime situation. They want Americans to accept a lower standard of living, of course to overcome Global Warming.

They are thinking-up all sorts of austere measures typically associated with wartime economies. They might include an end to relatively luxurious suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to everyone eschewing their cars moving into city apartments and accepting train travel.

This is what they want from the global warming movement folks. Fight it!
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/why-only-a-technocratic-revolution-can-win-the-climate-change-war/410377/

•Bernie Sanders now wants to make college education "free." The Democrat presidential primary candidate just tweeted out a message to the effect of…”…it is a crime that college loans have higher interest rates than home and auto loans…”

If Sanders can't understand the basic economics of loaning money, he is unfamiliar with the default rates for college loans versus auto loans and mortgages.
Beyond that, to simplify:

Does he understand the concept of an unsecured loan? How exactly does one go about repossessing a college education?

•Courtesy of Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com…

Founder of Microsoft and the Gates foundation, Bill Gates, has accused environmentalists of making misleading claims about comparative prices of solar energy compared to those of fossil fuels.

Bill Gates has branded the Democrat-pushed fossil fuel divestment, “a false solution” and accused environmentalists of making misleading claims about the price of solar power.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Gates criticized the global movement that has seen pension funds, universities, churches and local governments commit to pulling massive monies out of coal, oil and gas companies.

“If you think divestment alone is a solution, I worry you're taking whatever desire people have to solve this problem and kind of using up their idealism and energy on something that won't emit less carbon – because only a few people in society are the owners of the equity of coal or oil companies,” he said.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which Gates founded with his wife, is the world's largest charitable foundation and funder of medical research. It has $1.4 billion invested in fossil fuel companies.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/14/bill-gates-calls-fossil-fuel-divestment-a-false-solution/#ixzz3p32CzlkK

•At the recent CNN debate, all the Democratic candidates for president were asked to list what they consider the biggest national security threat to the United States. While most focused on the Middle East or Chin, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) chose climate change.

"The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable," Sanders said. "That is a major crisis."

Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, mentioned the unrest in the Middle East, but also pointed to climate change as an issue that exacerbates existing concerns about resources and migration.

"Climate change makes cascading threats even worse," O'Malley said. He has specifically discussed how it may be influencing the Syrian crisis on the campaign trail.

The Pentagon has said that the effects of climate change act as "threat multipliers." Climate, the Department of Defense said last year, aggravates the conditions of "poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions — conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."

This is where Democrats live folks. Islamists slamming jumbo jets into major business centers is less of a threat to American freedom and liberty than theoretical climate change.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 

 


RECENT LUNAR ECLIPSE SHOWED A BIT OF GLOBAL COOLING

10/14/15

•Remember the lunar eclipse a couple of weeks ago? On Sept. 27, millions of people around the world watched the moon pass through the shadow of Earth. Most noticed the eclipse was darker than usual. It was a sign of a little bit of global cooling.

Lunar eclipses show the transparency of Earth's atmosphere. When the stratosphere is clogged with volcanic ash and other aerosols, lunar eclipses tend to be dark red. On the other hand, when the stratosphere is relatively clear, lunar eclipses are bright orange.

This is important because the stratosphere affects climate. A clear stratosphere warms the Earth. The eclipse of Sept. 27, 2015, however, was not as bright as recent eclipses. Trained observers in seven countries estimated that the eclipse was about 0.4 magnitude dimmer than expected, a brightness reduction of about 33 percent.

Why?

A layer of volcanic aerosols in the lower stratosphere from Chile's Calbuco volcano, which erupted in April 2015, appears to have affected the eclipse. Volcanic dust in the stratosphere tends to reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 produced 0.6 C of cooling.

Have you ever heard of a coal fueled power plant actually measurably changing the temperature of the entire planet?

•They did it again!

The EPA has triggered another waste spill in Colorado!

An Environmental Protection Agency crew working at the Standard Mine above Crested Butte triggered a wastewater spill into a creek that flows into the town water supply — a small-scale repeat of the Gold King incident this year.

“Only” an estimated 2,000 gallons spilled, amid efforts to open a collapsed portal. The impact on town water is expected to be minimal.

The spill — while not a disaster like the EPA-triggered 3 million-gallon Gold King deluge that turned the Animas River mustard-yellow — raises questions about EPA procedures.

Time to defund and eliminate the EPA! They are a rolling disaster for the environment.

•In a bit of good news, the Sixth Circuit Court blocked the EPA water rule nationwide.

Several weeks ago, a federal court issued an injunction against EPA enforcement of a new rule based on the Clean Water Act, arguing that the Obama administration had exceeded its Congressional authority. The ruling only applied in the 13 states that were party to the lawsuit, however, but the administration still argued that the North Dakota court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the issue, and that only an appellate court could hear the case. Regardless, the EPA announced shortly afterward that it would continue to enforce the new rule in all other states.

The Sixth Circuit handed down its own injunction against the rule today, and broadened its effect to all 50 states.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a stinging defeat to Obama's effort to control streams and wetlands.

“We conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims,” the judges wrote in their decision, explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency's new guidelines for determining whether water is subject to federal control, based mostly on the water's distance and connection to larger water bodies, is at odds with a key Supreme Court ruling.

Get the EPA off our farms!

•Remember physicist Freeman Dyson? The famous physicist spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience.

At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published[PDF] today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 percent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the president "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but it is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

Dyson continued:

“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
I've got nothing to add…

•Ohio Governor John Kasich says the Bible tells us that we need to expand government in redistribution of wealth.

He is wrong.

The Bible says in various locations that we should not steal. Taking things from others is a sin.

Progressive taxation consists of forcing people who make more money to give a higher percentage to government than those who make less. If you do not give that money you will go to jail. That process is called theft; stealing. It's that clear.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ACTIVISTS WANT ANTI-CLIMATE CHANGE CROWD PROSECUTED

10/7/15

•From the most-excellent site, joannenova.com.au, we learn that apparently climate change is even worse than the last time they told us it was going to obliterate the planet.

Long ago, glaciers were at a constant perfect position. Life was paradise on Earth. Then mankind built the first “planet-destroying” coal powered station in 1880 and now mountains are being moved changing the very shape of the planet…apparently.

If Nature (the magazine) hadn't been hijacked by environuts, it would have kept a longer term perspective and not laced the press release for the paper with baseless speculation. Antarctica is not warming - the satellites show it isn't - and the part that is warming happens to be right over the edges of the tectonic plates where the volcanoes are. (What a coincidence, right?)

Parts of the press release follow…

“Climate change is causing more than just warmer oceans and erratic weather. According to scientists, it also has the capacity to alter the shape of the planet.
…Lead author Michele Koppes, assistant professor in the Department of Geography at the University of British Columbia, compared glaciers in Patagonia and in the Antarctic Peninsula. She and her team found that glaciers in warmer Patagonia moved faster and caused more erosion than those in Antarctica, as warmer temperatures and melting ice helped lubricate the bed of the glaciers.
'We found that glaciers erode 100 to 1,000 times faster in Patagonia than they do in Antarctica,' said Koppes. 'Antarctica is warming up, and as it moves to temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius, the glaciers are all going to start moving faster. We are already seeing that the ice sheets are starting to move faster and should become more erosive, digging deeper valleys and shedding more sediment into the oceans.'

The repercussions of this erosion add to the already complex effects of climate change in the polar regions. Faster moving glaciers deposit more sediment in downstream basins and on the continental shelves, potentially impacting fisheries, dams and access to clean freshwater in mountain communities. 'The polar continental margins in particular are hotspots of biodiversity,' notes Koppes. 'If you're pumping out that much more sediment into the water, you're changing the aquatic habitat.'

The Canadian Arctic, one of the most rapidly warming regions of the world, will feel these effects acutely. With more than four degrees Celsius of warming over the last 50 years, the glaciers are on the brink of a major shift that will see them flowing up to 100 times faster if the climate shifts above zero degrees Celsius.
The findings by Koppes and coauthors also settle a scientific debate about when glaciers have the greatest impact on shaping landscapes and creating relief, suggesting that they do the most erosive work near the end of each cycle of glaciation, rather than at the peak of ice cover. The last major glacial cycles in the Vancouver region ended approximately 12,500 years ago.”

Lesson 1 from studying geology should teach anyone who pays attention that solid ground isn't solid. It is ever changing over long periods of time.

The continents move - slowly. South Africa used to be where Antarctica is now. The North American tectonic plate is moving to the West-Southwest at about 1 inch per year. The Pacific Plate is moving Northwest at a speed of between 3-4 inches a year.

So use that article in Nature for picking-up dog doo.

•Did you hear about the letter from global warming activists trying to get the federal government to prosecute anthropogenic climate change skeptics?

Well, apparently there must have been some major blowback because the group's letter to Obama has been quietly removed from their website.

Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise posted on her blog NoFrakkingConsensus.com that the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) has taken down its letter signed by twenty scientists and researchers. “There's no explanation, no apology – just open space where this anti-free-speech document used to reside,” Laframboise wrote.

IGES's removal of its letter urging skeptics be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act comes after huge backlash from skeptics and reports of the millions in government funding the letter's lead signatory has gotten over the years.

Now when the public goes to view the letter claiming that various organizations “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” all they will see is a blank page with a note that the URL “was not found on this server.”

Hmmm…

Read more at www.dailycaller.com

(Brian Kubicki can be reached by email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


WITH BOEHNER OUT, MCCONELL IS THE NEXT ONE TO GO

9/30/15

•Something tells me it's just a matter of time before someone tries to tie global warming on Earth to the “evidence” of water on Mars. That should be highly entertaining.

•By the way on the subject of Mars, is anyone else really angered by the ads that have been playing for the upcoming movie, “The Martian” starring Matt Damon where he plays an astronaut stranded on Mars? If you haven't seen it, he utters the line, “Take that, Neil Armstrong!” presumably in reference to achieving something of significance compared to the established greatness of the first human to walk on the Moon.

I hope every audience member watching utters in response, “Bite me Matt Damon!”

•John Boehner stepping down from the speakership and Congress is not, as the Establishment would have you believe, a result of haranguing by Conservatives, or a brave attempt on his part to save the Party and America from a battle. It was a calculated move to further the Establishment RINO agenda before the on-coming stampede by angry Americans for unfulfilled promises. Boehner and his cronies talked a loud conservative game in the lead-up to the 2014 mid-term elections. “Elect us and we will hold Obama's feet to the fire!” they said. Around here, we heard it from Pat Roberts in Kansas and Roy Blunt in Missouri. Since then, Obamacare has been fully funded, Obama's Amnesty has sailed through Congress, and every other liberal agenda item has been rubber-stamped. The people have had enough.

Next one to go? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

•Presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina is another candidate that is much more conservative sounding during this campaign that her record would indicate.
She has been a past supporter of embryonic stem cell research.

She openly criticized Ted Cruz' efforts in 2013 to use Congress' Power of the Purse to defund Obamacare.

Fiorina is another one of “those” Republicans (RINO's) that refuse to step-up and admit that the Global Warming Movement is a hoax. She talks like Jeb Bush in saying she believes in “…the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity…” but she is skeptical that government can affect the issue. Those comments reek of establishment consultant advice.

On the subject of national health care, she is vocal that Obamacare must be repealed but in the past she has supported individual mandates for all people to be forced to buy health insurance.

We can do much better than Fiorina.

•People often say that bad things happen in war but this one is decidedly different. Apparently, the U.S.'s “Afghan allies” have been engaged in a sick practice the Afghans refer to as “boy play.” Afghani officers are abducting, imprisoning and raping young boys, keeping them as sex slaves, and it has apparently been standing policy for some time now that U.S. soldiers were told to turn a blind eye to the practice (even when it takes place on our bases). Some Americans have even been disciplined and removed from the service for trying to intervene.

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

In addition to Quinn having his career destroyed, the Army is now trying to drum Green Beret Sgt. First Class Charles Martland out of the service for assisting Quinn in handing a beatdown to the pedophile. And our own military admits that this wasn't just a case of a few bad apples, but formal policy for troops serving in Afghanistan.

The Army when asked for comment gave a disappointing explanation.

When asked about American military policy, the spokesman for the American command in Afghanistan, Col. Brian Tribus, wrote in an email: “Generally, allegations of child sexual abuse by Afghan military or police personnel would be a matter of domestic Afghan criminal law.” He added that “there would be no express requirement that U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan report it.” An exception, he said, is when rape is being used as a weapon of war.

So actions as atrocious as child rape are only to be stopped if they are being done in a war? Was Joseph Mengele's experiments on Jews O.K. as long as we weren't at war with the Nazi's?

Follow this story on Fox News. I haven't seen any other network covering it, which is a shame.

 


FOSSIL FUELS HAVE
CREATED AN
ENLIGHTENED POSITION

9/23/15

 


IT'S GOING TO BE CRUZ VS. HILLARY IN 2016

1/6/16

•Here we go 2016! Let's get this new year started.

•It's going to be Cruz vs. Hillary in 2016. All signs seem to be pointing that way. And don't pay any attention to those “CANDIDATE X vs. Hillary Clinton” polls. They're meaningless when she's the assumed nominee and there are still 9 candidates on the other side.

The presidential primary campaigns are shifting into high gear now that the holidays are over. Here is my updated rundown less than a month before the Iowa Caucus:

On the Democrat side, Hillary will get the nomination…IF she can stay out of federal prison.

On the Republican side, Ted Cruz is my choice. He's clearly the smartest and has the best ground game among all of the candidates.

Trump has the overall lead in the popular polls but doesn't seem to have a ground game in place. Then again, he IS essentially rewriting political campaigns and how to get the media to play for you rather than the other way around. His lead in the polls cannot be overlooked.

Ben Carson seems to be taking on water. I'm not sure he really wants to be president.

Marco Rubio is still handicapped by his complicity with the Gang of Eight's amnesty movement. While the Establishment RINOs seem to prefer him now that Jeb is essentially done, that's more of a curse than a blessing. I like Rubio but the trust factor is a tough hurdle for many base voters to get over.

Jeb Bush is cooked. He should have listened to his mother. That's good advice for all of us.

John Kasich is the son of a mailman. I still don't know what he is doing in this race.

Carly Fiorina is too fixated on being the only woman in the race on the GOP side. Her handlers should be replaced.

Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum both don't have a prayer between them.

•From ClimateDepot.com, a physics professor wrote a fantastic piece summarizing 10 reasons why human caused global warming is vastly overstated.

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today's temperatures are unusual. The “all-time” high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980's, but for many parts of the world the 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

The author, Mike van Biezen, is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science. Read the entire piece here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

The scare term, “ocean acidification” was first coined in the magazine, Nature in 2003, followed by the Royal Society in 2005, and has since been used as a fear trigger, given that actual global warming has stalled for 20 years.

Climate scientists now “calculate” that the average ocean alkalinity has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 on the scale since pre-industrial times, except that the measurement error margin is several times the alleged reduction (and each of the five oceans has its own pH characteristics). pH levels – which are a measure of acidification - at given points in time and location can swing markedly even within the 24-hour cycle.

In past geological ages carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were ten or more times what they are now (400ppm) and ocean life thrived. Indeed our current fossil fuels are the residue of vast oceanic life that thrived and died in such super-high carbon dioxide environments.

In the parts of the oceans where alkalinity is low (i.e. tending towards neutral), fish, corals, and sea flora have managed and adapted perfectly well. Freshwater lakes and rivers are slightly acidic (pH of 6 to 8), as is rainwater, pH 5.6, and drinking water, 6.5 to 7.5. Life has adapted and thrives in fresh water notwithstanding the degree of, “acidification.”

So, you can now execute a complete eye-roll when someone starts crying about acid rain.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/01/the-fishy-science-of-ocean-acidification/#ixzz3wERyeozK

•Well, congratulations to the KC Chiefs on making the NFL Playoffs. They play the Houston Texans next week at Houston. Here's to them ending a LONG drought of playoff wins!

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE SHEER INNOVATION HUMANS CAN EMPLOY IS AMAZING

12/30/15

•So, I'm watching late night cable while wrapping Christmas presents and there's this show called, “Lockup” on MSNBC that shows the inner workings of a county detention center in San Antonio. It's a pretty depressing show overall, as you could imagine when you are viewing the accounts of the lives of people who are largely devoid of hope for eventual freedom but I was struck by the raw innovation exhibited by prisoners who are in an environment largely devoid of technological resources.

From the beginning you accept it as normal that nearly every inmate is heavily tattooed. Everyone has seen a former inmate wearing tattoos.

But tattooing is not allowed in prison. So, how are they getting the tattoos?

Well, it turns out that there are a few individuals that have gathered the resources from around them: a hollowed-out Q-Ttip, a straightened-out staple, thread from a shirt, some copper wire and a bolt (to make the electromagnet that drives the device) and they make ink by cooking grease or baby oil until it's carbon-black.

The sheer innovation humans can employ – especially when necessity dictates its need – is amazing to behold. Imagine what's capable with full-access to the world's natural resources!

•Did you know that Christmas lights alone in America use more energy than entire countries around the world?

Bright lights strung on American trees, rooftops and lawns account for 6.63 billion kilowatt hours of electricity consumption every year.

That's more power than countries like El Salvador or Ethiopia use in a year.
El Salvador uses 5.35 billion kilowatt hours while Ethiopia consumes 5.30 billion and Tanzania 4.81 billion kilowatt-hours.

So, what do we do to address this “problem?” The current administration and Democrats mostly say that we need to slow-down our use of electricity. The Republicans (the smart ones, at least) say we should work to get more power into the hands of these poor countries. Corrupt governments do more to oppress people than any other force in the world. If you want to help people in under-developed countries, work to rid them of corrupt leaders.

•Also relevant to note that the 6.63 billion kilowatt hours used by US Christmas lights represents only 0.2 percent of yearly US energy consumption, or enough power to run 14 million refrigerators.

•The Washington Post on July 9, 1971 posted the following:

“The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University.”

We should know in the next 5-15 years whether he was right.

•While I generally wish to avoid talking about Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, I cannot avoid this…

For awhile now, the Sanders' campaign has been pushing that the Democrat National Committee has been helping the Clinton campaign by locking Sanders' people out of the party database.

Also, the DNC scheduled all but one of the 2015 debates on a Saturday, when most people were watching college football, surely benefitting Clinton. Sanders' sued the DNC over the database access and the DNC responded by restoring access a week ago. The campaign promises the lawsuit is about getting answers but the question is whether they actually will or not.

Ultimately, who should win the Democratic race matters little to me, because I'm not going to vote for them. They are all big government, more taxes, more spending, and are utterly incompetent on foreign policy.

But, there is no doubt that the Democrat race would be more interesting if Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren were opposing Clinton instead of Sanders and Martin O'Malley. Unless Sanders surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democrat race is largely decided. There were a significant number of people in the Democrat Party back in 2008 that did not want the Clintons in power. Where have they gone is the key question.

•From www.junkscience.com

No, despite claims to the contrary, 2015 is not New York City's warmest Christmas Dec. 25, 1889 was warmer.

The drive-by media is full of stories touting that Christmas Day's 66 degree New York City temperature was the city's warmest Christmas EVER.

But on Dec. 26, 1889, the New York Times reported that the temperature hit 65 degrees in the city on Christmas.

But 66 degrees is warmer than 65 degrees, isn't it?

Not in this case. The 2015 66 degree reading has 126 post-1889 years of urban heat island effect built into it. (Basically, more concrete in use today indicates that temperatures measured close to the ground are artificially warmer because many measurement stations are close to concrete which reflects thermal energy rather than absorbing it like soil and vegetation does.)

So a 65 degree reading in NYC in 1889 means it was warmer then than today.
Go figure! Although we have about 100 ppm more CO2 in the air today, it was warmer way back in 1889.

•BIG congrats to the chiefs on making the playoffs. Very impressive performance, winning nine straight games after a 1-5 start to the season.

Now let's go win a playoff game!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


RUBIO, CRUZ VERY DIFFERENT ON IMMIGRATION

12/23/15

•Remember those focus groups Frank Luntz runs around the debates? You remember I'm sure because he makes it a point to populate his groups with supposed “undecided voters,” which of course usually means that he's found the most politically ignorant people and plops them down in front of a camera so we can all sample their intellect on the coming election.

Well, Luntz recently had constructed a focus group composed of Muslim-Americans and some in this group have accused Luntz and host network CBS of censoring their anti-American comments.

John Nolte of Bretibart.com reported on it in a great piece recently. Some highlights follow.

“…CBS News has apparently been caught red-handed cutting footage from a focus group mediated by Establishment Republican Frank Luntz that shows American Muslims criticizing the United States…two Muslim Americans who took part in the group complained that CBS edited out parts of the discussion where they raised their own concerns — including critiques of U.S. militarism, surveillance, and entrapment. They also said that Frank Luntz, the right-wing pollster who led the focus group, silenced members of the group when they criticized discriminatory U.S. government policies.”

Another participant observed that Luntz kept saying he felt bad that no one listens to Muslims and how he wanted to give them an opportunity to talk to the general population.

But according to one female participant's Facebook page, Luntz did not just edit out the inconvenient moments that didn't fit his desired narrative, he went so far as to silence her when she tore into the American government as a racist institution that has “killed many Muslims.”

She continued…

“He also had silenced me and other participants who have routinely brought up the fact the government has enacted in state violence against the Muslim community — whether that may be through entrapment cases and surveillance programs — and our concerns about institutional racism. He shut me down when I said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton has killed many Muslims under the administration when we were discussing Trump, and ironically for a GOP strategist, he shut me down when I talked about how Democrats have enacted some of the most deadliest and discriminatory policies against Muslims. He also decided to stop letting me speak when I started talking about how Muslims should start focusing on combatting government policies rather than rushing to condemn terrorism or Islamophobia exclusively. They also cut out portions of where participants talked about media accountability when discussing Islam.”

Wow!

Read more and see the video at www.Breitbart.com

•Byron York put together a tremendous piece this week on the facts about the ongoing dispute between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on immigration.

Highlights…

The Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill passed the Senate in June 2013.

Democrats, who controlled the Senate at the time, unanimously supported the bill, while most Republicans opposed it. The four Republicans on the gang — Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake — of course voted for it, and also agreed with Democrats on a plan to kill almost all GOP amendments.
Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed just a handful of amendments to reach the Senate floor. One, from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, would have prohibited the legalization of illegal immigrants in the United States until after the administration could prove it had maintained "effective control" of the borders for six months.

Rubio voted against the Grassley amendment. Sen. Ted Cruz voted for it.

Another Republican amendment would have required the completion of 350 miles of fencing along the U.S. border.

Rubio voted against the Thune amendment. Cruz voted for it.

Another amendment would have delayed the granting of legal status until a biometric visa identity system had been fully implemented at every port of entry.
Rubio voted against the Vitter amendment. Cruz voted for it.

The Gang of Eight bill came up for a final Senate vote on June 27, 2013. Rubio, as a key author of the legislation, voted for its passage. Cruz voted against it.

These facts are important because Rubio has argued his position on immigration is similar to Cruz'.

Rubio: "The bottom line is there isn't that big a difference between [Cruz] and I on how to approach immigration," Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

In 2013, Rubio and Cruz could NOT have been more different on immigration. Rubio has been furiously distancing himself from the gang bill.

Particularly interesting to now hear Rubio say - remember the Grassley amendment he helped kill - that security and enforcement must be in place before illegal immigrants can be legalized and placed on a path to citizenship.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


PARIS TALKS CONCLUDE WITH AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT

12/16/15

•The Paris climate talks have concluded with a supposed agreement in place.
Allegedly, representatives from hundreds of nations have agreed on a sufficient amount of alleged money to be redistributed to control the allegedly out-of-control temperature rise of the planet's atmosphere.

How does redistributing wealth affect the temperature of the planet?

The final agreement includes a commitment to keeping temperature rises “well below” two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels with a target of keeping them at 1.5 degrees Centigrade.

To achieve such a ridiculous goal the world will have to start drastically reducing its use of the cheapest fossil fuels by the year 2050; abandoning them entirely by the end of the century. Those who can't meet those goals must engage in unproven and highly expensive methods of “burying” their carbon output.

Do not hold your breath for China, Russia or India to go one iota beyond simple lip service.

The deal has no means of enforcement for those governments that don't agree to go along. In all reality, a plan that guts the oil and gas industry with no realistic replacement for the energy walked away from will never see floor of Congress.

•Did you catch where actor Kurt Russell argued against an anti-gun Hollywood interviewer in promoting his upcoming movie?

Russell was interviewed by Hollywood reporter Jeffery Wells and said that it's “absolutely insane” to believe that more gun control will curb terrorist attacks.

Discussing America's “gun culture” and film producer Quentin Tarantino, Russell said he doesn't “understand [the] concepts of conversation” about “the gun culture,” after Wells asserted that most Americans fear that mass violence is becoming a “day-to-day” occurrence.

When Wells went on to say that guns are a “…metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need,” Russell let loose.

“If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists' point of view, I think you're, like, out of your mind,” he began. “I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it's absolutely insane.”

“Dude, you're about to find out what I'm gonna do, and that's gonna worry you a lot more,” the actor continued. “And that's what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I'm a hockey team and I've got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I'm not concerned about what he's gonna do — I'm gonna make him concerned about what I'm gonna do to stop him. That's when things change.”

Arguing back, Wells invoked the no-fly list, saying that the people on the list are there for a “good reason,” but that they can allegedly still “get [a] hold of a gun pretty easily.”

“They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what?” Russell retorted. “They can also get knives and stab you. [What are you] gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. [What are you] gonna do about that?”

Wells: “Just put some controls…”

Russell: “Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can't?”

Wells: “No, not so you can't, just so the idiots can't get hold of them [so easily], that's all.”

Russell: “You really believe they're not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree.”

Finally, a fearless and outspoken non-liberal actor.

•Notice how the mainstream media seems to want to attack now-frontrunner Ted Cruz by avoiding him in the debates?

This happened on a recent NPR Morning Edition interview. Host Steve Inskeep, an Obama acolyte, was blunt when discussing the new Trump idea of banning Muslims from entering America:

“STEVE INSKEEP: All this led to a bottom-line question when Senator Cruz visited our studios. [To Cruz] Which Muslims do you want to keep out of the United States?

TED CRUZ: Well, I'm not sure that's the way I would put the question. What I would say is what is the obligation of the president and commander in chief? And the first obligation is to keep this country safe.”

NPR posted the full transcript online. What that demonstrated was that NPR and Inskeep routinely sliced out (for time and surely, for political convenience) Cruz whacking away at Democrats. Here's the rest of Cruz's answer to that, sliced at mid-sentence:

“And the first obligation is to keep this country safe, and so I've introduced legislation that would suspend for three years refugees from countries where ISIS or al-Qaida control a substantial amount of territory. And the reason is simple. The FBI has told Congress that the Obama administration cannot vet these refugees.”

Then Inskeep brought in the rest of the answer:

“INSKEEP: The Texas senator wore a white shirt and orange tie. He was on his way to work in Washington. Cruz introduced legislation after the recent attacks in Paris. His bill would make it even harder than it is for refugees to reach the U.S. from five war-torn countries. Cruz says the few exceptions would include non-Muslims who are persecuted.

CRUZ: “President Obama and Hillary Clinton's plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to America when the FBI says they cannot ascertain if these refugees are ISIS terrorists or not - that makes no sense.”

Cruz had his interview carved-up by CBS's Face the Nation in January of 2014. In CNBC debate, the moderator purposely avoided Cruz on the global warming question, likely because he knew Cruz would destroy his Left-leaning premise.

Mainstream journalism at its best.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THE ENEMY ON U.S. SOIL AGAIN

12/16/15

•The liberal media has been utterly pathetic in their rush-to-judgment reactions to the radical Islamic terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, CA last week. The ones I saw ranged from calling it a Planned Parenthood attack (MSNBC said there was a Planned Parenthood clinic a couple of blocks away--1.5 miles actually) to calling it a case of a disgruntled government employee snapping (Yep, they said it. . .“workplace violence!”).

The reality is much different. We have been attacked by the enemy on U.S. soil once again.

This is a war.

(Sigh!!! I need a minute…)

•Obama hit the airwaves Sunday night to try to reassure America he has ISIS under control (and stop calling it ISIL…nobody knows what the Levant is anyway!). He reiterated the bombing campaigns they are conducting in the Middle East. He didn't mention that we are dropping leaflets 45 minutes in advance of bombing oil trucks to warn them that the bombs are coming.

What?

What's the point of warning your enemy before you hit him that you are going to hit him? Patton must be spinning in his grave!

(Aaarrrgggghhhh!...Need another minute…)

•“Let's take a step back on this climate thing for a minute and analyze things.

Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same situation occurred with the car replacing the horse, pipelines replacing trains for a time, and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Necessity breeds innovation.

Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation. The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and as they try to frighten mankind into action, their solution is to essentially tax air--carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources--wind and solar and away from cheap and efficient fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted in our constant pursuit toward improving our lives in meaningful ways during the short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.

•The media was making a big deal out of the New York Times putting an editorial on its front page last week calling for massive gun control in response to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. Apparently, this was the first time since 1920 that the paper put an editorial on its front page.

“Whoop-de-do Basil, but what does it mean?”

Does anyone care if nobody ever reads the fishwrap in the first place? I have never desired to get my hands on the New York Times. Who cares what an arrogant bunch of East Coast liberals think about anything? I've never read it and am not about to start now.

•By the way, on the subject of getting the news the earliest it is reported, Twitter wins again. I was monitoring Twitter last week working on the main PC with Twitter running in my “side mirror” when the site www.weaselzippers.com ran with a BREAKING: Active Shooter Situation Occurring in San Bernardino. I flipped the TV onto the cable news networks and none of them were onto the breaking story for at least another 20-30 minutes! Amazing!

If you want it first, monitor Twitter.

•From the superb climate site, www.wattsupwiththat.com, we learned that in the U.K., they don't like media people veering from the propaganda line.

The BBC broadcast an obscure program on state radio called “what's the point of the MET office?” which allowed the views of climate skeptics onto British broadcast radio. As a result of this massive breach of BBC policy, there has been a major internal inquiry, and several BBC officials have been sent on mandatory climate re-education courses.

The skeptic views essentially claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying.”

You would think the BBC would have more interesting ways to spend their money and time, than conducting witch hunts to root out the last vestiges of climate skepticism within their ranks. But I guess that is a decision for the BBC Trust, and of course the taxpayers of Britain, assuming anyone bothers to ask their opinion.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12033749/Radio-4-show-that-criticised-Met-Office-stance-on-climate-change-broke-broadcasting-rules.html
I hope when Ivan sends me to Climate Re-education Camp he sends me someplace warm!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE CHANGE? WE'RE CLOSER TO BEING THREATENED BY GODZILLA

12/2/15

•As I write this, world leaders are filling the skies with carbon to gather in Paris to try and figure out a way to further strangle capitalism and free markets using junk science threats of a planet on fire.

It's laughable nonsense that mankind is able to wield such power as to control the temperature of the air on the planet. We are closer to being threatened by a Godzilla-Rhodan battle than we are by an ever-changing climate.

•An old-but-still-great column by Ben Shapiro offered a great set of rules that we should hope get adopted in Paris this week. The highlights:

“According to the global left, the evidence is in: The earth is warming, and it's all your fault. Don't blame the sun. The giant ball of fiery gas responsible for all climate change over the past few million years isn't the problem. It's you…you big-spending, high-on-the-hog, corporation-supporting, First World gluttons with your shiny gas-guzzling sports cars and central heating…”

“…Well, global left, your words have finally hit home. I finally realized that correlation does equal causation after all. As one of the pig-Americans you so despise, I pledge to do my utmost to mitigate the threat of global warming.
And so, without further ado, I henceforth dedicate myself to achieving the following goals to aid Mother Earth:

EAT COWS. Turns out, cows are the climate's worst enemy. Cows, it seems, are culpable for 18 percent of greenhouse gases. Their cud-chewing, flatulence and burping create giant clouds of methane. All this time, we thought the cattle were our mammalian friends. But, fools that we are, the cows outsmarted us. While we milked them, they pursued their long-term strategy of world domination.
If we eat them faster than they can reproduce, we can sleep easy at night. Hamburgers are the answer. Steaks. Barbecue ribs…”

“…CONVINCE FELLOW GLOBAL WARMING CRUSADERS TO STOP BREATHING. Al Gore says, '[W]e should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions.' I concur. If carbon dioxide emissions are the problem, persuading global warming fanatics to immediately stop exhaling may be the solution.”

•Shapiro hit again this week with his…Reasons Obama's Climate Change Agenda Is Dangerous [Bovine Excrement]

“…We Have No Idea To What Extent The Earth Is Warming. There are major battles in the scientific community about the basic question of what level of climate change is occurring. Even the shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change' betrays that uncertainty.

We Have No Clue How Much Human Activity Causes Climate Change. In September 2014, undersecretary for science in Barack Obama's Energy Department Dr. Steven Koonin wrote…though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole….”

BOOM!

“We Have No Idea How Much Climate Change Impacts Human Life. The climate has always changed and will always change. The question is how it will hurt human beings, presumably…”

“…Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops…

The essential outcome is that we live in teepee's!

This is what they want for us.

“The Solution – Destroying Carbon-Based Fuels and Capitalism – Is The Problem. The left is in an all-out war with the two greatest forces for fighting poverty in history: cheap, carbon based energy, and capitalism. The same people celebrating the end of the Industrial Revolution economic model seem to forget that economic model, boosted by carbon-based fuels, has led to a massive drop in global poverty: in 1990, 1.9 billion people lived under $1.25 per day, as opposed to 836 million in 2015. That's because of the dominance of capitalism and the increased efficiency of technology. It's certainly not because of governmental environmental regulations.”

It's nonsense.

•I may need to revise my Chiefs forecast.

(Find Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE SUMMIT NOTHING MORE THAN A PHOTO OP

11/24/15

•The Paris climate summit being held next week is in reality nothing more than a gigantic photo op for corrupt and flunky political leaders to pretend to be environmental saviors.

Despite renewed safety concerns in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the climate summit will take place as scheduled beginning Monday, Nov. 30. Instead of paying needed attention and resources on finding potential terrorists, French law enforcement authorities will be trying to make sure a true climate carnival happens without incident.

COP21 (the 21st annual Conference of the Parties) will try to keep alive an international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Kyoto Protocol was part of that treaty. Kyoto essentially expired at the end of 2012. Since then, UN officials have struggled to regain control of the productivity of the planet so they can redistribute the generated wealth.

Every year, foreign affairs specialists and environment officials around the world spend time rehashing this treaty at taxpayers' expense. A meeting was held in Geneva in February of this year. Since then, three others took place in Bonn – in June, September, and October.

Contrary to media portrayals, COP21 is not a stand-alone event in which world leaders fly to Paris, take in a few meetings, and then close the affair by announcing that the planet has been saved.

The Paris event is unlikely to achieve anything. In early September, a “risk of failure” was publicly acknowledged by French President Francois Hollande.
The Paris climate summit is mainly just a chance for politicians to smile for the cameras and pretend they are saving the planet from the devastation of capitalism by redistributing wealth.

It's all just a cartoon.

•Did you think President Obama's response to the Paris attacks was weak?

The White House was on the defense for statements made by President Obama -- who labeled Friday's Paris massacre that left 129 dead a "setback," and Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a "rationale" for the devastation they wrought.

On Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials' words.

"I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president's actions as you do his words," Earnest said.

He noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks "sickening." Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support -- while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response. Earnest said the president is consulting on "what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies."

Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack -- an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons -- during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris. He at first suggested there was "legitimacy" to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a "rationale."

He said: "There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of -- not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn't to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people."

Radical Islamic terrorism is indiscriminate? Do these people read?

•The reason for the Hebdo attacks is the same as the Paris attacks, 9/11, and all other terrorism by Radical Islamists. Radical Islam wants to rule the world and they are trying to do it by attacking freedom and liberty, wherever it exists.

After Obama said in an interview shortly before the Paris attacks, that ISIS is "contained," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., declared in response that "ISIL is not contained…ISIL is expanding."

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who typically aligns with the president, scolded Obama in an op-ed.

"Obama's tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong," he wrote. "At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive. The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy."

What a mess!

•From The Daily Caller, a study by Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center examined the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, countries submitted to the U.N. on how much they will reduce CO2 emissions in the coming years.

“My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century,” Lomborg wrote in an article posted on the science blog Watts Up With That.

Lomborg's study argues that, at most, a U.N. treaty will avoid 0.17 degrees Celsius of projected warming. The more pessimistic scenario laid out by Lomborg is that current INDCs will only avoid 0.048 degrees Celsius of projected warming.

If the U.S. reduced emissions 80 percent by 2050, it will only stall 0.11 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100.

 


IF WE DON'T ACT, WHAT HAPPENED IN FRANCE WILL HAPPEN HERE

11/18/15

•ISIS wasted no time taking responsibility for the terrorist slaughter in Paris last week. French President Francois Hollande quickly moved to close France's borders. As usual, Obama avoided condemning Radical Islam for the attacks.
And the irony of all ironies occurred when Al Gore cancelled his long-planned Paris webcast telethon to promote climate change awareness.

“Out of solidarity with the French people and the City of Paris, we have decided to suspend our broadcast of 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth,” the group said in an online statement.

Remember in July 2008 Gore called climate change a more dangerous threat than terrorism. “I think that the climate crisis is, by far, the most serious threat we have ever faced,” Gore told ABC News.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been barfing up the same message almost every day.

I guess that's just not the case, guys, is it? If Climate Change was a greater threat than terrorism, wouldn't Gore continue with his telethon?

•Breitbart.com noted 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than Radical Islamic terrorism. Below are a few of those:

In a Jan. 15, 2008 presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next 50 years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last 50: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”

On Sept. 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children's future.

February 16, 2014, Kerry addressed students in Indonesia and said that global warming is now “perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

During a September 2014 meeting with foreign ministers, John Kerry called c limate change a threat as urgent as ISIS.

During his 2015 State of the Union address, Obama said, “No challenge? poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”

On Feb. 10, 2015, when asked to confirm if this means Obama believes “the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism,” Earnest responded, “The point the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives, of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.”

May 20, 2015 President Obama said in his keynote address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”

In his Aug. 28, 2015 weekly address, Obama said “This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now,” he said. “Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we'd do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”
During a Sept. 28 address at the United Nations, President Obama said that “We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies,” adding that “No country can escape the ravages of climate change.”

This Obama Administration is a living, breathing cartoon strip…unbelievable!

•Some taxation reality in America that ties in to the immigration debate: in 2010, $1.1 trillion in federal income taxes was collected in total. 70% of that $1.1 trillion, or about $770 billion, was collected by the top 10% of earners, which amounts to about 16 million Americans.

Now, I'm sure you have heard Democrats and pro-amnesty RINOs say that there's no way we could split up families by deporting the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently in the shadows of the country.

Ask these same “amnestians” if the 16 million taxpayers that pay that $770 billion were to suddenly stop paying federal income taxes, should the federal government separate them from their families and put them in jail? Don't think for a minute that the IRS would hesitate to separate you from your family if you stopped paying taxes. (I must give proper due to Rush Limbaugh for coming up with this point.)

The closing point to this immigration issue is we all should urge our governors to issue executive orders refuse to allow Syrian, or any other country that actively supports or fails to control Radical Islamists, refugees into their states. This is how France became susceptible to this kind of terror. If we do not act, it will happen here.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


COLLEGE ATHLETICS WERE NEVER INTENDED TO DO THIS

11/11/15

Not sure what exactly is going on in Columbia, MO but the very fine Ben Shapiro summarized some excellent thoughts on the topic. Some highlights…

It's time to cut college football.

“In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy 'institutional racism,' one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it's time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.
It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.
College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they're present for the education. They're recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze (see Louisville basketball scandal); they're given privileges no other students receive; they're routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules – see the University of north Carolina), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they're treated like campus kings.”

Shapiro excellently concludes:

“College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.”

Read more: http://www.dailywire.com/news/984/after-university-missouri-football-team-forces-ben-shapiro

•Now back to meaningful issues…

The United Kingdom has installed over 13,000 MegaWatts of wind power to date. All that wind power capacity is currently generating only 385 MegaWatts of electricity, which is less than 1% of the country's current total electricity demand.

And this…

After Obama's expected cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline project last week, the environuts celebrated that the “evil” pipeline was dead, along with all the jobs it would bring and the opportunity for the United States to capture and process much of Canada's wealth of energy rather than it being shipped to China.

Incidentally, it will be shipped there anyway when the Northern Gateway Pipeline is complete.

But as with all things in the liberal enclaves of the country, one victory is never enough. Obama's allies in the anti-energy front are primed for additional action and they've got their eyes on a much larger prize: the complete halt of any future fossil fuel exploration, at least on federal lands.

They call it, “Keep it in the Ground.”

Activists painted the Friday decision as just the beginning of a new era of activism where any additional fossil fuel projects will not be tolerated.

The “keep it in the ground” campaign has been in the works since long before Obama reached his final decision about Keystone. Activists have used the key phrase, which refers to stopping new and continued drilling of fossil fuels, in protest since at least the summer.

The “movement” has been inflated by the folks at The Guardian newspaper who have been running a campaign to convince Bill Gates and other wealthy folks to divest their charitable funds from all fossil fuel companies. These activists now want Barack Obama to use his executive authority to stop issuing new permits for coal, oil and natural gas operations on federal lands.

Before the tree huggers get too excited, however, it's worth reminding them there is an expiration date on all of these moves and it comes in January of 2017, the end of the Obama the Destroyer Era.

If Democrats veer far enough to the left to scare off the middle of the nation, as they have been under Obama's leadership, we will see a Republican working in the White House and he will be appointing new members to the Cabinet that are less than sympathetic to hurting the country any further.

I have said this many times before; if we wanted a president who would do everything in his power to harm America, that president would be doing everything Obama is doing now and has been doing for the past seven years.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


PUTIN THE CAPITALIST

11/4/15

•Steve Goreham at heartland.org recently penned a fantastic piece asking the most relevant question, “Did humans really save the ozone layer?”

World consumption of so-called ozone depleting substances has been practically reduced to zero over the last three decades – at tremendous cost I must add. But guess what?

The ozone hole is as large as ever.

In 1974, Dr. Mario Molina and Dr. Sherwood Roland of the University of California published a paper asserting that chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution from (evil) industry was destroying the ozone layer in Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were gases used in hair spray, refrigerators and insulating foams. The ozone layer is a layer of atmosphere located between six and 25 miles above the Earth's surface.

They hypothesized that human-produced CFCs migrate upward through the atmosphere to the stratosphere, where ultraviolet radiation breaks down CFC molecules, releasing chlorine atoms. Chlorine then reacts as a catalyst to break down ozone molecules into oxygen, reducing the ozone concentration. The more CFCs used, the greater the destruction of the ozone layer, according to the theory.

In 1983, three researchers from the British Antarctic Survey discovered a thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica, which became known as the ozone hole. Their observations appeared to confirm the theory of Molina and Roland.

The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet rays, shielding the surface of Earth from high-energy radiation. Scientists were concerned that degradation of the ozone layer would increase rates of skin cancer and cataracts and cause immune system problems in humans. Al Gore's 1992 book claimed that hunters reported finding blind rabbits in Patagonia and that fishermen were catching blind fish due to human destruction of the ozone layer, but of course, none of this has been factually confirmed.

So, to “save” the ozone layer, 29 nations and the European Community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in September of 1987. Over the next decade, the protocol was signed by 197 nations agreeing to ban the use of CFCs. Since 1986, world consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS) is down more than 99 percent, effectively reaching zero by 2010.

The Montreal Protocol has been hailed as an international success in resolving a major environmental issue. It has been praised as an example to follow for elimination of greenhouse gas emissions in the fight to halt global warming. But despite the elimination of CFCs, the ozone hole remains as large as ever.
During the period from September to October, just after the Antarctic winter, the ozone hole is the largest for each year. NASA recently reported that from Sept. 7 through Oct. 13, 2015, the ozone hole reached a mean area of 25.6 million kilometers, the largest area since 2006 and the fourth largest since measurements began in 1979.

The hole remains large, despite the fact that world ODS consumption all but disappeared about a decade ago.

Scientists are mixed on when the stubborn ozone hole will disappear. NASA recently announced that the hole will be half-closed by 2020. Others forecast that it will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.

Remember, nobody has EVER made measurements of an ozone layer that did not have a hole. It's highly likely that it has always existed and man is too insignificant to have affected it in any way.

So, can I have my Styrofoam containers for my hamburgers again?

•Bet you'd never imagined I'd be quoting a former KGB member for reinforcement did you?

From the Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch, Russian President Vladimir Putin believes global warming is a “fraud;” a plot to keep Russia from using its vast oil and natural gas reserves.

Putin believes “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia,” Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and Putin critic, told The New York Times.

Putin has been casting doubt on man-made global warming since the early 2000s. In 2003, Putin told an international climate conference warming would allow Russians to “spend less on fur coats,” adding that “agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that.”

Putin's comments likely came after his staff “did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate,” according to Andrey Illarionov, Putin's former senior economic adviser, who's now a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,” Illarionov said. “It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to 'fight' global warming was rather unfounded.”

So in this upside-down world, the Russians are the logical capitalistic ones while the New York Times is the voice of the oppressive anti-capitalist forces in the world!

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/russias-putin-says-global-warming-is-a-fraud/#ixzz3qGm5wUhC

 


NOW THEY'RE COMING AFTER YOUR BACON

10/28/15

•Did you know it has in fact been 10 years since a major hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States? I guess man-made global warming isn't the cause of hurricanes after all.

•The World Health Organization is at it again. This time they're coming after your bacon.

Consumption of processed meat — including hot dogs, bacon, and lunch meats — can increase the risk of cancer, according to a new statement from a WHO research agency.

The evidence mostly relates to colorectal cancer and heavy meat consumption, but while the overall cancer risk is small (ALLOW ME TO REPEAT WITH EMPHASIS – THE CANCER RISK IS SMALL!), it increases depending on the amount of meat a person eats.

The organization announced in the journal Lancet Oncology that processed meats — those transformed by salting, curing, or fermentation — fall into the same category as tobacco smoke, meaning "there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer."

This doesn't mean that processed meat is as bad for you as smoking. What it means is that according to the agency's assessment, the links between processed meat and certain types of cancer are clear and well-established. That doesn't even mean that the links are significant.

Here's a more important fact that you should know before reading such drivel: Nobody knows what causes cancer.

Specifically, the researchers found evidence that eating a 50-gram portion of processed meat daily (about one hot dog) can increase a person's risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent.

How many people eat a hot dog every day?

Now for the proper perspective - an average male non-smoker has about a 1.5% chance of contracting lung cancer in his lifetime. If that person is a heavy smoker, that risk jumps to about 17.5%. THAT is significant. But in the situation of meat consumption, an average male has about a 5% chance of contracting colorectal cancer in his lifetime and that risk increases to only 6% if he eats meat every day in large quantities.

Much of the evidence they relied on to form these recommendation about red and processed meats came from epidemiological studies on associations between cancer and meat consumption in many different countries. These sorts of population-wide observational studies are common in nutrition. Basically, researchers track a very large number of people, see how much meat they consume, and check their health outcomes over time. That's it. But because they're not as rigorous as experimental studies like randomized trials — in which researchers would randomly assign people to eat or abstain from certain foods — the studies are more likely to be biased.

So basically, it's all nonsense.

•Courtesy of www.Twitchy.com, the following headline about the tragedy in Oklahoma last weekend appeared in the Traverse City (Michigan) newspaper the Record-Eagle:

“Shooter kills 4; 30 injured”

As you no doubt know, there was no shooter, no gun, and no weapon of any kind except for an automobile.

Perhaps even more pathetic than this exhibition of liberal media bias was the lame explanation by the newspaper:

“Because of a page designer's error, a misleading headline appeared on page 3A in Sunday's Record-Eagle accompanying a story about a driver who struck and killed four people at the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade on Saturday.”

Page designer's error?

•This one has me particularly burning…

An American commando killed during a firefight with ISIS in Iraq last week is having his death denied the benefits associated with wartime armed incursion benefits. The Pentagon insists that the U.S. does not have boots on the ground.

The family of Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler will have a different view.

The Pentagon Friday announced the death of Master Sgt. Joshua L. Wheeler, a soldier who had been serving in Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. He died of wounds received during a hostage rescue mission. But in keeping with the Obama administration's insistence that the president ended combat operations in Iraq, the military issued a separate statement making clear that Wheeler's death did not indicate the presence of U.S. “boots on the ground” in that country.

Here is the text of the additional announcement:

SOUTHWEST ASIA- “Yesterday, the United States of America lost one of her finest warriors doing what American troops do best — protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of this brave Soldier,” said Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve. “We are proud of the combined forces who conducted the mission to rescue these Iraqi hostages. Their courage, skill, and sacrifice narrowly prevented yet another brutal massacre by Daesh murderers. It is important to realize that U.S. military support to this Iraqi rescue operation is part of our overarching counter-terrorism efforts throughout the region and does not represent a change in our policy. U.S. forces are not in Iraq on a combat mission and do not have boots on the ground.”

 


DEMOCRATS GENERATING LESS EXCITEMENT AMONG THEIR BASE

10/21/15

•CNN's debate among the Democrats running for president attracted 15.3 million viewers. That's way higher than the network received in the 2008 Democrat debates, but absolutely pales in comparison to the viewers the Republican debates gathered.

Fox News set a record with more than 25 million viewers for the first GOP debate on Aug. 6 and 23 million viewers watched the second GOP debate on CNN on Sept. 16.

The disparity is probably due to a Democrat field that has generated far less excitement among its base than the much larger and more interesting GOP field.
I maintain that Democrats are just less interesting.

•The Atlantic magazine wants people to view climate change as a wartime situation. They want Americans to accept a lower standard of living, of course to overcome Global Warming.

They are thinking-up all sorts of austere measures typically associated with wartime economies. They might include an end to relatively luxurious suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to everyone eschewing their cars moving into city apartments and accepting train travel.

This is what they want from the global warming movement folks. Fight it!
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/why-only-a-technocratic-revolution-can-win-the-climate-change-war/410377/

•Bernie Sanders now wants to make college education "free." The Democrat presidential primary candidate just tweeted out a message to the effect of…”…it is a crime that college loans have higher interest rates than home and auto loans…”

If Sanders can't understand the basic economics of loaning money, he is unfamiliar with the default rates for college loans versus auto loans and mortgages.
Beyond that, to simplify:

Does he understand the concept of an unsecured loan? How exactly does one go about repossessing a college education?

•Courtesy of Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com…

Founder of Microsoft and the Gates foundation, Bill Gates, has accused environmentalists of making misleading claims about comparative prices of solar energy compared to those of fossil fuels.

Bill Gates has branded the Democrat-pushed fossil fuel divestment, “a false solution” and accused environmentalists of making misleading claims about the price of solar power.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Gates criticized the global movement that has seen pension funds, universities, churches and local governments commit to pulling massive monies out of coal, oil and gas companies.

“If you think divestment alone is a solution, I worry you're taking whatever desire people have to solve this problem and kind of using up their idealism and energy on something that won't emit less carbon – because only a few people in society are the owners of the equity of coal or oil companies,” he said.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which Gates founded with his wife, is the world's largest charitable foundation and funder of medical research. It has $1.4 billion invested in fossil fuel companies.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/14/bill-gates-calls-fossil-fuel-divestment-a-false-solution/#ixzz3p32CzlkK

•At the recent CNN debate, all the Democratic candidates for president were asked to list what they consider the biggest national security threat to the United States. While most focused on the Middle East or Chin, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) chose climate change.

"The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable," Sanders said. "That is a major crisis."

Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, mentioned the unrest in the Middle East, but also pointed to climate change as an issue that exacerbates existing concerns about resources and migration.

"Climate change makes cascading threats even worse," O'Malley said. He has specifically discussed how it may be influencing the Syrian crisis on the campaign trail.

The Pentagon has said that the effects of climate change act as "threat multipliers." Climate, the Department of Defense said last year, aggravates the conditions of "poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions — conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."

This is where Democrats live folks. Islamists slamming jumbo jets into major business centers is less of a threat to American freedom and liberty than theoretical climate change.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 

 


RECENT LUNAR ECLIPSE SHOWED A BIT OF GLOBAL COOLING

10/14/15

•Remember the lunar eclipse a couple of weeks ago? On Sept. 27, millions of people around the world watched the moon pass through the shadow of Earth. Most noticed the eclipse was darker than usual. It was a sign of a little bit of global cooling.

Lunar eclipses show the transparency of Earth's atmosphere. When the stratosphere is clogged with volcanic ash and other aerosols, lunar eclipses tend to be dark red. On the other hand, when the stratosphere is relatively clear, lunar eclipses are bright orange.

This is important because the stratosphere affects climate. A clear stratosphere warms the Earth. The eclipse of Sept. 27, 2015, however, was not as bright as recent eclipses. Trained observers in seven countries estimated that the eclipse was about 0.4 magnitude dimmer than expected, a brightness reduction of about 33 percent.

Why?

A layer of volcanic aerosols in the lower stratosphere from Chile's Calbuco volcano, which erupted in April 2015, appears to have affected the eclipse. Volcanic dust in the stratosphere tends to reflect sunlight, cooling the Earth. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 produced 0.6 C of cooling.

Have you ever heard of a coal fueled power plant actually measurably changing the temperature of the entire planet?

•They did it again!

The EPA has triggered another waste spill in Colorado!

An Environmental Protection Agency crew working at the Standard Mine above Crested Butte triggered a wastewater spill into a creek that flows into the town water supply — a small-scale repeat of the Gold King incident this year.

“Only” an estimated 2,000 gallons spilled, amid efforts to open a collapsed portal. The impact on town water is expected to be minimal.

The spill — while not a disaster like the EPA-triggered 3 million-gallon Gold King deluge that turned the Animas River mustard-yellow — raises questions about EPA procedures.

Time to defund and eliminate the EPA! They are a rolling disaster for the environment.

•In a bit of good news, the Sixth Circuit Court blocked the EPA water rule nationwide.

Several weeks ago, a federal court issued an injunction against EPA enforcement of a new rule based on the Clean Water Act, arguing that the Obama administration had exceeded its Congressional authority. The ruling only applied in the 13 states that were party to the lawsuit, however, but the administration still argued that the North Dakota court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the issue, and that only an appellate court could hear the case. Regardless, the EPA announced shortly afterward that it would continue to enforce the new rule in all other states.

The Sixth Circuit handed down its own injunction against the rule today, and broadened its effect to all 50 states.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a stinging defeat to Obama's effort to control streams and wetlands.

“We conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims,” the judges wrote in their decision, explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency's new guidelines for determining whether water is subject to federal control, based mostly on the water's distance and connection to larger water bodies, is at odds with a key Supreme Court ruling.

Get the EPA off our farms!

•Remember physicist Freeman Dyson? The famous physicist spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience.

At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published[PDF] today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 percent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the president "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but it is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

Dyson continued:

“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
I've got nothing to add…

•Ohio Governor John Kasich says the Bible tells us that we need to expand government in redistribution of wealth.

He is wrong.

The Bible says in various locations that we should not steal. Taking things from others is a sin.

Progressive taxation consists of forcing people who make more money to give a higher percentage to government than those who make less. If you do not give that money you will go to jail. That process is called theft; stealing. It's that clear.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ACTIVISTS WANT ANTI-CLIMATE CHANGE CROWD PROSECUTED

10/7/15

•From the most-excellent site, joannenova.com.au, we learn that apparently climate change is even worse than the last time they told us it was going to obliterate the planet.

Long ago, glaciers were at a constant perfect position. Life was paradise on Earth. Then mankind built the first “planet-destroying” coal powered station in 1880 and now mountains are being moved changing the very shape of the planet…apparently.

If Nature (the magazine) hadn't been hijacked by environuts, it would have kept a longer term perspective and not laced the press release for the paper with baseless speculation. Antarctica is not warming - the satellites show it isn't - and the part that is warming happens to be right over the edges of the tectonic plates where the volcanoes are. (What a coincidence, right?)

Parts of the press release follow…

“Climate change is causing more than just warmer oceans and erratic weather. According to scientists, it also has the capacity to alter the shape of the planet.
…Lead author Michele Koppes, assistant professor in the Department of Geography at the University of British Columbia, compared glaciers in Patagonia and in the Antarctic Peninsula. She and her team found that glaciers in warmer Patagonia moved faster and caused more erosion than those in Antarctica, as warmer temperatures and melting ice helped lubricate the bed of the glaciers.
'We found that glaciers erode 100 to 1,000 times faster in Patagonia than they do in Antarctica,' said Koppes. 'Antarctica is warming up, and as it moves to temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius, the glaciers are all going to start moving faster. We are already seeing that the ice sheets are starting to move faster and should become more erosive, digging deeper valleys and shedding more sediment into the oceans.'

The repercussions of this erosion add to the already complex effects of climate change in the polar regions. Faster moving glaciers deposit more sediment in downstream basins and on the continental shelves, potentially impacting fisheries, dams and access to clean freshwater in mountain communities. 'The polar continental margins in particular are hotspots of biodiversity,' notes Koppes. 'If you're pumping out that much more sediment into the water, you're changing the aquatic habitat.'

The Canadian Arctic, one of the most rapidly warming regions of the world, will feel these effects acutely. With more than four degrees Celsius of warming over the last 50 years, the glaciers are on the brink of a major shift that will see them flowing up to 100 times faster if the climate shifts above zero degrees Celsius.
The findings by Koppes and coauthors also settle a scientific debate about when glaciers have the greatest impact on shaping landscapes and creating relief, suggesting that they do the most erosive work near the end of each cycle of glaciation, rather than at the peak of ice cover. The last major glacial cycles in the Vancouver region ended approximately 12,500 years ago.”

Lesson 1 from studying geology should teach anyone who pays attention that solid ground isn't solid. It is ever changing over long periods of time.

The continents move - slowly. South Africa used to be where Antarctica is now. The North American tectonic plate is moving to the West-Southwest at about 1 inch per year. The Pacific Plate is moving Northwest at a speed of between 3-4 inches a year.

So use that article in Nature for picking-up dog doo.

•Did you hear about the letter from global warming activists trying to get the federal government to prosecute anthropogenic climate change skeptics?

Well, apparently there must have been some major blowback because the group's letter to Obama has been quietly removed from their website.

Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise posted on her blog NoFrakkingConsensus.com that the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) has taken down its letter signed by twenty scientists and researchers. “There's no explanation, no apology – just open space where this anti-free-speech document used to reside,” Laframboise wrote.

IGES's removal of its letter urging skeptics be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act comes after huge backlash from skeptics and reports of the millions in government funding the letter's lead signatory has gotten over the years.

Now when the public goes to view the letter claiming that various organizations “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” all they will see is a blank page with a note that the URL “was not found on this server.”

Hmmm…

Read more at www.dailycaller.com

(Brian Kubicki can be reached by email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


WITH BOEHNER OUT, MCCONELL IS THE NEXT ONE TO GO

9/30/15

•Something tells me it's just a matter of time before someone tries to tie global warming on Earth to the “evidence” of water on Mars. That should be highly entertaining.

•By the way on the subject of Mars, is anyone else really angered by the ads that have been playing for the upcoming movie, “The Martian” starring Matt Damon where he plays an astronaut stranded on Mars? If you haven't seen it, he utters the line, “Take that, Neil Armstrong!” presumably in reference to achieving something of significance compared to the established greatness of the first human to walk on the Moon.

I hope every audience member watching utters in response, “Bite me Matt Damon!”

•John Boehner stepping down from the speakership and Congress is not, as the Establishment would have you believe, a result of haranguing by Conservatives, or a brave attempt on his part to save the Party and America from a battle. It was a calculated move to further the Establishment RINO agenda before the on-coming stampede by angry Americans for unfulfilled promises. Boehner and his cronies talked a loud conservative game in the lead-up to the 2014 mid-term elections. “Elect us and we will hold Obama's feet to the fire!” they said. Around here, we heard it from Pat Roberts in Kansas and Roy Blunt in Missouri. Since then, Obamacare has been fully funded, Obama's Amnesty has sailed through Congress, and every other liberal agenda item has been rubber-stamped. The people have had enough.

Next one to go? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

•Presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina is another candidate that is much more conservative sounding during this campaign that her record would indicate.
She has been a past supporter of embryonic stem cell research.

She openly criticized Ted Cruz' efforts in 2013 to use Congress' Power of the Purse to defund Obamacare.

Fiorina is another one of “those” Republicans (RINO's) that refuse to step-up and admit that the Global Warming Movement is a hoax. She talks like Jeb Bush in saying she believes in “…the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity…” but she is skeptical that government can affect the issue. Those comments reek of establishment consultant advice.

On the subject of national health care, she is vocal that Obamacare must be repealed but in the past she has supported individual mandates for all people to be forced to buy health insurance.

We can do much better than Fiorina.

•People often say that bad things happen in war but this one is decidedly different. Apparently, the U.S.'s “Afghan allies” have been engaged in a sick practice the Afghans refer to as “boy play.” Afghani officers are abducting, imprisoning and raping young boys, keeping them as sex slaves, and it has apparently been standing policy for some time now that U.S. soldiers were told to turn a blind eye to the practice (even when it takes place on our bases). Some Americans have even been disciplined and removed from the service for trying to intervene.

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

In addition to Quinn having his career destroyed, the Army is now trying to drum Green Beret Sgt. First Class Charles Martland out of the service for assisting Quinn in handing a beatdown to the pedophile. And our own military admits that this wasn't just a case of a few bad apples, but formal policy for troops serving in Afghanistan.

The Army when asked for comment gave a disappointing explanation.

When asked about American military policy, the spokesman for the American command in Afghanistan, Col. Brian Tribus, wrote in an email: “Generally, allegations of child sexual abuse by Afghan military or police personnel would be a matter of domestic Afghan criminal law.” He added that “there would be no express requirement that U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan report it.” An exception, he said, is when rape is being used as a weapon of war.

So actions as atrocious as child rape are only to be stopped if they are being done in a war? Was Joseph Mengele's experiments on Jews O.K. as long as we weren't at war with the Nazi's?

Follow this story on Fox News. I haven't seen any other network covering it, which is a shame.

 


FOSSIL FUELS HAVE
CREATED AN
ENLIGHTENED POSITION

9/23/15

•The Pope visited the United States, via a trip to placate the Communists in Cuba, this week. George Will penned a magnificent piece for National Review in which the usually over-wordy RINO wordsmith stuck to Conservatism fairly consistently. A few of the more notable snippets follow:

“Pope Francis embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony. With a convert's indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false, and deeply reactionary. They would devastate the poor on whose behalf he purports to speak — if his policy prescriptions were not as implausible as his social diagnoses are shrill.”

Then about the Pope's global warming encyclical, Will opines…

“In his June encyclical and elsewhere, Francis lectures about our responsibilities, but neglects the duty to be as intelligent as one can be. This man who says 'the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions' proceeds as though everything about which he declaims is settled, from imperiled plankton to air conditioning being among humanity's 'harmful habits.'”

I have pointed this out to all of you previously. Air conditioning? Do you realize how many lives have been saved in this world by the vapor-compression cycle? I have never said this to a Pope but SHADDUP!

Will continues:

“He leaves the Vatican to jet around praising subsistence farming, a romance best enjoyed from 30,000 feet above the realities that such farmers yearn to escape. Our flourishing requires affordable, abundant energy for the production of everything from food to pharmaceuticals. The saint who is Francis's namesake supposedly lived in sweet harmony with nature. For most of mankind, however, nature has been, and remains, scarcity, disease, and natural — note the adjective — disasters. Our flourishing requires affordable, abundant energy for the production of everything from food to pharmaceuticals.”

Poverty has decreased more in the last two centuries than in the preceding 3000 years. Industrialization powered by fossil fuels is the reason we are in the enlightened position we enjoy.

Coal supplanting wood fuel reversed deforestation, and fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of food. The capitalist commerce that the Pope rips is the reason the portion of the planet's population living in poverty fell from 53 percent to 17 percent in three decades after 1981.

Life expectancy increased from between 25 to 30 years in 1900 to 62 years today. Sixty-three percent of fibers are synthetic and derived from fossil fuels; of the rest, 79 percent come from cotton, which requires synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

Will flamboyantly concludes:

“Francis's fact-free flamboyance reduces him to a shepherd whose selectively reverent flock, genuflecting only at green altars, is tiny relative to the publicity it receives from media otherwise disdainful of his church. Secular people with anti-Catholic agendas drain his prestige, a dwindling asset, into promotion of policies inimical to the most vulnerable people and unrelated to what once was the papacy's very different salvific mission. He stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies in which people and their desires are not problems but precious resources. Americans cannot simultaneously honor him and celebrate their nation's premises.”

When he is on, he is ON!
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424287/pope-francis-economics-poverty-capitalism

•Can you believe it? The White House announced a campaign to encourage millions of legal immigrants residing in the U.S. to become American citizens.

Beyond the initiative's policy implications, there are potential political ramifications because, as the New York Times notes, it “could add millions of voters to the electorate in time for the presidential election next year.” Two ethnic groups that have turned out for Obama make up the bulk of potential new citizens: Latinos are 60 percent of the permanent residents eligible for naturalization and Asians 20 percent. It takes on average six months to complete the naturalization process after the application forms are submitted.

“The campaign was conceived by a task force created by Obama last November, all part of a package of presidential executive actions on immigration that included expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which grants young immigrants work permits and reprieve from deportation,” according to the Associated Press. Along with an awareness campaign, the White House also wants to simplify the process of naturalization.

•Scott Walker is out. Ted Cruz is in. Study him. Bring me what you think is a concern.

Thus far, I have none.

•Chiefs are going 8-8 or worse. Mark it down.

•Donald Trump is raising issues of merit, but he is not a candidate worth merit. If you can make more in the private sector than as a candidate, do not pay attention to the campaign.



GLOBAL FOOD PRICES ARE DOWN

9/16/15

•I'm putting this column together while listening to Greg Knapp's afternoon show on 710 KCMO and he was being rudely interrupted by his producer (Tom? Not his usual producer Martel). Tom was arguing with Knapp over the subject of whether military people can verbally object to their Commander-in-Chief's orders. In all my years of talk radio listening (A LOT, I guarantee you!), I've never heard a producer verbally assault an on-air host.

I'm not in the radio industry, but I have a feeling that Tom may not be long for his job.

•From loyal reader Gordon, have you noticed global food prices lately? They've just registered the biggest monthly fall in seven years; down 5.2%, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Back in early 2011, soaring food prices helped touch off the Arab Spring, and the FAO's monthly food index was reaching all-time highs.

Now, the food index is at its lowest level since April 2009, when the U.S. was mired in the midst of the Great Recession.

“There is a lot of supply out there,” says FAO chief economist Abdolreza Abbassian. “Farmers are producing more, and the off take is not very strong.”
Harvests have been good, commodity prices in general are falling and there are the ever-present worries about Chinese growth. Global inventories of grains like corn and barley are likely to reach all-time highs next year.

So I suppose that all the carbon dioxide on the planet is actually a good thing.

•Have you paid any attention to the teenager at Oak Park High School who self-identifies himself as a female and was recently named Homecoming Queen? I have not, but have noted claims on social media that the young man received sex re-assignment surgery. I don't know if that is the case, but I highly doubt that he has had the surgery. I'm no expert on gender dysphoria but my gut tells me surgeons that will perform sex-reassignment surgery on teenagers are not available in abundance, if at all and much less here in fly-over country. Do some reading on what these surgeries involve and the years of follow-up work and it will become clear that this procedure isn't anything like getting your tonsils out.

•Did you know that roughly 600 million people in Africa — nearly twice the population of the United States — are living without access to electricity?

The majority of these people are concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, although not necessarily in remote villages. For example, Kenya's Electrification Authority reports that while 73% of Kenyans live within one kilometer (0.6 miles) of a transformer, only 18% are connected to the grid.

Even for those in Africa and elsewhere who are hooked up to the grid, the actual flow of electricity is sporadic, with rolling blackouts or brownouts a regular part of life. Because of outdated or insufficient infrastructure, countries cannot generate enough electricity to meet demand.

That is why energy access should become the top agenda item for international aid programs for developing country governments, not global warming or climate change supporting programs. You want to help the poor, get their governments to work to provide them cheap fossil fuel-driven electrical power.

•Do you recall Hollywood actress Emma Thompson? She used to be married to Kenneth Branaugh and played Nanny MacPhee in a movie a few years ago. She also seems to play characters that get cheated on a lot by the men she's married to.

Well, one of Britain's top climate scientists has launched a blistering attack on her and the BBC, accusing them of “scaremongering” over the speed of global warming.

Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the Met Office and a professor at Exeter University, complained about interviews Thompson gave to Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis last Wednesday.

He followed it up with a longer critique – an extract of which this newspaper publishes today – on the website of HELIX, a prestigious EU-wide climate research programme which he also directs.

The actress, a Greenpeace activist that morning took part in a protest against the Shell Corporation's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic. She warned, “If they take out of the Earth all the oil they want to take out, if you look at the science, our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that's not sustainable.”

Maitlis did not challenge her.

Professor Betts asked via Twitter: “Who briefed Emma Thompson? Clearly not someone who actually knows about climate science.”

He added: “Has it occurred to scaremongers like Emma Thompson that exaggerating climate change could drive more migration unnecessarily? Irresponsible.”

In his blog post, Prof Betts points out that the authoritative UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gives a “wide range of estimates of the speed of future warming” – but none of them is anywhere near 4 degrees Centigrade by 2030.

I've said it before and will repeat: if you need to be worried about something in the climate, you won't hear anything newsworthy from anybody in Hollywood.

 


POLITI-NOT-FACT

9/9/15

If you are a news junkie, you no doubt have heard of the website www.Politifact.com which purports to be some kind of objective fact-checking resource. Truth is it's just another left-leaning branch of the news media, the Tampa Bay Times in this particular case.

Hat-tip goes to Marc Morano at Climate Depot.

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol, a Professor at the University of Sussex, has been in a back and forth battle with Politifact. Tol is demanding corrections to their articles claiming that GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum's debunking of the alleged 97% consensus was “false.”
Dr. Richard Tol's full email exchanges with the Politifact website are published below.

From: Linda Qiu
Sent: 01 September 2015 9:30 PM
To: Richard Tol
Subject: Media request from US newspaper on 97 percent climate change figure

Hi Professor Tol,

I'm a reporter with PolitiFact, the fact-checking website of the Tampa Bay Times. I'm sorry to bother you but I'm working on a story about the 97 percent climate change consensus figure and hoping you can help me out.

Specifically, presidential candidate Rick Santorum said in an interview a few days ago that “The 97 percent figure that's thrown around, the head of the IPCC said that number was pulled out of thin air. It was based on a survey of 77 scientists.”

I haven't heard back from his campaign but I think he's referring to you, since you are perhaps the most prominent critic of the figure who collaborated on the IPCC reports (please correct me if you don't think this is the case). So I'm curious about your take on his claim. Does he accurately describe what you believe/said?

Sincerely,
Linda Qiu
PolitiFact

On Sep 1, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Richard Tol wrote:

Hi Linda,

No, that number is not from me. There are a number of consensus studies.
Cook found 64 papers (out of some 12,000) that support the consensus. It is a long story why Cook thinks that 64 is 97% of 12,000.

Santorum refers to Doran's study
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
The 97% consensus is 75 out of 77.

Best
Richard
Dr. Richard S.J. Tol
University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9SL

From: Linda Qiu
Sent: 02 September 2015 6:50 PM
To: Richard Tol

Thanks for replying so quickly Professor Tol.

I read your re-analysis Cook's survey. Based on that and your congressional testimony, I have a line in my piece that says you don't refute the idea that there is consensus on man-made climate change, you just did Cook's methodology flawed. Is that accurate?

[So right here you can see the bias at Politifact – '…you DO believe man causes global warming but just argue with this particular claim…”]

From: Richard Tol
Sent: 02 September 2015 7:03 PM
To: Linda Qiu

Dear Linda,
Correct. Cook's analysis is a load of old bollocks. That does not take away the fact that the vast majority of experts argue that humans have affected climate in the recent past.

On yesterday's piece, I think you were unfair on Santorum. He mixes up his numbers here:

'The most recent survey of climate scientists said about 57 percent don't agree with the idea that 95 percent of the change in the climate is caused by CO2.'
In fact, the statement is that 57% disagree that there is 95% confidence that 50% was caused by greenhouse gases.

In other words, Santorum had the spirit right but the letter wrong.

Verheggen's comment on Kummer is silly: His survey only included recognized experts, so he cannot throw away the 'don't knows.'

Doran's remarks are silly too. The broad geosciences community is much more wary of anthropogenic climate change than the narrow climate community.

Best
Richard

From: Linda Qiu [lqiu@tampabay.com]
Sent: 02 September 2015 7:27 PM
To: Richard Tol

I think Verheggen would argue that because of the way the questions were phrased, respondents who didn't answer the question directly didn't want to commit to a level of specificity.

[So she's back to defending; parsing Verheggen's arguments against Tol's claims. So just move along with an eye-roll when you see another “Pants-On-Fire” story.]

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/03/its-all-wrong-un-convening-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-slams-media-for-false-claims-about-alleged-97-consensus/#ixzz3khfBWhPj

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

 


WHY WAS SCHILLING'S MESSAGE DEEMED OFFENSIVE?

9/2/15

•Did you catch where ESPN suspended analyst Curt Schilling for tweeting the following?

“It's said only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How'd that go?”

ESPN's knee-jerk response was as politically correct as you'd expect.

“Curt's tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company's perspective…We made that point very strongly to Curt and have removed him from his current Little League assignment pending further consideration.”

Why is that message offensive? Are the numbers not true? According to National Review in an excellent piece, Schilling WAY understated the extent of Islamic radicalism.

While more than a million Muslims actually belong to radical militias, terrorist organizations, and the military forces of radical Islamic states, the number of Muslims with terrorist sympathies and radical beliefs number in the hundreds of millions.

Look at history. Do not forget that Palestinian leaders backed Hitler in World War II. The Palestinian grand mufti met with Hitler and assured him that Germany and the Arabs had common enemies, including the English and the Jews. The difference between a jihadist army like ISIS and Hitler's SS is one of power, not morality. The difference between a jihadist army like ISIS and Hitler's SS is one of power, not morality. ISIS is explicitly genocidal, and no sane person believes that, if ISIS ever gained the military strength to threaten Tel Aviv, it would treat the Jews of Israel any more kindly than the SS did.

If ISIS had a nuclear weapon, does anyone think they would hesitate to use it against the U.S. or Israel? It's already using chemical weapons. Its main creative energy is expended concocting brutal methods of public execution. But even though jihadists aren't as powerful as the Wermacht, they've still killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Since 9/11, Muslim terrorists have carried out more than 26,000 terror attacks, a rate of roughly five per day.

ESPN is getting harder and harder to stomach.

•A really interesting site called www.NoTricksZone.com had a terrific piece on global warming last week that shone a revealing light on the motivations of government and researchers in academia. Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley has submitted an essay that claimed the government has been starving researchers of funding who will not carry the global warming message and climate cycles actually show we are starting a cooling period. Some highlights are presented below.

“For over 15 years an inordinate proportion of government and corporate research grants have been awarded to universities for a single specific purpose: to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels are the main driving mechanisms causing global warming.

Unfortunately agendas by strong arm politics and the suppression of contrary views have become the primary tools used to manipulate the media, local and state governments (and in turn the general public) into believing what they want us to believe.

Many former research department heads…openly state that research grants are driven by politics, and in order to receive a government grant you have to play the game. Topics for grants go with the political wind.

In the mid-1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions should show a connection to human activity as the cause for anthropogenic global warming. The result: most of the research published in journals became one-sided and this became the primary information tool for media outlets.

According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural climate cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural climate cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system.”

Here's the money quote:

“The politically driven United Nations IPCC and United States global warming ruse will likely end up being one of the greatest scandals of the 21st century. If left unchecked it will continue to lead the world down a dangerous path that could jeopardize the lives of millions of people. Many have been led to believe the earth is heading into catastrophic global warming.”

And now for the truth…

“Alternating global warming and cooling cycles have historically occurred and ended like clockwork every 220 to 230 years, with nearly 4000 cycles occurring during the past half million years. The last global cooling cycle began around 1795, or about 220 years ago. If the time clock strikes on time as it has over and over again throughout history, the upcoming cooling cycle has already begun in the Arctic and Antarctic…

Earth has experienced five global cooling cycles during the past 1,000 years (soon to be 6). The initial 20 to 40 years of a new global cooling cycle are historically the coldest period, and associated with the most rapid cooling. If a large volcanic eruption occurs during this period, large amounts of sulfur dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere with the cooling cycle being exacerbated by sulfate aerosols floating in the upper atmosphere (www.cas.org/science-connections/volcano). The sulfate aerosols are highly reflective and can cool the earth for 1 to 3 years, with the end result being a year of no summer in some regions of the world.”

Shouldn't governments around the world be preparing for a major event that is by far more dangerous than any warming cycle could possibly be?

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


 

GEORGE WILL GETS OWNED BY FELLOW COLUMNIST

8/26/15

•Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review corrected fellow columnist George Will in his ripping of Donald Trump in a previous column. Will wrote, “Romney, who advocated making illegal immigrants' lives so unpleasant they would 'self-deport,' might be president if he had received 10 points more than his 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.”

Many have made that claim about the 2012 election.
But if you lower the Democrat share of the Hispanic vote by 10 points in 2012, the only state that flips to Romney is Florida. Instead of losing the Electoral College 332-206, Romney would have lost it 303-235.

Okay then, what if Romney had done 20 points better among Hispanics?
He still would have lost.

At the end of the day, Hispanics are still too few in number to have the kind of effect Will refers to. Also, Romney's overall appeal among the majority white electorate was just too weak to make a difference.

If Romney had done three points better among whites, four points better among blacks, and two points better among Hispanics, he would have won. He needed more votes, obviously, but he didn't need more Hispanic votes in particular.

No response as yet from George Will on being owned by Ponnuru.

•I LOVE this next one!

In preparation for his religious liberty rally in Des Moines last week, Ted Cruz debated the subject with a REAL Hollywood star: X-Men star Ellen Page. Page is traversing the country for a documentary program for a cable network.
She accused Cruz of supporting “discrimination” against LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ citizens. Cruz responded that the debate which is harming florists and photographers is not about discrimination, but about religious liberty.

Said Cruz, “We are a country that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.”

Cruz crushed Page. In one noteworthy exchange, Cruz offered Page the following scenario:

CRUZ: “Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist, and imagine two evangelical Christians wanted to get married, and the gay florist decided, 'You know what, I disagree with your faith, I don't want to provide flowers.'”

PAGE: “I would say they should provide the flowers.”

She endorsed using the iron fist of government to coerce free people to violate their religious expression.

•A climate science website I've been enjoying much of late is www.joannenova.com

Billed as a blog of, “Skeptical Science for dissident thinkers,” it emanates out of Australia.

A recent entry mentions that carbon capture technology is causing a new clean coal plant to go bankrupt, with the project currently $4.4 billion over budget.

These new coal plants cost 60% more to build and waste something like 40% of the energy they generate to attempt to “catch” nature's original beneficial fertilizer and inject it underground.

The plant is only two years behind schedule and $4.4 billion over budget.
Obama has set aside $6 billion since 2009 for lab research and “commercial deployment” of clean coal.

Last week, state regulators approved an emergency rate increase for Mississippi Power in order to keep the company afloat as it completes the increasingly-expensive new plant. Mississippi Power customers will see a temporary rate increase of 18 percent.

The 582-megawatt plant received $270 million in government grants to build the facility. The combined-cycle power plant is designed to create and burn synthesis gas made from lignite coal, while also pumping carbon-dioxide pollution into a nearby oil field.

The Kemper plant was supposed to capture 65% of the CO2 and pump it into an oil field to help produce more crude in a form of fracking (earthquakes be darned I suppose!).

The original price tag of $1.8 billion has now swelled to $6.2 billion.

As clean-coal projects go, Kemper, even with its delays and cost overruns, practically counts as a success story.

Another high-profile test case for the technology, FutureGen 2.0 in central Illinois, died three months ago after its federal subsidies evaporated. Two more major federally funded projects in California and Texas are also sinking fast.

•And to close with an expression of the true nonsense of the federal government, at least as far as the environment is concerned the EPA is spending $8 million of your tax dollars to study “indoor” climate change.

(Hat-tip to www.joannenova.com) The Obama administration's war on climate change is heading indoors this time.

The EPA awarded $8 million in grants to nine universities to help better understand the impact of climate change on indoor air quality. The agency said climate change's impact on indoor air pollutants like mold, mildew and asthma triggers isn't well understood.

“Learning how air quality, climate, and energy interact in an indoor environment will help us design buildings that better protect people's health,” explained Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA's New England office.

Time to defund and eliminate the EPA!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE COLORADO RIVER SPILL TAKES CARE OF ITSELF

8/19/15

•The EPA-caused river disaster in Colorado is a grand example of Democrat government hypocrisy.

Did you hear EPA head Gina McCarthy a few short days after the spill of toxic metals from a mining operation declare that all is well, and that the river – i.e. nature – took care of the spill by dissipating it naturally?

She may well be right, but remember when the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and all we heard from the EPA was how this spill was too big for nature to fix and BP (the owner of the fated rig) was going to need to pay and pay BIG?

Turns out nature fixed that one too.

Seems that the only time government is interested in a disaster occurs when they can hit-up a big corporation for money.

More…

•Environmentalists cheered last week when President Obama and the EPA issued mandatory greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants.

The power industry has rightly been ringing the warning siren: What about reliability? Will there be a major shift in how America makes electricity, especially away from the reliable but high-carbon "baseline capacity" of coal, and will that pose a threat to the national power grid?

Those are questions facing FERC, the independent agency that played only a tangential role advising the EPA on its rules, but maintains a core mission of helping consumers get reliable energy services at reasonable costs.

POLITICO (Yes you read that right – I am quoting liberal Politico in a less than derogatory manner!) Darren Samuelsohn interviewed Philip Moeller, FERC's longest-serving commissioner, about the likely impact of the new rule. While Moeller praised EPA for addressing early concerns about maintaining a reliable power supply, he nonetheless warns that the states who are big coal producers and exporters still have "a lot to worry about." He also sees the outcome of the 2016 presidential election playing a big part in determining how states proceed.

Some highlights from that interview:

Darren Samuelsohn: What do you see as the biggest change coming to the electric grid because of the Clean Power Plan?

Philip Moeller: We're going to have a lot of challenges in terms of making sure that the market rules are such that generators that have to respond quickly, particularly gas plants, are compensated not only for the wear and tear on those units, but also in terms of their quick response that will be increasingly necessary as intermittent generation has a greater penetration on the grid. (That's a bad thing. Penetration on the grid is like a bigger shark takes a bigger bite out of you than a little minnow might.)

DS: Did EPA address FERC's concerns in the earlier draft rule when it comes to electricity reliability?

PM: In many cases, yes. They extended the timeline to 2022. That was certainly helpful. They came up with some type of reliability mechanism which is needing further analysis, but is better than nothing. (When someone says something is better than nothing, be afraid. When they say it in conjunction with something we all use every day being threatened, be VERY afraid.)

DS: What are you hearing so far from state regulators?

PM: They're still digesting the rule, but I've certainly met with them hundreds of times over the last year and a- half, and it kind of breaks down as to whether they have a state that uses coal or not. Those that don't use coal don't have really a lot to worry about. Those that do have a lot to worry about. (Emphasis mine!) And those states that are particularly exporters have to be very concerned. The importers have to be concerned, too, if they're importing power that is essentially going to be affected by an exporting state.

DS: Are there any specific regional hotspots you see for potential blackouts because of the Clean Power Plan?

PM: That's going to be the real challenge. But again, there's a potential there that if one state is doing it one way and another state is doing it another way that there could be some issues related to reliability.

DS: Are some of the industry predictions about blackouts and higher energy costs as dire as their warnings?

PM: …areas that are more coal-dependent, [blackout concern] has to be pretty high on the agenda.... Part of the issue related to the Clean Power Plan is it produces winners and losers, and the winners can be gas and renewables, and the losers, generally speaking, coal and the consumers that consume coal power are generally going to be paying higher prices.

DS: What real-world effects will energy consumers notice from the Clean Power Plan?

PM: Areas that have to shut down coal plants and replace them with new generating units are going to see rate increases because of the very fact that these are going to be significant investments that, in some cases, go directly into rates. Other markets, it's absorbed by the company in terms of a competitive model. But we're going to see costs increase.

DS: Sen. Jim Inhofe is warning that the EPA rule will be especially painful for seniors, minorities and low-income people. Do you think that's right?

PM: …yes, I think that's fair.

DS: How does uncertainty over the future of the Clean Power Plan — due to the 2016 presidential election and lawsuits — influence what states will be doing in the meantime?

PM: …states can either do nothing, fight it in court, but then they face the potential of having a federal implementation plan imposed upon them.
Why aren't the Republicans stopping this!?

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


TED CRUZ WAS THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE AND CONSISTENT

8/12/15

The second Republican Primary candidates' debate (Yes, Fox News billed it as the first debate but there was actually a candidate forum on CSPAN the day before) occurred last week. I won't mention how many people watched it because that's not the purpose of the debate. I will offer the following score card and observations:

Ted Cruz was the most substantive and consistent in his efforts. If one can pick a winner in a debate with 10 participants, Cruz was it.

Marco Rubio did the best job mixing substance with humor and passion without coming across as angry.

TIE: Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee – both are the best communicators of the bunch and had the most effective one-sentence truth bombs, Huckabee: “The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.” Carson (paraphrased): “They asked me on NPR why I don't talk about race more and I answered, 'I'm a neurosurgeon. I operate on the part that makes us who we are. Skin color has no bearing.'”

Rand Paul seemed angry. His fight with Chris Christie over NSA wire-tapping was necessary but his manner made him look a lot like his father, which will only guarantee him about 1% of the electorate.

Scott Walker is missing something. I'm not sure exactly but he comes across as a successful governor who isn't ready to tackle the issues of a country. My advice to him: stop mentioning your Wisconsin record so much and focus on what you can do for America.

Chris Christie did O.K. but defending warrantless NSA surveillance of the American public can't endear him to conservatives. He also needs to either shed more weight or wear a larger suit. Every time he came on screen I heard Chris Farley singing, “Fat guy in a little cooaaat!”

Donald Trump was the main reason Fox News made the debate about Trump's TV shows. He talks about the right issues (illegal immigration and out-of-control government spending), but doesn't have any specific answers. He's a “DO IT!” guy but not the solutions maker, which is fine but probably won't translate to a great president.

Jeb Bush just came across as “Meh!” I don't think he REALLY wants to be president. That's probably appropriate because if Jeb is the nominee, I will skip this election for the first time in my voting career.

John Kasich should have just told the truth and said, “I'm only here in case Jeb flames out and the Chamber of Commerce needs another RINO to get behind.”
Final debate note: anyone else find it highly hypocritical that Megan Kelly asked Donald Trump about his supposedly degrading comments toward women through which he is portrayed as seeing them only as sex objects, when Kelly herself has been less than bashful in portraying herself as a sex symbol in magazines and in on-air interviews with the likes of Howard Stern?

•It's sad that Fox News has become a voice for the RINO Establishment rather than an actual fair-and-balanced news outlet.

•The White House recently issued the final version of the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan. The plan dictates the EPA adopt a new rule that regulates carbon pollution from existing power plants. Obama called it “the biggest, most important step we've ever taken to combat climate change.”

The new final version of the rule cuts coal use, does it with more inefficient windmills and solar panels, and cuts use of cheap natural gas.

Know what the net effect is going to be on the American people? Recall back to a January 2008 interview Obama gave to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in which he said the following:

“…If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them…” The statement came in response to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “…Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Any questions?

So far, Mississippi and six other states have already threatened to not enforce the rule. The others are: West Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Texas and Louisiana.

Those states' governors have suggested they may not enforce the EPA's rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Oklahoma has officially decided it will not enforce EPA's rule.

•As the media finally calms down a bit after the whole Cecil the Lion nonsense, I came across the following on Facebook (author unknown but very funny!).

“Turns out, Cecil the Lion was no choirboy. Photos have surfaced of Cecil in the act of killing and eating Gary the Gazelle. Gary was a favorite of both locals and visitors at Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park, where he delighted onlookers with his trademark leap, while clicking his heels. Gary was 12-years-old and leaves his beloved wife, Greta Gazelle, and their 8 (unnamed) offspring. Gary's long-time friend and confidante, Zeke the Zebra said, 'A lot of people are crying over Cecil lately, but, let me tell you, I've lost a lot of friends and family to him. He was an animal. I won't be crying no tears.'”

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


 

WIND, SOLAR POWER
WILL LIKELY NEVER PLAY
A BIG ROLE IN U.S.

8/5/15

(Following is a “Best of Brian” column written by Brian Kubicki earlier this year. It first appeared in The Landmark in May, 2015)

Stephen Moore, formerly with The Wall Street Journal and now with The Heritage Foundation, noted in a recent column that the green energy movement in America is dead.

He correctly notes that a majority of American energy over the next 20 years is not going to come from windmills and solar panels.

Central planning of energy use does not work.

The boom in shale oil and gas along with the steep decline in the price of fossil fuel is the reason Americans realized that wind and solar was not the future.

What idiot could ever reasonably conclude that windmills and solar panels would even be able to replace fossil fuels for warming and cooling our living spaces and fueling the work we do on a daily basis?

A new International Energy Agency report concedes that green energy is in fast retreat and is getting crushed by “the recent drop in fossil fuel prices.” It finds that the huge price advantage for oil and natural gas means “fossil plants still dominate recent (electric power) capacity additions.”

Most government experts and private investors bought hook-line-and-sinker into the “peak oil” nonsense and the forecasts of fuel prices continuing to rise as we depleted the oil from the earth's crust. Oil was expected to stay way over $100 a barrel and potentially soon hit $200 a barrel.

Obama told voters “green” energy was necessary because oil is a “finite resource” and we would eventually run out. Apparently, nobody told Obama that human ingenuity in finding new resources outpaces resource depletion. Remember the old adage, “necessity is the mother of invention?”

When fracking and horizontal drilling technologies burst onto the scene, U.S. oil and gas reserves nearly doubled almost overnight. Oil production from 2007-14 grew by more than 70 percent and natural gas production by nearly 30 percent.
The shale revolution is a classic disruptive technology advance that has priced the green movement out of the competitive market. Natural gas isn't $13, but is now close to $3, an 80 percent decline. Oil prices have fallen by nearly half.

Green energy can't possibly compete with that. Marketing wind power in an environment of $3 natural gas is like trying to sell sand in the Mohave Desert.
But instead of letting the green energy reboot die a merciful death, Obama doubled-down. Over the past five years, the U.S. government spent $150 billion on subsidies for “solar power and other renewable energy projects.”

Meanwhile, the return of $2.50 a gallon gasoline at the pump is flattening the electric car market. A recent report from the trade publication Fusion notes: “electric vehicle purchases in the U.S. have stagnated.” According to auto analysts at Edmunds.com, “only 45 percent of this year's hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle. That's down from just over 60 percent in 2012.”

Oil production from 2007-14 grew by more than 70 percent and natural gas production by nearly 30 percent.

Moore correctly notes that the real tragedy of government trying to drive capitalism is the politicians lose OUR money. In reality, government-backed technologies actually divert private capital away from potentially more promising innovations.

Harold Hamm, president of Continental, and one of the discoverers of the Bakken Shale in North Dakota tells the story of meeting with Obama at the White House in 2010 to tell him of the fracking revolution. “He just passed it off, I felt at that time,” Hamm says. He says that Obama talked about new battery technology and said that the country would soon be able to move away from fossil fuels.

Wind and solar power will likely never play a significant role in America's energy mix. If any non-fossil fuel does become the major resource, it will be a result of market forces, not central planning.

(Find Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


NEARLY 30 STATES
HAVE A LAWSUIT VS. THE EPA

7/29/15

Twenty-nine states have filed lawsuits against the EPA for redefining the “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, erasing “navigable” by including local seasonal streams, farm irrigation ponds, roadside ditches, and even “connective” dry lands placed under authority of the Clean Water Act.

The WOTUS rule, published June 29, potentially subjects every food, energy, transportation and manufacturing industry in the nation to heavy-handed Obama-EPA regulation.

The lawsuits began on the same day the rule was published. States filed in clusters in common U.S. District Courts. Utah and 8 others filed with Georgia in U.S. Court; Alaska and 11 others filed with North Dakota in Bismarck. Days later Mississippi and Louisiana filed with Texas in Galveston; Michigan filed with Ohio in Columbus; Oklahoma filed alone in Oklahoma City.

Each state lawsuit asked a federal judge to declare the WOTUS rule illegal and issue an injunction to prevent the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from enforcing it. Each state also asked the judge to order both agencies to draft a new rule that complies with the law and honors state authority.

American Farm Bureau Federation general counsel Ellen Steen announced the group's lawsuit with similar distrust: “When EPA and the Corps first proposed the rule in March 2014, they promised clarity and certainty to farmers, ranchers, builders and other affected businesses and landowners. Instead we have a final rule that exceeds the agencies' legal authority and fails to provide the clarity that was promised.”

More than a dozen national agricultural and production organizations also filed suit against EPA, including the National Alliance of Forest Owners, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, and Public Lands Council.

The non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation sued on behalf of the state cattlemen's associations of California, Washington, and New Mexico. When contacted for comment, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association's president, Jose Varela Lopez, said what many ranchers feel.

“My family has been on our land for 14 generations, each leaving it better for the next. Water is the source of all life and after all our generations, our water is clear and the land lives on. We have the history to prove that we are caretakers of the water and the land without the help of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Government-driven corruption has also become a primary issue. Evidence has emerged that EPA officials unlawfully lobbied crony green groups to send “one million comments” supporting the rule, according to a May 19 New York Times article. The Army Corps of Engineers examined the comments and found that 98 percent appeared to be non-substantive mass mailings.

Three lawmakers from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and two subcommittee chairmen, Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), immediately sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy demanding answers about rigging public input.

Read the Daily Caller for more.

(Follow Landmark columnist Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


THE RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON MARINE RECRUITERS

7/22/15

•The Obama Administration has acted in response to the terrorist attacks at the Marine recruiting stations in Tennessee by directing recruiters to not wear uniforms at work.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter approved the steps taken by the military branches. There was no word on whether the ban on personnel bearing weapons would be lifted but I don't think anybody is holding their breath in anticipation of that move.

•You've heard of this idiotic notion of putting women into combat positions in the armed services? A recent column appearing in National Review put the issue into relevant context.

Some highlights:

The recent failure of all 45 selected women to complete Ranger and Marine-officer combat training was illustrative of everything going wrong with this failed Administration.

The 45 women were part of an effort to meet a 2016 deadline mandating that all combat roles, including special forces, be opened up to women.

While women are equal to or better than men at many tasks, they simply aren't when it comes to combat. Substituting men for far less combat-capable women is profoundly unfair, immoral, and unnecessary.

A recent study in Great Britain found that mixed-gender combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deploy-ability.

A 2011 study on physical requirements necessary for specific occupations in the military concludes: the services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness. . . . The Army's own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS'. The Army assigns women to these specialties anyway.

Physiologically and psychologically, women and men are significantly different. Men are not simply bigger women with different plumbing. A man's blood on average carries 10 to 12 percent more oxygen per liter than does a woman's; and a man's top rate of oxygen consumption, is 40 to 60 percent greater than that of a woman's. An average fit man will weigh about 23 percent more, have 50 percent more muscle mass, and carry 10 percent less body fat than an average fit woman. Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger and bones that are both bigger and denser. Despite being much heavier, men's vertical leap is nearly 50 percent greater than that of women. In terms of reflexes and reaction times, men significantly outperform women.

When confronted with immediate danger, studies suggest men are “more likely than women to take action.” Women are far more likely to experience motion sickness and vertigo. In the Navy women go on sick call 60 to 70 percent more frequently.

Mixed-gender units are more likely to be crippled by physical injuries or PTSD. Men will put themselves in harm's way to assist women in getting over obstacles that men can easily negotiate unassisted. Blows to the head or other concussive events that a man can shrug off will stun or render a woman unconscious, reducing her unit's chances of survival.

Women suffer many times the rate of stress fractures and ACL injuries. A Royal Society of Medicine study on the British military found that injuries skyrocketed for women “when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits.” The end result was that women were eight times more likely to be discharged with back pain, tendon injuries, and stress fractures than their male counterparts.

Then there is unit cohesion. Men and women working together in tight quarters will develop infatuations and relationships that will affect unit discipline and morale. The U.S. military is already awash in discipline and morale problems coming out of female–male interactions. As a result, units are less lethal.

Armed forces must be lethal forces.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/article/420826/women-in-combat-military-effectiveness-deadly-pentagon

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


FOX NEWS CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED 'FAIR AND BALANCED'

7/15/15

•Unlike many, I'm not particularly concerned with the large number of candidates on the Republican ticket for President, which with Scott Walker now in the mix as of Monday appears to be at 15. Logic would dictate that the larger the number of candidates at this early juncture the wider the reach of the Republican message among the populace and the better chance of upending the socialists on the other side. However, that benefit is at the risk of being able to consolidate all those voters behind one candidate. No one can attempt to go third party if they fail to earn the nomination. As Keanu Reeves said in Point Break, “It's gotta be that way!”

•Breitbart.com had a great piece recently on Pope Francis inviting California Gov. Jerry Brown to lend his “expertise” on global warming and climate change to a summit at the Vatican later in the month. Brown said this week that climate change combines the spiritual and the political. “Religion deals with the fundamentals,” he said. “When you deal with the fundamentals of what makes the atmosphere, and the weather, and whether that permanently or radically changes, that's very similar to a fundamental principle of right and wrong.”

So as we long suspected, global warming belief IS a religion. Gov. Moonbeam has verified that fact.

•The summit hosted by Pope Francis includes a discussion on modern slavery and will draw an international gathering of government officials and United Nations representatives.

The Pope inviting Brown as a speaker should be displeasing to many Catholics. The governor, who earlier in life practiced to be a Jesuit priest before having a change of heart, is well known for his liberal stances on abortion, advocacy for gay marriage, and LGBTQRSUVWXYZ issues.

“This unprecedented gathering of global leaders is a wake-up call to face up to the common threats of climate change and human exploitation…This is about the future of humanity and how we as human beings live and treat one another and the natural world around us.”

In an interview this week when asked about climate change, Brown said Francis, was “bringing a moral and theological dimension that adds to the market and political calculation.” He added, “We face an existential threat to human existence as we know it. It's not being taken seriously by the vast majority of powerful people. When the pope, as a powerful person, issues this encyclical, it's a helpful addition to the mix.”

What a disaster occurring in Rome!

•The RINOs in D.C. exhibited increasing angst and opposition to Donald Trump's presidential candidacy, illustrated by their hair-pulling over his highly-quotable catchphrases like, “Take the oil!” or “Build a wall!” My personal favorite was, “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best…They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.”

The RINO caucus' knock on Trump is that his solutions are unserious, unmeasured, and are just feeding what they see as an unreasonable mob.
But that mob needs feeding. If Trump doesn't offer them nourishment, they are going to starve and walk away from the fight. They sure as heck aren't going to get anything resembling hope from Karl Rove or his band of losing minions.

•On the Rove note, Fox News has become almost unwatchable anymore. They push so hard to support the establishment RINO class of the Republican Party, they can no longer be rationally viewed as “fair and balanced.”

That's a shame. They showed some promise for a while there.

•I have a few questions about what's going on in the world:

If a transgender woman (person born a man who is taking hormones to make him look more like a woman) is attracted to a woman, does that make the transgendered woman a lesbian? I'm really confused. Liberalism really makes no sense.

•Another question: How is it that six police officers in Baltimore can be charged with various forms of murder in the unintended death of a prisoner in their police van but Bruce “A.K.A. Caitlyn” Jenner unintentionally kills a woman by crashing into the rear of her car and he is facing absolutely no criminal charges?

•My rankings of the Republicans running for President:

Ted Cruz (solid all the way through)
Bobby Jindal (extremely brilliant on policy and issues)
Scott Walker (squishy on immigration but apparently solid otherwise)
Marco Rubio (seriously damaged himself by aligning with the Gang of 8 on amnesty)
Rand Paul (very dangerous on foreign policy)
Rick Santorum (history of losing a real concern)
Rick Perry (doesn't seem interested enough)
Carly Fiorina (good anti-Hillary voice)
Trump (he's probably only running to muster interest in his next TV project but he is entertainment at this point in the process)
Mike Huckabee (real squishy)
Jeb Bush (only candidate that will keep me home on Election Day)

I can't remember anyone else running, so they likely have no chance of winning if I can't name them at this point in the process.

Cruz/Jindal would be a strong ticket – perhaps the brightest team ever to run for President, and the age factor would give them a Clinton/Gore hook that helped them kick George Bush 41 to the curb after only one term.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


FOSSIL FUELS ARE
BEST WAY TO BRING
POOR OUT OF POVERTY

7/8/15

•Remember the Obama administration's nuclear negotiations with Iran? Wonder how you can actually negotiate with a regime whose theocratic leader leads Iranian crowds in chants of, “Death to America?”

Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz was on MSNBC's show Morning Joe last week to promote his new book, “A Time for Truth,” and he said last Tuesday was the deadline for the nuclear deal that has now been extended to July 9.

“Under this deal, Iran would get a $50 billion signing bonus,” Cruz said. “That money would be used to fund Hamas, to fund Hezbollah, to fund terrorists throughout the world … It would mean, without exaggeration, that if this deal goes through and billions of dollars flow in, that the United States government becomes in effect a leading financier of terrorism because those dollars will be used to murder Americans, to murder Israelis, to murder Europeans.”

Did you know that?

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have backed down on inspections of Iran's military bases. Both say the reason they have backed down is because the U.S. would never allow Iran to inspect our military bases. Cruz said, correctly, that he found the moral equivalency nonsensical and ridiculous.

“The reason why the world has imposed sanctions against Iran is because Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Cruz reminded the liberal hosts of the show.

I REALLY like this Ted Cruz for President! Go to Yahoo.com and look up his hour long interview with Katie Couric. He is VERY good.

•Newly-released emails between top aides to Hillary Clinton and President Obama reveal the extent of coordination between the State Department and the White House in the hours after a 2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, circulated press statements to State Department and White House staff the morning after the attack and detailed the plan to "ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day." An email sent around 3 a.m. the morning of Sept. 13 shows government officials had attempted to solicit statements from religious and community groups that fit with the overall narrative of denouncing the video that the administration said sparked the attack.

An email obtained by Judicial Watch last year showed the Administration outlined "goals" for the Sunday show appearances of Ambassador Susan Rice days after the attack. The messaging goals included the need "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack," said the president of Judicial Watch, of the new emails. "Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks.”

Why hasn't anyone asked Obama or Hillary Clinton why they lied?

•Write this down and remember it – Fossil fuels are the best way to bring poor people out of poverty.

Environuts like to say the science on climate change is “settled.” It isn't, which you should know if you read here often, or even occasionally. There is a science that IS settled though. When people are forced to use wood, dung, and other primitive forms of energy to heat homes, cook meals, and power medical facilities – as they do in much of Africa - people die. Plentiful, reliable electricity keeps the lights on, safely heats those suffering from extreme cold, powers ventilators, and makes quality surgical care possible. Power saves lives, and in many parts of the world electricity is still an unreliable luxury.

In sub-Saharan Africa alone, experts estimate 600 million people live without electricity, and the renewable energy programs climate alarmists such as President Barack Obama and the pope's climate scientists say we should rely on are incapable of providing the resources needed to save millions of lives.

To address Africa's deadly power problem, Obama announced the creation of the Power Africa program in 2013. Power Africa provides grants to African governments for energy projects, loan guarantees, insurance, trade promotion, budget advice, and a variety of other services. It's exactly the sort of program Pope Francis advocates in his encyclical.

But because the Obama administration is committed to battling what it mistakenly believes to be humanity's baneful effect on the world's temperature, many of the power-related funding projects implemented, managed, or encouraged by Power Africa have to use renewable energy sources, which are far less efficient, unreliable, and more costly than traditional fossil-fuel-powered energy.

In a study by the Center for Global Development, researchers Todd Moses and Benjamin Leo found investing $500 in renewable resources will pull a single person in the developing world out of poverty, but $500 invested in electricity powered by natural gas can lift roughly four people out of poverty.

“How do you keep the medicine cold in a country where you don't have enough electricity to run a refrigerator?” said Isaac Orr, a research fellow for energy and environmental policy at The Heartland Institute. “The unreliable nature of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power means only temporary or sporadic power. People are dying because of these policies.”

And they'll continue to die if the pope's encyclical is used to formulate public policy.

[I took the factoids in this from a column posted at www.TownHall.com.]

 


 

GO AWAY, EPA

7/1/15

In rare good news from the Supreme Court Monday, they threw out an EPA regulation limiting mercury and other emissions from power plants, cutting the Obama administration off at the legs in their effort to cripple the American energy supply. (I realize they CLAIM the regs are to stop global warming, but you and I know that's nonsense.)

The EPA issued the regulations in December 2011 and they took effect in April of this year. As most new power plants already have technology to curb mercury, etc., the rules went after plants that don't. The rules affect about 600 U.S. power plants, the majority of which are fueled by coal.

Industry groups challenged the rule, arguing that the EPA failed to take into account the cost of compliance, which they say is at least $10 billion.
In the 5-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “By EPA's logic, someone could decide whether it is 'appropriate' to buy a Ferrari without thinking about cost, because he plans to think about cost later when deciding whether to upgrade the sound system.”

In the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called Scalia's comparison “witty but wholly inapt.”

A more fitting analogy, she wrote in a dissenting opinion with the court's three other liberal justices, “might be to a car owner who decides without first checking prices that it is 'appropriate and necessary' to replace her worn-out brake-pads, aware from prior experience that she has ample time to comparison shop and bring that purchase within her budget.”

Her analogy is ridiculously inapplicable because worn-out brake pads threaten the ability to stop the car and thus can cause death. Nobody was or is going to die from the emission from a coal plant.

I'll give Scalia the last word: “It is not rational, never mind 'appropriate,' to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”

De-fund and eliminate the Nixon-created EPA!

•After the idiotic Justice Roberts' effort to resuscitate a drowning ObamaCare, I took this next movement with considerable enthusiasm.

As liberals love to remind us, Obamacare is the law of the land. Alright, then let's stick the feet of the people who forced this law on us into the fire as they try to worm their way out of following it themselves.

A House Republican has proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law's exchanges. Babin's potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

Why in the world would the Supreme Court have an exemption from ObamaCare?

This one is too easy. Get it done – call and/or email your Representative.

•ENCYCLICALGATE - Did you know that Pope Francis, in his Encyclical that blames man for global warming, urges us to give up air conditioning?

Don't believe me? Read it for yourself:

“5. Some countries are gradually making significant progress, developing more effective controls and working to combat corruption. People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning. The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behaviour,(sic) which at times appears self-destructive.”

Self-destructive?

Refrigerating medicine in poor countries is self-destructive? Air conditioning classrooms in sweltering environments is “harmful habits of consumption?”

Interesting that the Pontiff isn't advocating shutting-down the strict temperature and humidity controls on the vast arrays of Vatican-owned priceless artifacts - what a hypocrite!

The vapor compression cycle that drives air conditioning and refrigeration is one of the lifelines of human progress and don't any of you feel guilty for a single minute for using it to protect you and your loved ones from the harshness of the natural world!

A little history:

In 1805, the American inventor Oliver Evans described a closed vapor-compression refrigeration cycle for the production of ice by ether under vacuum. Heat would be removed from the environment by recycling vaporized refrigerant, where it would move through a compressor and condenser and would eventually revert to a liquid form in order to repeat the refrigeration process over again. However, no such refrigeration unit was built by Evans.

In 1834, an American expatriate to Great Britain, Jacob Perkins, built the first working vapor-compression refrigeration system in the world. It was a closed-cycle that could operate continuously.

Food-for-thought for the week: Ever wonder why so many pay heed to Ozone layer concerns about refrigerant leaking in minute quantities from a closed-cycle vapor-compression process that all our home air conditioners use, but nobody says boo about those same homes sucking all the Radon-infected air out of our basements and pumping it outside 20 feet off the ground?

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


EARTH SCIENCE

6/24/15

•Did you see this?

Over billions of years, the total carbon content of the outer part of the Earth -- in its upper mantle, crust, oceans, and atmospheres -- has gradually increased, scientists reported this month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

And it's totally natural – that is – not due to man.

Craig Manning, a professor of geology and geochemistry at UCLA, and Peter Kelemen, a geochemistry professor at Columbia University, studied how carbon, the chemical basis of all known life, behaves in a variety of tectonic settings. They assessed, among other factors, how much carbon is added to Earth's crust and how much carbon is released into the atmosphere.

The carbon “budget” near the Earth's surface exerts important controls on global climate change and our energy resources, and has important implications for the origin and evolution of life, Manning said. Yet much more carbon is stored in the deep Earth. The surface carbon that is so important to us is made available chiefly by volcanic processes originating deep in the planet's interior.
Volcanic activity!!?? Where've we heard that before?

•“Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste” is the mantra of the Democrat Party, and they displayed it in all its gut-wrenching glory this week with their exploitation of the mass murder in Charleston, South Carolina. As I am confident you will readily recall, the Obama Administration did the exact same thing in the Newtown shooting as well as the Tucson shooting before that. New calls for gun control (wasn't this church a gun free zone?) and removal of the Confederate flag from state grounds and facilities were front-and-center calls.

I have no particular allegiance for the Confederacy in the Civil War. 620,000 Americans did not need to die to settle slavery. The Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism. Every other nation around the world ended slavery without disastrous civil wars.

The Confederate flag represents states' rights, not slavery, and states' rights are something we are sorely lacking these days.

•From Marc Morano's excellent blog, Climate Depot, we learned that Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore mocked a new study by Stanford Biologist Paul Ehrlich (Yes, THAT Paul Ehrlich; Mr. Population Bomb himself.).

“As far as humans going extinct what a stupid thing to say when we are presently the most successful species on the planet,” Moore told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview on June 21, 2015.

“That is so 1970s. Ehrlich is pathetic and has been crying wolf for decades. While he pontificated doom for starving millions in the 1970 from his Ivory Tower at Stanford, Norman Borlaug was busy quietly breeding varieties of wheat that ushered in the Green Revolution and gave India and Pakistan a surplus of grain,” Moore explained.

“Now the Gene Revolution is doing the same, and could do much more if the troglodytes would get out of the way,” Moore, the author of the book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout,” added.

To refresh your memories, in 1972 “Population Bomb” author Paul Ehrlich suggested adding a forced sterilization agent to the food and water supply and warned of unpredictable climatic effects.

Read more at http://www.climatedepot.com

•You won't hear this in the liberal media about the Pope's 184-page global warming encyclical. The pope waded into the controversy of climate change last week. Every liberal will tell you that. What they won't mention is the encyclical also argues it's not possible to care for the environment without first working to defend human life.

Below is what Pope Francis wrote on how gender issues are tied to his overall message on the environment:

“It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God's gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one's own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek 'to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it.'”

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


 

KEEP THE FOCUS ON HUMANITY, NOT SKIN COLOR

6/17/15

Charles Cooke probably did the best job of capsulizing the strange ascension (and rapid fall - she resigned as I was writing this) of Rachel Dolezal onto the public stage last week at National Review Online. Some of the more delicious snippets are offered below.

“The critics of self-identification as objective truth finally have their test case.”
Rachel Dolezal, a prominent civil rights campaigner, is being investigated after she had falsely portrayed herself as black for almost a decade. Dolezal was President of the Spokane, Washington branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). However, public records show her parents are white couple Ruthanne and Lawrence Dolezal, and they subsequently confirmed their daughter is also white.

Her mother said in an interview the family had Czech, Swedish and German roots, with “faint traces” of Native American heritage. The parents said their daughter began to “disguise herself” in 2006 or 2007.

“Rachel is very good at using her artistic skills to transform herself,” Ruthanne told the Coeur d'Alene Press.

Cooke notes, “Reacting on Twitter, the London Telegraph's Timothy Stanley was quick to ask what many were thinking. 'What,' Stanley inquired, 'is the material difference between #RachelDolezal and Caitlyn Jenner?'”

Great question.

“Comparisons such as Stanley's are commonly made and commonly dismissed out of hand — usually with much rolling of eyes and condescending tut-tutting. In all honesty, I'm never quite sure why. The standard response from the pooh-poohers is that 'gender dysphoria' is scientifically recognized but that 'racial dysphoria' is not, and that we should therefore decline to compare the two even in passing.

“But, even if we accept that premise…(many) are correct when they suggest that 'the long-standing ideas of race as a social construct and gender as a biological construct have been flipped on their heads' here — those who are sympathetic to Jenner will still have a practical problem if people do start claiming in earnest that they feel more comfortable pretending to be what they are not.

“Well, because our present calls for acquiescence are not predicated principally on the integrity of objective truth but on the perceived need to propitiate the person who is making the claim. On the front line of these battles, science is frankly an afterthought. When it comes to those who claim that they are what they do not seem to be, calls for acquiescence are not predicated principally on the integrity of objective truth.”

Whatever the explanation for Dolezal's lunacy, we set ourselves up for this kind of nonsense when we persist to support organizations like the NAACP and we shift focus from our humanity and onto something as superficial as skin color.

I encourage you to read more at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419698/woman-who-insists-shes-african-american-isnt-charles-c-w-cooke

* One of the speakers slated for the Vatican rollout of the long-awaited Papal document on climate change (see last item below) once said the earth is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people.

The choice of Professor John Schnellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, as one of three presenters should send a chill down the spine of every life-loving human.

In a talk given to the awful 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, Schnellnhuber said of global warming:

“In a very cynical way, it's a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something – namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.”

The population of the planet is currently about 7.1 billion.

Schnellnhuber did not elaborate on methods he has in mind for getting the world's population down to his “in control“ number of less than 1 billon.

Perhaps this is it…

Schnellnhuber has called for an “Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter” along with the creation of a “Global Council…elected by all the people on Earth” and a “Planetary Court - a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.”

Nice going, Catholic Church! I thought we were supposed to “be fruitful and multiply?”

The encyclical was leaked as I was writing this and while I haven't had time to read it all, it starts like this:

“Francis of Assisi…In this nice song reminded us that our common house is also like a sister, with whom we share the existence, and as a good mother who welcomes us into his arms…This sister to protest that the evil cause, because of the irresponsible use and abuse of assets that God has put in you. We grew up thinking we were its owners and rulers, allowed to plunder it. The violence there is in the human heart wounded by sin manifests in symptoms of disease that we experience in soil, in water, in the air and in living beings. For this, among the poor and most abandoned and abused, there is our oppressed and devastated Earth, "groans and suffers the pains of childbirth" (Rm 8.22). Forget that we ourselves are Earth (cf. Gen 2.7). Our own body is formed from the elements of the planet, its air is what gives us breath and its water invigorates us and restores.”

Based on that start, I'm not expecting much in the way of support from the Vatican of the best path in human history to raising mankind out of the depths of poverty – capitalism.

 


 

OBAMA'S EPA IS AT IT AGAIN

6/10/15

•Well, Obama's EPA is at it again. They are issuing new regulations on limiting airline emissions in order to “save the planet” from excess carbon that allegedly led to manmade global warming.

If their theory is correct, how in the name of sanity can President Obama justify flying in naturalist and documentary narrator David Attenborough from the U.K. for a mere 30-minute chat?

Obama wanted legendary nature documentarian and environmental advocate Sir David Attenborough flown to the White House from his London home last month for a 30-minute meeting with the president. Attenborough revealed the meeting at a public event in London on Tuesday.

So the president of the United States claims global warming is a national security risk to justify limiting airline exhaust, but there's no hypocrisy in flying a celebrity thousands of miles for a 30-minute chat on how to reduce carbon emissions to save the planet?

The New York Times calls flying the “biggest carbon sin.” The carbon emitted on a roundtrip flight from London to D.C. is about two metric tons of CO2. For perspective, per-capita figures from around the globe: (From the Guardian Newspaper)

While Australians put out 21 tons per person and the U.K. is just less than half at 10 tons. India puts out a miniscule 1 ton per person. Kenya only puts out 0.3 tons.
So, in other words, two Indians can't emit any carbon whatsoever to make up for President Obama's 30-minute chat. That's some mighty planet saving by Obama.

•Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol absolutely destroyed Lena Dunham last week after the left piled on to the Duggar family for their long-ago handling of an in-family issue of child fondling. Palin pointed out that radical liberals in media with total control over public narratives are hypocritical for their double standards between conservatives and liberals.

While expressly not defending the Duggar boy's obvious wrongdoing over a decade ago, Palin rips the media for giving Dunham's – one of their chosen one celebrities - a pass for similar behavior.

If you'll recall, Dunham wrote in her memoir about atrocious behavior she performed on year old sister and the media passed it off as cute interactions between young children, even after Dunham herself termed her efforts as similar to those practiced by pedophiles.

Please read more about this here: http://www.patheos.com/…/dear-liberal-media-i-didnt-get-du…/

Palin needs to run for President.

•Did you know that liberals oppose over-the-counter birth control? The supposedly pro-woman left denounced new legislation proposed by Senator Cory Gardner (R., Colo.) that seeks to encourage over-the-counter status for birth control.

Planned Parenthood's president claimed that the bill “is a sham and an insult to women.” NARAL Pro-Choice America's president called the idea “nothing but political pandering to trick women and families into thinking we are covered while dismantling one of the most critical gains in the Affordable Care Act.”

The left must exert control over women's health choices, and this case is proof-positive. Removing the pharmacy-counter barrier between women and their birth control would give them vastly more health-care choices; reducing health-care costs and improving access.

The federal government requires a prescription for birth control. The prescription requirement keeps women beholden to their gynecologist, forcing them to submit to intrusive and uncomfortable once-a-year doctor's visits in exchange for a pink slip for the pill. But while pelvic exams and Pap smears can help physicians detect everything from sexually transmitted diseases to cervical cancer, these procedures tell them basically nothing about whether a woman can safely take birth control.
The World Health Organization and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have confirmed that doctors can safely prescribe the pill without a full examination. Women are perfectly capable of reading the warning label and self-screening for safety.

National Review points out that while preventive care is valuable this requirement is much like linking men's access to condoms to annual prostate exams. One has nothing to do with the other.

Planned Parenthood alone makes around $1.2 billion each year from contraceptive services.

BINGO!!

There's also major political motivation for liberals to oppose the Colorado law. In an effort to woo women voters, the left has forced insurers to offer “free” birth control, as enshrined in the Affordable Care Act. Instead of engaging in a debate on the economics of the health law with opponents, they can simply shout misogyny, and keep the dollars pumping into Planned Parenthood's coffers.

The key reason Republicans support such a measure is over-the-counter status increases competition. Competition reduces prices.

Examples? Less than a year after Claritin went over-the-counter in 2002, its price was cut in half, and today, consumers buying bulk bottles with more than 100 pills can get a month's supply for less than $3.

While I'm not particularly keen on handing out birth control pills like Flintstones vitamins, they have a point here. One of the main concerns health wise with women using birth control pills over a long period of time is increasing risk of strokes, and a pelvic exam is no measure for that risk.

The old adage applies here as well – let the buyer beware and open up competition.

 


WHEN WILL CLIMATE
SCIENTISTS SAY
THEY WERE WRONG?

6/3/15

•Patrick Michaels with the Cato Institute wrote a superb editorial last week asking the pertinent question, when are climate change “scientists” – activists going to admit that they were wrong?

Michaels asks, “Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.”

He tells the story with a simple graph, which the University of Alabama's John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources last month.
It shows a huge disconnect between predictions from computer models and the actual temperatures that have occurred.

The 5-year running average temperature change predicted by the models is indicated by the red line in the graph - the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both data groups are accurate since they come from calibrated temperature measuring instruments.

As can be easily seen in the graph, the temperatures are nowhere near as high as the activists predicted. The models are clearly flawed.

Michaels concludes, “It's impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.”

•Am I alone in simply feeling sorry for Bruce Jenner? He seems to be significantly disturbed mentally and the media is reinforcing it by catering to his illness by portraying his clearly confused state-of-mind as “normal.”

•Remember when I warned you of the EPA's attempts to exert control over puddles of water?

It's happening!

The EPA announced changes to the existing “navigable waterways” rule, adding a variety of bodies of water to their existing regulatory scope.

The EPA is claiming authority over the type of “navigable waterways” nobody envisioned they'd come after when Nixon created the EPA in 1972. In addition to the lakes, rivers, tributaries and bays that an average American considers navigable, the EPA is extending its scope of review over just about every body of standing water in existence including: drainage ditches, overflow reservoirs, and even potholes in our streets and driveways.

The Obama administration issued the rule Wednesday last week increasing the number of small bodies of water and wetlands that fall under federal protection. The rule has riled lawmakers, business executives and farmers who claim the rule unnecessarily expands federal bureaucracy.

The rule, issued jointly by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is estimated to put about 3% more waterways throughout the U.S. under new federal jurisdiction, which will require permits for use of those waters, restrictions on land use by the property owners (over a puddle!) and restrictions on simple access.

EPA officials claim the rule will protect drinking water supplies for more than 100 million Americans.

The EPA has previously noted that “small bodies of water” include anything that looks smells or behaves like a wetland, including, but not limited to “prairie potholes.”

In clarifying statements, the EPA actually reinforced what worries landowners, saying, “The rule will seek to protect only waterways that have physical features of flowing water.”

According to the American Energy Alliance, which reviews the impacts of EPA regulations on America's energy producers, the rule is a blatant attempt to interfere with private property rights. The EPA's sights include anyone who may create loosely-defined “navigable waterways” by creating drainage ditches or runoff collection reservoirs on their property – be they created to handle storm water or potential byproducts of the particular production process.

Though these waters would be contained on private property, and don't typically connect with any water that Americans use for drinking or bathing, the EPA wants to allow itself the right to inspect and, likely, punish producers for the “dirty water” – to include simple puddles in a parking lot.

If you will recall, the EPA has tried this type of over-reach before, only to be stopped by the Supreme Court. The As Heartland Institute's James Taylor noted in recollection that when the EPA first proposed the rules last summer, they did so in open violation of, and in challenge to, the Supreme Court's clear directives that the EPA rules as they were already an overreach.

Don't hold your breath that the Republican-led Congress is going to try to stop the EPA.

Does anyone think that we aren't going to have clean air and water if we defund the EPA out of existence? Did we ever have clean air and water before 1972?

(Follow the adventures of Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE DEVELOPING WORLD NEEDS COAL, NOT GREEN

5/27/15

•It being Memorial Day weekend as I compose this, it seems appropriate to focus some attention on the poor way our Iraq War veterans are being treated in the media today as parties assemble for the 2016 Presidential Election.

The website www.myway.com had a good piece on the subject. I synopsize below.

Veterans of the Iraq War have been frustrated as Republican presidential contenders seem to distance themselves from the decision their party supported to invade that country. Some are annoyed that the GOP is now running from the war. Others say they still believe their mission was vital, regardless of what the politicians say.

But nearly all find the gotcha question being posed to the politicians, Fox news' Chris Wallace namely, “Knowing what we know now, would you have invaded?” horribly insulting.

The war became a campaign issue when likely presidential contender Jeb Bush was asked about the invasion ordered by his brother, former President George W. Bush. After days of questioning, and changing his answers, Jeb Bush said that in light of what's now known, that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD stockpiles, he would not have invaded.

The discussion comes at a particularly bad time for veterans, who watch Iraq descend back into chaos after the Obama Administration withdrew and left no transitional forces in-country. Islamic State militants have routed Iraqi government troops to take control of the city of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province.

This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer. There are no do-overs in war. The 4,500 Americans that lost their lives were in pursuit of a noble mission. That does not change today, no matter how much armchair quarterbacking people in the media attempt to do. One can always question and evaluate policy and tactics in war that should be considered before and after conflicts. But these thought processes should guide us in the future, not attempt to erase our past.

There, is that so hard?

•Cheap, coal-fired energy will help the developing world to become healthier, happier and wealthier, much better than making them “green.”

President Obama at a commencement address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy blamed global warming on global instability, “…severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram. It's now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.”

This guy is a loon!

Actually, climate policies were probably a greater contributor to the Arab Spring than climate change itself.

Many refugees are fleeing Islamist persecution in Libya and the Sahel but as Dr Kandeh Yumkella, UN under-secretary-general, told the BBC, the “long-term push factors” that are driving people to make the “miserable journey” include the lack of energy in sub-Saharan Africa.

Without abundant fuel and power, prosperity is impossible: workers cannot amplify their productivity, doctors cannot preserve vaccines, students cannot learn after dark, goods cannot get to market. Nearly 700 million Africans rely mainly on wood or dung to cook and heat with, and 600 million have no access to electric light. Britain with 60 million people has nearly as much electricity-generating capacity as the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, minus South Africa, with 800 million.

As the International Energy Agency recently put it in a recent report, “increasing access to modern forms of energy is crucial to unlocking faster economic and social development in sub-Saharan Africa.” Africa is awash with fossil fuels, but not the money or political capability to build plants to turn them into electricity.
Just to get sub-Saharan electricity consumption up to the levels of South Africa or Bulgaria would mean adding about 1,000 gigawatts of capacity, the installation of which would cost at least $1.5 trillion. Yet “greens” want Africans to hold back on fossil fuels, the cheapest source of power.

In 2013, the UK announced British taxpayers will no longer fund coal-fired power stations in developing countries. Also, the U.S. prohibited American companies from investing in fossil fuel energy projects in developing countries.

Republicans want to reverse the policy. It is hypocritical for western governments made rich by fossil fuels to say to African countries, “You cannot develop dams, you cannot develop coal, just rely on these very expensive renewables.”

The Center for Global Development calculates that $10 billion invested in renewable energy technology in sub-Saharan Africa could give 20-27 million people access to basic electricity, whereas the same sum spent on gas-fired generation would supply 90 million.

It is abundantly clear that investing in affordable energy in Africa will not only achieve great good in itself but will equip Africans better to cope with natural disasters. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to die in natural disasters.

Africans don't care about global warming. A recent survey of more than two million Africans found that climate change comes dead last of 16 concerns they were asked about. The African climate has not changed significantly. Dangerous weather is no more frequent and a recent analysis found that temperatures in southern Africa are no higher than in the 1930's.

Meanwhile, satellite images show a spectacular and beneficial greening all across the Sahel, caused partly by better land management and partly by higher carbon dioxide levels in the air, which encourage plant growth. A German study projects that this may continue for most of the current century.

 


 

AMTRAK IS ANOTHER SCREWED UP GOVERNMENT SERVICE

5/20/15

•The Amtrak train crash last week led to some pathetic politics. Democrats jumped to the microphones to screech that the crash was caused by Republicans' refusal to properly fund the government-owned passenger train operation.
John Nolte of Breitbart.com presented some damning facts for all to remember.
8 people died on a passenger train run by the bloated, incompetent federal government.

The federal government owns and operates Amtrak

If you recall from elementary school, train travel is an 18th century invention. By 1971, thanks largely to the American automobile; the passenger train business in America was dying. To save what the market was putting out of its capitalistic misery, the government formed the publicly funded railroad service known as Amtrak.

Since 2009, Amtrak has lost somewhere around $2 billion!

Not only are we funding Amtrak, it isn't conveniently available to those of us paying for it. Less than 10% of the population uses a government service we all pay for.

There are more than 300 million people in America, yet only 25 million use Amtrak.

Amtrak has consumed about $45 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies over the last 44 years, and will receive an additional $7 billion in welfare through 2020.
Amtrak's largest expense is labor, salary, and benefits, which cost over $2 billion in 2014. Fully-staffing trains on infrequently-traveled routes contribute to high labor costs, but the pay rate of Amtrak's employees raises its costs substantially. The average onboard employee made $41.19 an hour on Amtrak in 2012, while railroads that contracted out services to private companies paid their employees $7.75 to $13.00 an hour.

With a ridership of only 25 million people, for every person boarding a train, the American people are paying $60. Travel from New York City to Washington, D.C. will cost the traveler $69. How does it make financial sense when it costs the person traveling $69 and the American taxpayer $60?

This is yet another example of government screwing up a service that would best be provided privately.

•ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos is mired in controversy for donating $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, not disclosing it, then grilling an author on his Sunday morning show that wrote an expose book crying foul on the Clinton foundation.

Were you surprised? I wasn't and neither were most conservatives.

Stephanopoulos, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, confirmed the donation to lefty website Politico's Dylan Byers. The host acknowledged making the donations. Stephanopoulos issued a statement apologizing for failing to disclose the information.

ABC News also issued a statement of support for Stephanopoulos, while acknowledging that he should have disclosed the donations.

Stephanopoulos's recent interview with “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer elicited complaints after Stephanopoulos repeatedly pressed Schweizer to acknowledge the lack of a “smoking gun” among the allegations in his book.
Stephanopoulos' dismissive questioning of Schweizer, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, about his “partisan interest” in writing Clinton Cash caused the Washington Post to argue that while there was nothing wrong with Stephanopoulos making note of Schweizer's ties to Republicans, ABC News viewers should have also been reminded of the host's connection to the Clintons, the politicians at the center of the discussion.

Since then, Stephanopoulos has “recused” himself from hosting the Republican's upcoming presidential debates. (Why any Republican would ever agree to let anyone from the mainstream media host a debate is a stupid mystery of idiocy) I'm guessing Democrats will have no problem with Stephanopoulos hosting the Democrat presidential debate.

•Wind and solar power are just a waste. The NY Times recently published an op-ed filled with praise for Germany's green-power program. “What the Germans have done in converting almost 30 percent of their electric grid to solar and wind energy from near zero in about 15 years has been a great contribution to the stability of our planet and its climate…”

However, the truth is the German green-energy strategy has come at the expense of sky-high electricity rates.

Germany's average residential electricity rate is 29.8 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). This is about double the 14.2 cents and 15.9 cents per kWh paid by residents Poland and France, and almost two and a half times the U.S. average of 12 cents per kWh.

The median household income in Germany is $33,000. Assuming an average of two people per household, the electricity cost would amount to more than 10 percent of available income.

For the wealthy, $1,700 per year in electric bills is a pittance. But for the poor such a burden is brutal.

What has the German government accomplished toward “saving the Earth” in exchange for the severe harm it has inflicted on the nation's poorer citizens?
Germany's green-energy program is neither green, nor an energy program. It's a form of ultra-regressive taxation, nothing more.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


WIND, SOLAR POWER WILL LIKELY NEVER PLAY A BIG ROLE IN U.S.

5/13/15

•So the NFL suspends Tom Brady for 4 games in the coming season for his assumed involvement in Deflategate. The punishment for the Patriots is even more severe – a Number 1 pick in the 2016 draft and a million dollars!

I will support such an action as soon as the NBA and soccer suspends every player that flops. Flopping is lying.

•Stephen Moore, formerly with The Wall Street Journal and now with The Heritage Foundation, noted in a recent column that the green energy movement in America is dead.

He correctly notes that a majority of American energy over the next 20 years is not going to come from windmills and solar panels.

Central planning of energy use does not work.

The boom in shale oil and gas along with the steep decline in the price of fossil fuel is the reason Americans realized that wind and solar was not the future.

What idiot could ever reasonably conclude that windmills and solar panels would even be able to replace fossil fuels for warming and cooling our living spaces and fueling the work we do on a daily basis?

A new International Energy Agency report concedes that green energy is in fast retreat and is getting crushed by “the recent drop in fossil fuel prices.” It finds that the huge price advantage for oil and natural gas means “fossil plants still dominate recent (electric power) capacity additions.”

Most government experts and private investors bought hook-line-and-sinker into the “peak oil” nonsense and the forecasts of fuel prices continuing to rise as we depleted the oil from the earth's crust. Oil was expected to stay way over $100 a barrel and potentially soon hit $200 a barrel.

Obama told voters “green” energy was necessary because oil is a “finite resource” and we would eventually run out. Apparently, nobody told Obama that human ingenuity in finding new resources outpaces resource depletion. Remember the old adage, “necessity is the mother of invention?”

When fracking and horizontal drilling technologies burst onto the scene, U.S. oil and gas reserves nearly doubled almost overnight. Oil production from 2007-14 grew by more than 70 percent and natural gas production by nearly 30 percent.
The shale revolution is a classic disruptive technology advance that has priced the green movement out of the competitive market. Natural gas isn't $13, but is now close to $3, an 80 percent decline. Oil prices have fallen by nearly half.

Green energy can't possibly compete with that. Marketing wind power in an environment of $3 natural gas is like trying to sell sand in the Mohave Desert.
But instead of letting the green energy reboot die a merciful death, Obama doubled-down. Over the past five years, the U.S. government spent $150 billion on subsidies for “solar power and other renewable energy projects.”

Meanwhile, the return of $2.50 a gallon gasoline at the pump is flattening the electric car market. A recent report from the trade publication Fusion notes: “electric vehicle purchases in the U.S. have stagnated.” According to auto analysts at Edmunds.com, “only 45 percent of this year's hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle. That's down from just over 60 percent in 2012.”

Oil production from 2007-14 grew by more than 70 percent and natural gas production by nearly 30 percent.

Moore correctly notes that the real tragedy of government trying to drive capitalism is the politicians lose OUR money. In reality, government-backed technologies actually divert private capital away from potentially more promising innovations.

Harold Hamm, president of Continental, and one of the discoverers of the Bakken Shale in North Dakota tells the story of meeting with Obama at the White House in 2010 to tell him of the fracking revolution. “He just passed it off, I felt at that time,” Hamm says. He says that Obama talked about new battery technology and said that the country would soon be able to move away from fossil fuels.

Wind and solar power will likely never play a significant role in America's energy mix. If any non-fossil fuel does become the major resource, it will be a result of market forces, not central planning.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE GAY MARRIAGE ARGUMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT

5/6/15

•I listened with great interest to the audio from the Supreme Court arguments over the gay marriage issue last week. Most intriguing was Justice Samuel Alito asking the lawyers representing same-gender marriage proponents if the Supreme Court agreed that if same-gender couples had a right to marry, what would happen when a group of four people tried to marry each other.

The lawyer representing the pro-same-gender marriage side, Mary Bonauto, argued that marriage has always been between two people and so four people could not be married. Alito caught the problem with that answer quickly.

Justice Samuel Alito: “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?”

Mary Bonauto: ”I believe so, Your Honor.”

Alito: “What would be the reason?”

Bonauto: “There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—“

Justice Antonin Scalia: “Well, I didn't understand your answer.”

Alito: “Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –“

Bonauto: “No, no.”

Alito: “-- then you can come back to mine.”

Bonauto: “Well, that's what -- I mean, that is -- I mean, the State –“

Alito: “Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?”

Bonauto: “Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –“

Alito: “But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?”

Bonauto: ”The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.”

•There was an excellent piece written by Denise McAllister recently in The Federalist that had some excellent facts relevant to the gender pay issue President Obama is always squawking about.

And just for the record, the column was written by a woman defending a woman being attacked by a woman.

The facts:

White House stats claim full-time working women earn 77 percent of what their male counterparts earn. Real statistics show the opposite. Pew Research has found there just might be factors other than sex discrimination at play.

“Roughly four-in-10 mothers say they have taken a significant amount of time off from work (39%) or reduced their work hours (42%) to care for a child or other family member.” “Roughly a quarter (27%) say they have quit work altogether to take care of these familial responsibilities. (Fewer men say the same. For example, just 24% of fathers say they have taken a significant amount of time off to care for a child or other family member.)”

Hours - “Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.”

Marriage/Children - “Single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2013.”

Risk-“Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers.”

Did you know we've had an equal-pay law on the books since 1963? This is what it says, in part:

“No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions…”

(You can reach Brian Kubicki by email at bkubicki@rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


PRESIDENT OBAMA
HASN’T HELPED
THE DIVIDE

4/29/15

•Does anyone plausibly believe that we would be facing all these cities being burned to the ground, Ferguson and now Baltimore, if George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter was president?

This horrific nonsense is at President Obama's feet. His near-constant injection of race into every even vague opportunity strains a nation's resolve to heal itself from racial divide.

This is quite simply a despicable president at work.

•From the archives…remember the last time Hillary Clinton ran for President? We were warned then.

Remember…

Onetime Arkansas lawyer Hillary Clinton asked to be removed from a 1975 rape case in which her client was accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.

"When I was a 27-year-old attorney doing legal aid work at the [University of Arkansas] where I taught in Fayetteville, Arkansas, I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant accused of rape," she said when broached with the topic in an interview. "I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not. And I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did."

In a 1980's interview, Clinton conceded some that she was able to seize on loopholes to minimize the sentence of the suspect, 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor. Though he faced 30 years to life in prison, Clinton negotiated a plea deal that sentenced him to just one year in county jail and four years of probation.
In a sworn affidavit aiming to coerce a psychiatric evaluation of the sixth-grade victim, Clinton questioned the 12-year-old girl's emotional stability, arguing she had exhibited "a tendency to seek out older men and engage in... fantasizing." She added, citing a child psychology expert that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior."

But in a recording of that interview, Clinton indicated she believed her client was indeed guilty. Heard laughing, she said the polygraph test he managed to pass "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."

Clinton stood by her defense during the interview: "When you're a lawyer you often don't have the choice as to who you will represent," she said. "And by the very nature of criminal law there will be those you represent you don't approve of. But, at least in our system, you have an obligation. And once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation."

Folks, do NOT let that woman become President of the United States.

•Also, are Bill and Hillary Clinton the next Ethel and Julius Rosenberg?
For reference, reader Gordon offers us the following links:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/the-atom-spy-case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

The question bears serious consideration after we are learning that Bill and Hillary, through their Clinton Foundation, have been allowing Russia and Vladimir Putin to attempt to corner the market on Uranium, especially under United States soil.

•Same-gender marriage: I've been asking this question on Twitter for some time now, and have yet to receive an answer.

What is a state government's interest in whether people in same-gender relationships remain committed in those relationships?

Society has for thousands of years worked to recognize heterosexual unions because of their focus on serving as a strong foundation for the propagation of the species. That's the serious reason why we celebrate weddings. We don't attend and recognize weddings to hope that the union will end in infidelity and divorce.

We as a society, and as family, want those two people to be together for a long time and be faithful to each other and hopefully to support them in bringing children into the world and raise them to be successful, happy people that will hopefully marry and pass on similar traditions to their children.

But if you have a friend that is engaged in a relationship with a person of the same gender, why would or should we care if those two people remain together and committed to each other? How exactly does that benefit society? Perhaps your friend will be happier with another person tomorrow, for what could be any one of a thousand reasons. Wouldn't you want your friend to be happy with that newer person? As a friend, you just want that person to be happy.

I have yet to understand why any of us would or should care about commitment in same-gender relationships.

Can anyone help me with that?

•So, if Bruce Jenner has always been a woman inside, as he described it to ABC's Diane Sawyer, is he the first woman to win a gold medal in the Olympics in the men's decathlon?

You know that commercial for AT&T Uverse that shows a rapt nation witnessing a young woman pitching for the first time in a Major League Baseball game?

Does that ad strike anyone else as incredibly demeaning to women?

•Why is the best that a woman can strive to be or do also something that men commonly do? Aren't women equal to men? They can strive and accomplish things – using their brains – any man can do. Why do we need to put women on a scale that men climb based upon their physical tools. Physically, men and women are different, and will probably always be so.

Will there be a companion AT&T ad showing a man achieving the heights of homemaking and child rearing before cameras showing a nation rapt in emotion?

I won't hold my breath for that one.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


BOUGHT

4/22/15

•Thomas Sowell published a very good column recently at his website where he observed that the Left tries to silence opposition to avoid debating the issues.
For example, IRS targeting of conservative groups is an attempt to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition, via the chief witness pleading her Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination, lost emails, lost servers, etc. Benghazi is another case.

Another example is the “insidious attempt to silence voices that dissent from current politically correct crusades…” comes from targeting scientists who do not agree with the “global warming” scenario embraced by the political Left.

Congressman Raul Grijalva has demanded universities provide financial records showing who finances research of scientists that question man is causing global warming, and demanding access to their internal communications. Mr. Grijalva says that financial disclosure needs to be part of the public's “right to know” who is financing those who express different views.

Sowell correctly notes: “The idea that you can tell whether a scientist—or anybody else—is 'objective' by who is financing that scientist's research is nonsense. There is money available on many sides of many issues, so no matter what the researcher concludes, there will usually be somebody to financially support those conclusions.”

Science has nothing to do with consensus. Science is about hypothesis and experimentation and facts. Sowell provides an excellent example from history.

Some physicists were not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity. In fact, Einstein himself said it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it. That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing “consensus” was correct.

There was no “tax solution” involved with the issue of relativity. As a matter of fact, taxes don't solve any problems. Taxes create problems!

•Michelle Malkin had a superb piece last week in National Review where she addressed Gwyneth Paltrow's recent “effort” to show she's down with the struggle of the poor folks in America.

Malkin noted Paltrow may make $19 million a year, own mansions in London, New York, Brentwood, Malibu, and the Hamptons, and fly by private jet, but she feels your pain.

Last week, Paltrow joined the “SNAP challenge.” Malkin termed it, “basically the ice-bucket challenge for bored Hollywood liberals.” For seven days, the rich folks dip their manicured toes into the “poor” pool by purposely limiting themselves to a daily welfare budget. The idea is to live like the millions who rely on government assistance to supplement their household budgets.

Paltrow's SNAP menu included: 7 limes, 1 tomato, 1 head of garlic, a bunch of scallions, bags of brown rice, black beans and peas, a package of corn tortillas, 1 avocado, 1 yam, 1 ear of corn, a dozen eggs, and bunches of kale, lettuce, and cilantro.

Malkin summarizes Paltrow's idiocy better than I could dream: “She deserves contempt because of her own deep-seated condescension and loathing of the lessers she purports to champion…Yes, she's judging you and me and every other normal person who has ever purchased ramen by the pound to save money…Only in the land of make-believe is it nobler to simulate being dependent and poor than to aspire to be successful and wealthy.

•Thanks to loyal reader Gordon for the link to this story about how government is hurting Californians. From www.JoeForAmerica.com California is dumping a TRILLION gallons of fresh water in the ocean to protect a non-endangered bait fish.

For years, the southern third of the San Joaquin Valley's farmland has been turned into a man-made dust bowl. Water is being allowed to run off the mountains, through the river system, through the delta, and out into the ocean, to protect the little Delta Smelt, a three inch bait fish.

If you haven't noticed, California is in the midst of a drought. As Governor Jerry Brown has been instituting water emergency rules, they let the water just pour into the sea.

The I-5 San Joaquin Valley corridor is marked with signs begging politicians to turn the water on. Phone calls and letters from all over the country have been sent to try to fix this situation. Comedian Paul Rodriguez, co-chair of Latino Water Coalition, has crossed the state working to remove the environmental protection on the fish.

The San Joaquin Valley is being transformed into a massive dust bowl. The town of Mendota has an unemployment rate of 40%. There isn't enough water to go around this year, and the Obama EPA is trying to divert more of it from farms and people and into the San Francisco Bay.

The destruction is horrific. Businesses and property values lost, crop production lost, food costs increase, with no end in sight. It's dismal. And Jeb Bush recently said, “The climate is changing and I am concerned about that…Be cognizant of the fact that we have this climate change issue and we need to work with the rest of the world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions…”

In response, Mark Morano on his excellent website, Climate Depot, made the following statement: “The Bush family appears to be a climate skeptic's worst friend. It is not within the DNA of any of the Bushes to oppose the UN climate agenda. President George H. W. Bush signed onto the 1992 Kyoto earth summit treaty which was ratified by the Senate. George W. Bush rubber stamped every UN IPCC report…It now appears Jeb Bush is more than willing to continue the Bush family legacy of promoting the UN climate claims and the UN's political agenda…”

(Brian Kubicki can be reached by email at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or on Twitter @bkparallax)

 

 


DDT AND MANKIND’S
FIGHT AGAINST
MALARIA

4/15/15

A superb blog, www.discoverthenetworks.org, recently published a very thorough history of DDT and mankind's fight against malaria. Please read the entire story – great information. Highlights are below:

In the middle part of the 20th century, mankind finally succeeded in overcoming the ravages of malaria, the deadly infectious disease that had afflicted the human race since the dawn of time (and which, by one estimate, had killed approximately half the people who had ever lived on earth).

In three decades, triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe.

Malaria is spread by protozoan parasites that are transmitted from person to person by female mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus. Symptoms of the disease include high fever, shaking chills, joint pain, headaches, muscle aches, fatigue, vomiting, anemia, hemoglobinuria, retinal damage, and convulsions. And in 1 to 2 million cases each year, it results in the death of the victim.

In India during the 1930s, approximately 100 million people contracted malaria each year, and at least a million of them died as a result. In Africa, hundreds of millions of people per year became infected, and several million died.

Then in 1939, Swiss scientist Paul Müller developed the synthetic pesticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), which proved to be a remarkably effective means of killing the mosquitoes responsible for malaria's transmission.

The Müller and the Geigy Corporation subsequently patented DDT in Switzerland (1940), England (1942), and the United States (1943). In 1943 Merck & Company produced and delivered 500 gallons of DDT to Italy in an effort to put down a raging epidemic of louse-borne typhus. Wherever DDT was used in significant quantities, the incidence of malaria declined precipitously. The National Academy of Sciences summarized the efficacy of DDT as follows:

“To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It is estimated that, in little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable.”

Tragically, however, this confidence would be derailed by a series of events that were triggered initially by the September 1962 publication of biologist/zoologist Rachel Carson's bestselling book, Silent Spring, which warned of the dangers that DDT allegedly posed to all manner of plant, animal, and human life. These threats were so great, said Carson, that on balance they more than negated whatever benefits were to be gained from using the pesticide to prevent malaria.

In Silent Spring, Carson stated that the overall rise in U.S. cancer rates between 1940 (the dawn of the DDT era) and 1960 proved that DDT was a carcinogen. She predicted that DDT and other pesticides would spark a cancer epidemic that would wipe out “practically 100 percent” of the human population within a single generation.

Activist organizations like the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund quickly jumped aboard Carson's bandwagon of doom. Some of these groups initiated lawsuits seeking to ban the use of DDT.

EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, an attorney with close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund, formally banned DDT on January 1, 1972. Over the course of time, an increasing number of Americans came to realize that Silent Spring contained mostly fiction.

According to the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, when primates were exposed to quantities of DDT that were more than 33,000 times greater than the average daily human exposure to the pesticide, the results were “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.”
Shortly after South Africa had discontinued its use of DDT and replaced it with synthetic insecticides, a highly efficient malaria vector, Anopheles funestus (which had been completely eradicated from the country in the 1970s), reappeared.

Within just a few years, the incidence of malaria nationwide increased more than tenfold (from 6,000 cases in 1995, to 62,000 cases in 2000). Desperate to scale back this re-emerging crisis, the South African government resumed its use of DDT in 2001 (disregarding UN warnings against such a course of action), and within months the malaria rate dropped by four-fifths.

There is hope. Several African nations that were being ravaged by malaria finally began to launch their own private efforts to combat the disease. In 2000, for instance, a privately funded Indoor Residual Spraying program in the Zambian Copperbelt Province began using DDT to combat malaria. After just one spraying season, the incidence of malaria in the region declined by half.

In September 2006 the WHO announced that it would thenceforth actively support indoor spraying of the chemical “not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.”

Elaborating on this theme, the WHO issued a statement asserting that DDT “provides the most effective, cheapest, and safest means of abating and eradicating” infectious diseases like malaria and typhus, which “may have killed half of all the people that ever lived.”

However, this change of heart was too little, too late. The inflexible dogma of the environmental left condemned at least 50 million innocent people to death in three-and-a-half decades.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

 


 

A STORY ABOUT ISLAMIC-DRIVEN VIEWS TOWARD WOMEN

4/8/15

•So this is where we are. Iran is being supported in developing nuclear weapons, Israel is being threatened with sanctions by the U.S., ISIS is gaining a foothold and growing stronger in the Middle East, the President is signing us up to treaties that curb our productivity in the name of “saving the planet” while other developed countries are allowed to continue unabated…this is the Obama world. This is what he meant when he wanted to, “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

If an American President wanted to downgrade and harm the U.S., he or she would do pretty much exactly what Obama has been doing.

•Here's an offbeat little story…

John Nolte with Breitbart News published a story about NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's Islamic-driven oppressive attitudes toward women viewed through the prism of his then romance with famous actress Pam Grier.

According to Grier's 2010 autobiography, “Foxy: My Life In Three Acts,” she and Jabbar shared a serious relationship during the process of his religious conversion to Islam. Marriage was discussed.

1971, he had just been named the NBA's Rookie of the Year. She was 22 and was launching what would be a long and distinguished acting career.

But, the relationship changed when he asked her to start calling him Kareem. He had begun a conversion to what would become a lifelong commitment to Islam.

He demanded she stop working.

At the time Grier was working as a dancer in a nightclub. The type of work she was doing wasn't the only issue. He did not want her working at all and he wanted her to convert to Islam. His faith said he could date a non-Muslim, but not marry one. Her heart was set on getting a college education and she didn't want to move to Milwaukee.

“If we get married, you don't have to get an education,” was his reply, according to Grier. “I'll take care of you.”

“Then why is the woman, even in the 'New Islam,' supposed to walk behind the man. Why can't we walk side by side?”

Jabbar's answer to this and many other questions was, “That's what Allah wants.

The man is the leader. That is how it is written.”

He also told her she would be required to be chaperoned and wear a headscarf.

“The truth is that Kareem didn't want me to work or get an education,” Grier summarizes. “He really just wanted me to be a good Muslim wife, bear his children, walk behind him, and keep my hair covered up with a head scarf. … From what I could see, once a woman converted to Islam and got married, she gave up her individual rights.”

There is no question that although she was conflicted, Grier was madly in love with Jabbar (she says they remain friends to this day) and desperate to find a way to reconcile herself to his rigid view of a woman's place in the world.

One day, Jabbar invited a group of fellow Islamic converts over. Grier expected to spend the day enjoying everyone's company. These were her friends too, but this was the first time she had seen them since their conversion.

They refused to hug her. They pulled away from her touch as though she were diseased. Then came the real humiliation.

“I wasn't supposed to speak to them at all, unless I was answering a specific question. I stood there awkwardly, when Kareem said in a quiet voice, 'You're supposed to leave the room now, Pam.'”

“For how long?” she asked.

“Until I ask you to come back or my friends leave,” was his reply.

Humiliated, she sat alone in the bedroom until Jabbar came in and asked her to make the group sandwiches. She obliged, and after serving the men, Jabbar said, “You have to go now. You can take a sandwich with you.”

The final blow was his desire to have more than one wife. He finally gave her an ultimatum, a date when he expected her to convert to Islam. It was, of all days, her birthday. “If you don't commit to me today, I'm getting married at 2:00 this afternoon. She's a converted Muslim and she's been prepared for me.”

Grier was blindsided by the news. She had no idea Jabbar had been seeing or preparing to marry another woman. He left the door open to them still getting married, “Once you become a Muslim, you might appreciate another wife.”

According to Grier, Jabbar kept his promise and married that day.

Jabbar responded to the Breitbart piece in a Facebook post where he attacked the story as motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry. He doesn't dispute any of the claims, and simply states that he no longer holds an orthodox view of Islam when it comes to his attitudes toward Muslim women:

“Given my youth and newness to the religion, I embraced the most orthodox teachings because that's what I was taught. But, like most people, my beliefs and practices evolved over time as I matured. Not many of us would like to be judged by our behavior in our youth. Not many of us can look back on things we said, thought, or did without cringing and wishing we could travel back in time to tell that younger version to wise up…”

What seems most relevant to me though is that he confirms the notion that “orthodox” Islam believes exactly what we have been warned about radical Islam, particularly in regard to women.

How does one negotiate with an enemy that wants to turn half the population into servants?

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE EPA IS COMING AFTER OUR SHOWERS

4/1/15

•Bill Nye The No-Science Guy has done it again, except this time he revealed the real motivation behind the global warming movement. Speaking to students at the University at Albany recently, Nye said a carbon tax was needed for the purpose of redistributing wealth.

"We need, dare I say it, a tax, or should I say a fee," Nye purportedly said Wednesday. “It's not just to be mean, it's to redistribute wealth,” Nye said.

BOOM!

Nye went on to claim that instituting such a tax would drive innovation in more environmentally friendly ways.

"It will stimulate people investing in more energy efficient means. If you gotta pay a fee every time you make carbon monoxide and someone comes up with a more efficient car, you'll use that car. Somebody comes up with a more efficient blender, you'll use that blender. I mean, that's just how it's going to go.

“The trouble with this is, there are people now, in the U.S. government, who don't like government,” Nye ranted.

“We have to get people who really want the government to do what it's supposed to do, which is run things.”

Nye, a former mechanical engineer who became a famous by explaining scientific concepts to a preteen audience with his eponymous show Bill Nye the Science Guy, proceeded to beg his audience to vote.

“If you don't want to vote, would you please just shut up,” Nye said.

“We need to address climate change as quickly as we can. Both with technical solutions from the bottom up and regulatory solutions, or changes, from the top down,” Nye said. “And working together, you all can become the next great generation and you can, dare I say it, change the world.”

So there you go!

•The EPA is now coming after our showers.

It began with a 1992 law that restricts how much water can flow through each shower nozzle. In 2010, the feds cracked down against multiple-nozzle showerheads. Now the EPA wants to limit how long we can stay in the shower.

The Environmental Protection Agency is subsidizing development by the University of Tulsa of a shower-timing system that allows people to be billed by hotels according to their time in the shower. The concept starts by providing hotels with real-time reports on each guest. With normal bureaucratic progression, it could soon become a requirement that everybody is metered in their showers at home.

This notion is the “nudge” philosophy advocated by President Barack Obama's former regulations czar, Cass Sunstein, who co-authored the book, Nudge, which describes how laws and regulations can push us to behave the way that government desires. We pay more for light bulbs, pay more for automobiles, pay more for electricity, and get less in the shower, all because government denies us any other choice.

Indeed, this EPA grant actually states that behavior modification is the goal.

What business is this of the federal government?

It's easy to imagine an EPA-run system that shuts off our water automatically when we reach their time limit. The agency claims it has no such plan; it is only making suggestions for shorter showers. But the bureaucratic practice is that suggestions become guidelines, which become policies, which become legally-binding regulations.

The original restrictions were enacted by Congress in 1992, signed by President George H.W. Bush.

You see now why Americans cringe when we hear of Jeb Bush, yet another Bush RINO, thinking about running for President?

That Clean Water Act dictated low-flow showerheads (2.5 gallons-per-minute max), along with 1.6 gallons-per-flush toilets. Many people turned to multi-nozzle showers to get as one workaround.

Then Barack Obama re-interpreted the law in 2010 and declared that all nozzles combined cannot exceed 2.5 gpm. They actually filed lawsuits against fixture manufacturers to enforce this.

EPA keeps pushing the envelope even farther. They seek to lower the norm to 2.0 gpm or less. Innkeepers, manufacturers, homebuilders, contractors and others are asked to sign a written agreement with the EPA to voluntarily lower their allowed legal limit of water use.

Is all this restriction on water usage really necessary? There is no shortage of water, not even what can be made available for drought-stricken California.
The amount of water on the planet is the same as it has been for millions of years.

The challenge is in moving, processing and reclaiming water, and the constant environmentalist crackdown on energy sources makes it too expensive to get the water where needed.

The law of supply and demand still works. Those who choose to use more water pay higher water bills. Enviro-nuts complain it's unfair to let people consume more of a product simply because they can afford it.

The truth is low-flow showerheads cost more for everyone. Manufacturers are forced to add extra features to enhance water velocity; otherwise the low-flow might dribble out and fail to wash well. The lower the flow is, the higher the price.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans engage in massive civil disobedience by removing the flow restrictors or by drilling a larger hole in the shower fitting so they can enjoy more than just 2.5 gallons per minute.

It's getting nuts out there, people.

(Email Brian at bkubick@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


LOOK OUT FOLKS, THEY'RE COMING AFTER US

3/25/15

Look out folks – they're coming after us!

Twitter recently blocked the account of a notable climate skeptic. Steve Goddard, the author of the excellent blog, RealClimateScience.com was assailed with phony threat complaints by global warming believers to the degree that Twitter suspended his account (@SteveSGoddard).

I've been following Goddard's tweets for years and never seen anything close to a threat from him – well, unless you consider opposing the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming by presenting contrary facts a threat. His posts are always informative and interesting and provoke thought, not violence.

The header of Goddard's blog has the following quote from noted physicist Richard Feynman:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"
I think Twitter would have suspended Feynman too!

Here's more on this subject that came from World Net Daily…

Al Gore's recent speech to the South by Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas was focused on the trend among global warming activists to try to punish those who disagree with the concept of a man being the principle cause of global climate change.

“We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told attendees, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies which exceed their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”
Gore was merely echoing a growing worldwide movement to actively seek out and penalize, those with opposing opinions on the issue.

“Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines,” wrote Adam Weinstein, staff writer with Gawker.com. “They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics. … [I]f you are actively trying to deny people the tools they need to inform themselves, to protect themselves against a scientifically proven threat to life and limb, you shouldn't be part of the debate. You should be punished for your self-serving malice.”

On May 19, 2014, “PBS' 'Moyers & Company' played a clip of scientist, David Suzuki, calling for politicians skeptical of man-made climate change to 'be thrown in the slammer,'” reported NewsBusters. “[One] day later, a tweet by well-known alarmist Michael Mann suggested that skepticism could be a 'crime against humanity.' As least far back as 2006, and as recently as March 2014, liberal journalists and radical scientists have advocated punishing people who doubt catastrophic, man-made climate change.”

An even more extreme example came in 2012 from Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, who called for the death penalty as “an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers” because “they are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people.”

I guess I should be thankful that I'm not yet all that influential!

“I don't think that mass murderers of the usual kind … should face the death penalty,” wrote Parncutt on his personal pages at the University of Graz website. “Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths.”

Parncutt later retracted the statement and removed it from the university website. To its credit, the university said it was “shocked and appalled by the article and rejects its arguments entirely,” and issued an apology.

Militant climate change alarmists are backed by the mainstream media. Through the media, formidable control is applied to most prevailing information disseminated to the public, and smear tactics are used to silence dissent. Critics of manmade climate change face professional and personal slander that can affect careers, funding and reputations.

“The climate activists are frustrated,” Marc Morano, former staff of U.S. Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee and founder of the skeptical blog Climate Depot, said in an interview with WND. “The global warming activists think they can achieve victory if they silence their critics. When anyone challenges their assumptions, conclusions or claims, they want to silence, intimidate, bully and eliminate their opposition.”

Morano rejects the claim that 97 percent of scientists are in consensus on manmade global warming.

“A U.N. climate panel lead author's own investigation found that the 97 percent number is literally 'pulled from thin air,'” he said. “If you look at the numbers, what you see is 97 percent of scientific studies don't challenge global warming for the simple reason they did not address the cause of warming, and instead assumed the premise of CO2 driving temperatures to be true, and then looked at potential impacts. But these scientists and studies still become part of the 'consensus.' It's an exercise in group-think and self-reinforcement.”

“The real question,” noted Morano, “is how a small disorganized group of skeptics scattered around the world managed to derail and inflict so much damage to the well-organized and well-funded global warming activists. The fact is, they're afraid. They're afraid the skeptics will derail their objectives.”

These objectives are the U.N. Climate Treaty, the EPA climate regulations and to a lesser extent the 2016 elections.

 


 

CLIMATE CHANGE CROWD HAS EYES ON THE ECONOMY

3/18/15

•While the drive-by media focuses on characterizing the 47 U.S. Senators that signed the letter to Iran warning them that any nuclear deal President Obama signs with Iran must achieve Senate approval, the Obama administration is quietly pushing a global climate change policy that could put the U.S. at the mercy of an International Climate Justice Tribunal.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, recently released language for the agreement. The stated purpose of pursuing a universal climate agreement is to renew the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 deal championed by then-Vice President Al Gore but rejected by the U.S. Senate. President George W. Bush eventually cut all U.S. ties to Kyoto.

Why should the U.S. have any interest in joining an agreement that makes it subject to a legal entity outside of America's own judicial system?

The political left in America, and around the world, believes capitalism is the problem and this is how they solve it. The climate-change crowd has had the U.S. economy in its cross hairs from the beginning.

Obama's getting involved because he believes this climate agreement will help keep his environmental policies in place.

The Senate needs to make a similar statement to that made by the 47 Senators on the nuclear Iran negotiations.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Chris Horner stated it quite well recently, “You have to put the world on notice, because of something called customary international law which our courts sometimes bow to, that whatever happens is not a treaty if it doesn't go through the Senate.”

•As I warned you, they're now coming after our BBQ grills.

The EPA has given a grant to perform research and develop technology that will reduce fine particulate emissions from residential barbecues.

The intent is to reduce air pollution in Southern California with potential for global application.

The design will reduce particulate matter emissions with a two-step process, minimizing the amount of grease burned by direct contact with an open flame, and secondary treatment to filter or catalyze created particulate matter during the cooking process. Essentially they want to remove the majority of grease drippings from the meat before it hits the flame.

What the EPA envisions is the equivalent of all the ridiculous nonsense they currently slap onto lawnmowers, only this time it will go on our BBQ grills.

Here's a “brief” description from the EPA document:

“A slotted and corrugated tray is inserted immediately prior to meat flipping, and removed immediately after. This short contact time prevents the tray from over-heating and volatilizing the collected grease. This collected grease will then drip off into a collection tray and can be used at the pit master's discretion…a secondary filtration system is proposed to mitigate the remaining aerosol and particulate matter formed. The secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method. This system can be powered by either an exterior electric motor with a chain-driven drive shaft, directly spinning the fan blade, or a hand-powered crank. Both of these power methods produce the same result of creating rotational speed for the fan blade. The catalytic treatment system will include a cylindrical housing with multiple honeycomb shaped filters coated with catalytic material to break down volatized organic matter. A filtration method will include multi-stage filters going from greater to smaller pore sizes to avoid quick clogging and allow PM10 and PM2.5 to be removed from the barbecue environment. By reducing PM2.5, the well-being of the community will benefit due to cleaner emissions.”

Sounds yummy.

(Go up against Brian Kubicki in The Landmark’s Bracket Battle. While you’re at it, follow him on Twitter @bkparallax. Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


 

THE GOAL OF CARBON CONTROL EFFORTS

3/11/15

•Liberals at the KC (Red) Star and Democrats in Kansas are apparently trying to defame Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for observations he made on his Sunday evening talk show on AM 710 KCMO a couple of weeks ago.

In a column called “The Buzz” bylined by Steve Kraske and Dave Helling, the following quote is attributed to a sitting member of the Kansas Legislature:

“ 'I want to take this opportunity to call on Kris Kobach, the most racist politician in America today, to resign from office.' – Kansas Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley in a speech last Saturday night in Topeka at Washington Days.

Hensley said Kobach should step down for comments he made during a radio program in which he appeared to agree with a caller who speculated that President Barack Obama would seek a moratorium on the prosecution of all African-American criminals. Said Kobach: 'Well, it's already happening, more or less, in the case of civil rights laws. So I guess it's not a huge jump. I think it's unlikely but, you know, I've learned to say with this president never say never.'”

Now, as a regular listener of The Kris Kobach Show on Sunday evenings on AM 710/FM 103.7 KCMO radio, I heard the comments in question. I posted the following in the comments section of the column:

“As usual, this story requires more facts. '...a radio program...' was The Kris Kobach Show on KCMO. On that show, Kobach referred to the New Black Panther Case in Philadelphia in 2009 when two members showed up at a polling place in Nov. 2008 bearing billy clubs and reportedly, '... shouted racial slurs, including phrases such as 'white devil' and 'you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker' in an effort to intimidate voters.

J. Christian Adams a trial lawyer for the DOJ at the time resigned after he said 'I was told by voting section management [of Eric Holder's DOJ] that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants on [behalf] of white victims.' Adams' claims were later supported by another DOJ member.
Read for yourself. There is no bias here--only facts, which you don't appear to get at The Buzz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case#J._Christian_Adams

•Breitbart's Charlie Spiering did a great job documenting President Obama warning students in Columbia, S.C. that, although the weather is cold, that's no excuse for not worrying about climate change.

“You can't attribute a couple of days of cold weather or a couple of days of hot weather to the climate changing, but the pattern overall is that the planet is getting warmer,” he argued. “That's undeniable.”

For someone who likely hasn't even taken – let alone passed – a basic science course, that sounds like a scientifically-arrived at conclusion.

Obama warned young people in the audience that a warmer climate would lead to devastating circumstances around the world, including rising oceans, drought, war, and the increase of insect-borne diseases such as malaria.

“What you have to appreciate, young people, is that this will affect you more than old people like me,” he said. “I'll be gone when the worst of this hits.”

I have news for President Obama – the worst effect of his presidency has already hit and it might likely get much worse if somebody in one of the other branches of government doesn't do something to stop his executive lawlessness.

Obama added that climate change threatens the lives of young people and their children.

“I just want you to understand, what I just described – it's not science fiction, it's not speculation, it's what the science tells us,” he said. “So we've got to worry about it.”

Why does ANY politician presume to be any kind of authority on what science does or does not say?
Climate change, Obama says, is one more reason why the world has to move beyond an oil based economy to wind and solar.

BINGO! Now you see what he's after.

Even though gas is cheaper than it's been for years, Obama warned young people to stay away from cars that don't get high gas mileage.

“Don't think that just 'cuz gas prices are low right now – that's nice, it put some more money in your pocket, but that's not going to last – so don't go out and say, 'I'm gonna go out and buy a gas guzzler now,'” he said.

Please God let January 2017 get here sooner!

•Did you see where the U.N. Climate Chief admitted its goal is worldwide redistribution of wealth? Didn't I tell you?

Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), warned that the fight against climate change is a process and that the sought-after transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.

At a press conference in Brussels, Figueres stated:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 — you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

 


 

WHY ARE THERE FILIBUSTERS?

3/4/15

•Last week Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer urged Republican U.S. Senate leaders to end the filibuster as Democrats blocked debate on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, as it was set to lapse last Saturday. Of course, at the last minute Republicans caved and extended the deadline another week.

Krauthammer said, “On this one I'm going radical. On this one I think it's time for the Republicans to do what Harry Reid did in October 2013, in which he partially abolished the filibuster so he could pack the D.C. circuit court to get three liberals on it. I would go the rest of the way — abolish the filibuster over this. Pass it with Republican votes, and have Obama have to veto or accept a bill which strikes out the funding for the immigration service and his illegal unconstitutional actions.”

Why are there filibusters? Why shouldn't a simple majority of the votes in the House and the Senate determine whether a bill passes or fails?

Do we elect our representatives in Congress using super-majority thresholds? No. These folks are elected to office with simple majorities. Their legislative moves should be marked by the same principles as those employed by the people when they elected them into office.

Now, detractors will cry “FOUL” as though we're trampling on venerable Congressional history.
“We must avoid the appearance and action of a monarchy?”

REALLY?!?! We're already there with Barack “Executive Order” Obama.

“Congress must work to avoid gridlock and get things done!”

BALONEY SAUSAGE! Perhaps the people elected divided government because they WANT the executive rule of Obama stopped?

•Obamacare is coming before the Supreme Court once again this week as King vs. Burwell was argued Wednesday. Plaintiffs say the text of the law must be interpreted as written. If done so, tax subsidies for about 7.5 million Americans in at least 34 states will end.

Chief Justice John Roberts' wish for the Supreme Court to be perceived as above politics should not survive another round in court.

And why is any Supreme Court Justice focused on public perception of the Court and not on proper Originalist application of the U.S. Constitution?

This is why we need an avenue of recourse for the people to overcome harmful Supreme Court decisions. In Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments, he calls for an Article 5 Convention of the States to propose an amendment that says any Supreme Court Justice will be subject to term limits and all decisions are subject to legislative override.

From the book:
“An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override

SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
[…]

SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.

SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

We need to get an Article 5 Convention done!

•Sad to hear last week that Spock died. Actor Leonard Nimoy succumbed to COPD at the age of 83. The media was quick to highlight that Nimoy lamented his illness as being caused by years of smoking, which he gave-up more than 30 years ago.

HE WAS 83 YEARS OLD!

83 is more than 20 years beyond the natural life expectancy of adult males born in 1931 as Nimoy was. Stop blaming people for their own deaths when they expire after their life expectancy.

Enjoy life, people! Stop feeling so guilty.

It's gonna kill you one day!

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


 

THEIR SAVAGERY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LACK OF A JOB
2/25/15

•You've all heard the Valley-girl contingent of the Obama State Department declare that Jobs for Jihadis is their preferred method of attacking the savages that set people on fire and saw the heads off of living humans. You agree that such a concept is ridiculous.

Particularly intriguing that MSNBC's Chris Tingle-Up-My-Leg was every bit taken aback…
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: “Are we killing enough of them?”

MARIE HARF: “We're killing a lot of them. And we're going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians and Jordanians, they're in this fight with us. We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs…”

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “But we're not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or in fifty lifetimes. There's always going to be poor people. There's always going to be Muslims, and as long as the trumpet is blowing they'll join. We can't stop that, can we?”

No more tingle!

The poverty-as-motivation to kill notion guiding radical jihad is so poorly based in fact one must question the sanity of people paid to opine thus.

Osama bin Laden was an heir to his father's billion-dollar construction fortune. September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta was the son of a Cairo attorney. Most of the young men in the Hamburg, Germany, cell that conducted the attack were prosperous exchange students. Al-Qaeda's current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian-born physician. Underwear bomber Abdul Mutallab's father is the Alan Greenspan of Nigeria.

ISIS sells oil on the black market, earning an estimated $1 million to $3 million daily. It also swiped some $420 million from the vaults of Kurdistan's central bank in Mosul. It reportedly is operating this year on a $2 billion budget, including a $250 million surplus.

Poverty exists worldwide. Yet, poor Paraguayans do not behead their neighbors. Poor Mexicans and Hondurans do not burn people alive. Poor Americans inhabit East L.A., Chicago's South Side, St. Louis' East Side, and the Deep South, yet they don't strap bomb vests to their women and children.

This savagery is about militant Muslims violently imposing their Islamic Jihad on what they consider to be infidels, much alike to Nazis forcing their Aryan “master race” on those they judged subhuman.

As was Nazi Germany, ISIS's evil killers are serious, growing in numbers, and they're headed West.

Much thanks to Fox News contributor Deroy Murdock, a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University for much of the financial facts supporting this.

•Alan Caruba's blog was the source for the following note on the EPA and ozone.

Were you aware that the EPA is engaged in trying to further regulate ozone for no apparent reason beyond its typical attack on capitalism? In late January for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Dr. Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D, filed testimony on a proposed national air quality standard for ozone. The EPA wants to lower the current ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range of 70 to 60 ppb.

“After promulgation of the current ozone standards in 2008,” Dr. Cohen noted, “EPA two years later called a temporary halt to the nationwide implementation of the standard in response to the severe recession prevailing at the time.”

In other words, it was deemed bad for the economy. “Now, EPA is proposing a new, more stringent standard even before the current standard has been fully implemented and even though, according to the EPA's own data, ozone concentrations have declined by 33 percent since 1980.”
Ozone is constantly being formed in the earth's atmosphere by the action of the sun's ultraviolet radiation on oxygen molecules. Ultraviolet light splits the molecules apart by breaking the bonds between the atoms. A highly reactive free oxygen atom then collides with another oxygen molecule to form an ozone molecule. Because ozone is unstable, ultraviolet light quickly breaks it up, and the process begins again.

Extremely high concentrations of ozone (higher than 100 ppb) can damage mucous and respiratory tissues in animals, and also tissues in plants. This makes ozone a respiratory hazard and pollutant near ground level.

Stratospheric ozone has concentrations as high as about 8000 ppb, and occurs 10-25 miles above the Earth's surface. Ozone and oxygen molecules in the stratosphere absorb ultraviolet light from the sun, providing a shield that prevents this radiation from passing to the earth's surface. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is so vital that scientists believe life on land probably would not have evolved, and could not exist today, without it.

While extreme ozone levels at ground level can pose some health challenges, it does not give EPA the right to attack major sectors of the U.S. economy. Dr. Cohen pointed out that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA produce an evaluation of the economic impact of maintaining a tighter ozone standard. Despite repeated requests from Congress, it has not done so. By ignoring the mandate and moving ahead with its ozone rulemaking, the EPA is exhibiting contempt for the rule of law and should be defunded.

Since Obama took office he's used the EPA as a hatchet against the U.S. economy. Tens of thousands of coal mine and power plant workers have lost their jobs. The BPU Quindaro coal power plant is being closed. More layoffs are on the way as Obama continues to pile on billions of dollars in regulatory costs.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


WHAT'S CALLED SCIENCE IS ACTUALLY POLITICAL POSTURING
2/18/15

•A recent Pew Research Center poll revealed a huge gap between the views of scientists and the general public on climate change. Alan Leshner, the outgoing CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), made that point recently when he met with the media in advance of a the AAAS annual meeting.

The kicker of the poll - Americans increasingly believe what's called science is actually political posturing.

BOOM!

For example, only half of adults surveyed by Pew said climate change is mostly due to human activity.

In a January editorial in Science magazine, Lesher wrote that only 52 percent of scientists say this "is a good time for science," down from 76 percent as recently as 2009. The disparity not only puts future funding for science in danger, Leshner said, but also carries the risk that America's best young minds will no longer want to pursue science careers.

Remember what I told you a long time ago – if the world is headed for an environmental disaster of some sort, Al Gore is NOT the person you need to be listening to.

•On the abortion atrocity, Bloomberg journalist Esme E. Deprez was tasked recently with informing readers about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act, which last month was introduced in both Kansas and Oklahoma.

“Activists in Kansas and Oklahoma are seeking to outlaw a common abortion technique by using the text of legislative bills to lay bare its graphic details, a tactic that may spread across the U.S.
Republican lawmakers in both states are pushing to ban what they call 'dismemberment abortion' with language supplied by National Right to Life, a Washington-based advocacy group.

Opponents say the bills inaccurately describe what medical literature calls dilation and evacuation, a method used in 96 percent of second-trimester terminations, according to the National Abortion Federation.”

Deprez believes the aim of the bills is to rebrand a medical procedure with a new and unsettling name, include clinical details of what it entails in a bill and let lawmakers' reactions guide the way they vote.

Deprez preempted actual depictions of Dilation and Extraction abortions with a reminder that they are “…common…used in 96% of second-trimester abortions.”

So apparently if everybody's doing it, there must be nothing wrong with the procedure, right?
Deprez tries to make the pro-life politicians the bad guys for “deploying grisly language… to rebrand a medical procedure with a new and unsettling name.”

Here is how the bills describe the “medical procedure” they aim to ban:

“… to dismember a living unborn child and extract him or her one piece at a time from…through use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush, and/or grasp a portion of the unborn child's body to cut or rip it off.”

Abortion proponents told Deprez the bills “inaccurately describe” D&E abortions with “misleading and inflammatory language.”

So what is an accurate description?

A late-term abortionist, LeRoy Carhart, offered an even more graphic description of D&E abortions (I edited out some of the more heinous parts – link provided below for full accounting).
In his dissent after the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly overturned Nebraska's Partial Birth Abortion Ban in 2000, Justice Anthony Kennedy quoted testimony by Carhart:

“As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out…

…Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening…to dismember the fetus, tearing…[it]…away from the remainder of the body. The traction…is essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as 'pulling the cat's tail' or 'dragging' a string across the floor, you'll just keep dragging it. It's not until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction.

Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with 'extensive parts of the fetus removed,' and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born 'as a living child with one arm.' At the conclusion of a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart's words, the abortionist is left with 'a tray full of pieces.'

Well now, how's that for “inflammatory language?”

Quoting Deprez again:

“Abortion care can be, in the abstract, deeply upsetting and the anti-abortion movement using the word 'dismemberment' is not an accident,” said Carole Joffe, a reproductive health sociologist at the University of California at San Francisco. “It puts the pro-choice movement on the defensive.”

And why not?

Read in full at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jill-stanek/2015/02/14/bloomberg-channels-protest-grisly-language-pro-life-bills#sthash.KqFZIhBR.dpuf

(Email Brian at bkubick@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE MEDIA HAS NO BUSINESS IN A WAR ZONE
2/11/15

•This Brian Williams scandal revives a dangerous and unnecessary reality that nobody ever mentions when the subject of the media reporting from a war zone.

In case you've been asleep or watching ABC, CBS, or NBC news this past week (Yes, NBC has mentioned the scandal obviously because it involves their news anchor but they ignored the truth for years), news anchor Brian Williams has been caught falsifying that he was in a helicopter that took enemy fire and was grounded in Iraq. The issue has long enraged military people for claims of stolen valor and now that they are being acknowledged by the media, Williams will likely be booted from NBC.

Whenever a media person is sent to a war zone, they require extension of military resources to protect them. The function of the military in a war is to kill people and/or break things. Any application of military resources toward protecting media people is counter to that basic function.
Put more personally, would any of you want your sons or daughters to take their minds off of killing the enemy and winning the war and coming home to protect a media person? Not me.
If the media wants to report from an American base in a war zone, fine. But keep them out of war zones. They have no business there.

•I normally don't quote President Obama here because much of what he speaks is propaganda and outright lies, but I must make an exception for his comments last week at the National Prayer Breakfast when he talked about people using Islam to justify violence. "People committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ…lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place; remember that during the crusades and the inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery, Jim Crow, all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

WHAT?!?

If anything, Christianity was used as the moral basis for ending slavery. To claim ISIS is beheading people and burning them alive for the same reasons that the crusades were conducted is revisionist history and another indication – a very strong one - that Obama is an idiot.

•The federal wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) needs to end.

A 2 year extension of the PTC will cost $13.35 billion. The PTC allows wind producers to pay the grid to take their power and still profit. This manipulation contributes to premature retirements of nuclear and coal plants.

65 percent of voters indicated in a recent survey that 2 decades of tax credits for the wind industry is long enough. Also, the PTC threatens grid reliability. Wind typically produces the most power when it is needed least: one study finds that “over 84 percent of the installed wind generation infrastructure fails to produce electricity when electric demand is greatest.”

Wind energy is expensive. When all factors are considered, wind energy costs $109 per megawatt hour, which is twice as much as this year's average wholesale electricity price of $54 per MWh.
Congress enacted the PTC in 1992 as a temporary measure for an “infant” industry. After propping up the wind industry for more than two decades, the PTC has clearly outlived its usefulness. As our analysis shows, the costs of the wind PTC vastly outweigh the supposed benefits.

•On all the vaccine nonsense being barfed-up lately it is interesting to look back a bit.
Smallpox used to dominate the world. The disease was originally known in English as the "pox" or "red plague." The term "smallpox" was first used in Britain in the 15th century to distinguish the variola virus from the "great pox" (syphilis). Smallpox caused 300–500 million deaths during the 20th century. The last cases of smallpox in the world occurred in an outbreak of two cases (one of which was fatal) in England in 1978. Due to this incident, all known stocks of smallpox were destroyed or transferred to one of two World Health Organization (WHO) reference laboratories; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States and the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR in Russia.

In 1986, the WHO recommended destruction of the virus, and set the date of destruction to be 30 December 1993. This was postponed to 30 June 1999. Due to resistance from the U.S. and Russia, in 2002 the World Health Assembly agreed to permit the temporary retention of the virus stocks for specific research purposes. Destroying existing stocks would reduce the risk involved with ongoing smallpox research; the stocks are not needed to respond to a smallpox outbreak.

Some scientists have argued that the stocks may be useful in developing new vaccines, antiviral drugs, and diagnostic tests; however, a 2010 review by a team of WHO public health experts concluded that no essential public health purpose is served by the U.S. and Russia continuing to retain virus stocks. The latter view is frequently supported in the scientific community, particularly among veterans of the WHO Smallpox Eradication Program.

In July 2014 several vials of smallpox were discovered in an FDA laboratory at the National Institutes of Health location in Bethesda, Maryland.

There is no evidence that all of the smallpox virus stored has ever been destroyed.

Gulp!

 


LIFE IS TOO SHORT
TO BE SORTING
THROUGH TRASH

2/4/15

•In Seattle, if you find a bright red tag stuck on your garbage can at the curb, you have violated a new city law that makes it illegal to put food into trash cans.

Seattle is the first city in the nation to fine homeowners for not properly sorting their garbage. The law took effect on Jan. 1 as a bid to keep food out of landfills (God forbid a landfill would have organic material in it). Other cities like San Francisco and Vancouver mandate composting but don't penalize homeowners directly.

Any household with more than “10 percent food in its garbage” earns a bright red tag notifying it of the infraction. Who will be the first to challenge the accuracy of the 10% determination?
Seattle added the new law because it wants to meet its recycling and reduction goals, but has been unable to with existing, already extremely stringent laws.

Life is too short to spend any of it sorting through your trash. Throw it away and get on with life. We have plenty of room for new landfills.

•From the Daily Caller, we learned last week that an Environmental Protection Agency memo sent to top officials implored the agency to build up support for its agenda by tying its regulations to the “personal worries” of Americans.

“Polar ice caps and the polar bears have become the climate change 'mascots,' if you will, and personify the challenges we have in making this issue real for many Americans,” reads a memo circulated among top agency officials in March 2009, just months after President Barack Obama took office.

“Most Americans will never see a polar ice cap, nor will most have the chance to see a polar bear in its natural habitat,” the memo reads. “Therefore, it is easy to detach from the seriousness of this issue. Unfortunately, climate change in the abstract is an increasingly—and consistently—unpersuasive argument to make.”

“However, if we shift from making this about the polar caps and about our neighbor with respiratory illness we can potentially bring this issue home to many Americans,” the memo adds.

“There will be many opportunities to discuss climate-related efforts this year. As we do so, we must allow the human health argument to take center stage.”

The EPA memo even says to use people's children as a way to build up support for their efforts to fight global warming and ramp up clean air and water regulations.

“This justifies our work at the most base level. By revitalizing our own Children's Health Office, leading the global charge on this issue, and highlighting the children's health dimension to all of our major initiatives—we will also make this issue real for many Americans who otherwise would oppose many of our regulatory actions,” the memo reads.

The EPA memos were obtained by Chris Horner, attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, through a Freedom of Information Act request. Horner found the memo in a trove of emails to former EPA chief Lisa Jackson's secret email account, which used the alias “Richard Windsor.”

“What this memo shows is the recognition that EPA needed to move its global warming campaign away from the failed global model of discredited Big Green pressure groups and their icons,” Horner told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“In it, we see the birth of the breathtakingly disingenuous 'shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness,'” Horner said. “It also shows the conviction that if they yell 'clean air' and 'children' enough, they, the media, and the green groups will get their way.”

The memo was circulated as federal lawmakers were debating cap-and-trade legislation during Obama's first term in office. A cap-and-trade bill passed out of the House in June 2009 but was eventually defeated in the Senate after opponents successfully tied the effort to a de facto energy tax.

Since this defeat, the Obama administration has been keen on focusing on the public health benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Near the end of 2009, EPA believed their own bad-science myth that greenhouse gases posed a threat to public health because they claimed they cause global warming. But greenhouse gases don't directly impact public health, so EPA relied on other ways to connect the dots.

When EPA released the first-ever regulations on greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions in 2012, the agency touted the rule's public health benefits, resulting from reduced amounts of traditional air pollutants coming from tailpipes.

More recently, EPA said rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants would result in fewer asthma attacks, especially in children. But these alleged public health benefits come from reducing smog and other air pollutants, not carbon dioxide.

So you see in this look at the EPA's secret email account what they were up to all along – use children and junk science to get more taxes, grow government, and harm capitalism.

Just like we told you all along before Obama was elected.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


 

THE INFLATRIOTS
1/28/15

“Deflategate.” For the record, naming this “scandal” or any other controversial issue with “ghazi” instead of “gate,” is an insult to the brave Americans that lost their lives to Islamic terrorism in Benghazi. “gate” of course comes from the Watergate scandal which involved a third-rate bumbling campaign office burglary and cover-up which resulted in no one's death.

It's very possible the New England Patriots did nothing wrong with respect to the game footballs in the AFC Championship game versus the Indianapolis Colts.

SBNation had a fine piece written by an engineer speaking facts about Deflategate. Some highlights:

This is what the NFL rule book says:

“The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case…”

The rule book refers to gauge pressure, which is pressure measurement relative to atmospheric pressure. Standard atmosphere is about 14.7 psi, and common pressure gauges are calibrated relative to this value.

There can be about a 5 percent change in the volume from ball-to-ball, so if you put the same amount of air in footballs at the lower end and higher end of the tolerances (that is, if you pumped them for the same amount of time), you'd end up with a roughly 5 percent lower air pressure for the larger football than for the smaller one.

Now, pressure and temperature are directly correlated. Remember from school the ideal gas law, which tells us how the volume, pressure, and temperature of a gas are related to one another?

Basically, it says:
p x V = n x R x T
where: p is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of moles of gas, T is the temperature, and R is the universal gas constant. For this case, we're concerned only with pressure and temperature because all the other variables are constant. So then we have:

p1 / p2 = T1 / T2
where the "1's" and "2's" are initial and final state. A little math gives us:

p1 = p2 x (T1 / T2)
So we can find the initial pressure if we know what the initial and final temperatures were, as well as the final pressure.

It's a little more complicated than just sticking in the numbers reported in the press. You must use absolute temperatures and pressures which are determined by adding 460 degrees Rankine and 14.7 psi for the atmospheric pressure.

So, if the balls were 2 psi under expected, that means their pressure was
p2 = (12.5 - 2) + 14.7 = 25.2 psi
and the temperatures were (guessing here):
T1 = 75 Fahrenheit = 535 Rankine
T2 = 45 Fahrenheit = 505 Rankine

That means our initial pressure should have been
p1 = 25.2 x (535 / 505) = 26.7 psi
Subtract the atmospheric pressure to get the gauge pressure, and you have initial pressure reading of 12 psi.

There are also several other issues:

What is the accuracy of the gauge used to measure the pressure? Most standard gauges aren't accurate to more than about ±0.5 psi, and was the gauge analog or digital?

What was the temperature indoors in the room where the balls were being inflated? Small temperature differences matter here: each degree of temperature difference adds about a 0.05 psi difference.

What size were the footballs relative to the allowed range? As mentioned above, you can get about a 5 percent discrepancy in pressures just because of the size difference. So that's about another 1.2 psi difference that would possibly need to be accounted for. So there are a lot of issues that can explain the deflation without blaming the Patriots, and it's not as easy to find a culprit as the media might indicate.

•Remember Seth Rogen tweeted last week that “American Sniper” reminded him of the fake Nazi propaganda film playing in the third act of Quentin Tarantino's “Inglorious Basterds,” which showed a German sniper killing Allied soldiers from a clock tower?

Michael Moore also caught heat for this tweet:

“My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse.”

Rogen and Moore have both attempted to walk back their previous comments about the film, which created a social media firestorm.

“I just said something 'kinda reminded' me of something else,” Rogen clarified. “I actually liked 'American Sniper.' It just reminded me of the Tarantino scene… But if you were having a slow news day, you're welcome for me giving you the opportunity to blow something completely out of proportion.”

Moore tweeted Monday: “Hmm. I never tweeted 1word bout AmericanSniper/ChrisKyle. I said my uncle killed by sniper in WWII; only cowards would do that 2 him, others.”

Rogen decided to clear the air again last Thursday regarding his previous criticism of the movie.

“I merely said that one kind of reminded me of the other because they both involved plots about the most lethal of snipers.”

According to Rogen, he actually enjoyed the movie, and was furious that people assumed he was anti-veteran and anti-military.

“[People] implied that I somehow have something against Chris Kyle and veterans in general, neither of which are true in the least. My grandfather was a veteran. My comment about the movie was not meant to have any political implications,” Rogen wrote.

“Any political meaning was ascribed to my comment by news commentary. I'm sorry if this somehow offended anyone, but that was not my intention. I hope this clears things up,” he added.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


 

GO SEE AMERICAN SNIPER
1/21/15

•I highly recommend taking the time to see American Sniper. The life story of Navy Seal Chris Kyle is as intense and moving as any movie I've ever seen.

When most movies use fictional plot twisting to gain entertainment effect, American Sniper does it by telling the true story. Most anybody who has grown up in the Midwest will identify with the upbringing of Kyle and that provides the foundation upon which the life story of a true American hero is told.

Go see it!

•Now back to the nonsense side of Hollywood…

I've long been a fan of Liam Neeson and especially his Taken movies. But I'm skipping Taken 3, the latest installment for the same reason that I plan to skip Matt Damon's next foray into the Jason Bourne series of movies – hypocritical actors that can't keep their mouths shut about politics.

Both movie series rely on considerable gunplay in near-constant action sequences. In promoting Taken 3, Liam Neeson spoke about the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris after offering condolences by then saying: “There are too many &*^%$ guns out there, especially in America.”
He said the level of private gun ownership in the US is “a !@#$% disgrace.”

As documented by Gulfnews.com, Neeson continued: “I think the (American) population is like, 320 million? There's over 300 million guns, privately owned, in America. I think it's a $%^&* disgrace. Every week now we are picking up a newspaper and seeing, 'Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.'”

Seemingly lost on Neeson was the basic fact that the Paris attacks took place in a country with lots of gun control laws. As a matter of fact, those laws did nothing to impede the attackers, and actually probably made the attacks easier to carry out.

In the U.S., such an attack is not only less likely because we have 300 million guns, our police are better able to quell such threats because they appear to be better armed than are the police in France.

Asked to explain the hypocrisy of his portrayal of, and great financial benefit from, characters that use guns to protect and serve while decrying any other human owning a gun, Neeson said:

“A character like Bryan Mills (his Taken character) going out with guns and taking revenge: it's fantasy. It's in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn't mean (the viewers) are all going to go out and go, 'Yeah, let's get a gun!'”

Ummm…O.K., so he's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

•Climate Depot had a great ‘remember when’ piece from 2007 that first appeared in Climate Daily in which researchers questioned the validity of a so-called “Global Temperature.”

It's almost as though there is a big giant rectal thermometer sticking out of some orifice on this 8,000 mile diameter sphere recording such a number.

Such a concept is thermodynamically and mathematically impossible. Well, at least according to Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

Andresen has analyzed this topic with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

Most of the media belch-out without thinking that the atmosphere has grown warmer during the recent 50 years because they claim to perceive an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called “global temperature.” This temperature is obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the planet, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points. But that is an average without meaning.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” Andresen says. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system.

Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

The Earth consists of a huge number of components you cannot simply add up and average. That's like calculating the average phone number in the phone book.

If, for example, a given reading is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if it's 25 degrees in both places, the average is still 25 degrees. But these two cases would have two entirely different climates. The place with 15 degree difference would have pressure differences and winds, while in the case where the temperatures are the same there would be no wind.

Another problem with one “global temperature” is…there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

For example, take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Now take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Convert the temperatures from Celsius to Kelvin, multiply the two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average, which is more realistic when the data from one measurement influences data from another.

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which causes storms, thunder, sea currents, etc., and where would we be without weather? We'd be dead.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAS GLARING PROBLEMS
1/14/15

•From the excellent blog, WUWT.com, comes an excellent piece highlighting that the Warmists now claim the past 18 years of no global warming was caused by volcanic eruptions.

Volcanoes cool the atmosphere because of sulfur dioxide expelled during eruptions. Droplets of sulfuric acid that form when the gas combines with oxygen in the upper atmosphere can persist for many months, reflecting sunlight away from Earth and lowering temperatures at the surface and in the lower atmosphere.

Early 21st century eruptions might explain up to a third of the recent “warming hiatus.” New research identifies observational climate signals caused by recent volcanic activity. This new research relied on a combination of ground, air and satellite measurements to indicate that a series of small 21st century volcanic eruptions deflected substantially more solar radiation than previously estimated.

So man causes all the warming, but nature - in the form of volcanoes - corrects that warming and cools the planet? Unbelievable!

•If you're a “responsible” citizen, you must change your light bulbs from incandescent to mercury-laden fluorescent, limit your toilet flushes to 1.6 gallons per flush, buy an electric car, put solar panels on your roof, adopt a vegetarian diet, eschew aircraft flights, limit your family size to two children, and skip that large pet.

Business people must adopt sustainable development, fuel vehicles with ethanol or buy electric vehicles, build facilities to LEED standards, and count carbon emissions.

Beyond it being a politically-motivated movement, there's one major problem with all this--man-made emissions are an insignificant part of global warming.

Climate change is natural; man has little measurable effect on the global climate, and in fact…Fossil fuels have done more to raise humans out of poverty than anything else in the known world, and will continue to do so if we keep Democrats out of political office.

•Did you know that the Kansas City, Kansas Board of Public Utilities is planning to close its Quindaro coal-fired power plant to head off a threatened lawsuit from the Sierra Club? The BPU will retire the two Quindaro generating units by April 2015, reduce emissions at its Nearman coal plant and invest $750,000 in energy-efficiency programs, according to the terms of a settlement reached last year.

The Sierra Club alleged that emissions at the two plants exceeded levels allowed by their air permits under the Clean Air Act. The claims were part of the group's national "Beyond Coal" campaign to replace coal with other fuel sources.

More than a sixth of the nation's coal fleet has been identified for phase-outs since 2010, thanks to the Obama Administration's out-of-control EPA. So where will the city get electrical power to replace the 200 MegaWatts that the Quindaro plant produces? Well, some of it will likely come from BPU's recent acquisition of a 17% interest in a natural gas plant up river. That plan will work financially (for now) because thanks to fracking, natural gas prices are low, but will they remain low? Time will tell.

•From National Review Online, did you know that only three of every 100 illegal immigrants in the U.S. will ever face deportation? That's one of many shocking revelations found in the final oversight report of now-retired Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn. Coburn, who was the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has exposed some glaring problems at the Department of Homeland Security. The report details DHS's failure to fulfill any of its five core functions: securing the border, enforcing immigration law, preventing terrorism, safeguarding cyberspace, and strengthening national preparedness.

While the federal government continues to increase spending on border security, more than 700 miles of the nation's southern border and thousands of miles of its northern border remain unsecured. “With these broad gaps in coverage of both our southern and northern borders, the problem of people and goods illegally entering our country remains a significant concern,” the report states. “DHS has not succeeded in its efforts to secure U.S. port facilities, infrastructure, and incoming cargo from potential terrorist attacks, despite spending upward of $5 billion on these initiatives since 2002.” One of the reasons for its failures, as the report goes on to point out, is that the DHS lacked a department-wide border-security plan until late last year.

Gee, I wonder why that's been the case?

Coburn's report said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has routinely neglected to remove immigrants who overstay their visas and pose threats to public safety and national security. Millions of illegal aliens reportedly continue to reside in the United States as a result.

Lax immigration enforcement is compounded at the DHS by what the report describes as the department's “problem of potentially widespread corruption within its workforce along the southern border.” Since December 2012, more than 140 current and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers had been arrested for corruption offenses. 125 of those have been convicted. DHS has failed to minimize potential corruption, in part, the report states, because the DHS inspector general has yet to reach an agreement to share information with the FBI, which could assist in shutting down departmental corruption. And when DHS employees do attempt to expose wrongdoing, they often face blowback. Departmental misconduct has been made worse by retaliation occurring against whistle-blowers throughout DHS.

(Brian Kubicki can be found on Twitter @bkparallax. Email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


GLOBAL WARMING
IS ESSENTIALLY
A RELIGION

1/7/15

•Happy 2015 to all of my wonderful readers!

•You had to love this CBS 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll conducted among Americans on the subject of Fear.

Fear is a broad topic with particular relevance to perception of terrorism. Sony's recent decision to cancel/delay the premiere of the dreadful movie, "The Interview" started debate about surrendering to fear of threatened attacks, especially from nameless cowardly hackers.

In truth, fear has helped humanity thrive as a species. "Fight or Flight," which is in our genes, has helped man survive for thousands of years, rising to the top spot on the food chain in the process.
When it comes to which method of destruction most Americans fear might cause an end to mankind, 35 percent of Americans chose nuclear war. 23 percent said a virus would do us in.
Next on the fear-list was a tie.

15 percent figures the Rapture would take us out and another 15 percent said global warming would cause our demise.

8 percent said we would all die by asteroid striking the Earth.

It is no coincidence that the same amount of people believe man will leave Earth by God instantaneously taking us up to Heaven en-masse as believe we will perish on a planet warmed out of control by use of fossil fuels.

That's a very telling indication that global warming is essentially a religion. It's not based on any verifiable science but on a dogma that requires faith for survival of the concept.

•Then there's this bit of nonsense from across the pond.

New European laws aimed at saving energy mean that some coffee machines must power down after five minutes.

In an attempt to improve energy efficiency, filter coffee machines must now switch off after five minutes of percolating to prevent waste of electricity.

The European Commission claims that its new rules, which are intended to help tackle climate change, will not affect consumers as most filter machines have insulated jugs which keep coffee warm.

However those hoping for a piping pot of Joe may have to start keeping an eye on their brew if they are to still achieve the perfect cup. Espresso machines must also now power down after 30 minutes and functions keeping cups warm will end after 60 minutes.

Although Christmas-bought machines are likely to be exempt from the ruling, all new percolators must meet stringent energy regulations.

Marylyn Haines Evans, public affairs chairwoman of the National Federation of Women's Institutes, said: "Nobody likes to waste energy, and at a time when energy bills are increasing, having appliances designed to be sparing with electricity is definitely a good thing for your household finances.”

Poppycock! We use more and more energy every single year of mankind's existence. We never use less and we should never want to use less. Energy use is a measure of man's success on the planet.

Folks – energy costs are rising because governments are enacting regulations aimed at increasing those costs. You didn't think that phasing out coal power plants that produce energy at 8 cents per kilowatt-hour and replacing them with windmills and solar collectors that produce energy at 25 cents per kilowatt-hour might just increase costs? Sheesh!!

•My favorite new fact I learned over the holidays was…

On an average day in China, approximately 1,703,975 pigs are consumed. According to a report by the United States Department of Agriculture, Chinese consumed 51 million metric tons of pork in 2006, roughly half of the world's total pig consumption. The report also states that United States consumed around 8.6 million metric tons last year.

The average weight of a pig is 82 kg or about 180 lbs., so in 2006, Chinese ate about 621,951,219 pigs, or twice the entire U.S. population of people! Each of China's 1.3 billion people consumed, on average, under half a pig. Americans ate 104,878,048 pigs in 2006. With a population of 301,844,000, the average American ate the equivalent of about one-third of a pig during the year.

Pork is such an important part of Chinese diets that a rapid increase in pork prices in spring 2007 lifted May consumer prices 3.4%. Meat, mainly pork, prices rose 26.5%.

Meat consumption has risen dramatically in China over the past two decades. Just since 2003, pork consumption has risen 19%. Pork's centrality to Chinese cooking is reflected in the fact that when people refer to meat, by default they mean pork. On a menu, dishes with pork simply say "meat." If the meat isn't pork, then an additional qualifier (cow meat for beef, for example) is required.

So, if global warming does wipe out our ability to grow food and we resort to cannibalism to survive, the Chinese would eat all Americans in half a year, while Americans would take 13 years to eat all the Chinese people.

Now THAT'S food for thought!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


POPE ABOUT TO GET MASSIVE OVER CLIMATE CHANGE
12/31/14

•Shocking to see in the Wall Street Journal that uber-liberal Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe penned an analysis of Obama's use of the EPA as a hammer against free enterprise in which he concluded that “the EPA acts as though it has the legislative authority to re-engineer the nation's electric generating system and power grid. It does not.”

While it would seem that the EPA was the central focus of Tribe's critique, a bit of history uncovered by Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise in a piece at Heartland.org revealed Tribe was targeting his 1989 research assistant at Harvard Law School, none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

But a handful of people know the back-story. Arnold was one. He had held-off for a long time relating the story, but felt after reading Tribe's piece it was time.

Barack Obama got into Harvard Law School mostly because he was a legacy, offspring of an alumnus. His father Barack Obama Sr. earned a master's degree in economics from Harvard. Harvard accepts only 11 percent of all applicants, but 40 percent of all legacies that apply.

In the spring of his first year, Obama sought a research assistant position from Prof. Tribe, one of the nation's foremost liberal constitutional law scholars. Tribe rarely hired first year students, but he recalls “being struck by Obama's unusual combination of intelligence, curiosity and maturity.”

Laurence Tribe has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court at least 34 times, and is noted for his extensive support of liberal legal causes including environmental law. Tribe hired Obama because he was preparing to write a paper that would argue strict constructionist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution were obsolete and based on rigid old Newtonian world-view that needed to be replaced by more modern notions of curved space and quantum physics concepts which would release judges from the original intent of the Founders.

Tribe's paper compared Einstein's theory that space is curved by large masses (such as the sun) to Tribe's theory that courts shape the cultural “space” of institutions with “massive” rulings (such as segregation). His point was major court rulings build social institutions and change morality, just as the sun makes light curve around its mass. The flawed theory was that old wrongs done by courts, government, and the Constitution itself, such as allowing slavery, should be repaired by new broad constructionist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.

That's kind of like saying the gravity that holds us onto Earth's surface is the same forcing mechanism that got OJ acquitted from lopping off Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson's domes!
This nonsensical theory was (naturally) recognized by the liberal elite as not as far-fetched as it seems. Nearly 200 law reviews and periodicals subsequently cited the article, and four courts have cited it in their opinions.

The politically immature Obama learned more about the Constitution by helping Tribe research this paper than he would learn in his actual constitutional law class the next year. He witnessed a brilliant left-wing legal icon at the height of his powers construct a sophisticated constitutional frame of reference that could be applied (by morons) to government and achieve a Leftist revolution in the real world.

He would then use this power to destroy the constitution through dictatorial power lust.
What Arnold asserts is that this is something Laurence Tribe cannot allow.

Tribe's WSJ op-ed rips into Obama saying essentially, “President Barack Obama, my prized student, acts now as though he has the legislative authority to re-engineer the nation's electric generating system and power grid. He does not. Obama's stolen authority – all of it – is unconstitutional.”

•The U.K.'s Guardian reports Pope Francis will organize a massive push by the Catholic Church to fight climate change.

The pontiff will give an address to the U.N. general assembly and call a summit of the world's main religions in an effort to unify the religious community against climate change. Pontifical Academy of Sciences chancellor Bishop Marcelo Sorondo told the Guardian that the pope wants to influence the course of the 2015 U.N. climate meeting in Paris.

The pope has spoken extensively on climate change before, saying humans have a responsibility to avoid destroying God's creations for future generations.

"Safeguard creation," he told a crowd in Rome in May. "Because if we destroy creation, creation will destroy us!" Around the same time, the Vatican hosted a large-scale summit on sustainability that drew connections between unsustainable environmental practices and economic injustice.
While just one man, Pope Francis is the head of a 1.2 billion person church, and he seems determined to get other religions onboard the anti-climate-change train as well.

So, we are to believe the head of an organization that forced Galileo to deny his proof that the Earth actually rotates around the Sun instead of vice-versa is going to now lead us in a global march off the economic cliff by framing carbon dioxide as a millstone around mankind's neck?

The real nonsense of all this is that no system in human history has lifted more people out of poverty's grasp than capitalism.

Ponder on that when you next drop to your knees in prayer.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


A JEB BUSH RUN
MAY HELP
TED CRUZ

12/24/14

•You might have been aggravated at first glance of word that Jeb Bush wants to run for President. However, conservatives should be energized by that news according to Rich Lowery.

If yet another Bush gets into the campaign, such a move obviously hurts other establishment (RINO) candidates, like Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. It likely hurts candidates who could potentially straddle the establishment/Tea Party divide, like Marco Rubio, who also faces the dilemma of running against another candidate from Florida and a former mentor in Jeb, plus Scott Walker.

A Jeb run may help Ted Cruz. The Texas senator wants a pure establishment vs. Tea Party fight and a Jeb candidacy does the most to tee that up by possibly squeezing out the candidates who have some appeal to both wings. Jeb getting in would be the biggest boost for Cruz since the shutdown fight, without which he wouldn't be in such a strong position. The government shutdown gave Cruz enormous support among conservatives and he came away with a huge e-mail list.

•Among all the caterwauling on the left about enhanced terror techniques used on terrorists, was complete ignorance of the following poll numbers.

Most Americans don't object to the CIA's interrogation techniques that some call torture, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

After being told the CIA used “harsh interrogation practices on suspected terrorists,” 51% of those surveyed said the practices were “acceptable under the circumstances.” Only 28% said the interrogations were wrong and 20% said they didn't have an opinion.

President Barack Obama ended the practice, known legally as “enhanced interrogation”, early in his White House tenure. But 45% of those polled said the CIA should continue to use them, while just 28% said they are wrong and should not be used.

So whenever someone comes to you screaming about waterboarding terrorists, tell them you don't care.

•Daniel Horowitz had a superb post-mid-term election summary highlighting the differences between establishment RINOS and conservatives. That piece is paraphrased below.

At first glance, there does not seem to be much in common between Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Congressman Dave Brat (R-VA).

However, they were both elected in 2014's wave election with a mission. Roberts is a D.C. fixture; a member of the establishment; a RINO, with years of political experience under his belt. Dave Brat is a political novice who entered politics by knocking off the sitting majority leader in a primary. Brat was elected to shock the status-quo political world and fight against amnesty and Obama's open borders agenda. But so was Pat Roberts.

After experiencing a political catharsis of almost losing a primary and general election, Roberts closed his campaign with a newfound rigor and fighting spirit on behalf of his heartland constituents.
The new Pat Roberts was beginning to sound as fresh as Dave Brat. He emphatically declared at his victory speech: “I've heard my marching orders loud and clear. I will be bold. I will be conservative. And I will be constructive.”

Immediately following the election, Obama put that promise to a test by brazenly violating our immigration laws and remaking American through executive action. Roberts was unequivocal in his response:

“The President's attempt to grant amnesty through executive order will be the first battleground where this new majority can stand up to the President and block his irresponsible and unconstitutional actions. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to stop amnesty by executive action or by any other means. I support Senator Sessions' efforts to defund the President's executive amnesty efforts, and I will fight tirelessly to protect the rule of law in America.”

Roberts had voted against every single budget deal from the day primary challenger Milton Wolf publicly expressed his intention to challenge 2013, yet he voted for the worst budget bill of all (Cromnibus) as soon as the cycle was over.

Roberts' foxhole conversion disappeared magically right before the first consequential vote after winning reelection. He voted for the Cromnibus bill, granting Obama a blank check on amnesty, Obamacare, and the EPA for an entire year, thereby undercutting the leverage of the new majority. And he did it after joining with Ted Cruz to declare the bill unconstitutional just 16 minutes before.
Contrast this behavior to Dave Brat who not only kept his promise to vote down large spending bills and amnesty, he was one of only 16 members to oppose the procedural motion to consider the bill – undoubtedly a brave act for a member who has barely learned his way around the Cannon House Office Building.

As soon as Roberts won re-election, Kansas' other U.S. Senator, Jerry Moran entered his own campaign cycle, and just as magically, they begin to flip. Now Moran and Roberts have traded places in just a few weeks. During Roberts' re-election cycle, he shot up to over 90% on the Heritage Action scorecard, a conservative measuring stick. At the same time, Moran scored a paltry 67% after supporting a couple of bad budget deals. Moran now has voted conservatively on all three votes in the Conservative Review (a GREAT website) scorecard since November, while Roberts only sided with conservatives in one of those votes.

These manipulative idiots think voters are stupid. But they will continue this pattern until we begin to look only at their voting records and put priority on increasing the numbers of Brats and reduce the numbers of Morans and Roberts.

 


HERE’S WHY THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY
NEEDS CLEANED OUT

12/17/14

•John Nolte with the excellent news website, Breitbart.com, has been pursuing an intriguing story in the aftermath of the crumbling University of Virginia fraternity rape story profiled in Rolling Stone magazine recently.

In a nutshell, Obama disciple and HBO's unwatched “Girls” star Lena Dunham claimed in her recent memoir that as an Oberlin College student she had been raped by a “prominent campus Republican” named Barry. Nolte conducted an exhaustive search into the validity of such a claim, and found it to be highly suspect. Nolte found there actually was a man named Barry on the Oberlin campus when Dunham attended and Barry was a Republican. However, he has never met Dunham and never dated her, as attested in the book. Meanwhile this Barry's life has been turned upside down because of the claim and he has hired an attorney to help him get his life back. Go to Breitbart.com and read it in full – well worth the time investment.

Dunham and her representatives have been completely silent despite inquiries from numerous media outlets, until Random House, her memoir publisher, issued a statement Monday to The Wrap that says, “The name 'Barry' referenced in the book is a pseudonym. Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion.”

They continue:

“As indicated on the copyright page of Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham, some names and identifying details in the book have been changed. The name 'Barry' referenced in the book is a pseudonym…Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion that has led ('Barry's') attorney…to post on GoFundMe on behalf of his client, whose first name is Barry…We are offering to pay the fees ('Barry's' attorney) has billed his client to date…Our offer will allow (the attorney) and his client to donate all of the crowd-funding raised to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault.”

One would think in this “war on women” and intense focus the Obama Administration and Sen. Claire McCaskill has placed on rooting out sexual assault wherever Republicans are hiding it, that one of their minions like Dunham would be eager to do their part to getting a rapist off the streets where he can continue to prey on women. I guess not.

•Between the War on Women meme and the Global Warming catastrophe, was this not the absolutely most disastrous political campaign ever assembled by a Democrat Party? On the global warming hoax front, remember when Al Gore and all his Democrat allies were screaming about polar bear numbers dwindling because global warming was melting all the ice and the bears were drowning because of all the swimming they had to do? (Has there ever been a more idiotic scientific cause-effect premise uttered?) Well…not so much…

From Mike Bastasch at The Daily Caller, we learned the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted the estimate given for the total number of polar bears in the Arctic was simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.

Skeptics have long been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large subpopulations of polar bears due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas.

PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world. “As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic,” PBSG says. “Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a QUALIFIED GUESS GIVEN TO SATISFY PUBLIC DEMAND.” (Emphasis mine.)

They continue:

“Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it CANNOT BE USED TO ASSESS POPULATION TREND OVER THE LONG TERM.” (Again, emphasis mine.) Polar bear populations were at the core of the fight against anthropogenic global warming due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered. Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

•If you didn't catch Rush Limbaugh on Chris Wallace's show on Fox News last Sunday, you missed an excellent rundown of what the RINO's want regarding illegal immigration and what conservatives are pushing for relevant to a potential government shutdown with President Obama over the issue. Briefly, RINO's fear shutting government down if Obama isn't allowed to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens currently in this country. They fear it because they say polls show Americans blame Republicans when government is shut down. Conservatives want the border enforced and want illegal immigration stopped and do not want to fund any aspect of President Obama's granting of amnesty. If it causes Obama to shut down the government, then so be it.

RINOs keep pointing to the polls as evidence to not shut down the government.Conservatives point to the mid-term election which resulted in huge gains for Republicans as evidence that shut downs do not hurt Republicans.Conservatives win this argument. Polls always show Republicans get blamed for shutting government down because, guess what? Republicans are the party that (generally) wants government reduced in size, scope and power.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE COSTLIEST
REGULATION IN
EPA HISTORY

12/3/14

•As I shiver through yet another frigid day of Fall 2014, one wonders how it is that man has all this supposed influence over the Earth's climate, but we haven't figured out how to interrupt winter weather.

•Beware folks, Republicans may have won the mid-term elections, but the full brunt of Obama's tantrum has yet to be wrought…and when you are as spoiled as Barack Obama, and are a U.S. President, the tantrums can be EPIC!

The Obama administration proposed a rule on Wednesday last week that would be the costliest regulation of the EPA's history.

Just before Labor Day 2011, the President forced the EPA to withdraw the rule to ease his reelection, which at that time was looking less-than-assured.

Now, facing a court order to issue a new proposal by next week, the EPA has just issued a rule essentially as strong as the one the White House squelched three years ago. It would lower the amount of ground-level ozone pollution considered healthy to breathe, which in turn could lead to costly new requirements for air pollution permits in much of the country.

Republicans are attempting to force Obama to back down again on a huge financial wound to the economy. Business groups feel a tough new limit on ozone would devastate the economy by making it difficult to open or expand hundreds of manufacturing plants in much of the country. The National Association of Manufacturers released a July study calculating that the rule would wipe out $3.4 trillion in economic output and 2.9 million jobs by 2040.

Indeed, Republicans are already on the march against the rule. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement Tuesday night that EPA's proposal “will lower our nation's economic competitiveness and stifle job creation for decades,” and vowed that it “will face rigorous oversight” from the new Congress.

What exactly that means from a feckless Boehner/McConnell led government remains to be seen.
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter argues that tightening the ozone standard “will shut down job-creating projects in every state,” and South Dakota Sen. John Thune introduced legislation that would force EPA to postpone the action. “I expect there to be strong, bipartisan opposition to what will be the most expensive EPA regulation in history,” Thune said in a statement Monday, adding that a lower ozone limit would “have a devastating impact on American jobs and energy prices.”

Believe it or not, some Democrats are also preaching restraint. Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear pleaded with Obama last week to back off: “The growth of our economy is dependent on it,” he wrote.

•For reference, ground-level ozone; the main component of smog, is emitted by chemical reactions between two common pollutants: nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Particularly virulent on hot days, ozone can trigger a variety of health problems from chest pain to asthma attacks to early death for those who are particularly susceptible to such threats.

Complicating the debate is the way EPA enforces this kind of air pollution standard: If air monitors show that a community is exceeding the limit, EPA deems the entire area to be out of compliance, which means that companies hoping to expand or build new facilities face a higher threshold for getting air permits and often have to pay to offset their emissions. In communities that just barely meet the standards, any new industrial activity could shift the area into running afoul of EPA.

The existing ozone standard, created by the Bush administration in 2008, set a limit of 75 parts per billion, despite recommendations by EPA's science advisers to place it between 60 and 70 — ideally, at the lower end of that range. The advisers have repeated that recommendation several times since.

On Wednesday, EPA proposed a range from 65 to 70 parts per billion, while seeking comment on limits as low as 60 parts per billion.

The Republicans who will soon rule the Senate are already pushing EPA to back down. “By any measure, the revised ozone rule will represent one of the costliest rules ever issued by EPA,” Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) said, calling it “one of the most devastating regulations in a series of over-reaching regulatory actions taken by this administration.”

Under the court order, EPA must follow up with a final rule by Oct. 1. EPA doesn't have to tighten the standard – it just has to finish its review and make a call either way.

Greenies are more hopeful this time. Check out this quote:

Rena Steinzor, an environmental activist with the Center for Progressive Reform, stated, “I'm hopeful that he'll remember that he never has to stand for election again, and that his rule will make a huge difference in terms of public health,” she said.

Is there a better illustration that Liberalism is about pseudo-intellectuals forcing and tricking Americans into having things done by government for them purportedly for their own good, than that quote? Why wait until after the election to act? If the action is not popular, perhaps it should not be implemented?

What a novel concept!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THERE ARE
SEVERAL GROUNDS
FOR IMPEACHMENT

11/26/14

President Obama's action last week to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens has been met with little resistance from Republicans. Oh, there've been shouts that Obama has exceeded his authority and is acting like an emperor, but nothing meaningful.

Voters are incensed, with calls ranging from “DEFUND!” to “IMPEACH!” Of course, the go-along-to-get-along crowd seems to fear confrontation with a clearly confrontational president.

So what should be done?

The defund question was covered very well last week by Sean Davis in www.TheFederalist.com.
Establishment Republicans claim it would be impossible to defund President Obama's executive order through a government spending bill. Congress doesn't provide funding to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), the agency responsible for issuing work permits and green cards. Instead, the agency is funded through fees.

The excuse they're trying to make is that because the USCIS, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is funded primarily by mandatory, rather than discretionary spending, that they have no way to whack it with an annual appropriations bill. USCIS is funded by fees it collects, the argument goes, and since those fees aren't subject to annual appropriations, Congress can't reduce them in an annual appropriations bill.

They're correct that USCIS spending is funded primarily by fees collected by the agency, and that the spending is mandatory, rather than discretionary. That means that USCIS does not need annual authorizations to use those fees to offset expenses.

Every single dollar spent by the federal government must be first appropriated by Congress. Just because some spending is not subject to annual appropriation doesn't mean it's not subject to appropriation. Congress can't block Obama's executive order by shutting down the government, but it most certainly can defund it.

Congress adds riders and prohibitions to appropriations bills all the time. That's the whole purpose of Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law[.]”

And from that power of the purse come the most powerful words in federal law: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for ______.”

That's it. Doesn't matter if the spending is mandatory or discretionary, good or bad, wasteful or essential; when that sentence becomes law, it nukes whatever spending it touches up until the point at which that sentence is repealed or superseded by a future law.

Republicans can add defunding language to any bill. The issue is not that they can't use the power of the purse to block Obama. The issue is that they don't want to. The real shame is that they can't even be honest about that.

On the impeachment question, folks often point to Bill Clinton's impeachment as evidence we should not try to impeach Obama for trying to circumvent the Constitution. Their evidence seems to be that Republicans lost in the Clinton Impeachment battle because Bill Clinton is extremely popular today despite that Impeachment.

Truthfully, that says more about Democrats than it does about the process of impeachment.

Remember the only other U.S. President that was impeached? Know what that one was about?

Andrew Johnson was impeached on Feb. 24, 1868, in the U.S. House of Representatives on eleven articles of impeachment detailing his "high crimes and misdemeanors" in accordance with Article Two of the United States Constitution. The House's primary charge against Johnson was with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress the previous year. Specifically, he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War (whom the Tenure of Office Act was largely designed to protect), from office and replaced him with General Lorenzo Thomas.
The final tally of votes for conviction was one fewer than the two-thirds required.

The impeachment and subsequent trial gained a historical reputation as an act of political expedience, rather than necessity, based on Johnson's defiance of an unconstitutional piece of legislation and with little regard for the will of the public (which, despite the unpopularity of Johnson, opposed the impeachment). Until the impeachment of Bill Clinton 131 years later (which also ended in an acquittal), it was the only impeachment trial of a President in the history of the United States.

So the argument that there are no grounds for impeaching Obama is tacitly ridiculous. There are several:

1. His inactions to protect American citizens at the Embassy in Benghazi under terrorist attack and subsequent efforts to conceal that inaction are high crimes.

2. His use of the IRS to investigate political opponents was one of the same charges Congress used in formulating articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

3. His release of 5 terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a military deserter are indeed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

4. This Immigration Executive Order in attempting to circumvent Congress in granting U.S. citizenship to millions of people in this country illegally is a slap in the face to those immigrants who went through the process legally and places all Americans at risk from dangerous terrorists because it removes a measure that checks to see who is coming into the country.

This President must be impeached.

 

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


BENEFITS OF FOSSIL
FUELS FAR OUTWEIGH
THE RISKS

11/19/14

•Loyal reader Gordon sent me the following illustrative summary of the climate deal that President Obama “negotiated” with China:

Obama: You owe me 5 cents.

China: I'll give you a big nickel if you give me tiny dime.

Obama: OK.

China: I'm keeping the nickel.

Obama: OK.

This deal is a joke and is living proof that Obama's goal as President of the United States is to reduce the economic standing of the United States on the world stage.

That fact alone is enough of a reason to impeach him.

•Thousands of women across the country are asking the FDA to take Essure off the market. Essure is a non-surgical, non-hormonal permanent birth control, and is 99.8 percent effective for women who don't want any more kids. However, after experiencing severe side effects and even getting pregnant, KFOR reports that some women question the safety of the popular birth control. Essure is inserted into the Fallopian tubes, where tiny metal coils are implanted by a gynecologist. After several months, uterine tissue grows into the metal coils, blocking conception.

Some reported side effects have included joint pain, chronic fatigue, weight gain, heavy menstrual cycles, migraines, hot flashes, hair loss and severe pain. Many women also have Essure coils which have migrated to other areas of their bodies, cutting through internal organs in the process.
I have one question about this – who was the genius that thought a metal spring shoved into a fallopian tube was a safe way to prevent pregnancy?

•The intense cold most of America is encountering is occurring more than a month before the official start of winter on December 21st.

We are colder these days because the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years and that cycle is based entirely on the Sun which has been radiating less heat for the same period of time.

Describing the role of the Sun in the planet's climate, Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, said, “There is a big thermonuclear reactor in the sky that emits huge amounts of energy to the Earth…The Sun provides the energy for photosynthesis. The Sun is the bringer of life to Earth. If the Sun were more energetic the oceans would boil. If the Sun were less energetic the oceans would freeze and all life on Earth would be destroyed.”

Reminder - we don't control the Sun, or the climate. The Sun controls us.

•Consider these facts: Sun has a diameter of 865,000 miles. The Earth's diameter is 7,917.5 miles. Thus, the Sun's diameter is 109 times greater than the Earth's. Carbon dioxide is barely .04% of the Earth's atmosphere. Reducing it as the U.S.-China agreement proposes would have zero effect on the Earth's climate.

We not only can, but should ignore the blatant lies of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, both of whom have been saying things about “climate change” without a scintilla of science to back them up.

These efforts by Obama and Biden play into the longtime efforts of the environmental movement to impose energy limits on America. Similar limits will be called for when climate talks are launched in December by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Lima, Peru.

Why the leaders of nations keep calling for limits that can only result in the reduction of energy production, the loss of economic benefits from industrial activity and the jobs it provides, and the modern lifestyle of advanced nations is the key to understand the Marxist mission to redistribute wealth knows no limits.

Fossil fuels get a lot of flack from activists, politicians and the media, but can you imagine what the world would be like without them?

Fossil fuels have actually fueled unparalleled prosperity for mankind.

It is an indisputable fact that fossil fuels have made the world a more prosperous and healthy place. Cheap energy from coal, oil and natural gas powers cars, homes, airplanes, universities, hospitals, video games; essentially everything in the modern world.

Just like doctors prescribe certain medications despite side effects, the benefits of fossil fuels far outweigh the risks. Humans should strive to use more fossil fuels, not fewer, as environuts are preaching.

Understand that the core of the mission of the political Left is to reduce the standing of America on the world stage by redistributing wealth. The means through which they implement this are by demonizing the tools we use to generate wealth and they include:

Cheap Energy – fossil fuels = BAD, inefficient and expensive wind and solar = GOOD,
Recycle, Recycle, Recycle - humans are using up Earth's resources because humans are bad for the Earth.

Limit your water use – low-flow toilets and water use restrictions.

Outlaw incandescent light bulbs – one of the most dramatic and successful inventions since the wheel is now outlawed.

Stop this Marxist movement by fighting these efforts whenever possible. Be proud of generating wealth. Work hard to benefit humanity. That is the reason we are here.

Twitter.com/bkparallax

 


IF VOTERS WANTED COMPROMISE, DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE WON
11/12/14

•Can someone explain how exactly the logic goes to explain that climate change is a political issue that will sway an election toward Democrats? Are they really that delusional? Democrats and the Obama Administration beat the climate change drum non-stop for the past 6-8 months. Haven't they seen any of the polls showing that Americans don't believe climate change is a human problem? What were they thinking?

Anyhow, good for America that they lost. Now…back to work!!

•FoxNews.com reports that after receiving $1.6 billion in construction loans from taxpayers, the wealthy investors (Google among them!) of a California solar power plant now are asking for a $539 million federal grant to pay off their federal loan.

You must be joking!

•The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the U.S. Treasury, the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30 percent of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years.

In 2013, the Obama administration handed out $18.5 billion in renewable energy grants, with $4.4 billion going to solar projects.

Ivanpah is the largest concentrated solar power plant in the world. It was unveiled in February with great fanfare. The U.S. Secretary of Energy, justified taxpayers' investment at the time, saying, "We want to be technology leaders. It's good for our economy and it's also good for helping stimulate the global transition to low carbon."

But since then the plant has not lived up to its clean energy promise. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the plant produced only about a quarter of the power it's supposed to, a disappointing 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity from January through August, not the million megawatt-hours promised.

A NRG spokesman blamed the weather, saying the sun didn't shine as often as years of studies predicted. However by the four-year mark, NRG has "every confidence that the plant will function as anticipated for the life of the facility," according to the company.

•I must admit, I usually avoid watching MSNBC and CNN. Their liberal bias is as intolerable as is the KC Star. But I made an exception on Election Night last week. What a bunch of sourpusses!

That was a fun evening. Thanks, liberals!

•Do you remember how it seemed like all of a sudden, leading-up to the mid-term elections of course, everyone was talking about sexual assault of women and how out of control the problem was?

If I recall correctly, Missouri Democrat U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill started the ball rolling with an initiative to look into sexual assault in the military. Then she moved into looking at sexual assault on college campuses. That rolled nicely into the seeming epidemic of domestic assault cases in the NFL, with egregiously under-punished perpetrating NFL players adding to the mix.

Magically, this all played right into the War on Women meme the Democrats tried to raise against the Republicans. It got to the point that in the final weeks leading up to Election Day, the NFL started running ads showing players making pleas on commercials to stop looking the other way regarding sexual assault and domestic violence.

You notice that these worked-out as convenient campaign commercials that did not meet legal requirements for typical political ads with disclaimers and equal time for opposing views? Then again, who would oppose stopping sexual assault and domestic violence?

It was quite a clever maneuver aimed at getting campaign ads broadcast to support a Democrat cause but it didn't make any difference in the end. Democrats still lost.

Did they think voters would believe that Republicans were in favor of sexual assault and domestic violence?

•And who in the world appointed Claire McCaskill as the expert on Kansas politics that she would be the one to convince the Democrat chosen by voters in the primary in Kansas to represent the party in the General Election? Last time I checked my history, McCaskill was a Missouri politician through-and-through. Why was she the voice of Kansas Democrats?

Oh well, she lost there too.

•I took-in the blockbuster movie Interstellar last weekend. It was well-worth the time and money if you like science and special effects in movies. But don't expect to come out with all the inevitable raised questions answered, because you will be disappointed. Also, be ready to be angered by Hollywood liberal bias, though that part of it could have been a lot worse.

Amusing to see the media liberals saying that the election results are evidence that Republicans need to compromise with Obama in the coming term. Funny, but didn't Democrats lose in the election pretty soundly? If we are to ascribe a meaning to the election results it would have to be that we ought not compromise with Obama. As voiced by an alert caller into Rush Limbaugh's show last week, if voters wanted compromise with Obama they would have elected Democrats.

It's really that simple.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE ONLY POLL THAT MATTERS IS ON ELECTION DAY
11/5/14

•If you haven't been paying attention on Twitter, Obama's favorite HBO actor and supporter, Lena Dunham is at the center of a firestorm after release of her new book.

Ben Shapiro penned an excellent piece at www.truthrevolt.org which summarized the issue.

Lena Dunham Threatens To Sue Truth Revolt for Quoting Her
“On Saturday, HBO's Lena Dunham sent a 'cease and desist' letter to TruthRevolt demanding that we remove an article we posted last Wednesday on sections of her book, Not That Kind of Girl. The letter threatened legal action if we did not both remove that article, as well as print a(n) [apologetic] note…”

Truth Revolt refused the request to apologize. They refused because they believe that they simply quoted Dunham's book, which included graphic descriptions that I will not go into of the then 7 year old's attempts at sexual exploration of her 1 year old sister.

Liberal weblog Salon.com leapt desperately to Dunham's defense, saying in a piece by Mary Elizabeth Williams, “Yet however confusingly written Dunham's memories are, the essence of them does not reveal anything sexually abusive. For a child to touch another child's genitals is not automatically abusive. And what the overheated reaction reveals is that the people pointing fingers at Dunham probably have very little practical experience with children and babies.”

Wow! That's a real shot-in-the-arm for the young HBO “star” that once equated in an ad for Obama's election the two painfully obtuse actions of: first-time sexual intercourse and voting in your first Presidential election.

However this plays out, Dunham has been cancelling her book tour events in Europe, no less! This isn't playing well for her, and in reality it shouldn't. What if this was an outspoken young male that related how he explored his 1 yr. old sister? Would Dunham and the other liberals be as understanding as they are asking us to be?

•NEXT…Further proof that it is time to repeal the Clean Air Act…

The AP reports that Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia must pay the U.S. government a $100 million penalty to end a two-year investigation into overstated gas mileage claims on their cars.

The government says the civil penalty is the largest for a Clean Air Act violation in U.S. history.
The discrepancy was discovered after the EPA got complaints about lower-than-advertised mileage on Hyundai's Elantra compact. Audits discovered overstated mileage on the Elantra and other models from 2011 into 2013.

Hyundai says it made honest mistakes in interpreting complex EPA mileage test requirements. Neither company admitted liability and both maintain they complied with the law.

Generally mileage was overstated by one or two miles per gallon on 13 vehicles. But one vehicle's highway mileage was 6 mpg higher than the EPA tested.

Federal ove reach anyone? What business does the EPA have in fining a company $100 million over cars that get 34-39 mpg when 40 mpg is indicated on the sticker?

That's ridiculous!

•I must admit it's been enjoyable watching all these pollsters and pundits crawling all over themselves to report the latest phone poll of 863 likely voters estimating the political preferences of tens of thousands of people when they actually have no idea what the mindset of those people is going to be on Election Day. The only poll that matters is the one that occurs on Election Day. It is never wrong.

•I have to admit that I am intrigued by the upcoming movie, Interstellar.

I love sci-fi movies, especially ones that try and accurately represent the reality of science and man's position in it.

Interstellar seems to be that kind of movie, though I am cautioned by the previews that seem to indicate that global warming has destroyed the planet Earth and we have to find a way off of it to save mankind.

Sheesh!

I was amused by a recent interview that appeared in UK's The Guardian in which one of the movie's stars, Michael Caine, said in response to a question about what he was doing to reduce his carbon footprint, “Asked if he was taking measures to try reduce his own ecological footprint, Caine jokingly protested that he was still making up for a frugal youth. 'I was so poor for so long. I didn't use anything or eat very much so I figured the world owed me a debt. Now I've been eating very well and have had a big car for a long time.'”

•RIP to the unfortunately tortured and desperate young lady, Brittany Maynard, who hired a doctor in Oregon to administer death-causing drugs to her to forestall natural death due to a malignant brain cancer. I feel for her family who lost a wife and daughter.

But, she went to great efforts in this grim process to advocate for getting the assisted suicide law nationally enacted, and that effort should be opposed at every turn.

Life is a gift. It's not just a gift when we are healthy and happy. It's also a gift when we are hurting or suffering – even to terminal degrees. Just as wellness and satisfaction during life don't earn any extensions to our limited time on the ethereal plane, time spent in pain and suffering do not allow for returning the gift to the sender.

The failure to be addressed when humans choose death in such circumstances is not advancing suicide laws but in improving our technology in managing and treating pain.

 


DOUBLE-SPEAK BY
DEMOCRATS MAKES
IT SO EASY

10/29/14

•Did you catch what Hillary Clinton said last week?

“Don't let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs.”
Just like President Obama's “…you didn't build that…” comments from a couple of years ago during the campaign for re-election, Hillary's blast set tongues wagging.

In a damage control effort, she said on Monday, “I shorthanded this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear…Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up. … Not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Talk about double-speak! So she says businesses don't create jobs then she says they do?

•Breitbart.com is reporting on an article set to appear in the Electoral Studies journal, which looks into fraudulent voting by non-citizens and how those votes can actually swing an election in a close race.

The study says the vast majority of non-citizens don't vote, but the number that do is enough to change the outcome of tight races.

It is estimated 6% of non-citizens voted in the 2008 election, and while that percentage is small, it was large enough to plausibly account for Democrat victories in a few close elections.
The study looked specifically at the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota, in which Republican incumbent Norm Coleman was ousted by Democrat Al Franken after a contentious and controversial recount, in which Franken was deemed the winner by about 300 votes.

Considering Franken was the 60th vote needed to pass Obamacare through the Senate, it's logical to assume non-citizen fraudulent votes for Franken in 2008 ultimately led to the passage of Obamacare in 2009.

There has always been isolated and anecdotal evidence of voter fraud. It was recently estimated that voter fraud could impact more than 1,000,000 votes nationwide. Democrats have even been caught encouraging voter fraud, in an obvious attempt to sway election results their way.

Former Bill Clinton lackey Donna Brazile said recently on Twitter, “There is no real concrete evidence of voter fraud…It's a big ass lie.”

James O'Keefe, the filmmaker who brought down ACORN in 2010 disagrees. He released new undercover footage raising issue with ballot integrity in Colorado. When O'Keefe raised the issue of filling out some of the unused ballots that are mailed to every household in the state this month, he was told by Meredith Hicks, the director of Work for Progress, a liberal group, “That is not even like lying or something, if someone throws out a ballot, like if you want to fill it out you should do it.”

He also has a conversation with Greenpeace employee Christina Topping, and suggests he might have access to unused ballots from people who have recently moved out of college fraternity houses. “I mean it is putting the votes to good use,” she responds. “So really, truly, like yeah, that is awesome.”

Colorado secretary of state Scott Gessler, has warned that a new state law that automatically mails a ballot to everyone is an avenue for fraud. Little can stop someone who collects discarded ballots from trash cans, fills out the ballots, and mails them in. Election workers are supposed to compare signatures on registration records with signed ballots. But if a person has a “witness” who signs the ballot on the witness line, then the signatures do not have to match and the vote is counted.

Donna Brazile quickly backtracked on her comments about voter fraud when O'Keefe challenged her, with, “Anyone caught stuffing ballot boxes, pretending to be someone else when voting or denying eligible citizens from voting, should be arrested.”

So are voter fraud claims “a big ass lie” or a real problem requiring offenders be “arrested?”

Democrats make it soooo easy! Check-out John Fund's excellent piece on this at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390893/james-okeefe-strikes-again-john-fund

•Friday, Oct. 24 marked nine years since Hurricane Wilma made landfall in southwest Florida, and that represents a record hurricane-free streak for the state.

This is the longest stretch on record dating to 1851 that no hurricanes have made landfall in the state, which is impressive, considering the coastline of Florida spans from the Gulf Coast to the Atlantic Ocean.

•CNN's Carol Costello is under fire for telling her viewers that Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol's recent alleged assault (she claimed she was pushed to the ground by an adult male and dragged around by her feet) was, “…quite possibly the best minute and half of audio we've come across in a long long time…”

But Costello was quite outspoken when Ray Rice was under fire for hitting his then-fiancé, especially calling out ESPN's Stephen A. Smith for suggesting that women can do things to avoid getting hit by their male acquaintances. Costello said of that situation after Smith apologized on-air, ““It is nice that Smith apologized, but I wonder if ESPN will do what it ought to do: Suspend Smith.”

So CNN, if this same person that called for Smith to be suspended also considered a young girl being knocked to the ground and dragged around by her feet the “…best minute and a half of audio…” should not this person apologize on-air and also be suspended?

We're waiting….

Twitter @bkparallax

 


 

GRAYSON CALLED FOR
EBOLA TRAVEL BAN
IN JULY

10/22/14

•Remember Alan Grayson? He was the Florida US house member that declared to Chris Matthews on MSNBC several years ago that former Vice President Dick Cheney, “…sometimes (I have trouble hearing him) because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he's talking…”
Well, on July 29 Rep. Grayson became the first member of Congress to formally call on the Obama administration to ban travel from the three countries in West Africa experiencing Ebola outbreaks.

In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson dated July 29, Grayson stated, "I write to request the imposition of a travel ban on the citizens of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, and any foreign person who has visited one of these nations 90 days prior to arriving in the United States."

Both the State Department and Homeland Security ignored his request. Instead, on August 15, Homeland Security's United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) announced the implementation of a new policy, "Ebola Outbreak-related Immigration Relief Measures to Nationals of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone Currently in the United States," that made it easier for citizens of these countries with visas to extend their stay in the United States.

The USCIS stated it would begin expedited processing of immigrant petitions for immediate relatives (currently in the United States) of U.S. citizens who were living in or citizens of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, the three countries in West Africa experiencing outbreaks of Ebola.
The Department of Homeland Security has thus far refused to provide any data on the number of visas it has issued to citizens of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea in 2014.

On October 5, the Washington Post reported that Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian citizen who became patient zero in the transport of Ebola to the United States and died at Texas Presbyterian Hospital on October 8, had hoped to obtain a visa in June to attend his son's graduation from a Dallas high school.

Instead, Duncan obtained a visa in September, more than a month after Grayson first requested a travel ban. Duncan arrived in the United States on September 20, after first taking a flight from Monrovia, Liberia to Belgium, then flying from Belgium to Dulles Airport before terminating his trip in Dallas.

In an October 8 letter to President Obama, twenty-three Republican and three Democratic members of the House, including Grayson, called on the President to institute a travel ban.

"We ask the State Department to impose a travel ban and restrict travel visas issued to citizens of the West African countries experiencing this epidemic, until such countries have defeated the epidemic…Such a ban should be instituted by suspending earlier-issued visas until further notice, halting the issue of such visas, and denying entry to the nationals of such countries upon presentation of a passport from those countries at our ports of entry. We note, that Congressman Grayson made this request to your administration in July, and that 27 African countries already have taken such action to protect their own citizens, but the United States inexplicably has not."
Representatives Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Dave Loebsack (D-IA) were the only House Democrats to join Grayson as signators on the letter.

WOW!

•From the magazine, Scientific American, we learn that the US Department of Defense thinks global warming is a national security crisis.

The Pentagon released a landmark report declaring climate change an "immediate risk" to national security and outlining how it intends to protect bases, prepare for humanitarian disasters and plan for global conflicts.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel unveiled the plan at the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas in Peru, where he said defense leaders "must be part of this global discussion" on climate change. Militaries, he added, "must be clear-eyed about the security threats presented by climate change, and we must be pro-active in addressing them."

Hagel, you'll recall, led an effort to kill the 1997 Kyoto Protocol when he served in the U.S. Senate; so much for consistency. The deal is expected to be signed in Paris at the end of 2015, and leaders hope to see a draft emerge at the Lima climate talks in December.

"Climate change is a 'threat multiplier' because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today—from infectious disease to armed insurgencies—and to produce new challenges in the future," he said.

So this is why Obama wants to bring all the Ebola victims to the United States – so he can push for carbon taxes to fight the imaginary climate change dragon!

Unbelievable!

•I don't have the space left to properly address this, but please go to the following link and read this woman's account of how same-gender marriage has affected her and her children.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13692/

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THERE REALLY IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS
10/15/14

•This item should tie you in knots.

From CNSNews.com, public outcry forced a delay in implementing a new state policy allowing transgender high school students taking sex hormones in Minnesota to play sports, use locker rooms and share hotel rooms with students of their chosen gender identity.

The draft of the Minnesota State High School League's (MSHSL) policy proposal states that male-to-female transgender students can play on girls' teams if they are currently on testosterone suppressants.

Similarly, female-to-male transgendered students can play on boys' teams if they are taking testosterone. Transgender students would also be allowed to use locker, shower and toilet facilities and be assigned hotel rooms in accordance with their chosen gender identity.

However, the Minnesota Child Protection League (MCPL) ran a full-page ad in Minnesota's largest newspaper warning that high school boys would be allowed to shower in the girls' locker room, and an email campaign led by the Minnesota Catholic Conference (MCC) and the Minnesota Family Council (MFC) mobilized to inform the public about the changes.

On October 2, the 19-member board unanimously decided to postpone a vote on the transgender policy after a contentious two-hour public hearing.

“After receiving what the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) Board revealed to be over 10,000 emails and then listening to public testimony yesterday overwhelmingly opposed to their proposed transgender policy for student athletics, the Board voted today to table the policy for further consideration at their December 4 meeting,” the MFC said in a press release.

The MCC organized the emailing campaign to stop implementation of the policy, noting that it prioritizes the privacy of transgender students by providing them special accommodations while disregarding the privacy rights of those who may feel uncomfortable changing or showering with a student who is biologically the opposite gender.

The group also cited worries that allowing male-to-female students to play on a girls' team would be an unfair advantage, and said that the new policy would ultimately be harmful to teens because it “relies upon a contested view of gender identity confusion that could do students struggling with their gender more harm than good.”

I am legitimately shocked that the MFC heeded the concerns of parents. Note to the rest of us – there really is strength in numbers.

•From UPI (that's United Press International), the global warming nuts finally admit that sea ice is growing, which a logical person would believe indicates that there is no global warming.

Not so fast my friend!

The UPI headline: “Antarctic sea ice shows record growth, climate change likely cause.” The article claimed the growth of sea ice is not evidence against the effects of climate change, but rather the consequence of it.

“A massive 19-mile crack across the Pine Island Glacier, a major ice stream that drains the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be causing the increase in sea ice.

NASA reported the ice measurements to be at 7.78 million square miles, a day after it exceeded the extent of 20 million square kilometers.

The growth of sea ice is not evidence against the effects of climate change but rather the consequence of it. This could be the result of the rapid melting of land ice which sends fresh water into the ocean making it freeze at higher decision. It could also be the result of changing wind patterns and other external factors.”

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS KILLING THE SECRET SERVICE
10/8/14

•Why aren't we stopping flights into the US from countries in Africa that are suffering Ebola outbreaks? Why aren't we stopping people at the borders of the country that have been to African countries? This isn't that hard to figure out.

•Ever hear of the Ogallala Aquifer? It's a massive underground water supply that has helped make Kansas one of the nation's top agricultural states.

Well, for decades politicians have been trying to scare the public into believing that farmers are going to deplete the water supply, and for those same decades, farmers have been using every bit of the water as they can acquire – for the purposes of growing food and making money.

The Kansas Legislature, with Gov. Brownback's strong support, allowed farmers to form groups that could require deep reductions in irrigation. The hope was that if enough Western Kansas farmers pared their water use by at least 20 percent, the aquifer's lifespan could be extended.
But two years later, only one group of 110 farmers, who own 99 square miles in Sheridan and Thomas counties near Colby, has formed.

Since 1945, politicians have been wailing that farmers have been depleting the Ogallala.

The aquifer, a shallow, underground sea under parts of eight states and spanning 174,000 square miles, is the main source of water in the western third of Kansas. Counties on top of the aquifer account for roughly two-thirds of the state's agricultural economic value.

Farmers were never going to cut their use of water without mandates because it could harm them economically in the short term.

While laws on the books could be used to force farmers to limit water, officials have been reluctant to take that path, believing such action to be heavy-handed.

Whatever the water levels, the Ogallala Aquifer, discovered in the 1890s, is still the largest underground water source in the U.S. It can be described as an underground egg carton made of silt and sand, with each of the egg "pockets" varying by depth. The depth of pools of water under farms near each other can vary greatly from 30 to 500 feet.

Despite all the scare-mongering by the environmental left, decades of it, the aquifer is still the largest underground water supply in the entire country. This should be a cautionary tale for the global warming nuts out there.

•Did you know that the Secret Service requires female agents to meet lower physical strength standards than male agents?

This is particularly relevant in the aftermath of the intruder that overpowered a female agent and entered the White House a few weeks ago.

The Secret Service has been under fire for failing to stop an armed man from jumping the White House fence and running through the president's home, and some critics have begun asking if political correctness is partly to blame for the extent of the security breach.

As the New York Times reported on Monday, the jumper, Omar Gonzalez, overpowered a female Secret Service agent inside the North Portico entrance of the White House and then ran past the stairway to the presidential living quarters and into the East Room where he was finally tackled by an off-duty agent. Without explanation, the Times deleted the word female from the opening paragraph of its story. The Washington Post similarly edited the word female out of its story.

According to the Secret Service, male recruits in their 20’s need to perform 11 chin-ups to receive an excellent rating; performing four chin-ups or fewer would disqualify him from serving as a Secret Service agent.

But for a female recruit in her 20’s, four chin-ups would earn her an excellent rating; just one chin-up is enough for her to avoid the disqualifying very poor rating.

A male recruit in his 20’s needs to perform 55 push-ups in one minute to receive an excellent rating, while a female recruit only needs to perform 40 push-ups to receive the same mark.

This is nuts. The purpose of the Secret Service is to protect our national leaders. There are times when an agent must wrestle a man armed with a knife or a gun to the ground. Men are better equipped to perform that function than women are. The physical standards should not be different.

•Congratulations to the Royals! 29 years has been a long drought, and to reward their loyal fans with four consecutive playoff wins is a welcome though unexpected surprise!

Here's to winning the AL and going to the World Series!!!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE
STYROFOAM
SALUTE

10/1/14

•I'm not sure anyone except for The American Thinker website caught this one when Obama had his “Latte Salute” controversy last week.

If you'll recall, President Obama returned the salute of two Marines as he exited Marine One last Monday with a Styrofoam cup in his right hand. Most folks complained about the lack of respect it showed for the Marines, which was a valid criticism.

What was most relevant though was it exhibited Obama and his fellow environmental zealots' green hypocrisy.

If you don't remember, Styrofoam is considered evil by Obama's green base. The extremely thermally efficient material keep's hot things hot and cold things cold. But it is made using CFC's, which Greenies think destroys the Ozone Layer.

Thus, using a Styrofoam cup is another example of Obama's failure to “lead by example” that he touted when he signed his “GreenGov” executive order in 2009. According to the “GoGreen Collaborative and Challenge” in “federal and military service” promoted on the White House website:

Nice catch American Thinker!

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/obamas_green_machine_ignores_his_styrofoam_slipup.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz3ER2dF93g

•Remember when I explained how the 97% claim that the Left is always chanting pertaining to global warming is actually more like 0.33%?

Well, Axel Bojanowski, an educated geologist, presented an article recently explaining how the once highly ballyhooed “97% consensus” claim is in fact deceptive and “a half-truth.”

Last year scientists led by John Cook of the University of Queensland published in the journal Environmental Research Letters a study showing that more than 97% of scientists claim global warming is man-made. Bojanowski writes: “They [the scientists] had asked environmental activists at the Internet site 'Skeptical Science' to evaluate thousands of climate studies.”

On the results Bojanowski writes that “less than 1% of the studies expressly disputed the impact by man. A good two thirds took no position on the topic – and so were not included.” I guess the squeaky wheel theorem has some legs after all.

No consensus to speak of at all.

Definitely look this one up – it'll be worth your time. http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/23/spiegel-writes-cooks-97-consensus-claims-are-deceiving-the-public-a-failed-call-to-action/#sthash.FQb37auc.R1a0p3Za.dpuf

•Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with Elle magazine recently that her child and grandchildren don't get how awful it would be to not have legal approval for killing their growing baby in the womb. When she's trying to say that protections for unborn children hurt poor women more than wealthy women since wealthy women can just pay the baby away, she lets her old eugenics slip show again:

“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

Granted Ginsburg has always been a huge supporter of abortion and the birth control and abortion rights movements have always had deep ties to eugenics, population control, and master race thought.

After all, five years ago, she said the following in a New York times interview:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.”

“Populations that we don't want to have too many of?”

Jonah Goldberg mentioned after this interview of the long-established fact of Margaret Sanger's racist eugenics along with Oliver Wendell Holmes' passion for “sterilizing imbeciles.” Goldberg noted that some more recent liberals have been outspoken about the need to encourage pregnant women to “get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster.” How about this chilling little snippet:

Yet nobody ever bats an eyebrow over her.

•A former waitress claimed recently that she received two sizable tips of $1000 from Rush Limbaugh on two separate occasions, but she decided to give the money away to a particular liberal cause just to spite him.

Merritt Tierce, who is now an author, refers to the generous tips she received from Limbaugh as “blood money” in her debut novel “Love Me Back.” Tierce said she donated most of the money to the TEA Fund, which is a charity that funds abortions for low-income women.

In a recent interview, she recalled on two separate occasions where Limbaugh and his friend Al Michaels had visited the restaurant and left the tips:
“It felt like laundering the money in a good way. He's such an obvious target for any feminist or sane person. It was really bizarre to me that he gave me $2,000, and he's evil incarnate in some ways.”

It's utterly staggering that someone could take such an incredibly generous gesture – especially in the midst of this raise the minimum wage nonsense - and then turn around and respond to someone in such a disgusting manner just out of spite and hate.

They like to say Limbaugh is a hate-monger, but this situation doesn't show that at all. The only hate-filled person is the waitress.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE ENVIRO MARCH
9/24/14

•Why are we sending more U.S troops to fight Ebola than we are to destroy ISIS who is busy cutting the heads off of US and British journalists while threatening the free world?

What kind of upside-down rabbit hole has the United States fallen into that protecting Africans from a disease caused by consumption of equatorial animals is more important than stopping the direct human threat to American lives in the form of thousands of other humans following a religion that directs them to cleanse the world of non-believers by sawing their heads off of their living bodies?!!

•I don't have the space to give this article its full read, but The Federalist's Sean Davis has been paying close attention to astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson – he of Obama/Bill Nye/Cosmos fame – and discovered that he's been caught in quite a number of quote fabrications – I call them lies.

Tyson apparently does not like Pres. Bush A.K.A. 43), claiming he once said, “Our God is the God who named the stars” in the wake of 9/11. According to Tyson, the president made that claim as a way of segregating radical Islam from religions like Christianity or Judaism.

However, Bush's representatives and speech writers recall that he never said any such thing. The closest anyone can come to a phrase uttered by Pres. Bush that is anywhere close to what Tyson claimed came after the Columbia shuttle disaster:

“In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.”

Read the entire article here, and follow it up because there are many more examples provided of Tyson's liberal use of the facts:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/

•From The Hill's Laura Barron-Lopez, we learned that the Obama administration plans to announce new key steps to phase out the production of the well-known chemical coolant R-134a used in refrigerators and air conditioners that has been “tied” to global warming.

The White House confirmed to The Hill that it plans to meet with some of the largest chemical firms and food retailers in the country on Tuesday to unveil the “voluntary” commitments that will target the coolant R-134a, a hydrofluorocarbon.

Commitments will also include the phase-out of similar compounds used in nearly every office, home and automobile in the U.S., according to The Washington Post.

Retailers, Coca-Cola and a number of environmental groups are expected to be at Tuesday's meeting, along with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy.

I thought Democrats were supposed to be committed to helping the poor? How are you helping the poor if you are taking away their only access to cheap refrigeration? Sorry Third World, I realize you need to store your food and medicines so they can be used safely when needed to support your life struggles, but we need to institute global socialism in the capitalist enclave of the United States, and we can't do that if you keep demanding cheap refrigerants.

Unbelievable!

•By the way, did you notice at last weekend's climate march in New York City featured high-profile environmentalists like: Leonardo DiCaprio and Jane Goodall. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (Vt. Socialist) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) hogged the limelight.
PJTV's Michelle Fields cornered Robert Kennedy Jr. to ask why he won't divest himself of technology yet he wants everyone else to. His answer was hilarious in its hypocrisy.

Check the video out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKWRRnS-BQ

She also cornered DiCaprio and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders about their hypocrisy and got a thug to muscle her out of Leo's path and Sanders attempt to take the “scientific” approach by denying that the temperature record shows that no warming has occurred for the last 18 years.

That one can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQxia_M-NkU&feature=youtu.be

The absolute best image coming out of the NYC Climate March was that of a huge climate balloon protesters purportedly filled with carbon (they called it their “carbon bubble”). After bouncing the 20-30 ft. diameter balloon down Wall Street, police determined that they needed to stop the potential hazards to city traffic and seized the balloon and popped it on the horns of the symbolic Wall Street bronze bull's horns.

Now THAT'S magnificent irony!

You can catch the image here – I'm thinking of putting that on a T-shirt.

http://twitter.com/adamgabbatt/status/514079804409511936/photo/1

•Quote of the week from Milton Friedman: “Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless.”

(Reach Brian via email at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANOES
9/17/14

Have you been monitoring all the anti-fracking nonsense trying to blame earthquakes in Oklahoma on fracking?

Look at how the bias bleeds through this account from UncoverCalifornia.com…

“Oklahoma suffered at least seven earthquakes in the past couple of days and the most severe quake was of a magnitude of 4.3 near Langston, the U. S. Geological Survey reported....”

Suffered? I think an anthill or two might have been annoyed. Suffered?

How do they know fracking is responsible?

Reason.com's Nick Gillespie wrote about it recently.

A 2012 report from the Department of Interior using US Geological Survey (USGS) states:

“USGS's studies do not suggest that hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as 'fracking,' causes the increased rate of earthquakes…. USGS's scientists have found, however, that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells.”

Fracking may cause rumbling in areas when the water used in it is disposed of, but there is no established link to the increase in the sorts of serious earthquakes people fear.

Earlier this year after a 4.4 earthquake in Los Angeles, even lib-mag Mother Jones asked Andrew Grinberg of Clean Water Action about that quake's connection to fracking. "We are not saying that this quake is a result of an injection" of wastewater, Grinberg admitted.

Given the bias against fracking, an old technique, once-beloved by environmentalists, and used to decrease greenhouse-gas emissions (see below about carbon sequestration), expect fracking to be blamed whether evidence exists or not.

Seismic models are used to show that fluid migration from fracking wastewater disposal wells in Oklahoma is potentially responsible for the largest swarm.

Potentially responsible? I'm potentially responsible for a volcanic eruption under Kansas. Prove that I didn't cause it.

•And someone explain to me why fracking wastewater ejection, which occurs at depths of only about 2000 feet below the earth's surface, is the cause of earthquakes and must be stopped, but carbon sequestration projects that greenies love, which occurs at much greater depths, 4 times deeper, has no role and can continue?

In Enid, Oklahoma, Koch Industries owns a carbon dioxide sequestration operation that injects nearly three-quarters of a million tons of carbon dioxide per year down as deep as 9,400 feet.

The Koch Nitrogen Company facility in Enid is one of the largest fertilizer production plants in North America, producing ammonia, liquid fertilizer and Urea. The plant was built in 1974 and purchased by Koch Nitrogen in 2003.

Nitrogen fertilizer production results in a high concentration carbon dioxide off-gas that is dehydrated, compressed and transported from the Enid plant to depleted oil fields in southern Oklahoma for enhanced oil recovery purposes (carbon sequestration used to do fracking!).

Funny that nobody complains about carbon sequestration causing earthquakes.

•Seismologists say another Icelandic volcano is about to blow!

Iceland's rumbling volcano, called Bardarbunga sits on the country's largest glacier.

Remember back in 2010, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, which melted through 200 meters of glacier, sent more than 200 million cubic meters of fine ash billowing almost 10 kilometers into the sky. As a result, several European countries were forced to ground or re-route thousands of flights.

This time the threat of an eruption – potentially even more powerful – is posed by Bardarbunga, the biggest of Iceland's 30 or so volcanic systems.

Scientists are taking the latest rumblings seriously: roughly 8000 years ago, the volcano let rip with the largest eruption of the past 10,000 years.

A recent inspection flight over the glacier found two depressions up to 35 meters deep, caused by the melting and collapse of removed ice. One of the concerns is melting of large volumes of ice and the rapid release of this melt-water forming floods.

All volcanoes are the surface expression of magma "plumbing" systems that sit deep in the crust. Think of the earth having a zit! In the case of Eyjafjallajökull, and now Bardarbunga, magma originating from the Earth's mantle gets stored in chambers within the crust.

Pressure builds as more magma enters the system, resulting in earthquakes and fracturing of the crust. Eventually, the pressure becomes too great and magma is erupted.

Most volcanoes are confined to zones along boundaries between crustal plates and are closely associated with earthquakes – hmmm, not fracking? Earthquakes, meanwhile, often occur at around the same time – even thousands of kilometers apart.

Earthquakes and volcanoes occur in irregular cycles. They do not relate to tides or seasons – or anything else. And yet large earthquakes often come in clusters lasting for days or weeks.

In recent weeks, thousands of earthquakes – some greater than five on the Richter scale – have occurred in the vicinity of Iceland's Bardarbunga. These earthquake swarms tell researchers much about how magma is moving in the crust.

The immense earth-moving forces that shape the continents are as active today as they were 4.5 billion years ago.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


IT'S HARD FOR US TO TAKE JOHN KERRY SERIOUSLY
9/10/14

John Kerry last week said that scripture commands the U.S.A. to protect Muslim countries against global warming.

Can we really be expected to take the Secretary of State of the most powerful country in the free world seriously when he says something like this?

From the great website, Climate Depot.com, we read that Sec. Kerry said it was the United States' Biblical "responsibility" to "confront climate change," including to protect "vulnerable Muslim majority counties."

Kerry said Scripture, in particular the Book of Genesis, makes clear it is our "duty" to protect the planet and we should look at Muslim countries "with a sense of stewardship of earth," adding, "That responsibility comes from God."

What in the world does the changing of climate on the planet have to do with the affairs of the U.S. State Department? What's next – NASA engaging in Muslim outreach…wait a minute…!

•Can anyone answer the question why the NFL needed to see the video of Ray Rice knocking out his fiancée before they gave him the boot out of the league? Didn't he admit to hitting her before when he got the original 2 game suspension?

•Palo Alto, California's electric supply is (supposedly) 100 percent carbon-neutral, well, sort of.
Palo Alto is one of the most wealthy and affluent municipalities in America. The town of 65,000 boasts it is officially the first city in America whose electricity supply is 100 percent carbon-neutral.
Now, to be accurate, there's a big difference between “carbon-neutral” and “carbon-free.”

They most certainly do use carbon and generate carbon emissions.

Palo Alto is the only town in California that runs its own utility. Its electricity isn't provided by PG&E, the for-profit utility that serves much of Northern California.

Palo Alto owns 25 percent of a huge hydroelectric generating facility in Calaveras County. Combined with other contracts from hydroelectric producers, about half of their energy comes from the plant.

Also, citizens of Palo Alto have been planting solar panels on their homes and businesses. That accounts for a couple percentage points of the city's 180-megawatt peak load.

They also purchase wind power from the High Winds and Shiloh wind farms in Solano County; about 12 percent of the town's electricity. 8 percent came from biomass and plants that burn gas from landfills (which generates carbon but is considered “renewable” because the gas is released by decomposing garbage).

All of that extremely inefficient energy generation accounts for only about 60 percent of Palo Alto's electricity needs, leaving 39 percent of the town's electricity to come from plants that burn coal or natural gas.

So, they engage in creative accounting. In California, entities that operate renewable energy receive renewable energy certificates, or RECs, which they sell. For each megawatt of coal or natural gas used, they buy one REC. RECs are cheap, about $1.20 per megawatt. Palo Alto spent a little more than $400,000 on RECs to offset its purchase of electricity derived from fossil fuels.

Liberals are just plain nuts!

•To end on a positive note for a change, I came across these quotes from the 20th Century's greatest president:

“It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man. When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.”

“Wealth comes from industry and from the hard experience of human toil. To dissipate it in waste and extravagance is disloyalty to humanity.”

“Both men and nations should live in accordance with their means and devote their substance not only to productive industry, but to the creation of the various forms of beauty and the pursuit of culture which give adornments to the art of life.”

“The words of the President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately.”

”It was my desire to maintain about the White House as far as possible an attitude of simplicity and not engage in anything that had an air of pretentious display. That was my conception of the great office. It carries sufficient power within itself, so that it does not require any of the outward trappings of pomp and splendor for the purpose of creating an impression. It has a dignity of its own which makes it self-sufficient. Of course, there should be proper formality, and personal relations should be conducted at all times with decorum and dignity, and in accordance with the best traditions of polite society. But there is no need of theatricals.”

“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.”

[On why he chose not to run for another term] “We draw our Presidents from the people. It is a wholesome thing for them to return to the people. I came from them. I wish to be one of them again.”

Author – Calvin Coolidge

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


COAL IS WINNING THE ENERGY BATTLE
9/3/14

•Coal is winning the energy battle. From the superb www.WattsUpWithThat.com, Anthony Watts posted an essay by Mike Jonas that mentioned the climate impacts of the world's fossil-fuelled power plants are being underestimated because of poor accounting.

Climate crybabies claim governments would get a better picture in their estimates if they included the lifetime emissions of a facility in the year it goes into production.

Climate cannot be “affected” until the CO2 enters the atmosphere. The article does have significance in that it exhibits increasing desperation by those trying to use climate alarmism to shut down the coal industry.

Obama declared war on coal in 2008, via this now infamous quote, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

A cap-and-trade tax system would be used to squeeze the life out of the coal industry. When attempts to introduce cap-and-trade failed, EPA regulations were used instead. Within the USA, there were some successes in Obama's war against coal, as some coal companies folded and US coal production fell.

But global demand for coal continued unabated. Other countries filled the production gap, and global coal production grew steadily.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects coal production to keep rising: “Coal use has never stopped increasing and the forecasts indicate that, unless a dramatic policy action occurs, this trend will continue in the future."

The simple fact is that in spite of Obama's and the climate alarmists' best efforts, coal production and consumption continue to increase globally, and are expected to continue increasing.

All the wasted government intervention trying to kick us off of coal has in fact done nothing. Coal is winning.

•Tax inversion schemes? Since when is it a bad thing to seek to pay less in taxes? Burger King moving to Canada is a good thing. (From Warner Todd Houston's blog.)

Liberals were angered with news that fast food giant Burger King may move its headquarters to Canada if it buys out the Canadian fast food chain Tim Hortons. They're mad that BK is doing this to skip out on paying America's confiscatory taxes. Good for Burger King!

The accusation Burger King is facing from America's capitalism-hating lefties is that by taking over Tim Hortons and moving its headquarters to Canada, Burger King is skipping out on its “patriotic duty” to pay the American corporate tax rate–which happens to be the highest tax rate in the industrialized, western world.

It is a crime that Canada has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States. What in the name of Adam Smith is going on when socialist Canada has lower taxes and a better business climate than the country famously built on capitalism?

Is there any more evidence needed that the left in the US is truly against every American principle? The left is attacking Burger King for trying to take advantage of a thing called “tax inversion.”
No one should be shamed for trying to starve the US government of tax money. At this point, Washington so abuses its authority to tax, perpetrates so much fraud and waste in the expenditure, and has ranged so far away from legal, constitutional spending that it shouldn't surprise anyone if many people might refuse to pay taxes.

Remember back in May when billionaire Warren Buffett blasted the very corporate “tax inversion” schemes his firm Berkshire Hathaway is about to finance as part of Burger King relocating its headquarters to Canada to lower its tax burden?

CNBC's Joe Kernan cornered the hypocritical Buffett, “Why do you make a distinction between that [investing in wind farms to score tax credits] and what some of the U.S. companies are doing when it comes to an inversion?”

Warren Buffett: “Well, I think they can do it with an inversion if they want. I think that is one that's likely to get—I'm not saying they're doing anything illegal at all in following the rules on inversion. I would personally change that part of the law.”

A tax inversion is when a company acquires a foreign company and then relocates its headquarters in the foreign company to pay a lower tax rate.

In the CNBC interview, Buffett also said he is happy to pay higher tax rates.

“We do not feel that we are unduly burdened by federal income taxes,” said Buffett. “But it does get a little annoying to us when we see other people paying far lower tax rates while engaging in the same sort of business that we engage in.”

Buffett added: “But Berkshire operated under 52 percent tax rates and 48 percent tax rates, and we make a lot of money under U.S. tax rates.”

News of Buffett's investment in Burger King has sparked American ire and charges of hypocrisy, as the “Oracle of Omaha” was a strong backer of President Barack Obama and a vocal critic blasting citizens for not paying their “fair share” in taxes.

Similarly, Obama has said corporate tax inversions are akin to American companies “renouncing their U.S. citizenship.”

Obama added, “You know some people are calling these companies ‘corporate deserters.'”

Unbelievable!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


CAN WE STOP WITH THE ICE BUCKET CHALLENGES?
8/27/14

•Can we stop with the ice bucket challenges?

From the AP. In Campbellsville, Kentucky two firefighters in a fire truck bucket were seriously injured when they got too close to a power line after helping college students take part in an ice bucket challenge Thursday.

The firefighters had just finished dousing cold water on the Campbellsville University marching band when they were shocked by electricity. One was in critical condition and the other was stable.

Two other firefighters on the main part of the truck were shocked when the bucket was being lowered. They have been treated and released.

No students were hurt.

Power was knocked out for about an hour to 4,500 customers, including the school, said a spokeswoman for Kentucky Utilities, which owns the line. The Public Service Commission will investigate whether the line had the correct clearance from the ground, trees and structures, said Andrew Melnykovich, a spokesman for the state Public Service Commission.

The ice bucket challenge has been sweeping social media websites. The ALS Association said it has raised more than $41 million through the effort.

I'm all in favor of creative ideas to urge people to give to worthy causes, but the ice bucket challenge is getting a bit out of hand.

•That nasty Mother Nature is at it again! Iceland's Bardarbunga volcano began erupting Saturday under the country's largest glacier after a week of seismic activity rattled the area with thousands of earthquakes.

The eruption prompted Iceland to raise its aviation alert level to red — the highest level on a five-point scale — indicating the threat of "significant emission of ash into the atmosphere."

Seismic data indicates that magma from the volcano is melting ice beneath the Dyngjujokull icecap on the Vatnajokull glacier.

The remote area, 200 miles East of the capital of Reykjavik, is uninhabited.

It was not clear when, or if, the eruption would melt through the ice — which is between 100 and 400 meters thick — and send steam and ash into the air. She said it could take up to a day for the ice to melt — or the eruption might remain contained beneath Europe's largest glacier.

Icelandic authorities on Saturday declared a no-fly zone of 100 nautical miles by 140 nautical miles around the eruption, but did not shut the country's airspace.

If you will recall, a 2010 eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokul volcano produced an ash cloud that caused a week of international aviation chaos, with more than 100,000 flights cancelled.

•I'm sure you have heard of some of the criticisms of the ice bucket challenges other than the one I mentioned above. But do you remember the embryonic stem cell issue?

Donated funds typically go to the ALS Association, the group that does a good job advocating for people suffering from the paralyzing, incurable and ultimately fatal neurological disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which killed New York Yankees great Lou Gehrig and affects an estimated 30,000 Americans.

ALSA reports as of Aug. 22 that it received $53.3 million in donations since July 29 when celebrities and lots of other people began posting videos of themselves on Facebook getting doused in ice water. Last year the association raised $2.2 million. The big rush in donations has come not only from existing donors but from more than 1.1 million new donors.

Have you considered how the money is to be used? ALSA indicates on its website that it not only advocates embryonic stem cell research but is encouraging the Obama administration to reverse the current federal policy that restricts funding for the research. Today federal funds can only be used for research that utilizes embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 2001.

Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds do so because research should be pursued to treat or cure many serious conditions including ALS, but only where the process does not destroy human life.

With embryonic stem cells derived for research purposes by destroying the human embryo, that moral code is violated.

Stem cells from skin and other tissues donated by adults may be used ethically, and they have already led to therapeutic treatments and cures for scores of conditions and injuries. Stem cell research is proving to be effective without the ethical objections of embryonic stem cell research.
The ALS Association now says that its donors can stipulate where their money goes and can ask that donations not pay for embryonic stem cell research.

But does that really eliminate moral concerns? If I contribute to an organization that conducts helpful research to cure a dreaded disease but the company also engages in a morally unconscionable practice doing other work, am I really not contributing to it? Let's say the Nazis cured a disease in the research they did on exterminating Jews. Can one give them money and have them say, “None of this money will go toward killing even one Jew!”

You want to take the Ice Bucket Challenge? Go ahead, but give the money to some other organization – one that doesn't support creating humans for research purposes.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


JOHN KERRY THINKS 'CLIMATE CHANGE' IS OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM
8/20/14

•I have nothing to say about the Ferguson, Missouri situation or the NASCAR Tony Stewart accident either – and for identical reasons. Neither case has been fully investigated and until the authorities in each case complete their work, what anyone thinks outside of the immediately involved parties has nothing to add of importance.

•Did you know that John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, is talking climate change?
What does over-hyped junk science have to do with the matters of protecting American interests in foreign lands?

Nothing.

Secretary of State John Kerry left Sydney, Australia last week. During a brief stop in the Solomon Islands, Kerry called for global action on what he called, "the biggest challenge ... we face right now."

We have seen the establishment of a terrorist state across northern Iraq and Syria. Our ally Israel is under extreme siege by terrorists. A deadly Ebola outbreak in Africa nibbles at US shores. Political disease in U.S. border controls is reinforced by a tidal wave of illegal immigration. Russia is rampaging against Ukraine, and China is engaging in a massive military buildup to directly challenge the U.S. defense supremacy.

But Secretary Kerry thinks "climate change" is our biggest problem?

•Then there was this absolute disaster from one of my ancestral homelands…

Scientists say wind farms will create more global warming than they reduce.

The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils.

Wind farms are typically built on upland sites, where peat soil is common. In Scotland alone, two thirds of all planned onshore wind development is on peatland. England and Wales also have large numbers of current or proposed peatland wind farms.

But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe's equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities.

British peatland stores at least 3.2?billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country's most important carbon sink and (allegedly) among the most important in the world.

Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

•Scientists, Dr Jo Smith, Dr Dali Nayak and Prof Pete Smith, of Aberdeen University, say: “We contend that wind farms on peatlands will probably not reduce emissions …we suggest that the construction of wind farms on non-degraded peats should always be avoided.”

Dr Nayak told The Telegraph: “Our full paper is not yet published, but we should definitely be worried about this. If the peatland is already degraded, there is no problem. But if it is in good condition, we should avoid it.”

Another peat scientist, Richard Lindsay of the University of East London, said: “If we are concerned about CO2, we shouldn't be worrying first about the rainforests; we should be worrying about peatlands.

“The world's peatlands have four times the amount of carbon than all the world's rainforests.”

One typical large peat site just approved in southern Scotland, the Kilgallioch wind farm, includes 43 miles of roads and tracks. Peat only retains its carbon if it is moist, but the roads and tracks block the passage of water.

The wind industry insists that it increasingly builds “floating roads,” where rock is piled on a textile surface without disturbing the peat underneath.

So the promise of government subsidies drives the desire to qualify “harming” the environment.
In 2011 the Scottish government's nature protection body, Scottish Natural Heritage, said 67 per cent of planned onshore wind development in Scotland would be on peatland.

In 2008 Dr Smith, Dr Nayak and Prof Smith devised the standard “carbon payback time” calculator used by the wind farm industry to assess the CO2 impact of developments on peat soils.
They got paid to do that.

The researchers initially believed that well-managed and well-sited peatland wind farms could still cut greenhouse gas emissions, over time, compared to electricity generation overall.

But now they say that the shrinking use of fossil fuels in overall electricity generation has changed the equation, making the comparison less favorable to all peatland wind farms.

“Our previous work argued that most peatland sites could save on net [CO2] emissions,” they said. “But emissions factors are likely to drop significantly in the future.

"As a result, peatland sites would be less likely to generate a reduction in carbon emissions, even with careful management.”

The significance of the Aberdeen researchers' work is increased by the fact that they are funded by the Scottish government and are broadly pro-wind.

They wrote in a previous paper that “it is important that wind farm developments should not be discouraged unnecessarily because they are a key requirement for delivery of the Scottish government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The wind industry insisted that the impact of properly managed wind farms on peat and carbon emissions was minimal. Niall Stuart, director of Scottish Renewables, a trade association, said that damaged peatland could be restored in as little as a year.

Twitter @bkparallax

 


WHAT DOES
‘CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSERVATIVE’ MEAN?

8/13/14

I was originally going to go into a detailed but very interesting refutation of global warming hysteria using something as basic as the Ideal Gas Law, but thought it better to reproduce an excellent synopsis of Constitutional Conservatism which appeared in RedState.com Monday. It is edited here for brevity but can be read in its entirety at:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/bacyclone/2011/04/29/constitutional-conservative/

“What does 'Constitutional conservative' mean?

We are Americans. So for the Founding Fathers, individual liberty was not possible without private property rights. For the Founding Fathers, the only legitimate government was not only one that was instituted with the consent of the people, but one that would preserve and protect the individual's right to property. Jefferson talked about…'tyranny of the legislature.' So the consent of the governed is only part of it.

But the government never has the authority to be tyrannical; it never has the authority to seize your property illegitimately. Private property represents the individual's labor, your labor, your initiative, your industriousness, your ambition, and so forth. We all have an equal right, an unalienable right as they wrote in the Declaration to pursue happiness. That especially involves the pursuit of property and wealth – not that materialism makes you happy, the point was so you can at least subsist, but even more expand your wealth and improve your lifestyle and that of your family. We do not have a 'right' to equal results and outcomes. And this is the battle – we do not have a right to make demands on the labor and property and wealth of another individual, for that individual also has unalienable rights.

The purpose of government in the United States of America, according to the Founders is first and foremost to protect and preserve the individual's unalienable rights. These rights are God-given natural rights: no man, no government has the authority to deny them or destroy them. That is not to say that we as a community or society ought not look out for our fellow man…We did this through good works, through charity, through churches and synagogues, through volunteerism, through good acts all the time. Most of us do not mind being taxed at a rational level to help take care of those who are truly incapable of survival due to physical or mental disabilities. That is different than redistributing the wealth. That is different than 'spreading the wealth.'

Our Constitution is intended to protect us from a central government that would take advantage of us as individuals. It does not grant power to the federal government to violate our unalienable rights. It does not authorize the federal government to take the fruits of our labor, whether physical or intellectual, to 'spread the wealth' for 'economic justice' or anything of the sort. The Constitution does not empower anyone, especially the President of the United States, to take our labor, our property, our wealth from us and our families in order to equalize economic outcomes. I don't care what you are worth. To say that some person has a right to another person's labor simply because one person demands it, or because a politician thinks it can be put to better use…does not make it Constitutional nor does it make it moral, and it clearly violates the unalienable rights of the person who is being targeted. When the government seizes the power to take what you have earned with your own labor and put it to an illegitimate use, then government has power that is not recognized in the Declaration or the Constitution.

Since property rights are inextricably tied to an individual's liberty, the government is expanding its power not only over your labor, but over you, as a human being…This is exactly what you hear Obama saying in these speeches. He is claiming a power he does not have…the power to decide whose labor is to be protected by the government, and whose labor is to be seized by the government. Obama is saying that the government has the power to take whatever it needs from an individual, thereby punishing that individual and rewarding some other individual who has not earned it…This is said to be 'just;' this is said to be 'fair.' This is said to be 'compassionate,' yet it violates the individual's unalienable rights and the limits the Constitution places on the federal government.

The government identifies what's unequal, what program it wants to fund or create, what 'entitlement' it wants to create or expand, calls it a 'right' and then plunders individuals that it targets. You might think 'why do I care? Let me have my piece.' … Your children are also, under God granted unalienable rights, recognized by our Declaration. Your children, and their labor, and their motivation, and their ambition, and their industry, and who they want to be, and how they want to be, is also protected by the United States Constitution. If Obama…is successful,...you, your children...will not have the ability to be successful, to pursue opportunities, to improve their lifestyles, to take care of their families the way that you, your parents, and your grandparents have. This is fundamental…we need to get back to first principles. … What is an American? What is the American society? What is the American culture? It's completely…opposite of what you hear Obama saying day in and day out.”

– Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show

Boom!

 


THE RISE OF THE ELECTRIC CAR
8/6/14

•So far this year, roughly 55,000 plug-in and battery-electric vehicles have been sold in the United States. That is only 0.67 percent of the total 8.1 million vehicles sold in 2014.

Do those numbers justify the marketing dollars spent shoving electric cars down our throats? Not hardly.

Back in 2011, when the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf first came out, nobody cared. Now, the enviro-nuts will tell you that electric car sales since then have risen nearly fivefold.

So a 5-fold increase in the sales numbers only results in less than 1% of all US car sales this year?

Let's stop wasting valuable resources on already proven failed technologies.

•The great Ben Howe at redstate.com wrote recently that Obama's own stimulus predictions reveal the economy would have been better off without it. In Obama's Friday press conference, the “Um” conference, he launched into an “um” laden tirade about the obstructive Republicans that have “um” gotten in his way so often that the world is “um” now on fire as a result.

His attempt was a way of using the bully pulpit to remind Americans how awesome the Recovery Act was and that it is the reason for all of our wonderful employment which sits at 6.2%. This number ignores that there are 3.6 million fewer full-time jobs than there were in 2007 as well as the millions of workforce dropouts that have simply given up. Don't forget, he's got a new stimulus to hornswoggle us into funding because somehow after spending a trillion dollars, no roads or bridges have been fixed! Isn't that what taxes were collected for in the first place – roads and bridges?

They already have that money!

•For the record, to the global warming nuts, Death Valley, Calif., which is known for being the world's hottest location, had a high of a relatively chilly 89 degrees Sunday. More than 30 degrees below average, the previous record low-high of 104 was set in 1945.

This was only the 8th time a high in the 80s has occurred in Death Valley in July or August, and there hasn't been a high less than 90 since 1984. Weather records in Death Valley go back to 1911.

The average June high in Death Valley is 120 degrees, July is 124 degrees, and August is 122.
So there you go!

•According to the experts that crafted the stimulus, the economy would have done better had there been no stimulus bill in 2009. The predictions showed we should've been at 5% unemployment today, with or without the stimulus. So one can only assume their efforts actually impeded our ability to return to pre-recession employment.

I loved the summary and look back at the true effects on mankind of environmental activism by James H. Rust with the Heartland Institute. The media tends to greatly overlook the facts on this.
Environmentalists are enlisting minority groups such as blacks and hispanics to help them stop use of fossil fuels in the name of “environmental justice.” They claim minorities suffer more from health effects from fossil fuel use because they live closer to power plants. Thus we need to replace fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind. No thought is given to higher priced electricity from these energy sources and how this impacts minorities.

Using junk science, the environmental movement has over time called for banning use of the following products:

DDT for alleged weakening of bird eggshells. FACT: The ban of DDT has allowed the spread of malaria throughout Africa with hundreds of millions sickened and annual deaths estimated at over 600,000!

Genetic modified foods, such as corn and rice, must be banned for alleged health effects. FACT: There is no evidence genetic modified foods produce adverse health effects and their loss has led to food shortages and adverse health effects in Asia and Africa.

Nuclear power should be banned because it is unsafe and spreads nuclear weapons proliferation.

FACT: Nuclear power is demonstrated as one of the safest methods of electric power generation and its use extends the life of fossil fuels.

Greenpeace wants to ban chlorine. FACT: Chlorine is used to treat drinking water and a ban would put the earth in peril; millions would die annually.

Fossil fuel use should be banned because of health effects and catastrophic global warming caused by carbon dioxide from combustion. FACT: The world's vast supply of coal, oil, and natural gas allow cheap electricity for the whole planet with its life-saving benefits.

I would add to those: injury and death caused by catalytic converter fires as a result of the outlawing of leaded gas; the portion of the 40,000 annual deaths in automobile crashes caused by cars becoming lighter in weight as a direct result of CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards; and the monumental waste and junk science that has led to: banning incandescent light bulbs, limiting the amount of water used to flush away our poop, low-flow showers, bird-chopping windmills, and bird cooking solar collectors.

A June 29, 2014, article in Forbes “Electrify Africa and Save Hundreds of Millions of Lives” by Jude Clemente quantifies the tragedies of life living in Sub-Sahara Africa because of electricity shortages. One factor for shortages is that the environmental movement demands electricity generation be fossil-fuel free.

 

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


SECOND HIGHEST
COURT APPARENTLY
READS THE LAW

7/30/14

•A three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled Obamacare's subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges. If your state did not set-up an exchange--36 didn't--you aren't eligible for federal subsidies.

Obamacare's defenders responded saying it doesn't make any sense, and nobody who supported the law ever envisioned this. One of the law's architects, Jonathan Gruber, was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012.

Gruber, an MIT economist who helped design Romneycare, the Massachusetts model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law.

In 2011-12, Gruber told an audience that tax credits, the subsidies available for health insurance, were only available in states that set up their own exchanges.

Gruber said the reason they wrote the law that way was to “force” the states to set up for the state exchanges.

In Gruber's words:

“What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”

Now, of course, Gruber is running around claiming that the wording in the law is a “typo” and people should be able to get federal subsidies if they sign up on the federal exchange and their state has no state-level exchange.

Once again, his words, on MSNBC:

"It is unambiguous, this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states."

The second highest court in the land apparently reads the law.

•6 Apollo astronauts, 2 Skylab astronauts, and a pair of former directors of the Johnson Space Center all have indicated that the notion of man-caused global warming is nonsense.

These are among the 49 retired NASA employees who recently asked the space agency to halt what they consider its unscientific advocacy of climate alarmism.

From their letter:

"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."

The March 28th letter continued:

"We feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

The letter's signatories share at least 1,168 years of combined service to NASA.

So there you go! We have good company.

•Remember this one? A recent Wildlife Society survey estimated 1.4 million bats and birds are killed annually by wind turbines. In the past five years, wind farms have destroyed at least 67 eagles, mostly golden eagles.

There has been huge backlash from animal rights people and bird lovers over a controversial 2013 government rule exempting wind farms from prosecution for the unintentional deaths of bald and golden eagles, for up to three decades!

Bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in 2007, yet killing bald and golden eagles remains a felony punishable by a $250,000 fine and prison time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency in 2009 first instituted a permit system to allow exemptions from prosecution for five years for wind farms and certain other projects that inadvertently harm or kill eagles. Last year, it extended the duration of permits for the “non-purposeful take of eagles” to 30 years, responding to pressure from the wind industry to provide more certainty for investors.

“The industry suffers a lot from uncertainty about policy of all sorts, environmental as well as tax policy, and a variety of things like that,” said Dan Turner, an analyst with Windustry, a Minneapolis renewable energy advocacy group.

Estimates vary widely on the collateral damage to eagles, bats and birds that tangle with wind turbines. A recent Wildlife Society survey estimated 1.4 million bat and bird fatalities annually. In the past five years, wind farms have destroyed at least 67 eagles, mostly golden eagles.
But the American Wind Energy Association claims turbines account for less than 2 percent of reported golden eagle deaths, and even fewer deaths of bald eagles. The group calls lead poisoning, vehicles and power lines greater threats.

Big difference, if you “lead poison” an eagle (Translation: you shoot it purposefully or accidentally) or run it over, or even chop down a tree where the eagles are nesting, YOU are going to prison and will face huge fines! But not the windmill nuts!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE ALARMISTS
TEND TO VIEW PEOPLE
PRIMARILY AS POLLUTERS

7/23/14

The Heartland Institute hosted their 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas a couple of weeks ago. Some of the world's leading climate scientists and researchers discussed the current status of global warming science, and addressed questions like whether manmade global warming will harm plants, animals, or human welfare.

Specifically refuted was Obama's oft-repeated claim that 97 percent of scientists disagree with so-called global warming skeptics. Actually, as speakers noted, only 0.5 percent of the authors of 11,944 scientific papers on climate and related topics over the past 21 years have said they agree most of the warming since 1950 was manmade.

Also cited was the Remote Sensing Systems satellite record which shows there now has been no global warming for 17 years and 10 months.

Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society; you know, one of those experts that don't know what they're talking about when they call manmade global warming a hoax, explained how government research grants are promoting the false notion of an alarmist consensus. Massive government research grants are handed out almost uniformly to scientists who will promote the notion of a global warming crisis, which ensures more budgetary dollars for government agencies addressing the topic and subsequently more research grants for the participating scientists. Kind of self-serving, isn't it?

Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, showed that wind, solar, and other minimal power sources simply cannot meet the nation's energy demands. Wind and solar power require tremendous amounts of land to produce even a very small amount of electricity. Though they may serve as expensive renewable power on the fringe of the market, strategies that aim to shut down oil, coal, and natural gas power will not find enough replacement power to meet demand.

Dr. John Dunn, a medical doctor, attorney, and advisor for the American Council on Science and Health, debunked EPA assertions that restrictions on power plant emissions will save lives and benefit human health. Dunn documented that more humans die during winter months than during heat waves in the summer months. Addressing EPA claims that reductions in particulate matter and other emissions will save lives, Dunn showed that EPA's assertions are totally unsupported and defy voluminous health data.

One of the more salient summary observations from the conference was that climate alarmists tend to be radical environmentalists who view people primarily as polluters who consume Earth's resources and poison the planet in the process. These environuts never see free people as voluntarily serving as good stewards of natural resources. Through the manmade global warming alarm, activists have used governments to deny affordable and reliable energy and other modern blessings to the developing world.

Download lots of interesting stuff from the conference at www.heartland.org.

•In 1983, as the AIDS epidemic was raging, gays and bisexual men were banned from donating blood by the FDA. Now San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener has introduced a resolution to end the ban, and the city board is expected to approve it.

Yeah…I don't see that move ending particularly well.

Weiner said, “It's discriminatory, it has no basis in public health. All donated blood is heavily tested, and it's depriving our country of a lot of blood that could be donated to help save peoples' lives.”

Wiener, who is openly gay, acknowledged in 2011 that HIV/AIDS was still a major problem in San Francisco, saying, “We have a large and aging population of people living with HIV/AIDS. Until we minimize or eliminate new infections, we must focus on prevention. We can't keep letting our community, and particularly our young people, become positive. In addition, after 30 years of the epidemic, we have a large population of HIV-positive people in our community.”

The FDA reported in August 2013:

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.

Between 2008 and 2010, the estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations. The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years. Since younger individuals are more likely to donate blood, the implications of this increase in incidence need to be further evaluated. FDA's deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


GO SEE ‘AMERICA:
IMAGINE THE WORLD
WITHOUT HER’

7/16/14

•Ever engage a liberal on the issue of re-distribution of wealth when they grab a Bible to reinforce their arguments? They like to claim that Jesus said to give to the poor and cite stories like the parable of the likelihood of a rich man going to Heaven and those who are closer to God are those that give away most or all their acquired wealth.

But they are engaging in a very wrong interpretation of religion and charity.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus clearly communicates the importance of caring for the poor. But nowhere does He ask us to support giving government the power to FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO GIVE!

That's a very important distinction.

The good that comes from giving of yourself to benefit the poor – or just other people – you can give a rich old lady an escort across a busy street or help an old man change a tire on his Bentley, comes when you CHOOSE to conduct those acts. If someone – government namely, FORCES you to give via taxation you are essentially stealing private property from that person and giving it to someone else.

Painted in any color, theft is wrong.

•I caught Dinesh D'Souza's film, “America” recently and I think it was even better than his very successful, “2016.”

Brent Bozell and Tim Graham had a great piece on Media Research Center that compared the critical response to those films vs. how the media found a way to accept Michael Moore's propaganda films shrouded by a documentary burka. Some highlights follow.

“Dinesh D'Souza shocked the movie world in 2012 with his anti-Obama documentary '2016,' which became the second highest-grossing documentary in U.S. movie history. On July 2, he unveiled his new documentary called 'America: Imagine the World Without Her.' It has already grossed $5 million in its first week.”

Film critics supposedly subjectively judge art. But their liberal politics bleed all over their work.
Take the highest-grossing documentary in history, Michael Moore's 2004 “Fahrenheit 911.” Editor & Publisher magazine reported nine of ten newspaper movie critics recommended the film.
The Washington Post gushed over Moore's film. “Its trajectory is guided with pinpoint accuracy,” wrote Desson Thomson, and it “obviously skews facts to its own advantage, but that's what the game is all about. What counts is the emotional power of Moore's persuasion.”

Here's the key observation in the piece:

“But when it came to the new D'Souza film, the same newspaper's Mark Jenkins suddenly found perceived fact-skewing and one-sidedness to be just awful. 'America' is less successful as a debate, since it isn't one. D'Souza controls the conversation, and thus goes unchallenged when he tries to make real-world points with make-believe scenarios.”

That's just plain not true. D'Souza spends a significant part of the film allowing left wing loons to present their arguments that America is a horrible country – and they do so completely uninterrupted.

Go see “America.”

•Did you know that scientists have NEVER measured ozone when there has not been a hole in it?
Joseph D'Aleo at Weatherbell.com posted an interesting article some time ago that is worth repeating.

The ozone “hole” above the Antarctic reaches its maximum extent for the year, revealing a “hole” in the protective atmospheric layer that rivals the size of North America.

Spanning about 9.7 million square miles, the ozone hole over the South Pole reaches its maximum annual size around September. Then it shrinks down in size over the other months of the year.
Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.

Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole. In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to thicken, which of course “closes the hole.”

Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (late 70's data and processed in 1985). THE OZONE “HOLE” HAS VERY LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN THERE FOREVER, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength.

They just don't know.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax. Email him at bkubick@kc.rr.com)

 


THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND ENERGY
7/9/14

•The Hobby Lobby decision delivered by the Supreme Court last week served as a much-needed slap-down of an out-of-control President.

The court determined Hobby Lobby's right to exercise its religious conscience outweighed Obamacare's contraceptive mandate. Less publicized, a divided Supreme Court granted a stay to Wheaton College blocking enforcement actions against it for not complying with the same contraceptive mandate Hobby Lobby resisted.

From Yahoo News:
“The school is among scores of nonprofit religious groups that object to providing all or some of the mandated contraceptives on grounds that they violate sincerely-held religious beliefs.
Faced with those objections, the Obama administration sought to accommodate the groups by providing a mechanism in which an objecting religious organization could notify its insurance providers, who would then take it upon themselves to provide the required contraceptive coverage.

In the government's view, this would insulate the religious groups from involvement in provision of contraceptives.

But Wheaton College and other religious groups objected to that proposed accommodation, saying it still made them complicit in providing objectionable contraceptives to their employees. Specifically, they objected to having to sign a form that would then authorize their insurance carrier to provide the mandated contraceptive coverage.”

They were correct. The Supreme Court should find in favor of Wheaton College when it hears the case. Essentially, the government claims a religious organization's conscience should be soothed if, instead of violating their convictions, they ask someone else to violate them instead. This is the type of semantic game-playing Bill Clinton used in running from his perjury and obstruction of justice impeachment charges. It's also the Hallmark of the Obama Administration.

•Notice if you watch TV on one of the big networks, it seems that gays represent 25-50% of the population instead of the minimal numbers they actually exist in. In reality, if their numbers were as high as TV wants us to believe, you'd likely see a Viagra or Cialis ad catered to homosexual men – both sides of the relationship would be in the market after all.
They don't make those ads, and that should tell you something.

•You've probably seen the news – it has been reported everywhere: the White House has installed 6.3 kilowatts of solar Photovoltaics (PV). How much energy will that system yield in practical terms?

The rated power of a PV system is the power that it will yield when the sun shines straight on to it with an irradiance of 1000 W/m2, and the temperature is 25 degrees C. If those conditions are met for one hour, then the White House PV system will yield 6.3 kilowatt-hours. If they are met for two hours, then it will yield 12.6 kilowatt-hours (kWH), etc.

But those conditions are rarely met exactly. In the United States those conditions will be approximately met around noon time on a cold sunny day if the panels are mounted at the proper angle.

The White House PV system would yield about 27 kWH per day.

How much energy is 27 kWH in practical terms?

Total US yearly energy consumption: 97.4 Quads

This is equal to 28,560,000,000,000 kWH (since one Quad is 293,000,000,000 kWH).
This translates to a daily per capita consumption of 247 kWH per day
Therefore, the solar PV on the roof of the White House provides about 10% of the 247 kWH consumed by the average American each day! In the life of an American President, that's a sparrow fart in a windstorm.

If you are driving down the road at 60 mph in the President's limo, which gets only 8 mpg, then you will burn up your 27 kWH in only 7 minutes. Of course, the President travels with an entourage of about 45 vehicles along with his limo. It is a pretty good bet that most of these vehicles are heavy-duty, low mileage vehicles. I think a good approximation would be an average of 20 miles per gallon. At 60 miles per hour this entourage would burn about 135 gallons an hour, or about 4320 kWH per hour. At that rate they would burn the allotted 27 kWH every 22.5 seconds
Consider the Boeing 747-200B (or its militarized version: the VC25, such as Air Force One). It has a range of 6,100 miles on 48,445 gallons of fuel and a typical cruising speed of 555 mph. That works out to about 8 gallons per mile and about 9 miles per minute, resulting in a fuel consumption rate of about 72 gallons per minute! The energy content of the jet fuel is about the same as gasoline, about 32 kWH per gallon. So, in one minute of cruising the 747 consumes about 2300 kWH of energy.

At that rate, the 747 will consume a day's worth of the energy produced by the White House solar PV system in about 0.7 seconds (after traveling only about 500 feet). A round trip from, say, Washington DC to Hawaii and back is about 9540 miles. At 550 mile per hour that would be about 17.3 hours of flight. How long would the White House Solar PV array have to operate to produce enough energy for that round trip time? Answer: 243 years.

Twitter @bkparallax

 


THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND ENERGY
7/2/14

•Did you know that we (that is to say, the Obama Administration is using our tax dollars) are spending billions upon billions of hard-earned dollars on a resource that generates less than 4% of the energy we need? That's not even worth one-tenth of that kind of money!

In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.

Nearly $100 billion of that will go toward supporting renewable energy, including subsidies for current wind, solar and biofuel projects as well as R&D for promising new technologies.
Did you know that among the chopped-up birds around wind turbines are a bunch of dead bats too? Yes bats.

"Beware: exploding lungs" is not a sign one would expect to see at a wind farm. But a new study suggests this is the main reason bats die in large numbers around wind turbines.

The risk that wind turbines pose to birds is well known and has dogged debates over wind energy. In fact, several studies have suggested the risk to bats is greater. In May 2007, the US National Research Council published the results of a survey of US wind farms showing that two bat species accounted for 60% of winged animals killed. Migrating birds, meanwhile, appear to steer clear of the turbines.

Why bats - who echolocate moving objects - are killed by turbines has remained a mystery until now. The research council thought the high-frequency noise from the turbines' gears and blades could be disrupting the bats' echolocation systems.

In fact, a new study shows that the moving blades cause a drop in pressure that makes the delicate lungs of bats suddenly expand, bursting the tissue's blood vessels. This is known as a barotrauma, and is well-known to scuba divers.

"While searching for bat carcasses under wind turbines, we noticed that many of the carcasses had no external injuries or no visible cause of death," says Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in Canada.

Baerwald and colleagues collected 188 dead bats from wind farms across southern Alberta, and determined their cause of death. They found that 90% of the bats had signs of internal bleeding, but only half showed any signs of direct contact with the windmill blades. Only 8% had signs of external injuries but no internal injuries.

The movement of wind-turbine blades creates a vortex of lower air pressure around the blade tips similar to the vortex at the tip of an airplane's wings. Others have suggested that this could be lethal to bats, but until now no one had carried out necropsies to verify the theory.

A GOOD use of tax dollars for a switch!

Bats eat nocturnal insects including agricultural pests, so if wind turbines affected their population levels, this could affect the rest of the local ecosystems. And the effects could even be international. "The species being killed are migrants," says Baerwald. "If bats are killed in Canada that could have consequences for ecosystems as far away as Mexico.”

•In the midst of all this liberal-driven nonsense about the Washington Redskins changing their name, did you know that the name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people?

So where are all the nincompoops screaming about changing the name of a state, a storied university, a less-storied state university?

Go away and leave the Washington Redskins name alone!

•More problems with wind turbines involve inherent inefficiencies, that is, wasting energy.
Turbulence, or "wake," created by the motion of the blades can cut a wind farm's power output by 10 to 20 percent. But assessing the particulars of the problem has been difficult. Computer simulations and wind tunnels have helped, but it's difficult to see the phenomenon on a large, commercial-scale turbine in the real world because minute changes in air patterns are invisible to the naked eye.

Now, researchers at the University of Minnesota have hit upon a novel solution: To see how a utility-scale wind turbine chops into the surrounding air, watch it in a snowstorm.

The scientists published their findings Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, marking the first time that such air disturbances have been measured in detail on such a large scale.

Wind power is still a relatively small source of energy, accounting for just 2.5% (I guess the rest of the world is smarter than us, we waste 4% of our energy on wind) of the world's electricity generation. But the numbers are growing quickly. Figures from the international trade group Global Wind Energy Council show that the world's wind power capacity has grown by more than 60 percent over the past five years and is expected to double between now and 2018.

That is, unless we the people step in to express our thoughts on election day!

Homework for this week – study on the Single Electron Theory of the Universe.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL OVER THIS
6/25/14

•This is all you need to know about the massive liberal hoax of global warming. (Courtesy of Steven Goddard's site, Real Science.)

They are making up official temperature data. This has been long-suspected, but now Goddard has shown that the data has been shamelessly manipulated to hide cooling. The graph of U.S. surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been altered measurably.

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,” Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the 1930's, which is still the hottest decade on human record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

This is fraud people. Someone needs to go to jail over this!

See the data for yourself… http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/coldest-october-march-in-the-us-in-102-years/

•Oh, and do you recall all the coal-fired power plants being closed because of ridiculous EPA standards?

Pepco is the Potomac Electric Power Company, which serves the D.C. area with electric power. Well, with summer hear in full-swing, PEPCO wants their customers to conserve.

That's what the utility did Wednesday in the Washington area for the first time this season to reduce peak demand between 2 and 6 pm.