Legal Notices
County Foreclosures
Local News
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"
Weekly publication dates are Wednesdays
52 Main Street0
P.O. Box 410
Platte City, Missouri 64079

Fax :816-858-2313
by email
Click Here!
by phone



Parallax logo

by Brian Kubicki
Landmark columnist




•I don't know any U.S. President in my lifetime that has been more entertaining than PresidentTrump. His tweeting is must-read/follow. Knowing exactly what the president thinks, especially when it differs from others in his administration is refreshing. His nearly constant pursuit of recognition for himself is honest and funny.

How can you not like this presidency, even if you disagree with his policies?

•Air pollution denial is on the rise.

U.S. climate skeptics are questioning the science behind air pollution and mortality, a trend that is starting to appear in countries where the air is typically much more toxic.

Pollution levels in parts of Delhi, India reached “hazardous” levels recently and doctors declared a public health emergency.

However, despite reports linking air pollution to deterioration of the lungs, heart and brain, Prof. Robert Phalen, the director of the air pollution health effects laboratory at the University of California, Irvine believes the air is “too clean” for children.

After all, everybody needs a bit of immune-system-boosting dirt in their lungs.

“Modern air is a little too clean for optimum health,” he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the world's largest scientific societies, in 2012.

“My most important role in science is causing trouble and controversy,” he added.
Now, Prof. Phalen is set to be appointed as a scientific adviser by Donald Trump's EPA.

Phalen isn't alone in those beliefs.

Last week, the Washington Post and E&E News published a list of people expected to be appointed as new scientific advisers by the EPA.

Some have operated within groups that have long been questioned climate change science, they are doing the same with air pollution.

For example, Stanley Young is a statistician at the Heartland Institute. He wrote in a statistical blog in 2014 that “the science literature … is on the side that increased ozone and PM2.5 are not associated with increased deaths.”

It's not just the advisers either. Steve Milloy, member of Trump's EPA transition team and Scare Pollution author was asking on Twitter:

“Where are the bodies (from pollution deaths)? Where is the asthma? No reports!”

The Guardian newspaper in Great Britain admits that Milloy is right that nobody dies purely from air pollution (hence nobody has it on their death certificates), but warmists love to claim without evidence that air pollution is a causal factor that shortens lives.

But the skeptics are not just in the U.S.

For the last two years, Prakash Javadekar has been India's environment, forests and climate change minister. Despite living in a country where the air is claimed to be more deadly than in China, Javadekar is skeptical about air pollution.

In May last year, he said a World Health Organization report which listed more than 30 Indian cities among the hundred most polluted globally was 'misleading.' A month later, he dismissed research by the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology and the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research looking at air pollution and mortality as a 'so-called article' that was 'incorrect' because it is not based on 'ground study'.

And in February his colleague Anil Madhav Dave dismissed the findings of the State of Air Global report, which attributed more than 100,000 yearly deaths to ozone pollution.

He said: “It is exceeding in some places, some day. But it is not a routine phenomenon. You cannot link early deaths to ozone.”

“Every time a new study is published the question is raised as to whether it is backed by solid epidemiological evidence on the ground in India,” argues Bhargav Krishna, an air pollution expert at the Public Health Foundation of India.

Poland government ministers are roughly on the same page.

Earlier this year, the energy minister, Krzysztof Tchórzewski, flat out denied the link between air pollutants and premature death.

“Let's not give in to demagogy, pollution is sometimes higher due to climate issues, but this is definitely not the reason why someone will live shorter,” he told a transport conference in February.

His fellow minister in the health department backed him up, albeit for different reasons. He chose instead to tell people to quit complaining because there are bigger problems to be worrying about.

Calling toxic air a “theoretical problem,” he argued that “our lifestyle is much more damaging – someone who breathes in air smoking a cigarette, with fumes and everything that comes with it, is in a position in which complaining about poor air quality is not credible at all.”

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




This Judge Roy Moore situation has illustrated left-wing media bias in all its odious hypocrisy.

Whether Moore is guilty or innocent of the claims made, Alabama voters must decide, at the election booth. You cannot find a news program that doesn't cover the story front-and-center.

But what about a case involving another currently-sitting senator, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez? Why is nobody covering that, outside of Fox News?
Menendez is being tried for corruption and taking bribes for political favors. According to the criminal complaint, the New Jersey Democrat greased the wheels for a Florida ophthalmologist.

Among other things, Menendez was accused of helping obtain visas for several of Melgen's girlfriends as well as lobby the State Department on his behalf regarding a $500 million port security contract in the Dominican Republic.

Melgen, in turn, paid for private jets, hotel rooms and forked over nearly $75,000 in campaign contributions to Menendez.

On top of all that, claims have been made of Menendez having sexual relations with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

Though a bribery conviction doesn't mean Menendez would be forced to resign, the 63-year-old lawmaker likely would face intense pressure to step down.
And for true evidence of left-wing bias, jurors have been repeatedly instructed not to read reports about the case. Guess we can't allow them to be swayed by biased journalism!

The case marks the first time in almost a decade that a sitting U.S. senator faced a federal bribery charge.

If Menendez steps down from the Senate before Jan. 16, outgoing and widely unpopular Republican Gov. Chris Christie would get to appoint a successor. If Menendez steps down or is forced out after that date, the decision would go to newly elected Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.

Bet the house that the politics of this decision will weigh heavily on Menendez's fate.

•The great Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, wrote a fine editorial piece recently on the realities of wind and solar energy. Some highlights follow.

“President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord prompted a resolute response from other world leaders: The deal would go ahead without the U.S.A. But the threat to climate success doesn't just come from Trump's White House ignoring climate change. It also comes from leaders left in the Paris accord, who are unwilling to acknowledge that they're supporting a policy that is failing.

The Paris agreement was always oversold. Despite rhetoric about keeping temperature rises to 2 or even 1.5 degrees Celsius, the United Nations body that oversees the Treaty estimates that if every country were to achieve every promise by 2030, the total greenhouse gas cut would be equivalent to just 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degrees C requires a reduction in emissions during this century of almost 6,000 billion tons. Even with complete success, Paris makes only 1% progress toward the least ambitious target.”

“New research in the journal Nature finds that 'no major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges.' The very leaders who criticized the U.S. for withdrawal are themselves failing to deliver. Not a single wealthy, major emitter is set to meet its treaty promises.”

The pledges were a joke and were really only intended to redistribute wealth.

“The story is the same around the globe: An Australian electricity market review has recommended weak emissions cuts that would make that nation's Paris commitments difficult to deliver; emissions in Mexico and South Korea are not shifting much, and the latter's government is considering mothballing its nuclear power plants, which would make it even harder to shift away from fossil fuels.”
The answer to all future energy concerns is not to abandon cheap fossil fuels. The answer is to work to develop more ways to find fossil fuel resources AND develop more nuclear power.

Lonborg continues…

“Despite having excellent PR, green energy remains expensive and inefficient compared to fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency finds that this year, more than $115 billion will be spent on subsidies just for uncompetitive solar and wind, meeting less than 1% of global energy needs. It is electorally implausible for nations to live up to their Paris promises: doing so requires ever more expensive subsidies, along with slowing growth by reducing use of cheaper energy sources.”
Inefficient and expensive. That means poor people get hurt the most.

(Email Brian Kubicki at




•Amazing to watch the NFL try to stem the drop in ratings resulting from the player protests of the national anthem by not televising the playing of the anthem. It's too late for that. Everyone knows the players are still protesting.
The national anthem needs to be shown to the people without protests occurring.

•Much was made last week about the climate assessment that holdovers from the Obama Administration put out and how much it veered from the policy of the Trump Administration.

The esteemed Dr. Pat Michaels put out an essay in response. Some highlights with my commentary follow.

“Under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the federal government has been charged with producing large National Climate Assessments (NCA), and today the most recent iteration has arrived. It is typical of these sorts of documents–much about how the future of mankind is doomed to suffer through increasingly erratic weather and other tribulations. It's also missing a few tidbits of information that convincingly argue that everything in it with regard to upcoming 21st century climate needs to be taken with a mountain of salt.”

Make that a BIG mountain of salt.

“The projections in the NCA are all based upon climate models. If there is something big that is systematically wrong with them, then the projections aren't worth making or believing.”


“The difference between the predicted changes and observed is striking, with only one model, the Russian INCM4, appearing realistic. In its latest iteration, its climate sensitivity (the net warming calculated for a doubling of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration) is 1.4°C (2.5°F) compared to the average of 3.2°C (5.8°F) in the family of models used in the National Climate Assessment. In fact, the temperature trajectory the earth is on, along with an expected large-scale shift from coal to gas for electrical generation (already underway in the U.S. and Canada) will keep total human-caused warming to less than 2.0°C (3.6°F) between 1950 and 2100, which is the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement.
That's a far cry from the extremism of the National Assessment.”

Think you can tell the difference between 28 degrees Celsius and 26 degrees Celsius, much less over a time period of 150 years!

“But the situation gets truly horrific as one goes up in the atmosphere. The models predict that there should have been a huge 'hot spot' over the entire tropics, which is a bit less than 40% of the globe's surface. Halfway up through the atmosphere…the predicted warming is also twice what is being observed, and further up, the prediction is for seven times more warming than is being observed.

The importance of this is paramount. The vertical distribution of temperature in the tropics is central to the formation of precipitation. When the difference between the surface and the upper layers is large, surface air is more buoyant, billowing upwards as the cumulonimbus cloud of a heavy thunderstorm. When the difference is less, storm activity is suppressed…In reality, the opposite is occurring over much of the tropics, which should result in an increase in precipitation, rather than the decrease forecast by the climate models.

…A vast amount of the moisture that forms precipitation here originates in the tropics. Getting that wrong trashes the precipitation forecast, with additional downstream consequences, this time for temperature.”

Read below for a simplified example of this…

“When the sun shines over a wet surface, the vast majority of its incoming energy is shunted towards the evaporation of water rather than direct heating of the surface. This is why in the hottest month in Manaus, Brazil, in the middle of the tropical rainforest and only three degrees from the equator, high temperatures average only 91°F (not appreciably different than humid Washington, DC's 88°F). To appreciate the effect of water on surface heating of land areas, high temperatures in July in bone-dry Death Valley average 117°F.

Getting the surface temperature wrong will have additional consequences for vegetation and agriculture. In general, a wetter U.S. is one of bumper crops and good water supplies out west from winter snows, hardly the picture painted in the National Assessment.

So this one, like its predecessors, suffers from serious and obvious flaws that are simply ignored…the first (Climate) Assessment used models that were worse than a table of random numbers when applied to 20th century…U.S. temperatures, and the chief scientist for the report knew it and went ahead anyway!

Ignoring the massive and critical errors noted above—along with a whole other emerging story on the arbitrary nature of the climate models—is certainly going to lead for some to call for a re-examination of EPA's 'Endangerment Finding' from carbon dioxide, which is the basis for regulation of greenhouse gases.”

It's another example of the attempts by Barack Obama to continue his influence on American federal government after he left office – have people he appointed throw monkey wrenches into the gears of his successor's administration.

(Email Brian Kubicki at




The Trump Department of the Interior gets it! (From Climate Depot)
In the next five years, millions of acres of America's public lands and waters, including some national monuments and relatively pristine coastal regions, could be auctioned off for oil and gas development. The Department of the Interior's (DOI) expressed strategic vision states that the DOI is committed to achieving “American energy dominance” through the realization of “vast amounts” of untapped energy reserves on public lands. Thankfully, the policy blueprint—a 50-page document—does not once mention climate change or climate science; a definite departure from Obama policy. The previous Obama plan, covering 2014–18, referred to climate change 46 times and explicitly stated that the department was committed to improving resilience in those communities most directly affected by global warming.

Out with the old nonsense!

•The DOI's new strategic plan fits within a broader effort by the Trump administration to avoid wasting time and resources on global warming nonsense. Last week the EPA abruptly withdrew two of its scientists and a contractor from a conference in Rhode Island, where they were due to address the impacts of global warming on coastal waters. EPA websites have also been scrubbed of most references to climate change. At the DOI and the Department of Energy, scientists have been discouraged from referring to climate change in grant proposals or press releases. Earlier this month Joel Clement, a top policy adviser and climate scientist at DOI, resigned after being transferred to an accounting position. Clement, who had spoken out about the impacts of climate change on Native American communities in Alaska, alleges that his reassignment was politically motivated.

Don't you love it when they try to marginalize a government action by calling it “politically motivated?” EVERYTHING is politically motivated in government.
“Understanding the threat of climate change had been an integral part of the DOI's mission,” said Elizabeth Klein, who served as associate deputy secretary at the DOI from 2012 to 2017 and was involved in drafting the earlier strategic plan. That document sought to address a number of the risks associated with global warming, including drought, sea-level rise, and “severe” flooding.

One section referred specifically to the need for more research on erosion along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, which are particularly vulnerable to hurricanes. To completely ignore climate risks, Klein said, is an abdication of the DOI's responsibility as a manager and steward of the nation's public lands. “It's yet another example of an unfortunate regression,” she said.
I prefer the term, correction of previous bad policy.

•While disregarding global warming nonsense, the 2018–2022 strategic plan places a premium on facilitating oil and gas development. It calls for speeding up the processing of parcels nominated for oil and gas leasing on public lands. It establishes an Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting to facilitate on-shore and off-shore leasing, and aims to reduce the time it takes to green-light energy projects on Native land by 50 percent. The department is also seeking to speed up the application process for drilling permits, even though industry is currently sitting on thousands of approved permits. “It is bewildering that the agency would prioritize approving more permits—at the inevitable expense of your environmental responsibilities—when companies have plenty and appear to be simply stockpiling them,” wrote Representative Raúl Grijalva, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, in an April letter to the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Instead of the protection of landscapes and ecosystems, the new report emphasizes Interior's role in policing the US-Mexico border.

•Not surprisingly, one of the DOI's key performance indicators for the next five years will be the number of acres of public lands made available for oil and natural-gas leasing. Interior's role in promoting renewable-energy development largely goes unmentioned. The new plan also has little to say about conservation, a word mentioned 74 times in the previous strategy blueprint and only 25 times in the new version. Instead of the protection of landscapes and ecosystems, the new report emphasizes Interior's role in policing the US-Mexico border. The department manages nearly half of the southern border region, the report notes, as well as the third-largest number of law-enforcement officers in the executive branch. It intends to deploy them “to decrease illegal immigration and marijuana smuggling on DOI managed public lands.”

(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




Now that tax reform is on the agenda on the federal level, I am enraged whenever I hear that “the rich should not get a tax cut.”

Why not?

How about some facts?

Walter Williams wrote about this subject recently. According to the latest IRS data, the payment of income taxes is as follows. The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans are stuck with paying 39 percent of all federal taxes. The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

Williams asks, “Is that fair, or do you think they should pay more? By the way, earning $500,000 a year doesn't make one rich. It's not even yacht money.”

•One of the most comforting fantasies common to affluent liberals is that they are 'saving the world' by driving an expensive, rechargeable electric car (e-vehicle).
In fact, they are doing the opposite, with their desire to signal their virtue causing intense human suffering on the part of some of the most powerless people on the planet.

They overlook the fact that 39% of America's electricity comes from coal-fired generation, and that owing to losses of energy in transmission, more hydrocarbons must be burned than if gasoline were used to power the car directly.

But, if you believe, as I do, that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a trivial concern because any rise causes more plant life to flourish and consume more CO2, an equilibrating mechanism characteristic of the power of Mother Nature, then this is more a matter of particulates emitted by the burning of coal than it is of CO2, and the non-polluting advantage goes to gasoline power.

My worries about rechargeable electric cars center on the toxic raw materials needed to manufacture powerful lithium-ion batteries, which are the most expensive component of electric vehicles.

For one thing, when a battery is spent (and they do wear out after a certain number of recharges), recycling the heavy metals and other ingredients is expensive, dangerous, and absolutely necessary.

Putting these batteries in a landfill is the last thing any decent human being wants, but far, far cheaper than properly disposing of the time bomb that is a lithium-ion battery.

Of all the war materials necessary for these batteries, probably the most problematic is cobalt. All the smug, affluent drivers of Teslas, Nissan Leafs, and BMW i3s (the most popular models in Berkeley) need to think about how the cobalt in their batteries got to the factory. The UK Daily Mail reports:

Almost every big motor manufacturer striving to produce millions of electric vehicles buys its cobalt from the impoverished central African state. It is the world's biggest producer, with 60 per cent of the planet's reserves.

The cobalt is mined by unregulated labor and transported to Asia where battery manufacturers use it to make their products lighter, longer-lasting, and rechargeable.

The planned switch to clean energy vehicles has led to an extraordinary surge in demand. While a smartphone battery uses no more than 10 grams of refined cobalt, an electric car needs 15kg (33lb).

The UN's International Labour Organisation has described cobalt mining in DRC as 'one of the worst forms of child labour' due to the health risks.

Soil samples taken from the mining area by doctors at the University of Lubumbashi, the nearest city, show the region to be among the ten most polluted in the world. Residents near mines in southern DRC had urinary concentrates of cobalt 43 higher than normal. Lead levels were five times higher, cadmium and uranium four times higher.

With China now officially committed to transforming its vehicle fleet and becoming the world's dominant producer of electric cars, demand for cobalt will skyrocket, and there will be a lot more work for people at the cobalt mines in Katanga:

No one knows quite how many children have died mining cobalt in the Katanga region in the south-east of the country. The UN estimates 80 a year, but many more deaths go unregistered, with the bodies buried in the rubble of collapsed tunnels. Others survive but with chronic diseases which destroy their young lives.

Girls as young as ten in the mines are subjected to sexual attacks and many become pregnant.

Given the level of human suffering imposed by battery production, the lavish subsidies to buyers of electric cars cannot be justified. And the faces of those kids do drive away the smug factor that I see on the faces of so many drivers of the rechargeable beasts.

Drive gasoline-powered cars, and do it for the children!”

I couldn't have expressed it any better!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•Well, nobody said you had to be particularly smart to host a late night TV talk show.

Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel said this past weekend he doesn't regret his political commentaries that have driven away conservative viewers.

Using his monologue to preach his liberal views on gun control and health care has cost him Republican viewers, Kimmel admits:

"Three years ago, I was equally liked by Republicans and Democrats. And, then, Republican numbers went way down, like 30 percent, or whatever. And you know, as a talk show host, that's not ideal, but I would do it again in a heartbeat.

"If they're so turned off by my opinion on health care and gun violence then, I don't know, I probably wouldn't want to have a conversation with them anyway.”
Asked if he's saying “Good riddance” to those viewers, Kimmel responded:

"Well, not good riddance, but riddance."

Not sure what the difference it between the two, but again, smarts not required.

•As of Jan. 1, 2018, it will no longer be a felony in California to knowingly expose people to HIV.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislature on Friday that lowers the former felony to a misdemeanor.

Prior to the passing of the new law, those who failed to disclose their HIV status to sexual partners could be punished with up to eight years in prison.

The new legislation will lower that punishment to a maximum of six months behind bars.

The tweaked law will also lower penalties for knowingly donating HIV-infected blood from a felony to a misdemeanor.

For some odd and inexplicable reason, California lawmakers are hoping to lower HIV cases by reducing the penalty of attempting to murder another person by infecting them with a disease that has no cure and will eventually kill them.

Lawmakers standing behind the bill expressed a feeling that the original bill was outdated and perpetuated stigmas about people living with HIV.

So you can now purposely infect people with HIV, get out of jail sooner or stay out of jail altogether and just pay a fine, which frees you up to infect more people.

How exactly does that reduce HIV infections?

Only in California!

•Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl pleaded guilty on Monday to desertion and to endangering the American troops sent to search for him.

It will now be up to an Army judge at Fort Bragg to decide his punishment, following testimony at a hearing that is scheduled to begin next week. The desertion charge carries a potential five-year sentence, and the charge of endangering troops — formally known as misbehavior before the enemy, carries a potential life sentence.

Monday morning, Sergeant Bergdahl stood before the judge, Col. Jeffery A. Nance, and described his actions as inexcusable.

“You just walked away?” Colonel Nance asked him.

“Yes, sir,” Sergeant Bergdahl replied. “Unfortunately, I got lost in my first 20 minutes.”

Sergeant Bergdahl previously claimed he intended to walk from his unit's outpost to a larger base about 18 miles away to report what he felt were leadership problems in his unit. He said he wanted to cause a major stir, to ensure that he received an audience with a high-ranking officer.

But he told Judge Nance on Monday that he never meant to set off the huge manhunt that followed his disappearance.

“At the time, I had no intention of causing search and recovery operations…I didn't think they would have any reason to search for one private.”

Bergdahl was captured by Taliban militants within hours of disappearing from his remote outpost, and was held captive for five years.

He was released in May 2014, when the Obama administration freed five detainees from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for him.

His case soon turned into a politically charged referendum in Washington on the Obama administration's foreign policy. After he was freed, President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, said Sergeant Bergdahl, who was promoted while in captivity, had served with “honor and distinction,” and Obama appeared with his parents at the White House.

Army prosecutors say that Sergeant Bergdahl's departure from the outpost forced the military to drastically alter its operations and strategy during the manhunt, hurting the war effort. And they will present evidence of the serious wounds suffered by searchers, including Master Sgt. Mark Allen of the Army and Senior Chief Petty Officer Jimmy Hatch, a Navy SEAL.

Sergeant Allen was shot in the head during a firefight a little more than a week after Sergeant Bergdahl disappeared. He now uses a wheelchair and is unable to speak or care for himself.

During a separate mission around the same time, Chief Hatch suffered a severe leg wound that required dozens of surgical procedures and an agonizing recovery.

No comment from anyone from the Obama Administration about why they lied to us about Bergdahl's service and why they released 5 terrorists for one American traitor.

(Brian Kubicki can be reached at




•This Harvey Weinstein scandal certainly has a lot of famous names (Meryl Streep, Judy Densch to name a few) shrugging their shoulders claiming they knew nothing of the uber-powerful studio head's nefarious deeds while side-handedly condemning them. Thus far, there appears to be only one famous name who was saying something early on…Rose McGowan.

Jon Nolte has a great piece at about it. Some highlights…
“So far there appears to be only one hero in the mushrooming story surrounding decades of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, and that hero is actress Rose McGowan.
Compare McGowan's story to Ashley Judd's. According to Judd, she was sexually harassed by Weinstein way back in 1997. Moreover, Judd admits she knew of other women who had been harassed. Nevertheless, Judd did not come forward until now. Instead, she chose to remain silent for 20 years, even during those few years when she was a powerful movie star. It is only now, after her movie career flamed out, after she has done two Weinstein films, that she has decided it is time to blow the whistle.”

Boom goes the dynamite on that point! Where was that courage she exhibits on screen? She must be a fine actor.

“McGowan, however, at the tender age 24, and just when her career was starting off in 1997, did not remain silent about Weinstein's alleged misconduct. According to the New York Times, she raised legal hell 'following an incident in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival' and won $100,000 from the mogul. That is an extraordinarily brave thing for young actress to do, especially when her film career is just starting to take off.

While her reported settlement with Weinstein requires that she remain silent about the specifics in her case, McGowan has not remained silent about the overall scandal. In a statement to the Hollywood Reporter, she called on the entire Weinstein Company board to resign.

'I'm calling on the board to resign effective immediately,' she said Sunday night. 'And for other men to stop other men when they are being disgusting.'”

You go girl!

•I generally can't stand watching Bill Maher's “Real Time,” HBO show, but he will at least call out Democrats when warranted.

Maher addressed a bill introduced by Senate Democrats who want a process implemented by vehicle manufacturers to install motion sensors in cars to help remind Americans that their children are in the back seat. The idea of the bill is to help prevent heat-related deaths in children who are accidentally left in hot cars.
Maher asked, “Should reminding you not to forget your baby really be Toyota's problem?”

Maher mocked Democrats for overregulation, and referenced a new Honolulu, Hawaii law which makes it illegal for pedestrians to look at their phones while crossing the street.

“But wait,” he mocked. “What if I'm getting an important message like that I've left my baby in a hot car?!”

Maher admits that over-the-top regulation efforts of Democrats are only making them look bad when compared to Republicans.

“[Overregulation efforts] feed into the Republican message [that Democrats] don't want to help people; they just want to micromanage their lives,” he said.

Amen brother!

•From the Wall Street Journal, the Trump Administration is giving the economy a boost with its deregulatory agenda, and the latest example came Tuesday EPA Chief Scott Pruitt proposed to repeal the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan.

The Obama EPA imposed the rule in 2015 to regulate carbon emissions nationwide and force the retirement of coal-fired electric power plants. The Clean Power Plan over time impels states to substitute coal with natural gas and ultimately solar and wind.

The Supreme Court stayed the rule in February 2016 after 27 states and 37 electric co-ops sued. In March Pruitt launched a formal review of the rule, and a draft of the EPA's new analysis that we've seen estimates that rescinding the carbon rule would save $33 billion in compliance costs by 2030.

Pruitt's proposed rule-making starts the 60-day window for public comments. EPA notes that it hasn't decided whether it will follow its repeal of the Clean Power Plan with a new rule that regulates greenhouse gases from existing power plants and is considering “whether it is appropriate to propose such a rule.” The decision in part will depend on how well Mr. Pruitt thinks EPA can defend any new rule under the inevitable legal challenges from the environmental left.

But repealing the regulatory overreach of the Obama Administration is the first crucial step that is already paying dividends in less economic uncertainty and more confidence in the reliability of the future electric grid.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at





•Thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims and their families resulting from the tragedy in Las Vegas.

The propensity of evil to succeed is limited only by the greater ability of free people to be vigilant standing in its path.

As we have seen, the disgusting Liberal mantra to “Never let a crisis go to waste!” was out in full-force literally within minutes after news of the shooting broke Sunday night. Some evidence:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, “Tragedies like Las Vegas have happened too many times. We need to have the conversation about how to stop gun violence. We need it NOW.”

Perennial loser Hillary Clinton, “The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

And for the record, it is currently illegal in the United States to own an automatic weapon, and has been since 1986. Evil people do not follow laws.

•But back to Hillary, her comments were an apparent reference to the NRA's push to ease federal rules for silencers or suppressors.

But once again, the truth and science prevail. So-called “silencers” would only moderately reduce the sound of gunfire in this kind of attack – particularly since this appeared to come from a high-powered weapon.

Suppressors only reduce the muzzle blast sound by an inconsequential amount. A centerfire muzzle blast measures about 160 dB measured 1 meter away from the gun. A suppressed blast measures about 120 dB. While 40 dB is a LOT of noise reduction, 120 dB is still plenty loud to be heard a great distance away.

•Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, editor in chief of The Daily Wire, blasted Clinton's tweets as “Ignorant, irrelevant and exploitative.” They were.
Radio host and CIA veteran Buck Sexton had a similar take: “Appallingly stupid, and entirely irrelevant, Mrs. Clinton. She knows nothing about firearms, and even worse, she doesn't care.”

•It is heartwarming to learn that in less than 24 hours after the shooting, hundreds of people have been gathered to donate blood to the hospitals, and over ¾ of a million dollars have been raised to aid the victims. See the link below…

In spite of the evil that lurks in the shadows, it is good to see that there is WAY more good in the world.

•One thing I hate hearing is that this was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Deadly is deadly. Does it really matter to the victims or their families whether there were 1, 20, 40, 50 or more victims? Why set a bar that the next evil entity in the world will strive to surpass?

•Back to the subject of gun laws and automatic weapons, due to current gun laws, crimes with fully-automatic weapons are extraordinarily rare. As National Review's Charlie Cooke mentioned Monday, legally-owned fully-automatic weapons have been used in only three crimes since 1934. So, a person who's “not a gun guy” has either expended untold thousands of dollars to legally purchase fully-automatic weapons, somehow found them on the black market, or purchased and substantially modified multiple semi-automatic weapons — and did so with enough competence to create a sustained rate of fire. This same person also spent substantial sums purchasing just the right hotel room to maximize casualties. I cannot think of a single other mass shooter who went to this level of expense and planning in the entire history of the United States. And there was no real warning? His family was unaware? His brother also reported that the shooter had no meaningful political or religious affiliations. “He just hung out.”

Once again, evil will find a way.

•Truck attacks:

2016: Nice, France: 86 killed, 458 injured.
2017: Barcelona, Spain: 13 killed, 130 injured

Timothy McVeigh carried-out the Oklahoma City bombing, killing 168 people and injuring nearly 700 more in 1995 with a truckload of fertilizer and fuel oil.
Evil has many tools, but good has more.

•And from the weird coincidence fact page, while imprisoned, McVeigh was housed in "Bomber's Row," the same cell block as Ted Kaczynski (The Unabomber) and Ramzi Yousef (one of the main perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434, and a co-conspirator in the Bojinka plot.) Yousef made frequent, unsuccessful attempts to convert McVeigh to Islam.

Perhaps even weirder, the recently released from prison unconvicted double-murderer OJ Simpson spent his first night away from prison in a private home in Las Vegas not far from the site of the shootings. You can't make up stuff any stranger!

•Have a great week and celebrate the freedom we enjoy, and further, continue to strive to protect it.




I've heard many people say that Pres. Trump should stop posting things on Twitter.

While I understand the motivation for those sentiments, I profoundly disagree.
Donald Trump is the president of the United States. People have been taught by the media that the president is an almost god-like figure in that everything he says is doctrine and his word is the law. We certainly saw that with President Obama and his fawning media.

That belief is incorrect.

The president is a person just like the rest of us. In President Trump's case, he is a successful real estate developer and reality TV star who just so happened to win the election. The more Trump portrays himself as a real person while acting as president, the more the notion that U.S. presidents are some form of deity where all power resides and emanates gets dispelled.

The real power in this country emanates from its citizens and from the states. That's why this is called the United STATES of America. The way in which this country was founded involved the citizens of each state electing their representatives in their states and for their states to the House of Representatives.

Then the state legislatures voted to elect that state's U.S. senators. That way, the U.S. senators answered to their states directly and not to some conjured perception of what they believe the people of their state believe. We ought to go back to that practice.

That will take repealing the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.
Until we get there, I'm O.K. with President Trump using Twitter to help reduce the perception of power that resides in and emanates from his office and the federal government.

•Climate alarmists have finally admitted they got it wrong on global warming.
A landmark paper published in Nature Geoscience finally admits the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5?°C – concedes it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true. For that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

Scientists admit this is next to impossible. Also, the computer models they've been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.
This represents the most massive reversal of the alarmist camp.

Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said this is a “landmark” moment in the history of great climate change scare.

“It's the first official confirmation we've had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it's the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously.”

But this is not, unfortunately, enough alone to cause celebrations in the street. Alarmists are not yet ready to admit the full scale of their errors.

This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scammers who know they've been caught cheating and have now been forced to concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of looking ridiculous.

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) Part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realized that it was not worth the paper it was written on.
This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Yup. But at least we climate skeptics have been proved right yet again, that's the main thing. Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags: that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at




Personally, there is nothing more aggravating than watching NFL players protest the National Anthem by sitting, kneeling, or otherwise not paying attention to the American flag during the traditional playing of the song before athletic events. Nearly as aggravating though is the Chiefs' brass sitting on their hands when given the opportunity to address the protests.

Chiefs Chairman Clark Hunt has stated that he prefers people stand during the anthem, but he has expressed little else. Head Coach Andy Reid stated that he personally chooses to stand but understands others have different feelings.

Why so wishy-washy?

Dallas Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones feels “very strongly” players shouldn't protest anthem; “I like the way the Cowboys do it.”

During a recent radio appearance in Dallas, Jones was asked his thoughts on the increasing number of protests by NFL players last year and this year.

"I just feel so strongly that the act of recognizing the flag is a salute to our country and all of the people that have sacrificed so that we can have the liberties we have…I feel very strongly that everyone should save that moment for the recognition of the flag in a positive way, so I like the way the Cowboys do it."

The Cowboys have not had a player protest the national anthem.

Last week, Cowboys coach Jason Garrett also commented on anthem protests, saying, "There's no question in my mind. The national anthem is sacred. The flag is sacred. And our team has demonstrated that."

Jones last broached the topic last September, saying: "We strongly, strongly support the flag. In every way, we support -- it's almost ridiculous to be saying it -- the people that for generations and generations have given it all up so we can get out here and show off in front of millions of people on television. We respect that so much. That's the real business. The forum of the NFL and the forum on television is a very significant thing. I'm for it being used in every way we can to support the great, great contributors in our society and that's people that have supported America, the flag, and there's no reason not to go all out right there. For anybody to use parts of that visibility to do otherwise is really disappointing."

Chiefs cornerback Marcus Peters sits during the anthem and has said last year after he raised a fist in protest during the anthem, “I was just stating how I'm black, I love being black…I'm supporting Colin (Kaepernick) and what he's doing as far as raising awareness with the justice system. But I didn't mean anything (bad) by it.”

Nothing “bad?” The “movement” is ripping police officers as racist murderers! Police officers in Dallas last year were murdered while protecting Black Lives Matters protesters.

I think Marcus Peters needs to rethink his protest.

•The Hill reported Saturday that President Trump made good on his promise to donate $1 million to Harvey relief efforts.

Directly following the hurricane, Trump made generous donations to aid relief. The Salvation Army and American Red Cross received $300,000 each. Reach Out America and the Samaritans Purse, two Christian relief organizations, received $100,000 each and eight other groups — ASPCA, Catholic Charities, Direct Relief, Habitat for Humanity, the Houston Humane Society, Operation Blessing, Portlight Inclusive Disaster Strategies and Team Rubicon received $25,000 each.
I have looked throughout the internet and can find no record of either Presidents Bush or Obama contributing personal funds toward the Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy relief efforts. Those storms occurred during their respective presidencies.

That's telling!

•Chiefs' head coach Andy Reid and the media seem to be struggling to convince Travis Kelce to stop acting like an idiot on the field and accruing unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, which he did again on Sunday's win over the Eagles. Whatever Reid is doing behind the scenes is not working and Kelce is simply ignoring the media's attempts to question him about it.

How about this approach? “Travis, any comment on the realization that your teammates are taking ferocious hits on numerous plays to grind-out those yards on offense; taking bone-crushing hits that may affect them seriously in their future lives, and you give those yards right back 15 yards each, with every juvenile act on the field. What do you say to those players?”

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•Well, now that Hurricane Irma has made landfall and once again exhibited the tremendous ability of Floridians to prepare and deal with Mother Nature, we now have to deal with a man-made disaster, global warming fear-mongers who are flooding the airwaves with the wrong-headed notion that man's use of fossil fuels and capitalism are to blame for hurricanes and their intensity.

•So what exactly is a hurricane, where does it come from and what really causes their varying intensity?

Whether they are called a Hurricane, Typhoon, Willy-willy or Cyclone, tropical storm systems can bring devastating weather to tropical locations throughout the world.

Referred to as hurricanes in the eastern Pacific, north Atlantic, Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, tropical cyclones are large swirling storm systems that have a common pinwheel shape in satellite images.

Tropical cyclones are powered by the energy stored in the warm tropical waters, and they go through numerous stages. They often begin as a cluster of tropical thunderstorms called a tropical wave. When conditions are right, these waves will eventually organize into an even larger system with a central circulation. Interesting to note that these storms spin counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise south of the equator.

Once top sustained winds reach 39 mph or higher, they become classified as a tropical storm and are usually given a name off a list of storm names maintained for that region of the world.

If they stay over tropical waters with temperatures greater than 80 degrees Fahrenheit and remain in a relatively low shear environment, these storms have a good chance to grow stronger. Once maximum sustained winds exceed 74 mph, they become classified as a hurricane, typhoon, Willy-willy or Cyclone.

These systems, when making landfall, can cause massive and devastating wind and flood damage, unless the building in the path are properly designed and constructed. Note that though the storm surge in Florida raised water levels in the streets, but the major buildings all remained standing. Nice work!

•Interesting that President Trump seems to be finally settling into the job of being commander-in-chief and has settled into a consistent “voice” which conveys a common “presidential” theme behind his Make America Great Again slogan.

Say what you will about his missteps along the way from Jan. 20th to here, there is little question that Donald Trump loves this country and its citizens and that's a far departure from the preachy tone of his predecessor.

•I enjoyed 60 Minutes Sunday for a change, but only for a part of the Steve Bannon interview by Charlie Rose, noted liberal interviewer. When Bannon described Rose's CBS along with the New York Times and the Washington Post as “pearl clutching mainstream media” I could almost hear the steam squirting out of Rose's hairy ears!

•As good as that was, the following Bannon observation was probably the most telling about the current state of the Trump Administration:

Bannon said immediately after Trump won the election, a “fundamental decision” was made to embrace the establishment GOP; the RINO's, to staff-up the government.

“Our whole campaign was a little bit the island of misfit toys,” Bannon said. “So [Trump] looks around and I'm wearin' my combat jacket, I haven't shaved, I got — you know, my hair's down to here, and he says — he's — he's thinkin'. 'Hey, I've gotta put together a government. I've gotta really staff up somethin'. I need to embrace the establishment.'”

That decision will serve to be the albatross on the Trump Administration, and why he doesn't get his major things done.

•Watching 9/11 remembrances today and the wounds of that day, which now are punctuated by the 9/11/2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, remain as vivid to me as the day each occurred.

Condolences and prayers go out to all the family members affected.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at You can also follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)





•CNN's Andrew Cuomo (Fredo from the Godfather series of films) last week had an interesting exchange with White House advisor Kellyanne Conway that ended up making Cuomo look like a fool (thus the Fredo moniker). Cuomo asked Conway whether the Trump administration would be open to a conversation about whether or not climate change had an impact on the Harvey storm and flooding in Texas.

Conway replied, "Chris, we're trying to help the people whose lives are literally underwater, and you want to have a conversation about climate change?"
Conway went on to tout the administration's focus and commitment to helping the victims of Hurricane Harvey.

"I work for a President and a vice president and a country that is very focused on the millions of affected Texans and god forbid Louisianans," she said. "I'm going to focus on them in the short-term, perhaps the long-term."

Cuomo responded, "Good, you should. But it doesn't mean you do that to the exclusion to the question of why storms happen. At some point, that could be part of the conversation."

Cuomo went on to erroneously claim that storms like Harvey happen “every other year,” completely ignoring that it has been nearly 12 years (4,300 days) since a major tropical storm hit the United States coastline. Conway closed-out Cuomo by noting that the Trump Administration would continue helping people harmed by the storm while Cuomo can continue playing “amateur climate scientist.”

•From EcoWatch via Climate Depot, Pope Francis, who has a strong belief in global warming, called upon world leaders on Wednesday to "listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, who suffer most because of the unbalanced ecology."

In 2015, the Pope designated September 1 as "a precious opportunity to renew our personal participation in this vocation as custodians of creation," framing the preservation of the environment as a moral responsibility.

Pope Francis has long pressed for strong climate action. In May, during their meeting at the Vatican, the pontiff gifted President Trump a copy of the climate encyclical right as POTUS considered whether the U.S. should exit from the Paris climate agreement. Trump, a clear climate skeptic who does not agree with Francis about the global phenomenon, didn't take the Pope's message to heart—he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris accord just a month later.

I'm not a strong believer in the notion that we are near the Biblically-predicted end-of-times such that the prophesied false prophets and the anti-Christ are afoot. But IF a force was to present itself to mankind with the intent to undo all the good that exists among humankind, wouldn't it want to attack the most effective force ever devised at lifting people out of grinding poverty? Capitalism has proven itself again and again as the best way to advance people's lives. Pope Francis attacks capitalism and free markets repeatedly. Is Pope Francis the Anti-Christ?

•Now for something completely different - what really causes the planet's temperature and climate to change?

As we well know, the sun lies at the heart of the solar system, where it is by far the largest object. It holds 99.8 percent of the solar system's mass and is roughly 109 times the diameter of the Earth — about one million Earths could fit inside the sun.

The visible part of the sun is about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit (5,500 degrees Celsius), while temperatures in the core reach more than 27 million F (15 million C), driven by nuclear reactions. One would need to explode 100 billion tons of dynamite every second to match the energy produced by the sun, according to NASA.

The sun is one of more than 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. It orbits 25,000 light-years away from the galactic core (wouldn't you LOVE to see what is at the galactic core?), completing a revolution once every 250 million years or so. The sun is relatively young, part of a generation of stars known as Population I, which are relatively rich in elements heavier than helium. An older generation of stars is called Population II, and an earlier generation of Population III may have existed, although no members of this generation are known yet.

The sun was born about 4.6 billion years ago. Many scientists think the sun and the rest of the solar system formed from a giant, rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula. As the nebula collapsed because of its gravity, it spun faster and flattened into a disk. Most of the material was pulled toward the center to form the sun.

The sun has enough nuclear fuel to stay much as it is now for another 5 billion years. After that, it will swell to become a red giant. Eventually, it will shed its outer layers, and the remaining core will collapse to become a white dwarf. Slowly, this will fade, to enter its final phase as a dim, cool theoretical object sometimes known as a black dwarf.

Guess what causes the temperature of the planet to change?

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




•It took almost no time for the global warming crazies to point to Hurricane Harvey as attributable to man-caused global warming.

However, Princeton University Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory said in its March 17, 2017 Global Warming and Hurricanes Overview, “…it is premature to conclude that human activities…have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity, [because] the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”

My favorite climate scientist, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., penned a great piece tying it all together. (Edited by me for brevity.)

“In the context of climate change, is what we are seeing in Houston a new level of disaster which is becoming more common?

The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur.
Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because [of] the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.

There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet.

By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I'm sure that will continue to rise.

Are the rainfall totals unprecedented? Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.

Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don't want all of the rain to land on them.

There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw.

Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one…

•Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 9 a.m. this Monday morning is…39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston….

Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can't say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history. And don't forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S….

•If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn't seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn't look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual.

They will break records for their individual gage locations, but that's the kind of record that is routinely broken somewhere anyway, like record high and low temperatures.

In any case, I'd be surprised if such a meteorological event didn't happen in centuries past in this area, before we were measuring them.

And don't pay attention to claims of 500 year flood events, which most hydrologists dislike because we don't have enough measurements over time to determine such things, especially when they also depend on our altering of the landscape over time.

•Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read's response was basically, No….

…Weird stuff happens.

Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans.”

(Email Landmark columnist Brian Kubicki at




•People are making more of Steve Bannon's departure from the White House than it deserves. However, Mark Morano with Climate Depot wisely observed in a recent column that it severed a line into President Trump's inner circle for climate skeptics, degrading their influence on energy policy.

Bannon was a direct link to Trump for voices of reason on climate change. Now, with Bannon returning to the Breitbart News Network, the right-wing publication he ran before joining Trump's flagging campaign last year, climate skeptics are losing a key ally who pushed back against moderate forces.

“Bannon was a key climate skeptic in the Administration pushing President Trump to keep his pledge to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact. Bannon's voice overruled other members of the Administration,” Marc Morano, of Climate Depot, said in an email. Bannon outmaneuvered high-profile advisers such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn and the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump.

The immediate impact is that populists who questioned climate science and sought to kneecap environmental regulations have lost an influential voice. For people like Tillerson, Cohn, Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, it means a large hurdle in convincing Trump to take more moderate views on regulation, climate and international engagement is now gone, though many of Trump's pro-fossil-fuel campaign promises are already underway.

Morano said Bannon kept attuned to the populist grass-roots movement that backed Trump and has broadly questioned mainstream climate science. He added that Bannon was instrumental in keeping Trump focused on his campaign promise to nix the accord and that his “departure will leave a void at the White House that will likely be filled by someone more accommodating to the DC Establishment.”

“And that is bad news for climate skeptics,” Morano said. “He will be missed.”

Saw a message on Facebook where someone used the fact that the solar eclipse happened just as scientists had predicted as evidence that climate scientists are correct about global warming.

There are a couple of major differences though between the two subjects. First, there are no scientists claiming that the moon was not going to obscure the sun. Second, nobody is out there claiming that they need to raise our taxes in order to address the solar eclipse.

The coal industry is showing signs of a revival and breathing economic life into West Virginia and other coal states. It is also becoming more competitive as a fuel source since the price of natural gas has risen 63% since March 2016.

Not long ago liberals hailed the demise of coal as inevitable while the Obama Administration strangled the industry with regulation. But coal is showing signs of a revival and breathing economic life into West Virginia and other coal states.
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy proclaimed in 2015 that coal “is no longer marketable.” She planned to deliver the first shovel-full of dirt to the burial.

The Obama Administration worked tirelessly to fulfill her mission and may have succeeded had Hillary Clinton become President. “We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work,” the 2016 Democratic nominee famously promised.

Yet the Trump Presidency seems to have lifted industry spirits and coal. Weekly coal production has increased by 14.5% nationwide over last year with even bigger bumps in West Virginia (19%), Pennsylvania (19.7%) and Wyoming (19.8%). Exports were up 58% during the first quarter from last year. Apparently coal can be marketable if regulators let it be.

•The Obama Administration first targeted coal consumption with rules on mercury emissions and ash disposal that would have made it next to impossible to build a new coal-burning power plant.

Then came the 2015 Clean Power Plan that would have forced the existing fleet of coal plants into early retirement.

Finally, the Obama anti-coal warriors sought to shut down coal's export potential.

Thick-seamed coal on federal land in the Powder River Basin overlying Wyoming and Montana is relatively clean-burning and inexpensive to mine. The Obama Interior Department suspended new coal leases on federal land last winter and then reassessed royalty payments—thereby reducing investment and profitability. In December came the intended killing blow: the Department of the Interior's stream rule usurping state authority over permitting.

President Trump has called a cease fire to his predecessor's “war on coal.”

Way to go President Trump! Now about that Obamacare repeal…

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at




•The divisiveness occurring in this country is simply more of the Marxist divisions sewn by the Obama Administration in this country for the last 8 years - poor vs. wealthy, black vs. white, police vs. minorities, citizens vs. non-citizens, legal immigrants vs. illegal immigrants, etc. The function of a Marxist is to enflame these divisions for the benefit of the power of an ever-expanding central government. Trump is not a racist or a white supremacist. He's also not a politician, so he is immune to the pressures that liberals and the media try to place on him to impede his administration.

•If there is a public vote in KCMO on tearing-down KCI, the powers-that-be are ill-advised by peppering the airwaves now with propaganda ads. I'm already sick of hearing George Brett tell us how to make KC “world class.”

•Interesting to hear all the lamenting and criticism leveled on Pres. Trump for not specifically criticizing white-supremacist groups for their support of him and their work in fomenting violence such as occurred over the weekend in Charlottesville, VA, but none of those folks criticizing said a word about President Obama meeting with Black Lives Matter representatives at the White House and his remaining silent about the policemen killed in Dallas during a Black Lives Matter protest.

•It was good to see the KCMO city government and light rail activists stopped in their efforts to suppress voting on the notion to extend the train south to the UMKC campus. The measure to require voter approval of the entire city before the train can be extended passed last week. The mayor wanted the vote limited to only as small portion of the city around the track, even though the entire city would be required to fund the operation of the train. That would be taxation without representation and is unconstitutional. Also interesting was that the Democrats that run KCMO were more than happy to attempt to suppress votes by requiring voters get their registrations notarized in advance of the vote.

Apparently, Democrats like voter suppression when it suits their needs!

•The largest volcanic region on Earth has been found thousands of meters below the surface of the ice sheet covering Antarctica.

A survey of the region of the West Antarctic Rift System has revealed 91 new volcanoes hidden within the ice. The new volcanoes are on top of the 47 whose peaks are above the ice and were already known about.

The volcanoes range in height from 100m to a towering 3,850m tall. Geologists say the range has similarities to east Africa's volcanic ridge, which was previously thought to have the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world.

It is unclear whether the Antarctic volcanoes are active, but previous studies have suggested that during warmer periods volcanic activity does occur in the region. If the ice thins as the climate warms it is thought volcanic activity in the area could increase.

It would be WAY more interesting than a solar eclipse watching what would happen to the planet if these volcanoes started erupting!

•Al Gore's 15-minutes of fame are quickly elapsing! Frantic to promote dud, An Inconvenient Sequel, energy hog Al Gore has been telling people that “global warming” is a “spiritual issue.” It is a Truth with a capital T that must not be questioned, but rather taken as a sign of faith, the sole path to redemption for our sins.

Evidently, this is calculated strategy for him, as he has used multiple forums to make the claim, starting on the first of this month, he used the CNN airwaves and website for a massive campaign, as reported by The Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch:

“Former Vice President Al Gore told a Catholic priest that tackling man-made global warming is 'not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual issue' during a town hall event on CNN Tuesday night.

'I'm a Protestant, but I can tell you because of Pope Francis I really could become a Catholic,' Gore said in response to the priest's question.

CNN hosted a “climate crisis” town hall with Gore on Tuesday night where people could ask him question about global warming. Gore's newest film “An Inconvenient Sequel” had its limited release Friday.

CNN promoted Gore's town hall event by flooding the front page of its website with “grim” global warming coverage. The news network highlighted two studies that came to “a grim conclusion on climate,” finding global warming could bring on “extinctions and super droughts.”

The anthropogenic Global warming hypothesis is not a scientific question for investigation, it is a religious truth handed down from “scientists,” who have apparently “voted” and handed down the doctrine that Must Not Be Questioned. Scientific skepticism, the very heart of the scientific method, must be shunned in the name of Gaia, and her prophet Al Gore.

Gore is a moron. Ignore him and his stupid movie.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




I think I'm going to be the only person working when the eclipse happens.
I may be misguided, but I can't muster a molecule of care about the fact that a solar eclipse is happening. If you've been in a coma, a full solar eclipse is occurring on Aug. 21, and the nation is going nuts! Companies are making plans for employees to be off work. Schools are delaying start of classes to allow students to watch. I'll bet there are animal crazies that are buying special glasses for their dogs and cats!

As seen from planet Earth, a solar eclipse is a type of eclipse that occurs when the moon passes between the sun and Earth, and the moon fully or partially blocks view of the sun. This can happen only at new moon when the sun and the moon are in alignment. In a total eclipse, which this one is, the disk of the sun is fully obscured by the moon. In partial and annular eclipses, only part of the sun is obscured.

Now, if the moon rotated the Earth in a perfectly circular orbit, and was a little closer to the Earth and in the same orbital plane, there would be total solar eclipses every month, and nobody would be making all this ridiculous fuss. However, the moon's orbit is tilted at more than five degrees to the Earth's orbit around the sun, so its shadow at new moon usually misses Earth.

It has been since February 1979 that a total eclipse been visible from the mainland United States. The path of sight of it will touch 14 states, though a partial eclipse will be visible in many more states. The event will begin on the Oregon coast as a partial eclipse at 9:06 a.m. PDT on Aug. 21, and will end later that day as a partial eclipse along the South Carolina coast at about 4:06 p.m. EDT.

Future total solar eclipse will cross the United States in April 2024 (12 states) and August 2045 (10 states), and annular solar eclipse will occur in October 2023 (9 states) and June 2048 (9 states). So this isn't all there is. Many, many people will likely be around to see those, so calm down people!

On second thought, I'm not going to be working during all the fuss. Somebody please wake me when it's over.

•I must give credit to our old friend and former Landmark columnist Chris Stigall, who currently hosts the WPHT Morning Show in Philadelphia, for a characterization that fits Donald Trump to a Tee. Stigall was describing the Swamp in D.C. and their desire to resist having their massive power drained as Pres. Trump has vowed to do. Trump is in effect Rodney Dangerfield's character in the movie, Caddyshack, Al Czervik, who was a wealthy real estate developer.
Trump, being duly elected, is a member of the “club.” But he just doesn't meet the “standards” at Bushwood and will never be accepted.

That really says everything about why both the RINO Establishment as well as the Democrats oppose everything-Trump.

•Marc Morano at Climate Depot interestingly noted that Al Gore's new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel,” came in a dismal 15th place in revenue this weekend at U.S. theaters.

Gore's defenders blamed Paramount Pictures for the dismal performance of the propaganda piece.

According to Deadline Hollywood, Gore's sequel “grossed $900K, averaging $5,000 (per screen). That brought its cumulative take over seven figures, landing at $1,052,000. Its weekend gross placed it 15th in the overall box office as of Sunday morning.

The box office performance will disappoint Gore, who had urged his followers to pack movie theaters to send a message to “Trump and the other climate deniers.”
“By filling theaters, we can show Donald Trump and the other climate deniers in the White House that the American people are committed to climate action –– no matter what they do, say, or tweet!” Gore wrote in an email alert sent to his supporters on Friday, Aug. 4, the day of his nationwide opening.

A prominent Ivy League Geologist who voted for Gore, was “appalled” after viewing his first 2006 film. “I voted for Gore in 2000, yeah. I think that if he ran again, depending on who he ran against, I might vote for him. He's a smart man,” said Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, who chaired the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania in the skeptical film “Climate Hustle.”

But after viewing Gore's film, Giegengack had this reaction. “I was appalled. I was appalled because he either deliberately misrepresented the point he was making or didn't understand it. So it was irresponsible of Al Gore.”

(Email Brian Kubicki at




•I'm sure you noticed that Republicans in the U.S. Senate were once again stabbed in the back by three liberals among their ranks: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins or Maine, and John McCain of Arizona in their efforts to repeal (ObamaCare) – at least partially. Only one of those three voting YES would have repealed ObamaCare.

Arizona's other senator, Jeff Flake, who voted for repeal, is in an interesting situation in his 2018 re-election efforts. As you know, John McCain is suffering from a serious brain tumor and faces a steep road toward any form of long term survival. McCain lied his way to re-election over a doctor that ran against him in 2016. Flake is going to face a primary challenger, most likely this same doctor, and she is chomping at his heels.

Now, if McCain decided to resign from his seat to focus on his health, Arizona's governor will name a replacement for McCain until a special election can be organized. Flake would probably prefer that this doctor be named to that position so he can get her off of his back in his re-election effort. No word yet on whether Flake has approached McCain in this regard.

•President Trump has forced out Reince Priebus as the White House chief of staff and replaced him with the homeland security secretary, Gen John Kelly. Newly appointed Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, who has been feuding openly with Priebus, was also removed from his post just Monday.

Many are claiming this indicates a White House in upheaval, and Trump's various enemies in the Left, and in the Left media are applauding at the appearance of upheaval. Truthfully, it is good to see Trump move to fire people who don't fit in the positions they work in. I would be much more disturbed if Trump kept bad people in ill-suited positions. Also, I like Trump's affinity for tough-as-nails military generals.

White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said: “General John Kelly is one of the true stars of the administration. He has helped seal the border and reduced illegal immigration by 70%. He is respected by everyone, especially the people at the Department of Homeland Security.

She is solid as press secretary.

•Al Gore was recently confronted by PJ Media over his 2006 claim that “the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years” if countries around the world didn't take “drastic measures” to counteract what he saw as man-made global warming.

PJ Media asked, “Looking back on that prediction, why did you make the prediction at the time and are you making a new one right now given the current circumstances?”

Gore's answer: “Well, first of all, we've seen a lot of progress since the first movie came out. We have the Paris agreement now. The cost of renewable energy has come down so quickly that people are switching over. Unfortunately, some elements of the Earth system have crossed a point of no return.”

To expand on his comments, Gore explained that a “big chunk” of the west Antarctic ice-sheet “makes a considerable amount of sea-level rise inevitable in the future.” Gore, however, did not offer facts to back that claim.

“Inevitable?” He was wrong about his 10-year prediction of doom. What in the world makes him right about sea-level rise?

•By the way, did you realize that it has in fact been 4,300 days since the last U.S. major (Category 3 or higher) hurricane landfall? That is nearly 12 years! Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. said Wednesday of this week marks the day. A Category 3 hurricane has sustained wind speeds of 111-129 mph. The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on Oct. 24, 2005.

So much for global warming causing more hurricanes!

•Many of the world's issues of poverty can be solved with the implementation of policies that advocate cheap energy. However, this can be achieved only through development of fossil-based fuel resources, not by forcing reliance on intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

As you well know, manufacturing wind turbines is expensive and requires raw and finished materials created by petroleum products, fossil fuels and rare earth metals. Plus, wind turbines are unreliable as a source of primary electrical generation. When they don't spin, there is no power. When the wind picks up and the turbines spin too fast, they're shut off. Unless there is some place in the world where the wind blows 8 to 12 mph, maybe higher, at a constant, converting to totally renewable energy will be unsustainable.

Though a mixture of many types of energy generation can be beneficial, sources like wind and solar do not generate enough power to provide adequate delivery for the world's energy needs. Half of the people in Africa, nearly twice the entire population of the United States, have no access to electricity!

(Email Brian Kubicki at




With all the back-and-forth in the media and Congress on repealing and replacing Obamacare, I grow very weary of hearing and reading people declare that they want their kids to remain on their parents' health insurance plans until they are 26.

If you are 21 or 22 years old, especially if you're no longer living with your parents, you should no longer be on their insurance policy. Get off your butts and go make your way in the world. Hopefully, once Congress does something on Obamacare, you will no longer be required to buy health insurance and can choose to purchase it on an open market if you want it.

America was made great by doers. Be one of those, not a taker.

•Have you seen Sen. Claire McCaskill seemingly looking for common ground with President Trump? She must be up for re-election…in a state Trump won in 2016.
She wrote a letter to the president that stated, “Given your remarks during your campaign for presidency and your recent establishment of a White House commission on opioids, I am encouraged that our goals in stopping this crisis are the same — to help as many afflicted by this crisis (?) through effective, strategic planning and implementation.”

Trump won Missouri by almost 20%. McCaskill, who campaigned for Hillary Clinton, says she's looking for areas to work with his administration, and she's set her beady eyes on combating the “opioid epidemic.”

What opioid epidemic and what exactly are opioids?

Opioids are substances that produce morphine-like effects and in medicine are used for pain relief and anesthesia. They are also frequently used for their euphoric effects (see heroin).

Dependence develops with continuous use, requiring increasing doses and leading to a withdrawal syndrome upon abrupt discontinuation. The euphoria attracts recreational users, typically resulting in addiction. Overdosing or concurrent use with other depressant drugs causes death from respiratory depression.

Because of opioid drugs' reputation for addiction and fatal overdose, most are controlled substances. In 2013 between 28 and 38 million people used opioids illegally. In 2011, an estimated 4 million people in the United States used opioids recreationally or were dependent on them. Current increased rates of recreational use and addiction are attributed to over-prescription of opioid medications and inexpensive illicit heroin.

So what are the numbers?

The total number of U.S. overdose deaths involving ALL drugs rose from about 23,000 to 53,000 from 2002 to 2015.

The total number of U.S. overdose deaths involving opioid drugs (including illegal use and heroin), rose from about 13,000 to 33,000 from 2002 to 2015.

The total number of U.S. overdose deaths involving opioid pain relievers rose from about 9,000 to 16,000 from 2002 to 2015, however, that number has been stable since 2011.

In other words, there has been no “opioid epidemic” since 2011.

Now, the total number of U.S. overdose deaths involving heroin from 2002 to 2015 has seen a sharp rise, from 2,000 to 13,000 from 2002 to 2015. That seems to be the source of any perceived sharp rise in the total overdose death statistics. As stated earlier, heroin has gotten cheaper apparently, so when it is cheaper the usage numbers will rise.

This isn't even close to an epidemic. An epidemic is a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time. This thing with opioids is not that.

If you have to identify the real source of something like this, it's that a politician fears she has nothing in common with her constituents and is trying to latch onto something that might give her a chance to keep her gravy-train (fed by our hard-earned tax dollars) running in 2018.

•And on the subject of causes of death, 16,000 people died in 2015 from opioid overdose. From the CDC, the following are WAY more likely to cause your death: Accidental Injuries – 147,000; Alzheimer's – 111,000; Diabetes – 80,000; and Influenza & pneumonia – 57,000.

I suppose McCaskill could mount a campaign based on saving us from skateboarding accidents or catching the flu, but it just doesn't have the glint of an “opioid epidemic.”

Opioid abuse is the Zika Virus of 2017. Whatever happened to the Zika Virus?

Obama wanted $2 billion to “fight Zika,” and Congress went on to approve “only” $1.1 billion. Where'd all that money go?

(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki by email to or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




Earlier this week, former Al Gore compared climate activism with moral movements to abolish slavery, end apartheid and promote women's suffrage. (Hat-tip to

Black conservatives with the Project 21 leadership network question the accuracy and sincerity of Gore's wild comparison.

“This is truly rich coming from the son of a segregationist. When his father was filibustering against the civil rights for blacks in the Senate, where was Al Gore, Jr.'s concern?” asked Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former assistant law professor at George Mason University. “Study after study demonstrate that the radical climate policies advocated by Al Gore, Jr. will hurt blacks and the poor most. Just as segregation and interracial marriage bans were purported to be for the good of all while clearly done to generate political support, today's climate alarmism is pushed solely to get the support of a small group of so-called eco-warriors at the expense of blacks. Please spare us any more of this.”

I have said this for years – if you want to hurt poor people, take away cheap energy.

At the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne, Australia, Gore asserted global warming activism was “in the tradition of all the great moral causes.” In the July 13 address, Gore added: “The abolition of slavery, woman's suffrage and women's rights, the civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the movement to stop the toxic phase of nuclear arms race and more recently the gay rights movement… All of these movements have one thing in common. They all have met with ferocious resistance…”

“The abolitionist movement, the suffrage movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement were all unmistakably moral movements. Each sought social and economic equality and were met with 'ferocious resistance' to preserve a status quo of separate and unequal second-class citizenship,” noted Project 21 member Derryck Green, who has earned a doctorate in theology and spiritual leadership. “When Al Gore, Jr. associates these moral movements of history with one grounded in questionable data, he gives climate change activists unearned moral credibility they haven't earned and don't deserve. Gore trivializes the historical suffering and accomplishments of blacks and women in both the United States and South Africa. Climate change isn't and will never be the moral movement Gore and his acolytes want it to be.”

“The hysteria over America's cancelled participation in the Paris climate accord has the greens' minister-in-chief, Al Gore, Jr., behind the podium uttering nonsense,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington, a syndicated talk radio host. “Gore's latest statement comparing efforts to redistribute hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to his cronies and other countries with the abolition of slavery in America, the anti-apartheid campaign in South Africa and other historic efforts is utter nonsense. Fighting people being owned as property and debased in an entrenched system enshrined in law is akin to worshiping the idea that humans can materially impact the climate? He cannot be serious!”

I like this group. I wonder if they'll accept me as a member if I pretend to be black like Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal?

•Take a look at these results from a recent Yale University poll…
Four in ten Americans (39%) think the odds that global warming will cause humans to become extinct are 50% or higher. Most Americans (58%) think the odds of human extinction from global warming are less than 50%.

Four in ten Americans (40%) say they have personally experienced the effects of global warming, six in ten (60%) say they have not.

Only one in three Americans (33%) discuss global warming with family and friends “often” or “occasionally,” while most say they “rarely” or “never” discuss it (67%). Additionally, fewer than half of Americans (43%) hear about global warming in the media at least once a month, and only one in five (19%) hear people they know talk about global warming at least once a month.

Six in ten Americans (63%) say the issue of global warming is either “extremely” (10%), “very” (16%), or “somewhat” (38%) important to them personally. Four in ten (37%) say it is either “not too” (22%) or “not at all” (15%) important personally.

Half of Americans say they have thought “a lot” (18%) or “some” (31%) about global warming. The other half say they have thought about global warming just “a little” (33%) or “not at all” (17%).

Summary, lots of Americans really don't care and fall for nonsense if all they are presented with is nonsense.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at


Here's what should happen at KCI Airport


•Those radio ads playing recently in the KC area trying to build support for abandoning KCI Airport's legendary convenience in favor of allowing yet another KC mayor to saddle the city with an overly expensive landmark to their “leadership” (remember Emmanuel Cleaver's “Turd Creek?”) make me want to vomit. I don't have a vote on the airport, but abandoning the brilliance of convenience dreamt, conceived, built, and proven to work over a period of more than 30 years should not be wantonly abandoned.

As I suggested weeks ago in this space, build a new single entry and ticketing terminal, construct overhead people-moving bridges to and between the existing terminals (no more red and blue buses!), and open-up/renovate the existing terminals so that the exit point is the current entry doors to the terminals. Do NOT allow Sly James to ruin KCI!

•Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah) are advocating a new state waiver to the Senate's attempt at replacing Obamacare that would allow insurers offering at least one plan compliant with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to offer any number of other plans that are not compliant. The implication is that insurers could charge whatever premiums they wanted for their non-compliant plans. In particular, this would mean healthy consumers could buy policies with premiums adjusted based on their lower risk of needing expensive care.

Wouldn't that be treating this plan essentially in a way that insurance should be – charging varied premiums based on risk to the insurer? If you require more health care services, you should pay for it. What's wrong with that?

But the amendment has drawn concern from critics who worry that it would “destabilize the risk pool that brings together healthy and sick individuals, and that it could mean higher coverage costs for less-healthy people.”

If this is insurance, then let it function like insurance. If it is an entitlement, then call it that. Health insurance premiums should not be an entitlement.

•For all the praise heaped upon Pres. Trump for removing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Fiasco, there is still a major turd in the punch bowl. Rather than simply dismissing the Paris Agreement as fundamentally unsound, a multitrillion-dollar wealth redistribution boondoggle devoid of sound science, President Trump said recently at an Energy Department event, “Maybe we'll be back into it someday, but it will be on better terms, fairer terms. We'll see.”

Understand this Mr. President, the Paris Agreement is based on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activities are causing, or will someday in the future cause, dangerous climate change. If carbon-dioxide emissions are harmless or, as Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last month, not “the primary control knob for climate,” then the main reason for something like the Paris Accord disappears. It makes no sense to boast, as Mr. Perry does, that, even though the U.S. is withdrawing from the agreement, “the United States already leads the world in lowering emissions.”

ALL efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are a waste of time and money. That includes the capture and storage underground of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Amazing to me to see people crying that disposing of fracking wastewater underground causes earthquakes in Oklahoma but those same people say nothing when we spend millions trying to inject carbon dioxide underground!
At the end of the day, the fact remains that carbon dioxide is a gas that is essential to all life on this planet. We would not survive without carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

•Have you ever noticed that among all the major professional team sports, there is no “flopping” in baseball? Basketball has lots of flopping to try and draw offensive fouls and now players feign brain injury in attempts to get flagrant foul calls.

Football has defensive linemen pretend they are being held, receivers pretend they are being interfered with, and strangely enough, running backs pretending that true head contact did not occur in efforts to avoid having to leave the game in accordance with concussion protocol. Diving, or embellishment, is a term used in ice hockey to describe a player trying to get the attention of the referee by embellishing an infraction from an opposing player in an attempt to draw a penalty. I don't even have to describe how soccer allows flopping to ruin their sport.

But baseball stands alone. You may see a catcher try to move his glove in an effort to show a pitch is in the strike zone, but the umpire is right there to call BS when it's necessary.

I like that about baseball!

I may be wrong, but the Chiefs firing John Dorsey was about Andy Reid not appreciating his General Manager running off his favorite player (Jeremy Maclin). Right, wrong, or indifferent…Andy Reid runs the Chiefs' show.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at


Trump may have a brilliant strategy with Twitter wars


•Am I alone in the belief that President Trump is using his Twitter war with the liberal media to distract them from criticizing his policy while he implements it?
Last week, while he was Tweeting about an MSNBC host's bleeding face, Congress passed two important immigration measures, Kate's Law and a sanction to stop sanctuary cities from shielding illegal aliens from detection and prosecution.
If this is indeed his reason for the Tweet wars, it's brilliant.

•Remember when I told you that Obama will not be able to keep his mouth shut after he leaves office? His ego is too massive to allow his successor that which his predecessor ably provided him when he first took office in 2009.

Former President Barack Obama while in Indonesia took a shot at President Trump, saying his successor had caused a "temporary absence of American leadership" on climate policy.

"In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change," Obama said Saturday, per Bloomberg. "[A]n agreement that even with the temporary absence of American leadership will still give our children a fighting chance."

Trump wisely withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, months after Obama's team scrambled to force America into an international climate accord before he left office.

"The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries," Trump said in June when he announced the withdrawal.

"We will be environmentally friendly, but we're not going to put our businesses out of work," Trump said.

This message comes from the White House press office and is taken from a recent speech by President Trump.

President Trump promised Americans a new era of jobs, energy independence and the return of American energy dominance – unlocking, exploiting and exporting American fossil fuel energy around the world.

“We're here today to usher in a new American energy policy — one that unlocks million and millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in wealth. For over 40 years, America was vulnerable to foreign regimes that used energy as an economic weapon. Americans' quality of life was diminished by the idea that energy resources were too scarce to support our people. We always thought that, and actually at the time it was right to think. We didn't think we had this tremendous wealth under our feet. Many of us remember the long gas lines and the constant claims that the world was running out of oil and natural gas.”

Imagine an American president actually TRYING to make Americans suffer for leading the world in energy production, as President Obama did for 8 years.
“Americans were told (by Obama) that our nation could only solve this energy crisis by imposing draconian restrictions on energy production. But we now know that was all a big, beautiful myth. It was fake…The truth is that we have near-limitless supplies of energy in our country. Powered by new innovation and technology, we are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution.

“Our country is blessed with extraordinary energy abundance, which we didn't know of, even five years ago and certainly 10 years ago. We have nearly 100 years' worth of natural gas and more than 250 years' worth of clean, beautiful coal. We are a top producer of petroleum and the number-one producer of natural gas. We have so much more than we ever thought possible. We are really in the driver's seat. And you know what? We don't want to let other countries take away our sovereignty and tell us what to do and how to do it. That's not going to happen. With these incredible resources, my administration will seek not only American energy independence that we've been looking for so long, but American energy dominance.”

Those are refreshing words coming out of an American president!

“And we're going to be an exporter…We will be dominant. We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe. These energy exports will create countless jobs for our people, and provide true energy security to our friends, partners, and allies all across the globe.

“We have to get out and do our job better and faster than anybody in the world, certainly when it comes to one of our great assets — energy. This vast energy wealth does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people of the United States of America. Yet, for the past eight years, the federal government imposed massive job-killing barriers to American energy development.”

Kind of sounds like Ronald Reagan, doesn't it?

(Find The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at





•The Facebook Live event last Sunday afternoon investigating the crawlspace under The Landmark offices was cool! I am disappointed there were no skeletons down there, though.

•President Trump's Travel Ban applying to several countries known to support global terrorism was reinstated by the Supreme Court on Monday, delivering a swift-kick-to-the-shins to those liberal activist appeals courts that tried to use the nonsensical logic that a president can't use powers given him by law because of statements he made when he was not yet president.

That would be like a court saying President Obama could not pardon known drug abusers because he admitted using marijuana and cocaine in his youth.

The Supreme Court will hear the case in its entirety in October.

•Ever wonder what was Obama's motivation for doing the things he did policy-wise?

Ever heard of Agenda 21?

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels.

Agenda 21 is formalized in a 350-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into four sections:

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.

Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Section IV: Means of Implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, the United States Senate did not hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution. President George H. W. Bush was one of the 178 heads of government who signed the final text of the agreement at the Earth Summit in 1992, and in the same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States. Created by a 1993 Executive Order, the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) is explicitly charged with recommending a national action plan for sustainable development to the President.

A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion.

That sure sounds like part-and-parcel what President Obama tried to shove down America's throat over the last eight years. Combating poverty through wealth redistribution, trying to change how we consume things, trying to put government in control of health care, atmospheric protection (re: global warming/climate change), biodiversity, pollution control (as long as they can define what pollution is!)…it's all part of Agenda 21.

•Sustainability again?!

Why is it automatically assumed that something we build has to last forever? What's wrong with developing and building something better? Better can mean making us safer, more comfortable, cheaper to heat and cool, more attractive, more functional, etc. Nothing material lasts forever and it shouldn't.

Using true sustainability concepts, we'd still be living in the crawlspace under The Landmark Offices!

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at




•From The Daily Wire, Lena Dunham (from HBO's never-watched show, “Girls”) Tweeted the following on Father's Day – yes, Father's Day:

"You don't need a father - so many families work so many ways- but if you have one he better werk"

Her nonsense was swiftly condemned online – as it should have been, so much so that she deleted the tweet.

Donald Trump Jr. Tweeted, “It never ends. Would be great to have just 1 day without the unnecessary SJW commentary. Doubt there was a similar comment on Mother's Day.”

Priscilla Rodewald Tweeted, “I run a non profit that works with pairing at risk youth with mentors. The majority, 80%, come from fatherless homes. Kids need dads.”

Ryan James Girdusky Tweeted, “People do need fathers, you have one that you seem to love & who has enriched your life. Why rob someone of that?”

Dunham responded to the universal vitriol, “I love men, I love alternative families and the only thing I hate is people who can't respect a diversity of family dynamics. Peace.”

Dunham's entire public work hinges on the demonization of men, as seen with her declaration that a man's role in a family is unnecessary.

Shall we see what the facts say?

63% of youths who commit suicide come from a fatherless home.
70% of all juveniles in "state-operated institutions" come from a fatherless home.
71% of all high school dropouts come from a fatherless home.
85% of all children who display behavioral disorders come from a fatherless homes.

Overall, children who experience fatherlessness have lower achievement in school and higher levels of aggression and delinquency.

Yay Dads!

•From Climate Depot, a team of scientists levelled a devastating rebuttal to global warming, stating in a recent report, “Advocacy masquerading as science should not be the basis for political decisions.”

In the last 20 years, mankind has released more than a third of all the CO2 produced since the beginning of the industrial period. However, during that time average surface temperatures have remained essentially constant for 20 years.

This was acknowledged by the IPCC, whose models failed to predict it. NOAA's State of the Climate report for 2008 said that periods of 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between prediction and observation – i.e., that the models were wrong.

The computer models were wrong!

Just before the recent naturally occurring el Niño event raised global temperature, there had been 18 years and 9 months without any global warming at all.
The average sea level rise since 1870 has been about a twentieth of an inch per year!

There is no science unambiguously establishing that CO2 is the chief cause of the warming observed since the end of the Little Ice Age. The opposite has been repeatedly demonstrated. Ice cores have revealed that changes in CO2 concentration follow, rather than precede, changes in temperature.

The temperature rises, plants grow, and CO2 concentrations increase.
During the last deglaciation, the latest high-resolution records show atmospheric CO2 lagging temperature by 50 to 500 years. Our enterprises and industries return to the air some of the CO2 that was formerly present there, and some warming may be expected. That warming will be small and beneficial.

Small and beneficial!

Scientists have demonstrated that changes in CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature after about 8-11 months. The time-lag between changes in temperature and consequent changes in CO2 concentration are caused by outgassing of CO2 from the oceans when they warm and uptake by the oceans as they cool. In addition, the growth rate of the atmospheric CO2 has been slowing recently, linked to an enhanced terrestrial biosphere uptake. Our contribution to atmospheric CO2 adds to the effect of these fluctuations, but it does not add much.

The warmists' assertions that global temperatures can be regulated by an international agreement to atone for our sins of emission are in disagreement with scientific knowledge regarding cause and effect.

(Get more from Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




•Has anyone noted that all this Russian attempted interference with the elections last year occurred while Obama was in charge? Shouldn't he be on the witness stand explaining how his administration allowed that to happen?

•The Comey testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday raised a number of interesting questions, none of which the media seems to be asking.

A president saying he “hope(d)” an investigation finds nothing is not an order to stop the investigation, but if it was, why isn't former Attorney General Loretta Lynch facing obstruction of justice charges for ordering then-FBI Director Comey to change his reference to the Hillary Clinton unsecured home server from an “investigation” to a “matter?”

Why is a former hard-as-nails federal prosecutor in Comey so weak and intimidated by the likes of Donald Trump, whom he certainly seems to dislike and disrespect?

Why isn't Comey facing perjury charges for saying in previous Congressional testimony that he never leaked information to the press when he admitted last week that he in fact did leak the memo?

Precisely what lies does Comey attribute to President Trump? Comey said that he leaked the memo to the New York Times because he feared President Trump would lie again. How is stating an opinion about general morale at the FBI a lie?
Comey is nothing more than a 6 ft. 8 inch tall drama queen!

•President Trump recently lauded the opening of the nation's first new coal mine in many years.

Corsa Coal Company will operate the mine in Somerset County, Pa. – outside of Pittsburgh. Corsa CEO George Dethlefsen said the mine will be a boon to the struggling local economy. He praised Trump's easing of regulations and encouragement for fossil fuel exploration.

Dethlefsen noted that for the 70 jobs available in the mine, 400 people applied.
“It's a hard day's work every day, but it's worth it,” one miner said. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who endorsed Clinton, joined the mine company in watching a video message from Trump commemorating the occasion.

Go coal, go!

•Did you know that Trump's Mar-A-Lago was originally designed and built in 1927 by cereal-company heiress and socialite Marjorie Merriweather Post? Yes, the Post cereals family. Mar-a-Lago is an estate and National Historic Landmark in Palm Beach, Florida. Post upon her death in 1972 willed the land and estate to the US Government for use as a Winter White House, but Nixon used another mansion in Florida and Carter wasn't interested, so the government returned Mar-a-Lago to the Post family in 1981.

The Post heirs could not keep the property in suitable repair, so they put it up for sale. Donald Trump offered the Post family $25 million for it, which they rejected. Trump then put in a bid of $2 million to purchase the land between Mar-a-Lago and the ocean, stating he intended to build a home that would block Mar-a-Lago's beach view. The threat caused interest in the property to decline. Trump ended up getting the property for $7 million in 1985. Trump renovated the estate, adding a 20,000-square-foot ballroom to the 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, a 29-foot-long pietra dura marble top dining table, 12 fireplaces, and three bomb shelters. The club also has five clay tennis courts and a waterfront pool.

Kind of interesting when you consider that his enemies consider Trump an evil wealthy person who only benefits other wealthy elites.

Name another president who developed and maintains his own White House.

•EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said last week the American people deserve “…a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.” Pruitt called for the establishment of a “Red Team/Blue Team” of scientists to examine “what do we know, what don't we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world.”

EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2.”

So, Republicans ask for open review of both sides of the global warming issue while Democrats demand that differing views that mankind is destroying the planet be disregarded and people with those views should be jailed.

(Get more Parallax Look from The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)




•Kudos and abundant applause are due to President Donald Trump for standing firm on his pledge to exit the US from the Paris Accord!

Based on the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the liberal media, Hollywood, and Europe, the move was the right one.

•Michael Bastasch with The Daily Caller had a superb review last week of Al Gore's silly environmental predictions in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It has now been 11 years since the propaganda flick flooded the liberal media and was shoved down our kids' throats via the public education system. The frenzy emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.

Al Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.

Have Gore's warnings actually come true - any of them?

From the column:

“Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow"

One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa's tallest peak will be snow-free 'within the decade.' Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro's peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it's been a decade and, yes, there's still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn't take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website

'There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,' Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told

Gore Left Out The 15-Year 'Hiatus' In Warming

Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were 'uninterrupted and intensifying.' He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.

Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore's film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.

Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.

Gore's movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming 'hiatus.'

The Weather Hasn't Gotten Worse

Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.

‘And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,' Gore said in his film. 'That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.’

Gore's film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore's film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.

'The insurance industry has actually noticed this,' Gore said. 'Their recovered losses are going up.'

But Gore's claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren't more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore's claim.
The IPCC found in 2013 there 'is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.' The IPCC also found 'no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century' and '[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.'

Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.

Don't you just love facts? Go to for more.

(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki by email at




Marc Morano of Climate Depot posted last week that “…CFACT has fed all the data into the most sophisticated computer models available and can project with 97% accuracy that the heads of global warming campaigners, the warming-compliant media and the entire political Left will explode if President Trump exits the UN Paris Agreement.”

They are going to go nuts!

The AP has asked their “team warming” to assume that all other countries honor their Paris commitments 100%, made assumptions about U.S. emissions outside of Paris and plugged that into their “worst case” computer simulations. Of course, they predict rising sea levels, extreme weather, etc.

They ignore the fact their computer models have consistently run far warmer than real world observations have indicated and there has been no meaningful warming since the turn of the millennium.

Here's what CBS claims will happen if President Trump breaks free from the Paris Agreement:

The U.S. economy loses $2 trillion
Hurricanes become stronger and “stranger”
Intense droughts and wildfires
Climate refugees flood inland
Americans will get sicker with more diabetes and heart disease
Warfare will increase
Africa will be destabilized
American defense capabilities will weaken
Rape, murder and assault will increase
Americans will starve
American foreign policy will “shrink”

The Paris Treaty doesn't save or generate money, it redistributes it. Economist Bjorn Lomborg's peer-reviewed estimate concludes that
Paris is “…history's most expensive treaty. It will slow the world's economic growth to force a shift to inefficient green energy sources…This will achieve almost nothing…even if every nation were to fulfill all their carbon-cutting promises by 2030 and stick to them all the way through the century—at a cost of more than $100 trillion in lost GDP—global temperature rise would be reduced by a tiny 0.3°F (0.17°C).”

That's assuming the models are accurate and they never have been!

•Weather, extreme or otherwise, has not been worsening. Most weather is currently mild or at historic lows confounding the modelers once again.
Sea level has been increasing at 1 to 3 mm per year (about the width of a paper clip) without accelerating since before the industrial revolution. Antarctic ice is stable and shows no signs of melting away.

Does anyone truly believe that the problems that plague Sub-Saharan Africa are caused by American electricity and SUVs? Africa is torn apart by tribalism, corruption and 20th century left-wing ideologies. What Africa needs is free markets, fair elections and the rule of law.

What you should be afraid of?

White House aides last week said President Trump's views on the Paris climate deal “absolutely are evolving” after he heard other world leaders' opinions on climate change during a Group of Seven (G7) meeting on Friday.

Trump and other G7 leaders discussed the environment and Paris climate agreement for about 20 minutes during a meeting in Italy on Friday.
Trump did not say when he would make a decision on the United States' involvement in the Paris climate deal, an international pact designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Actually, that's not what the Paris deal was designed to do. It was designed to redistribute Americans' hard-earned wealth. Read on…

•German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters that Friday's meeting included a “very intense exchange” on climate, one where all six of the other leaders teamed up in support of the deal.

“We made it clear that we want the U.S. to stick to its commitments," Merkel said, according to Bloomberg News.

The White House has said Trump will make a decision on the Paris deal after this week's G7 summit.

The draft of the international agreement to deal with climate change, which is being considered today in Paris by representatives from 195 countries, calls for the developed nations of the world (which include the United States) to transfer wealth to developing nations, including through “public funds.”

“Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention,” says Article 9 of the draft agreement.

“As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds,” says the draft.

The draft agreement sets a goal for developed countries to dole out at least $100 billion per year by 2020.

$100 billion per year! Of our money!





•Now that the Democrats, catalyzed by the liberal mainstream media machine, have been at work for several weeks trying to make a scandal out of the Trump Campaign/Russia collusion theory, a few items are coming into focus.

On last Thursday's Mark Levin radio show, he pointed out that the liberal media are ignoring an exclusive report from Reuters, citing anonymous “U.S. officials,” asserting that the Trump campaign had at least 18 “undisclosed contacts with Russians” during the closing months of the 2016 presidential campaign. Buried six paragraphs down in the report is the admission that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia” from these leaked communications.

The media is ignoring that members of the bureaucracy – Congressional Democrats mostly – are illegally leaking information to the press. This information could only have come from one place - domestic surveillance and the unmasking of Mike Flynn. Levin pointed out that's the only way they know this information being leaked to Reuters. This is part of the domestic surveillance that took place. This is part of the unmasking of Trump advisers, Trump transition team members, Trump campaign members, American citizens.

This is part of the unmasking of American citizens and abuse of power by the Obama Administration prior to leaving office.

From the actual Reuters piece:

“Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump's campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.

Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.”

So, there is no crime or wrongdoing in Trump's incoming cabinet speaking with foreign diplomats. However, there is a crime committed in those conversations being monitored, then Flynn's name being unmasked, and finally in that information being leaked to the media.

Who committed those crimes? Trump didn't. So who did?


“The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.”

“The 18 calls and electronic messages took place between April and November 2016 as hackers engaged in what U.S. intelligence concluded in January was part of a Kremlin campaign to discredit the vote and influence the outcome of the election in favor of Trump over his Democratic challenger, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.”

How was that different from the Obama Administration sending a team to Israel last year trying to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu? It happened. Look it up.

“Those discussions focused on mending U.S.-Russian economic relations strained by sanctions imposed on Moscow, cooperating in fighting Islamic State in Syria and containing a more assertive China, the sources said.

Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees have gone to the CIA and the National Security Agency to review transcripts and other documents related to contacts between Trump campaign advisers and associates and Russian officials and others with links to Putin, people with knowledge of those investigations told Reuters.

In the conversations during the campaign, Russian officials emphasized a pragmatic, business-style approach and stressed to Trump associates that they could make deals by focusing on common economic and other interests and leaving contentious issues aside, the sources said.

Veterans of previous election campaigns said some contact with foreign officials during a campaign was not unusual, but the number of interactions between Trump aides and Russian officials and others with links to Putin was exceptional.

'It's rare to have that many phone calls to foreign officials, especially to a country we consider an adversary or a hostile power,' Richard Armitage, a Republican and former deputy secretary of state, told Reuters.”

Remember, Armitage was the Colin Powell acolyte that leaked CIA Agent Valerie Plame's name – and he let someone else go to prison over the deal.

(Email Brian Kubicki at




•Last Sunday, France officially installed former Socialist Party member Emmanuel Macron as the nation's next president.

Macron, who has been described by many European and American news outlets as a “centrist,” (If he's a centrist, I'm Al Gore's best friend!) is a noted believer in the theory humans are primarily responsible for climate change. In February, Macron posted a video on his Facebook page in which he invited all U.S. climate researchers to come to France to escape the Trump administration.

“I do know how your new president now has decided to jeopardize your budget, your initiatives, as he is extremely skeptical of climate change,” Macron said in the video. “I have no doubt about climate change, and how committed we have to be regarding this issue.”

Macron said to U.S. scientists that France will be their “new homeland.”

Can I buy tickets to send them to France?

“I want all those who today embody innovation and excellence in the United States to hear what we say: From now on, from next May, you will have a new homeland, France,” Macron said.

Apparently, there is some interest in the journey. The video has been viewed more than 19 million times and shared more than 200,000 times.

•President Trump, in his interview with Fox News' Jeanine Pirro last week, said that his communications people can't keep up with him. It almost seems like he actually wants to do his own communications without the aid of any staff.
That would be a nightmare for his administration. Trump must maintain a consistent and unwavering communications message. If not, he gives his enemies fuel to distract the liberal mainstream media which already constantly seeks to reinforce the Democrat message that Trump is illegitimate.

And Trump needs to enforce his messaging that man is not the principal driver of global climate change through his cabinet, and specifically to the State Department and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

What is President Trump's policy on climate change and does he actually believe the United States should be obliged to follow the dictates of the Paris climate accord?

It is said that his daughter Ivanka and her husband are liberals that embrace the notion that man is bad for the global climate. Who knows if that's true because they almost never talk openly.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson represents the administration beyond our borders. Right now, American environmental policy is being pulled toward the climate change nincompoops who believe it is our most urgent mission to make war on climate change, which means to make war on capitalism and the free market.

Tillerson travelled to Alaska for a summit with the Arctic partners (whatever they are!). He signed the Fairbanks Declaration, which was a document that endorses the objectives of the Paris Accord. Tillerson wasn't only going along with the crowd. His participation in the discussions was not forced or compelled. Tillerson actually LED the discussion and enthusiastically forged unity among the participants!

Be afraid if a U.S. secretary of state earns praise from a member of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet. Be VERY afraid if Tillerson gets Trump to stay in the Paris nonsense deal.

Trump needs to loudly clarify his environmental position on Twitter, in the Rose Garden, in an address from the Oval Office, and everywhere else he communicates. The climate change movement is the largest tax grab in history because we are supposed to reduce carbon emissions by paying more for gas.
The ultimate objective of course is to reduce the population to a stone-age lifestyle that is bereft of any carbon-producing modern convenience or warmth-emitting fuel.

While the U.S. is raising their tee-pees and turning off their air conditioners, China and India blast away trying to overtake the U.S. as the world's lone superpower. If you've been following along, the Paris Accord allows those countries to set their own standards and you better believe they are moving full-steam-ahead!

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at






•It seems apparent that Barack Obama is the most thin-skinned, vindictive, and classless former president I have ever seen! The constant efforts he seems to apply to hang around, stay in the public eye, and offer his opinions on policies undertaken by his successor are truly extraordinary.

Charles Krauthammer said Monday on Fox News that he is the most arrogant and condescending former president he has ever encountered, and followed with the words, “Good riddance!”

I couldn't agree more.

•Via Climate Depot, Ivanka Trump will head a review of U.S. climate change policy while President Trump considers pulling out of the Paris Climate Scheme.
The United States will continue attending United Nations climate change meetings next week in Bonn, Germany, but Pres. Trump's advisers will meet Tuesday to discuss what to do about the global pact known as the Paris agreement.

The conflicting signals suggested the administration was trying to keep its options open while Trump decides whether to withdraw, a move the international community would strongly oppose.

Though Trump's inclination has been to leave the agreement, he's allowed his daughter, White House adviser Ivanka Trump, to set up an extensive review process. The goal is to ensure Pres. Trump receives information from both government experts and the private sector before a making a decision.

To that end, Ivanka Trump will hold a separate meeting Tuesday with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the official said. Pruitt is a chief proponent of leaving the deal and has questioned the science that says humans are contributing to global warming.

And the decision to participate in next week's UN climate talks shouldn't be construed as a sign that Trump has decided to stay in the Paris pact. To the contrary, the U.S. will be sending a “much smaller” delegation than it has in years past, the official said.

•Bill Nye is back with a new Netflix series, humbly titled “Bill Nye Saves The World,” and one particular episode is causing an uproar among parents on one side and transgender people on the other.

The bow-tied buffoon covered probability in his new Netflix series using clips from his old broadcast television series “Bill Nye The Science Guy,” taken from an episode also about probability.

One of the segments that aired in the original version explained:

“Inside each of ourselves are these things called chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl,” the narrator explains. “There are only two possibilities: 'XX,' a girl, or 'XY,' a boy.”

That's how I learned it in biology class. But that's not how it was edited for Netflix. In the new version of his probability episode, Nye demonstrated that both sex and gender choice are non-binary. That is to say that a person's sex selection and the gender to which they identify, appear on a scale as opposed to in a check box labeled “male” or “female.”

But that's not scientifically correct. Gender choice may be non-binary, it may not be, that can be a matter of opinion apparently. But normal sex selection is based on either XX or XY chromosomes.

Gender, to some, is a social construct, not a scientific one, it may be caused by legitimate parts of people's consciousness, and it may be that transgenderism is a psychological malady. Society may recognize a person's gender selection– but that doesn't change the fact that sex is based on DNA.

THAT is science.

(Get science and more from The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki each week in Parallax Look. Email him at and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•So I'm reading my favorite newspaper, the Platte County Landmark, last week and am intrigued by an article entitled, “A 'State of the Air' Report: How Fresh is the Air in this area? Clay County worst in KC for Ozone” by Landmark Editor Valerie Verkamp.

Now I don't live in Platte County anymore, but I did for a great while in the 90's and until 2009. It seemed to me that the air in Platte County was pretty fresh. What has happened to my favorite Missouri county?

The story details that the American Lung Association reported recently that almost 40% of the U.S. population lives in counties with unhealthy levels of ozone pollution or particle pollution.

So, I thought to myself, “What is ozone and what is 'particle pollution' and what are good vs. bad levels of both?”

The article says that the EPA stopped monitoring air quality in Platte County because the Kansas City area has met all ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards since 1979.

So, if that's the case, why did Clay County receive an “F” grade in ozone pollution?

The report says that Clay had 13 days where the air quality was unhealthy for residents who are more sensitive, such as asthmatics and those with chronic lung disease. I have a form of asthma and have relatives in Clay County. I haven't noticed a difference being in Clay on family visits. I breathe just as easy there as when I'm on the Kansas side.

Ozone near the ground, or tropospheric ozone, is a gas formed by the reaction of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. These react to form ozone directly.

Ozone is a key component of smog. The atmospheric lifetime of tropospheric ozone is about 22 days. Its main removal mechanisms are being deposited to the ground.

Cities with typically elevated ozone readings are Houston, Tex., and Mexico City, Mex. Houston has a reading of around 41 nmol/mol, while Mexico City has a reading of about 125 nmol/mol.

The EPA says 75 nmol/mol is the limit between healthy vs. unhealthy levels of ozone. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 51 nmol/mol.
So how many nmol/mol did Clay County have? I haven't been able to find that information despite considerable looking.

I did go here: and the Mid-America Regional Council says, “From March 1 – April 23, 2017 in the Kansas City region there have been no Ozone Alerts, and eight-hour ozone readings have not exceeded the 70 part-per-billion (ppb) standard within our Air Quality Maintenance Area.”

Clay County is certainly within that area, so why did they receive in “F” grade in the report? Counties with more “high” ozone days, 12.1 or higher, received a grade of "F."

So I guess Clay County had more hot days relative to the number of people living close together, so they get the bad grade. Everyone else in the KC metro area is apparently in good shape.

So let's wade through this. Ozone is a gas that can be a struggle for people with weakened respiratory systems to breathe when it is really dense – which is almost never around here. That's why when it gets very hot in the summer people in these groups are generally advised to stay indoors.

I understand being careful and accommodating for people, like me, with asthma. But I'll be fine. I will still run outdoors in the extreme heat. Don't feel bad if you drive your car or barbecue outside in the summer in Clay County. You aren't hurting me. I can take care of myself.

•I'm curious about something. Do we go to these extremes with monitoring of the smoothness and structural integrity of our sidewalks? It seems to me that there are many more walking-challenged people than there are respiratory-challenged ones. As of 2009, about 8% of the U.S. population has asthma. People who have trouble walking due to vision or leg disabilities total about 17%, so we should probably worry more about people tripping and falling on uneven sidewalks than a few folks who won't stay indoors when the temperature soars.

The EPA tells us to avoid doing fun outdoor things like driving around in our cars or cooking meat on outdoor grills when the temperature rises. I have a better solution. The only areas that have high levels of ozone are really big cities with lots of people living in them that also have very hot weather. California and really big cities along the East Coast have high ozone in the summer. Move out of the big cities. Spread out and live in the country away from big, dense cities. You will be healthier, happier, and the government will maybe stop wasting our tax dollars on nonsensical manufactured controversies.

Breathe easy, Platte County! I'm looking out for you.

(Brian Kubicki of The Landmark can be reached by email to




•With all the gender nonsense being spewed by the liberal left these days, it's a surprise that science has shown that human cells are either male or female. The distinction is more subtle at the cellular level, but it can actually affect how cells react in a variety of experiments. This was outlined recently in a paper published in the American Journal of Physiology.

Each cell line is derived from a single donor, and like every cell in the human body, each of the acquired cells contains 23 pairs of coiled DNA, called chromosomes. Included in this group are the two sex chromosomes: simply dubbed X and Y. Cells in women's bodies have two X chromosomes (XX), while cells in men's bodies have one X and one Y (XY). Thus, we get our male and female cells. Approximately 5% of the human genome resides on these chromosomes -- 1,846 genes on the X and 454 on the Y. This means that male and female cells are fundamentally dissimilar on a genetic level.

Got that Bruce Jenner? Despite what you pay a doctor to cut off your body, your cells on a genetic level are either male cells or female cells.

The scientists behind the paper, Kalpit Shah, Charles McCormack, and Neil Bradbury, all professors at Chicago Medical School of Rosalind Franklin University, say these differences are often ignored, despite the fact that genes expressed on sex chromosomes can impact cell function and how they react to all sorts of stimuli.

Previous research has made this clear. Female neurons uptake dopamine -- a neurotransmitter that helps regulate feelings of pain and pleasure -- twice as fast as male neurons. Female neurons and kidney cells are also more susceptible to chemical agents that lead to programmed cell death.

Plus, female liver cells contain more of the gene CYP3A. This last difference is especially crucial, as the actions of CYP3A account for how over half the drugs on the market today are metabolized.

What does this mean? The effectiveness of half of all drugs may be very different in females compared to males. Women are 50-75% more likely than men to experience adverse drug reactions. This is caused by a wide range of factors, chiefly because females weigh less, but cellular mechanisms undoubtedly contribute to it.

Over the years, differences in disease rates and drug effects among males and females have often been attributed to variations in hormone levels. But it's entirely possible that many of these dissimilarities result from underlying differences at the cellular level. Like people, cells are also male and female, and they are plainly not the same.

•Marc Morano at Climate Depot reminds us on the nonsense of Earth Day, which was last Saturday, that the inaugural festivities predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as the liberals commanded.

Behold the coming apocalypse, as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine

These people were, and are, nuts.

(Reach Brian Kubicki via email to




•I must be honest on the decision to bomb Syria in response to their government's apparent use of chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war.

I agree that anyone targeting civilians with chemical weapons, particularly children, should be held to account. However, this response happened so very quickly after the attacks, can we be completely sure we targeted and hit the correct targets? I do like that President Trump apparently put his trust in the recommendations of his military leadership and acted accordingly without undue influence in either direction. That is the most believable part of Trump – he lets people he appoints to lead to do precisely that, which is what effective leaders do.

The response to North Korea should be telling.

•Marc Morano at Climate Depot noted recently that the U.S. refused to sign onto a statement with other G7 countries to commit to the implementation of the Paris climate agreement, which President Donald Trump promised to withdraw from on the campaign trail.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said the U.S. “is in the process of reviewing many of its policies and reserves its position on this issue, which will be communicated at a future date.”

The Trump administration would not sign onto a statement mentioning Paris, since the president is still deciding whether or not to keep his campaign pledge. Perry also wanted the G7 to include support for coal and natural gas in its statement.
EPA head Scott Pruitt reiterated recently that we need to leave the Paris climate accord, calling it a “bad deal” for Americans. China and India, he said, have no obligations to reduce CO2 emissions until 2030 even as the United States continues to lower its own emissions at the expense of its economy. The accord, Pruitt said, contracts our economy while serving European needs through an agreement that's not legally enforceable. (Redistribution of wealth is all it is!)
Pruitt also said he was investigating the EPA division in Las Vegas that bilked taxpayers out of $15,000 to pay for gym memberships. Pruitt visited some coal mines in Pennsylvania last week to further explain President Trump's executive orders to miners and to let them know the war on coal was over. He will also stress clean coal, which he says is not a myth, as well as shale oil and gas recovery.

The key to managing a Trump Presidency as a supporter is to keep pressure on Trump to keep his word. The caution of having a non-ideological leader as president is he can be easily swayed toward whoever is applauding the loudest.

Fortunately, it doesn't appear that Democrats are ever going to be applauding Trump with any degree of vociferousness.

Last year, Obama's Attorney General was threatening to file criminal racketeering charges against private citizens for what she termed “mockery” of state science. Last week the new administration announced the repeal of the ENERGY STAR mandate, essentially shutting down the EPA's Department of Junk Science.
Elections have consequences!

•Ending the ENERGY STAR program, easily one of the most corrupt federal programs in United States history is a huge boost for science, education and commerce.

The EPA owns the ENERGY STAR brand, which is allegedly producing multi-billion dollar revenues in Global markets from 'certified' energy-efficiency. Just don't ask to see the evidence, or the government might throw you in jail - literally!
The repeal of the ENERGY STAR mandate is historic, which is why the mainstream media is, or will soon be, in a complete state of panic. The ENERGY STAR mandate served as a pay-to-play scam for all government contracting and services for decades. In terms of economic opportunity for the small business community in America, this was a complete sham.

ENERGY STAR is arguably the most corrupt federal program in US history. It has inflicted more damage on America's economy, scientific, educational and legal systems than an entire army of Obama Administration lawyers.

Built entirely on myth, fraudulent scientific research and bogus technical reports promoted by the mainstream media, this secretive program has been mired in scandal and controversy since day one.

ENERGY STAR's big break came rather suddenly in 2009, when EPA began boasting that their products save 25-50% more electrical energy than other identical products. Apparently EPA scientists were somehow able to infuse a 'Social Justice' component onto the electrons flowing in ENERGY STAR's certified products that don't exist in the rest of the universe. Or so it seems. No technological breakthroughs were involved in this miracle, only the reshuffling of words on paper were required to create this rare commodity.

Did you ever notice that your utility bills were never any lower after we were all forced to buy ENERGY STAR compliant heating and cooling equipment?

Neither did I.





•From the great Michael Bastasch at The Daily caller (via, Climate Depot), The Trump administration is working on an executive order to open new areas of the country to offshore oil and gas drilling, reversing Obama's decision to lock up most of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.

President Trump promised to end Obama's restrictions on energy production. Already the Dept. of the Interior has raised $275 million in bids in a recent lease auction for the Gulf of Mexico.

Trump is expected to sign the order by the end of April, and it's sure to draw legal challenges from environmentalists who've argued Obama's indefinite ban on Arctic and Atlantic drilling can't be overturned – because he's God and all!

Obama's order took 125 million acres in Arctic seas and four million acres in the Atlantic Ocean out of future lease sales indefinitely. Supporters said the former president's actions “permanently” banned drilling in those regions.

But the drilling ban is only permanent if Congress doesn't change the law or Trump doesn't test it in court. Past presidents have reduced but never fully repealed the regulations. The U.S.-held portion of the Arctic Ocean is estimated to hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The oil and gas industry has struggled to access these vast energy reserves but new discoveries in northern Alaska have rekindled interest in the region.

Let's get it going!

•The EPA lied but they claim nobody died as their excuse.

Steve Milloy exposed a controversy five years ago that the Obama EPA was conducting human experiments with air pollutants. The National Academy of Sciences recently concluded that the tests were not dangerous to the human subjects — meaning of course that the Obama EPA has been lying to the public and Congress for years about the extreme danger of the “pollutants” used in the tests.

In April 2012, Milloy broke the news that the Obama EPA had been quietly conducting human experiments with certain outdoor pollutants that the Obama EPA had claimed were, essentially, the most toxic substances on Earth. They repeatedly claimed since at least 2004 that any level of inhalation of fine particulate matter emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes could cause death within hours or days. The most vulnerable in society; the old, young and sick were going to be hurt most, according to the Obama EPA.

The reason the Obama EPA conducted the experiments, as admitted in litigation, was to try to hurt the study subjects in order to validate its unreliable statistical studies it claimed showed particulate matter was associated with death. So the agency constructed a gas chamber at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine into which it placed its human subjects/victims and pumped in diesel exhaust (from a truck idling outside), other concentrated forms of particulate matter, smog, combinations thereof, and even chlorine gas.

If the Obama EPA was correct, then the experiments conducted on human subjects would be patently illegal and the physicians involved would be guilty of many hundreds of counts of felony battery. The only way the Obama EPA and its physicians didn't have such criminal liability was if particulate matter was not as deadly as they claimed. If no subjects died, the Obama EPA would be guilty merely of having lied to the public and Congress in order to advance its regulatory agenda.

But rather than admit to either conducting criminal experiments or lying to Congress and the public about particulate matter, the Obama EPA secretly hired the National Academy of Sciences to whitewash its own inspector general's report in hopes of laying the scandal to rest and continuing the experiments.
Milloy attempted to expose the attempted covert whitewash and force the NAS to reopen its review. The NAS then held a special public meeting at which several experts testified about the corner the Obama EPA had painted itself. Through the meeting, it became clear that the fix was in for EPA.

The committee members exhibited no interest in the documented evidence. They asked no questions about the evidence and undertook no follow-up — even though they were shown documents indicating that the Obama EPA had withheld evidence from, and otherwise materially misled the committee. That the fix was in came as no surprise. The NAS board members were two-thirds Obama EPA cronies. The NAS was forced to hold one more closed meeting. This week, an answer was delivered.

The NAS committee did the only thing a government organization could do — bless the EPA's human experiments and hope the agency could ride out the obvious but unspoken conclusion that it had lied to the public and Congress about the dangers of particulate matter.

The only time Obama's EPA told the truth about particulate matter was when it told its human subjects that the experiments were harmless. Meanwhile the Obama EPA used the phony killer particulate matter scare in an attempt to wipe out the U.S. coal industry, severely harming coal miners, their families and their communities.

Who is going to prison over this? So far, no one. But we can always hope justice will be done.




•Regarding the Trump Surveillance Scandal surrounding the Obama Administration, we now know that Susan Rice, the Obama National Security Adviser, was the official who requested unmasking of incoming Trump officials, as reported by Cernovich Media.

The White House Counsel's office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking.

“Unmasking” is the process of identifying individuals whose communications were caught in broad scope intelligence gathering. While conducting investigations into terrorism and other related crimes, intelligence analysts incidentally capture conversations about parties not subject to the search warrant. The identities of individuals who are not under investigation are kept confidential, for legal and moral reasons.

However, President Obama changed the unmasking rules.

Obama's top aides routinely reviewed intelligence reports gleaned from the National Security Agency's incidental intercepts of Americans abroad, taking advantage of rules Obama relaxed starting in 2011, purportedly to help the government better fight terrorism.

Three people close to President Obama had authorization to unmask: Rice, CIA Director John Brennan, and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Trump had claimed in March on Twitter that he had been “wire tapped” which led to media demanding proof. The New York Times' own reporting proves that President Trump and his associates were spied on, but the media takes Trump's Tweet literally, using that to deny Obama had anything to do with it. Everyone with a working brain knows that Trump was referring to general surveillance.

•Those sneaky climate warmists are at it again!

Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to compel the U.S. Department of Commerce to turn over all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration's climate change policy and its backing of the Paris Agreement.

The suit was filed after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to a February 6 FOIA request seeking all records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.

The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.

Holdren, a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.

According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:
A high-level whistleblower told The Daily Mail that NOAA breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Obama and U.K.'s then-Prime Minister David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the “pause” or “slowdown” in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – had never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist, has showed The Daily Mail irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, “unverified” data.

It was never subjected to NOAA's rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of “…insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation…in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

( Email




•After all the media finger-pointing this past week at the House Freedom Caucus over the Trump Administration and Speaker Paul Ryan's decision to pull the American Health Care Act last week, this is what you need to know…
President Trump is NOT a politician (SURPRISE!), but he IS president. He is surrounded (by his own doing) by advisors who are Establishment RINOs that thought they could ram through their own version of ObamaCare without the input of Conservatives, who only wanted what most Americans wanted, ObamaCare repealed. Americans do not want the federal government to have the power to force them to buy health insurance. That's it.

Before Obamacare was implemented, 85% of Americans who had health insurance were happy with the plans and doctors they had. There was no need to change the system.

Obamacare created an entitlement by giving a group of people who either did not want health insurance or chose not to afford health insurance free subsidies taken from the 85%. The wailing you heard from the Establishment RINOs about proposed repeal of ObamaCare was due to fear of being blamed for the lamenting of the 15% who were going to have to go back to pre-2009 and no longer get free money to buy health insurance. Those 15% would be able to go out and buy cheap health insurance plans just like they could before, and they could also choose to not buy health insurance, just like they did before.

The solution to this train wreck is not to take power away from the Freedom Caucus, but to give more power to them and increase their numbers. When the primaries roll around in 2018, we need to sweep out the GOP Establishment with a new Tea Party Wave.

•Tell me Northern Manitoba wouldn't appreciate some man-made global warming about now…

Carrots and milk are finally getting back on the grocery shelves in the remote northern Manitoba community of Churchill after two major blizzards kept trains filled with supplies away for weeks.

"[The train] came in some time this afternoon and the Northern Store extended its hours to accommodate any community members," said Shane Hutchins, Churchill's deputy mayor.

OmniTrax, the Denver-based company that owns the rail line that brings supplies into Churchill, had a train en-route loaded with supplies departing from the northern Manitoba town of Gillam, about 170 miles southeast of Churchill.
Before the train arrived, there was no bread or vegetables for sale and meat products were scarce. Churchill residents are typically prepared for blizzards. Most have deep freezers to store perishables and work to help each other out, but with two major blizzards in two weeks, this strained those resources.

"Usually we get a weekly train in from the south, but with the blizzards that we have been having, we hadn't had one since March 1," he said.

Churchill declared a state of emergency after a three-day-blizzard blanketed the community, shutting down essential services.

On Monday morning, the town was confronted with near-zero visibility and strong wind gusts of 60mph. A low pressure system over Hudson Bay also brought wind chill values as low as -40 F. It will still be two weeks before the community is truly back to typical weather conditions.

•Oil is being discovered…again!

The Permian Basin, a sedimentary basin largely contained in the western part of Texas and the southeastern part of New Mexico, will produce oil and natural gas at a rate roughly equal to the massive Bakken and Eagle Ford fields combined!
Marathon Oil recently signed its second deal in two weeks in the Permian, marking the Houston-based company's return to the region. Marathon Oil acquired 21,000 net surface acres, primarily in the Northern Delaware basin of New Mexico, for $700 million. That gives Marathon Oil a total of 91,000 net Permian acres.

“While we expect to pursue additional trades and grassroots leasing, this bolt-on [acquisition] achieves the scale necessary for efficient long-term development in the [Permian] basin,” Marathon Oil President and CEO Lee Tillman said in a statement.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




Some have asked why I contribute so much column space toward global warming/climate change nonsense, as opposed to other important issues. My answer is pretty simple. Of all the things on the liberal Democrat agenda, NOTHING is more dangerous and at the same time totally wrong as is the propaganda from the left on global warming/climate change. Plus, the worst part of it is the best Republicans have been able to muster in a response has been the Establishment/RINO weak response of essentially throwing up their hands in surrender to the rhetoric, but resisting in how much the agenda is allowed to damage the economy.

Truth is, the evidence that man and carbon dioxide is not the control knob of the entire planet's temperature is on our side! All we have to do is fight back.

•From Climate Depot, we have the saddest case of hypocrisy.

Monty Python comedian Eric Idle called for “global warming” skeptics to be put on trial at the World Court because “denying climate change is a crime against humanity.”

“I think that denying climate change is a crime against humanity. And they should be held accountable in a World Court,” Idle tweeted from his @EricIdle account on March 15. Idle joins many other climate change activists who have called for the jailing and trials for anyone skeptical of the UN or Al Gore view of man-made “global warming.”

If you're not familiar with Monty Python, you might not see the hypocrisy. The Python comedy troupe has for decades been one of the foremost thumbs-in-the-eye of dogmatic thinking. Their skits have attacked such hallowed authorities as the Church of England, the Catholic Church, UK's Parliament, American government, etc.

Have you ever seen their movie, “The Life of Brian?” More pointed skeptical commentary on established dogma has perhaps never been committed to film.
For this man, Idle, to call for an inquisition on people who ask questions about global warming/climate change is about as hypocritical as “failing to see the timber in his own eye” to borrow loosely from Scripture.

•President Trump's budget for the coming year was released last week and there are many references to “climate,” and all of them are cuts in funding.

There's not a lot of detail yet, but climate policies in all parts of the government are expected to get cut. The cuts are deep. These are the cuts of a machete, not a tiny scalpel.

The EPA's proposed budget is $5.7 billion—$300 million less than earlier estimates, and 31 percent less than 2016. More than 50 EPA programs will be cut entirely.

The budget discontinues funding for the Clean Power Plan, international climate change programs, climate change research and partnership programs, and related efforts?—?saving over $100 million for the American taxpayer.

The Department of Energy's proposed budget is $28 billion, 5.6 percent less than 2016. Of the remaining funds, $1.4 billion will be transferred from other programs to boost nuclear capabilities. Specific program cuts include the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program.

The Energy Star program, which is jointly housed at the EPA and the Energy Department, will also be cut.

The Department of Energy's loan program that gave us Tesla has also been cut.
As for the Paris climate agreement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said he supports keeping the United States in the agreement. The 2015 accord between nearly every country in the world to supposedly reduce greenhouse gas emissions will take no funding to nominally keep the US involved.

But Trump has threatened to withdraw from the agreement, and has been very clear that no foreign aid will go to climate mitigation. The new State Department budget is 28 percent less than in 2016.

The proposed budget eliminates the Global Climate Change Initiative and fulfills the President's pledge to cease payments to the United Nations' climate change programs by eliminating U.S. funding related to the Green Climate Fund.

One of the Obama administration's last moves was to transfer $500 million?—?the country's commitment for 2017?—?to the UN's Green Climate Fund. So far, the United States has given $1 billion, $2 billion shy of the country's total commitment. Under Trump, no more funding will be forthcoming.

I say it looks like a great start!

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




•Have you been paying attention to all the back-and-forth over the KCI Airport?
The original problem is that the federal government is spending way more on KCI for TSA efforts than in other airports because of the unique configuration of the airport. If you travel much via commercial aviation, you will notice that most major airports have only 2-3 major TSA checkpoints. KCI has eight TSA checkpoints right now spread across two terminals.

The KCMO wants to build a new single terminal and tear down the extremely convenient existing three terminals. They've even gotten the Trump Administration to put funding for a new KCI on their infrastructure wish list.

The list includes KCI as one of three airport projects on the Trump transition team's document.

The airlines operating at KCI told the KCMO City Council last year they would finance the nearly $1 billion new terminal.

But the public doesn't want the existing convenience abandoned. KC Mayor Sly James abandoned efforts to put the issue before the voters because he knew the project would not pass.

Community groups like started voicing the huge public opposition to abandoning the existing three-terminal convenience. They have been very effective, judging by the scrapped public referendum by the mayor.

There is no doubt that folks love the convenience of KCI. People have loved it since the original design architects at Kivett & Myers (who also designed the Truman Sports Complex) developed the unique concept back in the late 1960's of placing the airport departure and arrival gates so close to the road.

Build one new building near the entrance to all three existing terminals. That new building will house all the security for all the airlines. People will be dropped off at the new building, check-in, check their bags (the existing underground walking tunnels can be converted for baggage handling), go through security, and walk as secure passengers through the other side of the new entry building via new enclosed corridors that connect the new entry building to the terminals. These can have conveyed people movers like you see in many airports and can connect the existing terminals together as well (No more blue and red buses clogging traffic!).
Inside the terminals, the glass barriers between checked and unchecked passengers go away, no security checkpoints, and lots of bars, restaurants, coffee, shoe shine, and massage stations! The doors of demarcation between secure and unsecure passengers are the existing glass doors to the exterior. Once you exit those doors you can't come back in.


•EPA administrator Scott Pruitt noted last week that there is disagreement about whether carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming. Pruitt said:

"Measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there is tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So, no, I would not agree that it [CO2] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we need to continue the review and the analysis.”

This is a total reversal of the policy of the past eight years, when everyone from Obama on down warned that climate change was a bigger threat to mankind than terrorism (I still marvel at the stupidity of that statement!) The result has been massively expensive job-killing federal regulations – all to stop something that wasn't really a problem in the first place.

In response, Left went ballistic, trotting out the usual nonsense about a 97 percent consensus, settled science, climate deniers, etc.

They can be disregarded.

Judith Curry, a climate scientist, says scientists frequently make large adjustments to climate models that often overestimate carbon dioxide's impact on warming. By tying rising carbon dioxide levels to a projected rise in temperatures, the models predict that temperatures will be much higher than they really are. Curry claims current models for this century projected warming to be about twice the observed temperatures.

Climate regulations hold a vise grip on government and industry. Obama's policies to limit greenhouse-gas emissions cost at least $437 billion. The Clean Power Plan, which Trump is expected to rescind this week via executive order, would have cost trillions of dollars over the next several years. Releasing the climate change movement's grip on our economy could arguably have a bigger impact than either tax or health-care reform.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at




•Does anyone believe it to be implausible that the Obama Administration conducted phone and email surveillance on the Trump Campaign after we KNOW they did the following during the previous 8 years?

- Had Fox News reporter James Rosen designated as a criminal co-conspirator and a flight risk, giving the government the right to rifle through all of his phone calls and emails.

- Monitored communications between the German Chancellor and a UN climate official without either person's knowledge.

- Weaponized the IRS to deny conservative groups' non-profit status.

- Lied about the cause of the Benghazi Terror attack for weeks fingering an innocuous internet video as the cause.

Plus On Oct. 31, right before the election, Hillary Clinton tweeted the following:
“Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based server.”

Now, how could she know about the existence of such a server unless she was tipped by the Obama Administration's wiretapping prior to the election?

There's lots of smoke here, folks!

•From The Daily Caller via Climate Depot, the Trump administration is about to reverse a last-minute Obama administration decision to keep in place regulations to increase fuel economy for new cars to the ridiculous 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

The decision will reopen a mid-term review of EPA and Transportation Department fuel economy standards meant to tackle global warming.

Automakers petitioned President Trump to reverse the fuel mandate. A high mandate would “threaten future production levels, putting hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as a million jobs at risk” auto executives wrote in a letter sent to Trump in January.

In 2012, EPA and the Transportation Department pushed a fuel economy regulation requiring cars built in 2025 get 54.5 miles per gallon. The Obama administration said the rule would cut American fuel costs and global warming emissions.

Fuel economy, or CAFE, standards were put in place by Congress in 1975 to increase fuel efficiency, but former President Barack Obama unilaterally increased the mandate to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Obama previously set a standard of 35 miles per gallon for cars built between 2012 and 2016.

Climate scientists have pointed out the fuel economy standards will do little for global warming — one of the stated goals of the program. Cato Institute climate scientists estimated — using EPA models — fuel efficiency standards would avert 0.016 degrees Celsius of projected warming.

Automakers say the accelerated fuel economy mandates add $3,000 to the price of a new car, outweighing projected fuel savings. The conservative Heritage Foundation found fuel economy mandates have added $6,200 to the
price of a new car.

In total, EPA and Transportation Department fuel standards for light-duty vehicles cost $156 billion, according to data compiled by the American Action Forum.
Good work by the Trump Administration once again!

•We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled."
BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests."
This isn't just Feilden's opinion but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced.

This is especially true in the study of climate change. As a matter of fact, it's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is the core of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at





•By the way, you notice how all of the “drive-by” media seems to be under the assumption that Pres. Trump created the notion of “fake news?”

The truth is though, Trump's predecessor originally coined the term from the seat of the U.S. Presidency.

On November 17, 2016 Pres. Obama weighed in on the growing furor over fake news on the Internet, cautioning against "active misinformation" that he said may threaten democracy itself.

Obama's remarks came during a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in which he called on Americans — and especially young people — to avoid complacency as citizens.

Active misinformation is "packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television," he said.

"If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not — and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in soundbites and snippets off their phones — if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems," he said. "If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect. We won't know what to fight for. And we can lose so much of what we've gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we've come to take for granted."

The brilliant part of all this is Trump has completely turned the tables on Obama and the Democrats and made them the source of “fake news.”

•Coca-Cola announced they are closing a South Australian factory causing the loss of nearly 200 jobs.

Coca Cola boss Alison Watkins said it had reviewed its supply chain to maintain “competitiveness in the market” and decided it was not viable to update the Thebarton factory.

But the defense minister, Christopher Pyne, said on Wednesday the company was leaving his home state because of high business costs and concerns about the reliability of the power supply.

Reliability of the power supply?

“We can't keep going on as a high-tax, highly expensive place to do business with the highest electricity prices in the country and the most unreliable electricity supply in the country and this is where the rubber starts to hit the road for businesses,” Pyne told FiveAA radio.

The Labor premier, Jay Weatherill, has been fiercely criticized by the Coalition for closing down South Adelaide's last coal-fired power station.

Labor Union “United Voice” said plant employees, as well as the union itself, were blindsided by the news. “Our members were gobsmacked,” the communications officer, Carolyn Smart, told reporters in Adelaide.

“Yesterday they were told that today's shifts were cancelled and to come in for a meeting about the future of their work. They spent a restless and anxious night worrying about what the morning would bring.”

Smart said the union would work with members to secure their entitlements and to help them find new jobs. But she said it was a “daunting prospect”, particularly for older staff who had been in the manufacturing industry a long time.

So what's the deal with “unreliable power?”

The South Australian power grid network operator says a software problem led to load shedding of 300MegaWatts (MW) instead of the 100MW requested by national market.

South Australia's energy grid suffered a power shortage during a heatwave in February with a backup generator failing to plug the gap.

SA Power Networks has said it knew a software glitch caused an additional 60,000 houses in South Australia to be out of power during load shedding this month.

Yet the state's network operator stayed quiet for a week and a half while the Turnbull government continued to criticize the South Australian government's use of renewables.

A Senate select committee held a public hearing on Monday to investigate Australia's aging energy infrastructure, less than three weeks after South Adelaide suffered yet another blackout – the result of a severe heatwave -- or more accurately, inadequate power supply to meet demand.

Of course, the environuts are deflecting all blame from the simple fact that there is insufficient electrical energy available when you rule out cheap coal and try to replace it with wind, solar and natural gas.

How's that for progress?

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




•I must admit that having a non-politician as President is quite fascinating!
How about that press conference? Say what you will about Pres. Donald Trump, but he IS comfortable in his own skin.

•From the Daily Caller, enviros are worried Pres. Trump will stop the EPA from banning a pesticide the agency actually admits is harmless.

“EPA is trying to ban this pesticide,” Dr. Julie Goodman, an epidemiologist and toxicologist at Harvard University, told The Daily Caller. “If you look at the science though, it is clear that the current uses and some of the banned uses are safe.”

EPA wants to ban chlorpyrifos over concerns that it contaminates drinking water and food. Chlorpyrifos has been used on citrus fruits, apples, broccoli and various other crops since 1965. U.S. farms use about 6 million pounds of chlorpyrifos each year. If nothing changes legally, the EPA will no longer allow incredibly small trace amounts of chlorpyrifos in food, effectively banning the pesticide in the U.S.
The EPA's own analysis found that “there do not appear to be risks from exposure to chlorpyrifos in food.” The agency's own website says chlorpyrifos is safe for humans in “standard” amounts. The EPA is being pressured by environmental groups to ban the pesticide.

“The objections to chlorpyrifos are mostly based on one bad Columbia [University] study, ” Goodman said. “It is a very big leap and I think some people have shown that it's not even accurate. It you look at the main paper on chlorpyrifos and neurological effects, it admits that there are no effects. The risks in the low or medium exposure were actually higher than the risks of no exposure to the pesticide.”

Goodman thinks the Columbia study is flawed and that there's evidence of some data manipulation, as it goes against numerous other studies on the pesticide.
Gee, where have we heard of data manipulation before in government-sponsored research? Remember global warming and “hiding the decline” in temperature readings?

“They had to do a lot of work to get to the point,” Goodman said. “If you have to do that much work to show there is something going on, there's probably nothing going on … All the other research points to a lack of effects at levels thousands of times higher in animals than they claim is harming humans.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America filed a federal lawsuit seeking a national ban on chlorpyrifos over theoretical risks of drinking water contamination and alleged contamination of food by the pesticide. But, the EPA admits that it hasn't completed its assessment of the pesticide's effects on drinking water and that “certain science issues” regarding chlorpyrifos use are “unresolved.”

The environmental groups also claim that the pesticide interferes with the brain development of fetuses, infants and children. This claim goes against the American Academy of Pediatrics, which states “The risks of pesticides in the diet are remote, long-term, and theoretical, and there is no cause for immediate concern by parents.” Objections are largely based on the Columbia study.

“This isn't being precautionary,” Goodman noted. “We have all this information on the pesticide that people are just ignoring. They're saying that this one study trumps all other science. That's misrepresenting the science.”

Health risks from chlorpyrifos only come from extreme exposure, such as accidents or spills during the manufacturing process, which is no different from the vast majority of pesticides.

Read more:

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email




•The NFL, suffering from declining TV ratings, has lost its mind if it thinks a transgender bathroom bill fight will help.

Texas is considering implementing its own transgender bathroom bill similar to the one in North Carolina which the NFL, NBA, NCAA and almost every other sports organization spent most of 2016 attacking. The NFL decided to weigh-in on the subject this week and issue what sounds something like a warning to the Lone Star State, hinting that Texas may not be hosting any more Super Bowl events if they follow such a path.

Days after the Super Bowl in Houston, the NFL is warning Texas that legislation requiring individuals to use public bathrooms in accordance with their biological sex could cost the state future opportunities to host the big game.

Between the North Carolina controversy, to the Kaepernick disgrace, to not allowing the Dallas Cowboys to honor fallen police officers, people are increasingly tuning out the NFL. Not only were the ratings for the regular-season poor compared to an average year, but even the Super Bowl itself dropped to a three-year low in viewership.

People watch football for one reason: to escape from the often monotony and terror realities of every day. Is there a debate more contentious right now than the transgender bathroom issue? Does the NFL really want this fight…now…in Texas?

•James Delingpole with London's Breitbart office penned an excellent piece summarizing the energy outlook now that the global warming nuts are scattering like cockroaches when Trump turned on the lights. Some highlights are noted

“We're on the verge of a new energy revolution. Except it's the exact opposite of the one the 'experts' at places like BP, the International Energy Agency…are predicting.

For years we've been assured by politicians, energy industry specialists and green advocates that renewables such as wind and solar are getting more and more cost-competitive while dirty fossil fuels are so discredited and wrong and evil we'll soon have to leave them in the ground.”

Like that's ever going to happen. You can try to tie-down capitalism, but it will find a way free.

“…fossil fuels are doing just fine and will do for the foreseeable [future].
The global energy industry…[must] make sure there are plentiful energy supplies for the fast-growing economies of the world – so that many hundreds of millions of people can be lifted out of low incomes, out of fuel poverty.”

This next part of the piece is crucial…

“Now for my second reason for believing that renewables are toast (well, toast-ish…: of course they'll trundle on because too many people are making too much money and spending a fortune on lobbying): what I call the 'heroic assumptions based on conditions that no longer exist.'

The key point that almost no one seems to understand about renewables, not even the energy 'experts,' is that they're only justifiable if you believe in the Climate Fairy.

There used to be another reason called 'Peak Oil' – or 'when fossil fuels run out' – but no one takes that one seriously any more. So the only reason we're left with for putting up all those bat-chomping eco-crucifixes and bird-frying solar arrays is the notion that, somehow, they're saving the planet by reducing 'carbon' emissions.
No one would build these things otherwise because they're just not commercially viable. The energy they produce is unreliable, unpredictable, intermittent, destabilizing (prone to surges and lulls)…and very expensive. That's why they have to be subsidized by taxpayers. And the only reason taxpayers subsidize them is because they're forced to do so by government legislation which has been framed in the belief that this is a necessary measure to 'combat climate change.'”

“More and more, renewables are being recognized as an environmental disaster, as a charter for troughers and rent-seekers, as a human health hazard, and as a serious threat to economic stability.

Renewables do not work. They are a fail. They are an imposition on the consumer, based on a pack of lies invented by anti-capitalist green loons, embraced by corporate shysters, endorsed by ill-informed politicians, promulgated by politically motivated environment and energy correspondents who aren't doing their job as journalists, and swallowed by brainwashed victims of a dumbed-down education system who are too thick to know better. They are unaffordable, environmentally destructive, morally wrong.”

Read the entire piece at It's worth it.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)




•I usually don't pay any attention to PETA's babblings unless the associated photo involves naked female models draped in blood-soaked fur. However, I just couldn't resist this…


People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is asking Games Workshop to eliminate fur from the design of Warhammer 40k figures (that's a video game).
In the grim dark future portrayed in these fantasy games, there is only war, but, more importantly to PETA, apparently too much fur. According to PETA, the fictional warriors of the year 40,000 should eschew anything resembling animal products from their gear. They believe that the current depiction “sends the message that wearing fur is acceptable.”

Within a make-believe universe dripping with blood from human sacrifice and wanton blood-spilling, it's the pixels and bytes ascribed to non-specific furry accessorizing that have crossed the line. Priests of Khorne can gather blood for the Blood God, so long as no animals were harmed to fill the Lake of Slaughter!
Turning these free (make-believe) creatures into fashion accessories “doesn't take any skill,” according to PETA. Unless, of course, they're just assuming that Imperial Space Marines stopped to skin raccoons in order to intimidate the descending horde of actual robot zombies.

Thanks, PETA – your nonsense never disappoints!

•From Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller, we learned that the single largest donor of the last two election cycles says he's moving his activism beyond rallying young people against global warming to lead the “resistance” against President Donald Trump.

The move comes after San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer personally spent about $163 million in the last two election cycles supporting Democratic candidates and liberal causes, like fighting global warming.

Steyer saw his political stock rise after throwing millions behind efforts to oppose the Keystone XL oil pipeline, eventually creating his own activist group, NextGen Climate Action, to “bring climate change to the forefront of American politics.” NextGen intended to mobilize young people and support candidates whose top priority was fighting global warming.

After losing tremendously in the last two elections, Steyer is just retreating from climate activism.

Buzzfeed asked the billionaire as much, but he responded “that under the new Trump administration, progressives cannot consider causes in isolation.”

Or is Steyer branching out to build more support for a gubernatorial run in 2018? Steyer is still considering running to replace California Gov. Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown.

Either way, Steyer's focus on global warming has been a failure for libs.
Steyer spent about $86 million in the 2016 election cycle, trying to get Democrats elected.

Republicans, however, held onto both chambers of Congress, won the presidency and saw state legislature and governorship gains. NextGen spent about $56 million in 2016, according to campaign finance data.

NextGen spent nearly $21 million in the 2014 election cycle, but only had a 38 percent rate of supporting winning candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Steyer spent more than $73 million of his personal fortune that election cycle only to see Republicans take control of the Senate.

Despite all that wasted money, polling done after the election found only two percent of Americans said “the environment” was their top concern.
An Associated Press-University of Chicago poll conducted in September 2016 found 57 percent of Americans wouldn't pay more than $1 a month in higher electric bills to fight global warming.

NextGen put out a video Tuesday where Steyer asked supporters to send ideas of how to fight back against Trump. Steyer's also said there's “no limit” to what he would spend to defeat Trump.
I wonder if we can spend all of his money.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter as @bkparallax or email




•The Guardian in the U.K. posted a story recently of an interview with Myron Ebell, who has been leading Pres. Trump's transition for the EPA. You'll like this!
Ebell said he fully expected Trump to keep his promise to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord. Ebell accurately said U.S. voters rejected climate change nonsense and said there was no doubt Trump thinks climate change is no crisis and does not require urgent action.

Ebell said: “The environmental movement is, in my view, the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world.”

That's refreshing after having to listen to the Liberal Obama Administration's nonsense for the last 8 years plus the squishy RINO Bovine Excrement exhibited by the Bush Administration the 8 years before that!

During the campaign, Trump pledged to withdraw from the climate change deal agreed to by 196 nations in Paris in 2015, making the U.S. the only country considering doing so. “I expect President Trump to be very assiduous in keeping his promises,” Ebell said.

Interesting though that Trump's pick for secretary of state, the former ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson, appeared to contradict the president about leaving the climate agreement at his confirmation hearing, saying the U.S. should keep “its seat at the table.”

“Who is going to win that debate? I don't know but the president was elected and Tillerson was appointed by the president, so I would guess the president will be the odds-on favorite,” said Ebell. “The people who elected him don't want a seat at the table.”

“The people of America have rejected the expertariat, and I think with good reason because I think the expertariat have been wrong about one thing after another, including climate policy,” he said. “The expert class, it seems to me, is full of arrogance or hubris.”


“I don't think there is any doubt that [Trump] thinks that global warming is not a crisis and does not require drastic and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” Ebell said.

Speaking in London, Ebell claimed the motivation for climate action was protecting a special interest: “The climate-industrial complex is a gigantic special interest that involves everyone from the producers of higher priced energy to the academics that benefit from advancement in their careers and larger government grants.”

•Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz penned an excellent piece about what are the facts and myths associated with Pres. Trump's recent immigration Executive Orders. Some highlights follow:

Every word of Trump's executive order is in accordance with statute.

The orders shut off issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 90 days from the following seven volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Any non-citizen from those seven countries is excluded from entering the country during this time-period (which usually means they won't be able to board a direct flight to America). After 30 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

The refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger of religious persecution.

There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States.

Based on 200 years of case law, our government has the power to exclude or invite any individual or classes of people for any reason on a temporary or even permanent basis – without any involvement from the courts. Congress has already delegated its authority to the president to shut off any form of immigration at will at any time.

Immigrants already admitted to this country with the consent of the citizenry have unalienable rights. They cannot be indefinitely detained. However, they can be deported for any reason if they are not citizens.

These seven countries were selected because they are all failed states or enemies of the U.S. (in the case of Iran). As such, there is absolutely no way to share data with the host countries and properly vet them. Somalia has been one of the biggest trouble spots. The other countries are marred in Islamic civil wars. Moreover, these are the countries that existing law targets for travel restrictions, and that Obama's own DHS listed last year.

The chaos this past weekend at the airports was caused by the 100 or so individuals that were already in transit when the order took effect. When they arrived at American airports, they were detained at customs. Henceforth, CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) agents will not allow individual aliens from those seven countries to board a flight to the U.S. So the chaos will end.

Read more at:

(Follow The Landmark's Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at




•As Obama was being shown the door to the White House, the New York Times joined the rest of the liberal mainstream media in barfing-out the fake news story that 2016 was the hottest year on record.

When you read a “science” report claiming that 2016 was the hottest year on record, you might expect to see numbers backing-up the claim. In the case of the Times, however, you would be wrong.

Math is the language of science. Science is quantitative. We use numbers and measurements, instead of subjective qualitative observations, to study and learn. Saying, “…it feels like it's hot outside…” is not science. A specific temperature, measured by a calibrated device over a specific period of time and contrasting the data to other similarly gathered measurements is what we commonly identify as science.

So when a major newspaper posts an article proclaiming that, for the third year in a row, 2016 was the hottest year on record, you might expect that somewhere in the piece you will see numbers, measurements, and a statistical margin of error.


The article doesn't say what the average global temperature was, how much higher this is than 2015 or any previous year. Instead, we got the following…

“Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016—trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014. It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row.”

To be fair, it wasn't just the New York Times. No relevant numbers
were noted in the originating NASA/NOAA press release either. You see numbers comparing 2016's temperature with “…the mid-20th century mean…” or “…the late 19th century...” But that's it.

Robert Tracinski at the Federalist tracked down an exception to this reporting trend at the British newspaper The Independent, which included the relevant numbers.

“This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C—within the 0.1C margin of error—but….”

Yes 2016 was, according to this analysis, warmer than the previous year by ONE ONE-HUNDRETH OF A DEGREE! The acknowledged margin of calculation error is TEN TIMES LARGER!

To put this in the realm of sports, that's like saying the football is on the 10-yard line, give or take 100 yards.

It is obvious why they didn't lead with these numbers in the first paragraph or any of the headlines. If they did, everyone would stop reading and move on to the next article. “This Year's Temperatures Statistically Identical to Last Year's” is not a headline that grabs anybody's attention, which of course is the point of a liberal publication as a liberal president is about to leave office forever.

This once again highlights a bigger problem with global warming theory. For all the excitement over records set over the past 137 years; precise global thermometer measurements date only to 1880. Current temperatures still are not clearly out of the range of normal variation in the 10,000 years or so since the planet bounced back from the last ice age, despite all of the hurried attempts to enflame the public.
I would rather have questions which cannot be answered and answers that cannot be questioned!

(Kudos Prof. Feynman!)

•From Genevieve Wood at The Daily Signal, you hear it over and over again, “This (Obamacare repeal) will be catastrophic for the 20 million people who were previously uninsured but now have coverage! You can't take away their health care!”

As I have stated, I don't have any less sympathy for those folks than I did for the greater numbers who lost their plans, doctors, and hospitals when Obamacare went into effect, but sticking with that bleeding heart logic, any repeal legislation will have a transition period for those who got coverage through Obamacare to move to new plans. And they will have more choices and better options.

The Obama administration claims 20 million more Americans today have health care due to Obamacare. But that is based on six years of survey data, not actual sign-ups. The reality is that when you look at the actual net gains over the past two years since the program was fully implemented, the number is 14 million, and of that, 11.8 million (84 percent) were people given the “gift” of Medicaid.

And new research shows that even fewer people will be left without insurance after the repeal of Obamacare. Numbers are still being crunched, but between statistics released by the Congressional Budget Office and one of the infamous architects of Obamacare, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Jonathan Gruber, it's estimated that anywhere from 2 to 7 million people now on Medicaid would have qualified for the handout program even without Obamacare.

So don't listen to all the whining. Humans are really a tough species. We will survive.




•The confirmation hearings for President Trump's cabinet appointees have been interesting and ridiculous at the same time.

First, the ridiculous.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., grilled CIA director Mike Pompeo on whether climate change was a leading national security threat during his Senate confirmation hearings Thursday.

"CIA Director Brennan, who has spent a 25-year career at the CIA as an analyst, a senior manager and station chief in the field, has (said) that when 'CIA analysts look for deeper causes of rising instability in the world, one of the causes those CIA analysts see is the impact of climate change,'" Harris began. "Do you have any reason to doubt the assessment of those CIA analysts?"

Pompeo, a Republican congressman from Kansas, replied that he was unfamiliar with the material Harris was referencing but that the CIA would gather information on all threats to American security, including any that stem from climatic activity, and present them to policymakers.

"In the past you have questioned the scientific consensus on climate change," Harris followed up. She began to cite NASA and various other sources saying that at least 97 percent of active climate scientists believe in global warming caused by human activity. (I don't need to refute that nonsense further!)

"Do you have any reason to doubt NASA's findings?" she asked.

Pompeo defended his positions on climate change and said, "Frankly, as director of CIA, I'd prefer...not to get into the details of climate debate and science…My role is going to be so different and unique from that, it is going to be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe."

"So I'm not clear," Harris shot back. "Do you believe that NASA's findings are debatable?"

Pompeo responded that he hasn't seen the materials she was referencing. "I can't give you any judgment about that today," he said.

Harris, who was elected in November over another Democrat without a Republican general election opponent, later said Pompeo's views on global warming called into question his ability to accept evidence and the consensus of the intelligence community.

Pompeo attempted to reassure her that he could accept intelligence conclusions regardless of his personal ideology.

Harris also questioned Pompeo about his past opposition to gay marriage and how that would affect his treatment of CIA employees if confirmed.

I cannot begin to accurately describe how nonsensical this senator and that line of questioning is but it accurately represents the Democrat Party.

•As one of Obama final kicks to America's behind, he recently terminated the long-established Cuban refugee policy.

The immigration policy, dating from 1966 and dubbed “Wet Foot, Dry Foot,” allowed Cubans who reach U.S. soil to stay and become voting citizens.

Obama supposedly intended his decision to be “a historical step, something that people cannot forget. ” What he ultimately did though was done to please the Cuban regime.

Like many other illegal immigrants from Latin America, Cubans will now have to apply for political asylum and submit to a series of requirements that must be corroborated or else they could be deported back to Cuba.

•The interesting part of the confirmation hearings…

Testifying before the Senate, Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson said climate change is not an “imminent national security threat” as Senate democrats have long claimed. He sparred with the Democrats that global warming is caused by man.

SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY: “But, we are also viewing often climate change as a national security issue. And, since you believe– So, I wanted to ask, do you see it as a national security issue?”

REX TILLERSON: “I don't see it as the imminent national security threat as perhaps others do.”

MERKELY: “One of the things that's noted is how the changing climate in the Middle East concentrated Syrian villages into the towns and sparked the civil war that has now produced something like four million and counting refugees having profound impacts on European security, and that would be an example. Is that something you've looked at or considered to be real or perhaps misleading? Any thoughts in that regard?”

TILLERSON: “The facts on the ground are indisputable in terms of what's happening with drought, disease, insect populations, all the things you cite, but the science behind the clear connection is not conclusive. And, there are many reports out there that we are unable yet to connect specific events to climate change alone.”

Many conservatives have concerns about Tillerson, due to his experience dealing with Putin and Russia, but I am at least encouraged by these statements refusing to accept nonsense global warming theology. I'd like him to call it out more vociferously as the nonsense it is, but then again, he IS the Secretary of State and has other more important things to think about.

(Follow The Landmark's Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)





All these calls to “repeal and replace” Obamacare are missing the point of why voters have restored Republican control over the federal government.

We only need to repeal the ACA.

When Obama and the Democrats took control in 2008, they started by raising the erroneous notion that our healthcare system was broken.

It wasn't.

For all its flaws (and most of those were government-induced), in 2008, about 85% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance plans, their choice of doctors, and health care in general. The notion that the healthcare system was broken was a strawman argument that Obama created to use as a vehicle to usher the federal government into taking control of our healthcare system.

The focus right now should be to simply repeal Obamacare. If you want to improve the system beyond that, start peeling the federal government out of regulating our healthcare system and you'll see the free market start to improve our healthcare. For example, we should be able to have insurance companies compete for our premium dollars across state lines and young healthy people should be free to choose to either not buy insurance or purchase just a low-cost catastrophic care plan.

Have you noticed the hurried nature of the recent U.S. intelligence reports on supposed Russian government hacking into the recent elections? Isn't it interesting that these reports got completed right before Donald Trump took office?


No, that was fully by design.

The Obama Administration's desire was to get this out in the media before Trump took the Oath of Office. They wanted to undermine the Trump Administration from the start and soothe their donors that Hillary and the Democrats' electoral loss was not their fault.

Remember when the Chinese government hacked into the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) a few years ago? I don't recall the Obama Administration doing anything to retaliate like they are so publicly doing now to the Russians.
Josh Earnest (I am really NOT going to miss this clown after January 20th!) got called-out on this discrepancy by ABC's Jon Karl last week.

EARNEST: "I think that what we've seen is that these are two cyber incidents (China vs. Russia) that are malicious in nature, but materially different."

KARL: "21 million people had their personal data taken--fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. I mean, this was a far-reaching act--"

EARNEST: "I'm not downplaying the significance of it, I'm just saying that it is different than seeking to interfere in the conduct of a U.S. national election. I can't speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activity--"

KARL: "But nothing was anounced. There was not a single step announced by the White House..."

EARNEST: "It is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I can't speak to what response may have been initiated in private."

KARL: "But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct? You don't do that stuff secretly."

EARNEST: "Well, certainly when it comes to the diplomats, that's right. There were no diplomats PNGed. That's something that we would announce publicly.

KARL: "But do you see how -- that there's just this wildly different response? With the Russians, which, of course, is very politically charged, the White House takes this action, makes it public. With the Chinese, which was not so political charged but was absolutely as far-reaching a hack as we had ever seen in this country, nothing was done publicly..."

EARNEST: "...look, I'm not suggesting that somehow that's not important. What I'm just saying is that it's materially different than the kind of hack-and-leak strategy that we saw the Russians engage in to try to influence our democracy. That is significant. That's serious. And that explains the serious steps that President Obama has imposed against the Russians in response."

Karl is stepping on a hemorrhoid that Earnest would rather be left alone. The Russian hack hurt President Obama much more than the Chinese hack did. So, Obama's retaliation is much more public.

Clinton's loss hurt Obama. With the election of Donald Trump, Obama's legacy achievements are in danger. Obamacare, DACA, relations with Cuba and Iran are going to be undone by Trump.

Many Democrats believe it behooves President Obama to feed this narrative. His legacy may be undone, but he can still water the seeds of discontent and uncertainty by very publicly slapping Russia. If this uncertainty grows during Trump's tenure, it may be more difficult for the president-elect to enact policy.

Moreover, it will weaken Republicans, and make them more vulnerable in 2018 and 2020.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)




•The great libertarian thinker Thomas Sowell announced his retirement from regular column-writing recently. In discussing him with friends over the Holidays, I was amazed how many people never heard of him. That's a sad statement to how liberally biased the media is.

Anyway, I am interspersing some of his more notable quotes as a tribute in this week's column.

•“People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything.”
Thomas Sowell

•Skeptical climate scientists are hopeful their views may finally get consideration under the Trump administration. Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry, labelled a “climate heretic” by Scientific American, sees hope as Obama's days wane.
“Here's to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” she wrote last month on her popular blog Climate Etc.

Dilbert creator Scott Adams has compared climate change skeptics to “Shy Trump Supporters” afraid to express their beliefs and study because they think the mainstream scientific media will shun them, and that hurts economically. Adams recently wrote, “…the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.”

•“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”
Thomas Sowell

•William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, kept his climate views quiet for years in order survive in a hostile scientific media world.

“I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn't toe the alarmists' company line,” he said.

As Trump assumes the helm, climate change skeptics may find a more receptive media as they enter a debate that has thus far been largely closed off to them.
Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to “…publication and funding bias…” as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated.

•“The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask them how many Republicans there are in their Sociology Department.”
Thomas Sowell

•Although scientists are often supposed to be independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than the rest of the world, because much of their research has no real market value.

The Obama administration, which dogmatically denied there even was debate on climate, funneled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.

“In reality, it's the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant.

•“The real minimum wage is zero.”
Thomas Sowell

•Federal agencies pay for studies that focus on their concerns, so politics guides the science according to the particular interests of the funding source.

“Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Happer. “It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem.”

Thresher, who has done pioneering work in both tree ring climate proxy modeling and ocean climate proxy modeling, says that scientists know far less about historical climate than people are led to believe.

Scientists use climate estimations, like tree rings and ice cores, Thresher says, as substitutes for real climate measurements. The assumptions made are “inaccurate and unreliable well beyond what is required for the conclusions drawn,” he states.
When it comes to forecasting future climate trends, however, the situation is even worse, Thresher contends.

Donald Trump's choices for key cabinet posts have exhilarated climate scientists tired of being black-balled as “climate change deniers” just because they raise uncomfortable questions.

Tapping former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to run the Energy Department, Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma to run the Environmental Protection Agency, and Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson as secretary of state signals a radical change from Obama's conforming climate alarmists.




I like to think I was the first to advocate for the total elimination of the EPA. Who else said that years ago? Well, the National Review recently posted an excellent column from a former FDA scientist who makes the case with superb logic. Some of the best parts follow:

“Trump's nominee for the EPA Administrator could — and should — abolish the agency.

Several commentators have characterized the selection of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to become the next EPA Administrator as a sharp stick in the eye to the agency and its employees. They're right — and seldom has any herd of federal bureaucrats been more deserving of it.

For decades, in administrations Democratic and Republican alike, the EPA has been relentlessly ideological, politicized, corrupt, and incompetent. When I joined the Food and Drug Administration in 1979, I was essentially apolitical and knew next to nothing about federal regulation. I was a science nerd who had spent the previous 16 years in college, graduate school, medical school, and postdoctoral training. It didn't take long until I learned about the jungle of government bureaucracies, and one of the harshest lessons concerned the perfidy and incompetence of one of the FDA's siblings, the EPA. I found the EPA to be relentlessly anti-science, anti-technology, and anti-industry.”

Here is the key statement from the piece:

“The only thing it (the EPA) seemed to be for was the Europeans' innovation-busting 'precautionary principle,' the view that until a product or activity has been definitively proven safe, it should be banned or at least smothered with regulation."

And what was the cost of all this regulation?

“During the two decades since I left government service, I've continued to watch the EPA's shenanigans with a mixture of awe and vexation. Policy by policy and decision by decision, the EPA has decimated the nation's competitiveness, ability to innovate, and capacity to create wealth. Its policies and decisions have single-handedly killed off entire once-promising sectors of biotechnology, including bioremediation (the use of microorganisms to clean up toxic wastes, including oil spills) and microorganisms that when sprayed on plants could prevent frost damage. The EPA's expansive and ever-expanding regulations impose huge costs on American businesses and, ultimately, on consumers. An analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated that the annual cost of compliance with EPA regulations alone is more than a third of a trillion dollars. Ideology is one thing, but corruption and abuse are quite another.”

Remember Superfunds?

“The EPA is the prototype of agencies that spend more and more money to address smaller and smaller risks. Superfund (officially, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) is one of the EPA's greatest travesties. An ongoing program intended to clean up and reduce the risk of toxic-waste sites, it was originally conceived as a short-term project — $1.6 billion over five years, to clean up some 400 sites...But it has grown into one of the nation's largest public-works projects: more than $30 billion spent on about 1,300 sites.”

But you may ask, how could cleaning up toxic-waste sites not be a good thing?

“Well, various studies have attempted to evaluate the impacts of Superfund's massive and costly cleanups, but the results…after the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars, no beneficial results have been demonstrable. On the other hand, some Superfund projects have definitely caused harm. University of California–Davis economics professor J. Paul Leigh has analyzed the occupational hazards of environmental cleanup projects and concluded that the risk of fatality to the average cleanup worker — a dump-truck driver involved in a collision, or a laborer run over by a bulldozer, for example — is considerably larger than the cancer risks to individual residents that might result from exposure to untreated sites.”

•Remember where the EPA came from?

“Since it was created in 1970, the EPA has been a rogue agency — ideological, poorly managed, and out of touch with sound science and common sense. It is emblematic of what Wall Street Journal columnist Bill McGurn condemned as the 'soft despotism' of the 'unelected and increasingly assertive class that populates our federal bureaucracies and substitutes rule by regulation for the rule of law.'

The nation's experiment with a free-standing environmental agency has failed. The EPA's few essential functions should be relegated to less scientifically and ethically challenged agencies and departments. (It was, after all, created during the Nixon administration by cobbling together elements of various departments, including HHS, Interior, and Agriculture.) Scott Pruitt may be the guy who could make that happen.”

Henry I. Miller, the author of this piece, is a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

(Follow The Landmark's Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)




•From Climate Depot, we learned recently that almost 200 nations reached a deal to limit the use of greenhouse gases said to be “far more powerful than carbon dioxide” in a major effort to fight climate change.

The talks on hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, were called the first test of global will since the unenforceable Paris Agreement was reached last year. HFCs are described by Warmists as the world's fastest-growing climate pollutant and are used in air conditioners and refrigerators. The Warmists' “experts” say cutting them is the fastest way to reduce global warming, without explaining how these refrigerants are sneaking out of their closed vapor-compression cycle sealed tubing.

The agreement, unlike the broader Paris one, is legally binding. It caps and reduces the use of HFCs in a gradual process beginning by 2019 with action by developed countries including the United States, the world's second-worst polluter. More than 100 developing countries, including China, the world's top carbon emitter, will start taking action by 2024, when HFC consumption levels should peak.

A small group of countries including India, Pakistan and some Gulf states pushed for and secured a later start in 2028, saying their economies need more time to grow. That's three years earlier than India, the world's third-worst polluter, had first proposed.

Environmental groups had hoped that the deal could reduce global warming by a half-degree Celsius by the end of this century. This agreement gets about 90 percent of the way there, said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development.

•In a related note, India is set to surpass the U.S. as the world's biggest coal producer after China by 2020, as state-miner Coal India Ltd. ramps up output to meet demand from domestic power producers, according to BMI Research.
The South Asian nation's share of world output will increase to 12.7 percent by 2020 from 9.8 percent in 2016, BMI said in a report Thursday. It cautioned that the country will still fall short of the government's ambitious coal output target and domestic demand will continue to exceed production up to 2020.

India, where coal accounts for 61 percent of electricity generation capacity, is seeking to reduce imports of the fuel by boosting domestic output. India foresees coal as a dominant source of energy at least for a couple of decades, while other countries, including the U.S., are moving faster toward replacing the fuel with cleaner energy sources such as natural gas to meet tougher emissions standards.
India plans to expand coal output to 1.5 billion metric tons by 2020 from an estimated 634 million tons in the year ended March 31. China produced nearly 3.7 billion tons of coal last year, according to the country's National Bureau of Statistics.

•Sometimes you just have to laugh at the intellectual inconsistency exhibited by the Left.

A New York Times reporter decided to lecture readers on the difference between climate and weather, illustrating how a “polar vortex” can bring frigid weather to the U.S. even in a warming world.

'“It's bone-shakingly cold, how could the Earth be warming?'” NYT reporter Tatiana Schlossberg wrote, posing as a skeptic before answering herself: “We'll tell you how.”

Schlossberg explains that a “polar vortex” is really just the polar jet stream that occasionally brings freezing air down to the U.S. — and, of course, she mentions how this could become more frequent with more global warming. She doesn't explain it in any comprehensive way, but what's wrong with failed logic among friends!

Talking down to us, the writer says: “Well, for starters, there is a difference between weather and climate. Climate refers to the long-term averages and trends in atmospheric conditions over large areas, while weather deals with short-term variations, which is what happens when the polar vortex visits your hometown. And of course, an Arctic blast can still occur in a warmer world. The air that comes down from the North Pole might not be as cold…but it would still be the product of the same phenomenon. Some studies suggest that climate change could actually make these frigid waves of Arctic air more common, a result of shrinking sea ice. However, other scientists remain skeptical of this theory. And the earth is definitely warming: Temperature records show that, by the end of last year, the earth's surface had warmed by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. But even though the earth's surface is warming, scientists say that winter will still exist…”

She ends with a dig at us evil, skeptical deniers: “So, if, for instance, a senator (perhaps James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma) brandishes a snowball on the floor of the Senate to dispute the validity of climate science when a chill wind blows through Washington, you will know that the unseasonably cold emperatures he is talking about do not mean that global warming is not happening. It is.”

Don't you feel better? (Hat-tip to The Daily Caller.)

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki @bkparallax)




•Losing Presidential Wannabe Jill Stein didn't get the recount she wanted in Michigan, and it's doubtful she predicted what she'd get as a result.

Meeting in its lame-duck session, the state House of Representatives passed a tough voter-ID bill that includes $3 million for funding of free state identification and birth certificates after over 18,000 voters cast ballots without identification in the presidential election.

Current law requires photo identification as well, but also allows for voters to sign an affidavit under oath that attests to their identity and eligibility. Ballots are cast secretly, so they do not contain any identifying marks. Once cast, a ballot from an ineligible voter is indistinguishable from legitimate ballots, and a recount would count them again, too. If the recount is about integrity and not the outcome, then Stein and her allies should be cheering this change in the statute if it passes the Senate.

Don't hold your breath for that cheer though.

•What are the Democrats wailing about with all this “fake news” nonsense? Were they concerned about fake news in 2008 when Harry Reid was running in front of the cameras claiming that Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes?

And on the subject of all this Democrat wailing about the Russians hacking into the election to benefit Trump – Democrats seemed to be just fine with their meddling in the elections in Israel (remember Obama sent over his campaign team to try and boost Benjamin Netanyahu's opponent in that election).

Seems Democrats are just fine with meddling in other countries' elections provided it seems to benefit THEIR interests.

•You ever notice that it seems many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions? But when they can't get what they want, they just change the definition of what a disaster storm is.
Eleven years ago, Al Gore swore that "the science is extremely clear now." Global warming was "magnifying" the "destructive power" of the "average hurricane," he said. Man's impact on the environment "makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger."

Well, the weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists' faith in their own nonsense.

The climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn't make landfall will in the future be catastrophic "hurricanes" or "extreme weather" events that they can point to as proof that their disaster dreams are indeed reality.

After Hurricane Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote that “it's time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed."
The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides "a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed." But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.

"So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm 'unprecedented' and a new ‘record,' " says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of "Climate Hustle," a movie that "takes a skeptical look at global warming."

"This is all part of a financial scheme," says Morano. "If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-'poisoned weather.' Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important."

The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data shows that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is "flat to slightly down," and science — yes, that "settled" field that somehow continues to discover new things — has failed to show a link between hurricanes and global warming. They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.

Once again, it's all about wealth redistribution – and making sure prominent Democrats profit handsomely from the effort.

•Had my recent birthday dinner at Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken in South Kansas City Kansas (around the corner from Joe's Kansas City BBQ original location), and it is HIGHLY recommended. Best fried chicken in the city!




•This could be a problem…

Former Vice President Al Gore and Global Warming Nutbag King visited with President-elect Donald Trump in New York City today (Monday).

The discussion followed an earlier announcement that Gore would meet only with Trump's daughter Ivanka, who has signaled interest in discussing climate change.
Gore described his visit with the Trumps as “lengthy and very productive.”

“It was a sincere search for areas of common ground,” he told reporters after leaving Trump Tower. “I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I'm just going to leave it at that.”

Since his defeat to George Bush in the 2000 election, Gore has traveled the globe predicting doom, and gathering millions, as a consequence of global warming.

He campaigned for Hillary Clinton in Florida during the presidential election, urging Democrats to vote for her despite a history of bad blood with the family.
It's unclear what Trump discussed with Gore, especially since Trump knows climate change is a global wealth redistribution hoax.

Earlier in the day, Trump spokesman Jason Miller indicated that Trump would not meet with Gore.

“The former Vice President will not be meeting with the President-elect,” Trump's spokesman Jason Miller told reporters on a conference call on Monday morning.
I'll be watching.

•I think the most important cabinet pick Trump has yet to make is the head of the EPA. That over-regulating activist organization must be stopped!

•General James Mattis, Trump's defense secretary pick, is impressive!
The "General's General" made Trump change his mind about waterboarding
Mattis retired from his position as commander of the U.S. Central Command in 2013 and holds some views at striking odds with Trump, including ideas about waterboarding and PTSD amongst veterans.

“They say he's the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have and it's about time,” Trump said of “Mad Dog” Mattis.

Mattis who earned the nickname “The Warrior Monk,” is known for telling it as it is.

In a letter of motivation to young marines in 2003, he wrote about what was expected when entering into battle: “Chemical attack, treachery, and the use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down.”

Mattis is well-respected in Washington.

Democrat New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was one of the first to say she would not support Mattis as the head of the Pentagon.

“While I deeply respect General Mattis's service, I will oppose a waiver, civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule,” said Gillibrand.

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed (D) explained that Congress would have to alter the law with a waiver in order for Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, a civilian-controlled position.

“It is clear that General Mattis is a respected Marine and strategic thinker who served with honor and distinction?,” Reed, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said according to The Wall Street Journal. “What is less clear is how Congress would go about changing the law to allow him or any recently retired senior officer to serve as the head of the Pentagon. That would require ?a debate about our Constitutional principle of civilian control of the military and passing a new bill.”

Just because he's well-respected in the military doesn't mean he'll handle bureaucracy well.

“Mattis, the warrior-monk, displayed his strategic and operational genius as a Marine general, but wrangling the Defense Department bureaucracy is a different matter,” Phillip Carter and Loren DeJonge Schulman of the Center for a New American Security wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post, “he viscerally disdains the minutiae and machinery of the Pentagon.”

Carter is a former army officer and Pentagon official. Schulman is also a former Pentagon official as well as a former National Security Council official.

•Am I the only person out there that believes the Democrats and the Clinton Crime Family is the real force behind these nonsensical recounts?

In Detroit, where Michigan recounts are on-going, they had to suspend the process in more than half of the precincts because the number of votes exceeded the number of people officially on the voter rolls! Democrat voter fraud exists!




Fidel Castro died last week. It is fittingly ironic he died Friday as that was Black Friday, one of the most free-market-promoting days on the calendar and he was a free-market-hating communist.

But more significant is the distinction between the statements issued in response to the murderous dictator's death by Donald Trump, the President-Elect, and Barack Obama, the current lame-duck President.

First, Obama's Statement – with a few comments by me in parentheses:

“At this time of Fidel Castro's passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans - in Cuba and in the United States - with powerful emotions (Dancing on a murderer's grave is an action, not an emotion), recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives (by ending them!), families (by breaking them up by murdering and imprisoning family members), and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him. For nearly six decades, the relationship between the United States and Cba was marked by discord and profound political disagreements (Yeah, we have these silly political standards to not kill and imprison those who disagree with their government). During my presidency, we have worked hard to put the past behind us, pursuing a future in which the relationship between our two countries is defined not by our differences but by the many things that we share as neighbors and friends - bonds of family, culture, commerce, and common humanity. (What he did here is give the Castros large quantities of money that they use for themselves and continue oppressing the Cuban people). This engagement includes the contributions of Cuban Americans, who have done so much for our country and who care deeply about their loved ones in Cuba. Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro's family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. In the days ahead, they will recall the past and also look to the future. As they do, the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.”

And Trump's statement:
“Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro's legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights. While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve. Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty. I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.”

Speaks volumes doesn't it?

•The media once again falsely spun Donald Trump's climate comments to the New York Times last week as saying he was softening on climate change. Hat-tip to

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: “Mr. President-elect…One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven't spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you'll approach it…But it's really important to me…to know where you're going to go with this…are you going to take America out of the world's lead of confronting climate change?”
TRUMP: “I'm looking at it very closely, Tom…I have an open mind to it. We're going to look very carefully. It's one issue that's interesting because there are few things where there's more division than climate change. You don't tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don't even…”

SULZBERGER: “Well, since we're living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We've seen it personally. Straight up.”

FRIEDMAN: “But you have an open mind on this?”

TRUMP: “I do have an open mind. And we've had storms always, Arthur.”

SULZBERGER: “Not like this (sic!).”

TRUMP: “You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.”

I took out some of the more conversational stuff for brevity.

On climate and energy, I think I'm going to like President Trump very much!

(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki by email to




One of the priorities of the Trump Administration is sure to be disarming the EPA.
To refresh your memory, remember this?

A federal court in California ruled a couple of years ago that a farmer plwing his land without a permit from the federal government is breaking the law. In 2013, the Army Corps of Engineers, without any notice or due process, ordered the owners of Duarte Nursery to cease use of their land for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act (CWA). The violation: plowing. The California court agreed with the federal government's action, despite the fact the CWA specifically exempts normal agricultural activities like plowing from regulation.

This is not an isolated incident. The Obama EPA and the Army Corps have aggressively sought to stretch the bounds of the CWA. When Congress passed the CWA, the federal government was given regulatory authority over “navigable waters,” which the statute additionally defines as “waters of the United States.” While the word navigable may seem to have an obvious meaning to most Americans as bodies of water that can be navigated by watercraft, the government has redefined these terms for a massive regulatory land grab.

Asserting ambiguity, the EPA has tried to use the CWA language to claim control over essentially any water which eventually might find its way into a navigable waterway. They have asserted jurisdiction not just over logical sources like large tributaries of navigable waters or wetlands immediately adjacent to rivers but have tried to reach their regulatory arms to isolated puddles or dry stream beds which only see running water during large rainstorms. This overreach has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court, but this has not stopped the

In June of 2015, EPA finalized yet another rule seeking to broadly define “waters of the US” under the CWA. Like its previous attempts, this rule goes well beyond any reasonable definition of “navigable waters.” The rule would require federal permits even for ditches and puddles, almost any water within the boundaries of the United States. This sort of excessive permitting requirement would impose new costs on virtually every American: not just farmers, but anyone who owns land.

This past week, the lawsuit over the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the CWA took its next step at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In their filings to the court, the challengers spelled out the illegality and unconstitutionality of the rule as well as describing the corrupt and dishonest means the EPA used to rush the rulemaking to completion.

Last year the Obama administration issued its final version of the latest attempt at using the WOTUS definition to expand federal power. The vast scope of the rule brought nearly all water in the United States under federal regulation. This regulation was so far beyond the text of the CWA that it was put on hold by the courts so that opponents could fight it.

And now, the EPA was excluding other relevant federal agencies from the rulemaking process. As described in a report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the EPA ignored concerns expressed by the Small Business Administration as well as withholding information from the Army Corps of Engineers. The ACE is the agency which takes the lead federal role in regulation of federal waterways. When regulators at the ACE raised objections to the rulemaking, they were removed or sidelined. In fact, shortly before publication, the ACE requested that its name and logo be removed from documents which the EPA claimed were co-authored with the Corps, when in fact they had been excluded from participation.

Citing these and other illegalities and improprieties, the challengers in the WOTUS lawsuit are demanding that the court vacate the regulation.

Despite the drive of the Obama Administration to build ever more heavily taxpayer-subsidized wind and solar farms, the entire contribution of wind and solar to US electricity consumption is only 5.4 percent! The majority of the remaining 94.6 percent of our energy comes from cheap, CO2-emitting, “planet-destroying” fossil fuels that Obama has been trying to eliminate.

In the UK, the figures are strikingly similar. The contribution of English onshore wind and solar farms to electricity used in England amounted last year to just 5.3 percent.

And what do we taxpayers pay for “all” that energy?

According to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, wind energy receives a higher percentage of federal subsidies than any other type of energy while generating a very small percentage of the nation's electricity.

In 2010 the wind energy sector received 42% of total federal subsidies while producing only 2% of the nation's total electricity. By comparison, coal receives 10% of all subsidies and generates 45% and nuclear is about even at about 20%.
Meanwhile, electricity consumers will be forced to purchase the more expensive power that results from state-level mandates for renewable energy production. The real results of all this government overreach is limited freedom, reduced prosperity, and an increasingly unreliable power supply.

Trump has his work cut out for him.

(Reach The Landmark's Brian Kubicki by email to and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•Well, that was about as enjoyable an evening of television watching I've had since 1984, when Ronald Reagan 'landslid' Walter Mondale, winning 49 out of 50 states.

Donald Trump is going to be the 45th President of the United States.

What made the day most enjoyable was the exit polling indicating that Hillary was going to win. Big media was smiling well before polling places started closing.

Then reality of the actual vote started to come in and the smiles on the faces of the people on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC started to drastically turn.

I too was worried because ALL the polls were showing Clinton winning. But all along I knew that if such was to happen, there needed to be some explanation for how polling that has been for decades designed to sample traditional Democrat/Republican electorates could accurately design their polling models to now sample a non-party enigma like Donald Trump. Thus the polling was wrong.

•If there was a single issue that illustrated why the Hillary-continuing-the-Obama-legacy approach was wrong, it had to be climate.

Secretary of State John Kerry went to Antarctica. Yes, the U.S. Secretary of State, our top diplomatic official mainly concerned with foreign policy, visited a barren wasteland of snow and ice that has no government and a population of between 1000 and 4000 – all researchers depending on time of year.

A reporter grilled Kerry's staff on why the Secretary of State was going to Antarctica if there was no “real technically diplomatic component” to the trip, and another asked how much it would cost taxpayers for him to “go look around” the continent. “I will see if I can get you an estimate,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters in a recent press conference. “I don't have that, but I think any basic understanding or attempt to understand climate change you have to understand what's going on in the Arctic and the Antarctic, especially with melting glaciers and ice and the sea level rise that can come from that. He wanted to go down there and see that for himself,” Kirby said. One reporter said there was concern this trip was simply for Kerry to “knock Antarctica off his bucket list” on the taxpayer's dime.

This is why nobody paid much attention to the Democrats when in the voting booth. Imagine how much time has been spent over the last eight years blathering by Democrats about climate change?

One of the Wikileaks emails was a message from Clinton aid and advisor John Podesta to Chris Lehane back from January 2014.

This memo was emailed to Podesta (a senior White House official) from Lehane (partner in the strategic communications firm Fabiani & Lehane), and an attorney in the White House Counsel's office. He and his current business partner Mark Fabiani called themselves the “Masters of Disaster” for their work as a “rapid-response” team responding to the many scandals of the Clinton Administration. Lehane co-authored a book on damage control titled Masters of Disaster: The Ten Commandments of Damage Control. Jim Jordan, Kerry's former campaign manager, called him, “a master of the political hand-to-hand” for his work as a political strategist.

“Thank you for asking us to share some ideas for a holistic approach to climate. Per your direction, the goal is to unify policy, politics, and communications to help the Administration best execute an informed plan over a multi-year time period. …this document is intended to provide some food for thought as the Administration refines its thinking on climate. …{it} addresses the four components that the Administration may want to consider as it seeks to lead on this issue.”

“Right v. Wrong. Make the case that climate must be approached as a challenge of historical social change where progress will depend in part on successfully casting the issue in moral terms of who is right and who is wrong …”
Note the term, “casting the issue.” They are actors in a fictional play.

“To achieve victory, we must treat climate change as an issue of historic importance that is worthy of a true political social movement to create change.”
Notice they aren't lowering the planet's temperature, they only seek “to achieve victory.”

“By pursuing this as a political social movement, President Obama and his Administration will best be able to assure that his legacy includes his unprecedented leadership on climate that initiated the shifting of the country's political tectonic plates to enable transformative climate change policy, before it was too late.”

Notice here that climate isn't a scientific study but a “political social movement.”
“Define the issue as between those who believe in the science, and therefore are taking steps to respond to the scientific findings, versus those who do not believe in the science. …it fits into what we call the Troglodyte Narrative (anti-women; anti-Latino; anti-gun safety; anti-common sense fiscal policy; and anti-science) that is raising basic trust issues for the Republican Party.

…You either believe in basic science or you are against basic science — in which case you fail a basic requirement for being capable of occupying public office. …”
Remember hearing all this nonsense over the past two years?

No more!

(Email The Landmark's Brian Kubicki at




•By the time you read this, we will likely (remember 2000) know who the next president will be come Jan. 20, 2017. You will hear, or have already heard cries from the moderates of the world for everyone to “come together” for the good of the country, regardless of the outcome of the election.

I've always found that sentiment silly.

Some of these issues have no common ground. For example, how do you compromise on abortion? If you believe life begins at conception, no amount of killing of the unborn at any stage of development is allowable. On the flip side, if you believe a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy at will, you are going to fight for women at all stages of gestation to be able to go through that procedure.

Look at the death penalty. If you are pro-capital punishment for convicted murderers, you won't accept some murderers must die and others must not. How do you fairly draw that line? Evidence of that fact is anti-death penalty advocates in states that have a Death Penalty continue fighting to save the lives of every person on Death Row, regardless of how many states allow it. That's why states like Kansas haven't executed anyone since the 1960's, even though there are currently 10 people on Death Row in the state.

On taxation, if you believe that progressive taxation (forcing people with more money to pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than someone who makes less money) is a form of stealing, how can you allow a “little bit” of theft in the name of compromise. If you believe the wealthy should pay higher percentages of their income toward taxes, you won't accept a flat tax, even if it does meet all the definitions of theft.

There are issues, however, where both sides can be sated in compromise. An example of that is a national speed limit on the nation's interstate highways. Environuts want 55 mph and conservatives want no limits. 75 mph is a compromise that seems to work. Another example to point to are drug laws.
The Left wants all drugs to be made legal. The Right generally prefers drug laws be strict. How do you find common ground with such divergent goals on either side?

Compromises are intended to be achieved in our unique system of government by allowing the states (or the people) to have all the rights that are not specifically enumerated as belonging to the federal government. So, states like Colorado can legalize recreational marijuana if their citizens vote so. And states like Kansas can continue to prohibit it. This is how these “uncompromisable” issues should be dealt with.

The methods for addressing these sometimes complex issues are one reason why America is such an exceptional country and there really is no other country in the world like it.

Let's work to keep that going!

•And now for something completely different…

Wind farms are likely killing tens of thousands of bats every year.

Researchers at the University of Exeter used sniffer dogs to locate the bodies of stricken bats near turbines to find out the scale of the problem.

A survey of 29 wind farms showed that 194 bats a month were killed, although the figure is likely to be higher because many of the dead creatures would have fallen prey to scavengers.

If the figure is extrapolated to all of Britain's onshore wind farms it could mean that around 80,000 bats are being killed each year by turbines. The research also showed that the risk of bat death increased by 18% for each extra meter of wind turbine blade length.

The scientists think that bats may turn off their sonar when high up because they don't expect anything to be blocking their path. They may also be attracted to insects which gather round the blades so an area that seemed clear in a pre-construction risk assessment could end up having any bats.

Bats have been around for at least 30 million years and have spent that time not having to deal with the risk of colliding with a spinning object.

The main casualties of wind turbines were two common species of bats: the Common Pipstrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle, tiny bats with reddish-brown coats and blackish-brown ears.

Bodies of the Noctule, one of the larger European bat species which sometimes come out before sunset to feed on moths, beetles and other large flying insects, were also found around turbines.

A dead Nathusius's Pipistrelle, which has recently been found to be migratory, was also found, raising concerns about whether onshore and off-shore wind farms could pose a threat to their navigation route.

Not that the Left is indifferent to the concern, Dr. Paul Lintott, one of the study's authors, said that although wind farms do kill bats, “By focusing resources on stopping turbines during high risk periods we should be able to minimize the collision risk to local bat populations whilst also benefitting globally from the transition to a greener economy.”

Just wait until the dearth of bats starts causing another increase in the incidence and spread of malaria across the globe! Just FYI, mosquitos kill more humans than any other animal, and it's not even close.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)




What a week!

Now that the FBI is probing new emails related to Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey is being lambasted by Democrats only weeks after these same people praised him as the ultimate professional after he refused to ask for charges to be applied to her use of an unsecure private email server for State Department business.

Now, the wheels appear to be coming off the Clinton campaign after it has been learned that the new emails were on a laptop computer that Clinton aide/Anthony Weiner wife Huma Abedin shared with her under-FBI-investigation spouse.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the number of emails is in the 650,000 range. That means there is going to be a long FBI investigation of this which will likely extend well into the next president's term.

This is just one of the many reasons that Hillary Clinton must not win this election.
Remember before the 2012 Presidential election I gave you 100 reasons why Obama should not be re-elected?

I will give you one good reason why Clinton should not be elected.

Say what you will about her history, her husband, her politics, Benghazi, Whitewater, Travelgate, F-bombing secret service agents, bimbo-eruption quelling, vast Rightwing Conspiracy, etc. You cannot get past her extremely poor judgment in setting up and using a private computer server for conducting classified government business and then once it was discovered, deleting some 300,000 of those emails and then dismissing that troubling revelation with word that they were only personal emails about yoga classes and wedding plans for her daughter.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

For my money, the following is the top reason to vote for Trump:

Several options might allow Donald Trump, if elected, to follow through on his call for the US to back away from greenhouse-gas reductions pledged in Paris recently.

Climate change negotiators at the United Nations conference in Marrakesh will be watching the election returns on Nov. 8 very nervously.

Diplomats in Morocco will huddle for its first convention post-Paris agreement to ramp down emissions from industrial countries, and their efforts to attack capitalism rest heavily on who will lead the US.

Hillary Clinton would keep the US involved in the agreement and work on measures to realize President Obama's goal of curbing national carbon emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025.

Donald Trump has threatened to pull America out of the agreement, removing significant US leadership on the issue while also jeopardizing reductions from China.

With Clinton, leaders across the world largely know what they're getting in the climate arena – an extension of Obama-era policies. Trump, meanwhile, has campaigned on yanking the US from the Paris agreement, which aims to slash emissions enough to allegedly prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2100.

Trump could follow three general paths: Withdraw from the agreement; pull out of the entire UN climate process, known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; or, simply, do nothing to honor the commitment Obama made last year.

Trump's energy adviser, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R) of North Dakota, previewed an idea for delegitimizing the Paris agreement during a Tuesday debate with Clinton adviser Trevor Houser. Congressman Cramer said Trump would send the climate agreement through the Senate. There, it surely wouldn't garner two-thirds majority needed to confirm a new, binding agreement.

Some say that move would be only symbolic. History shows that even symbolic measures can have real-world consequences. President Bill Clinton backed off the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, after the Senate voiced its disapproval in a 95-0 resolution. Trump could use the vote against the Paris agreement as pretext for withdrawing from the arrangement altogether, though he'd likely face an international haranguing as a result.

I doubt that would deter Trump after what he's been put through in this election.
Even without all that procedure, Trump's most effective play might be to simply do nothing.

Say what you will about Donald Trump. But - for all his bombast, braggadocio, womanizing, alleged sexual harassing ways – one thing you cannot doubt about him is that he legitimately loves America. For the first time is a long while, we need someone in that office that really loves this country.

Go with that, if the issues of: immigration, taxes, energy, life, climate change, and the Supreme Court, are not enough for you to vote for Donald Trump.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at








•Trump's “make America great again” motto can be best realized by embracing coal. Coal industry workers in Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky would do well to vote Trump for their own best interests. Hillary Clinton, A.K.A. Hilldabeast, has sworn to destroy coal jobs and continue Obama's pattern of attacking the coal industry as a means for attacking capitalism.

If we were to hire someone for the sole purpose of doing damage to the American way of life and the free market's ability to make life better for poor people, that person would do exactly what Obama and Hillary have been doing for the past 7+ years – attack jobs in the coal industry.

The best way to hurt poor people is to attack the cheapest things they have in their lives. In this case, it is energy. Energy fuels our productivity. It makes all our lives better. Because poor people spend a much greater percentage of their overall income on energy than the wealthier do, they are hurt much more when cheap energy becomes not-so-cheap energy.

Stop Obama and Hillary by voting for Trump.

•So you don't just think this is just me, Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy said this last week:

“A policy that will get the lowest cost electricity, which is a staple of life, for those folks on fixed incomes, for the manufacturer of a product for the global marketplace. All types of fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear — all of the above. That's what gets people endorsed. That will get a strong America and make America great again.”

According to Murray, the Obama administration's policies are hurting the lowest income families, saying there were about 35,000 jobs lost in the coal industry this year and 60,000 in all.

“It's a tragedy what's happening in the coal fields, with the destruction of lives, by Barack Obama, who is the greatest destroyer America's had. And Mrs. Clinton says 'I will expand on those policies,'” he said.

Murray, who has been outspoken about Hillary Clinton's energy policy, also reiterated why her clean energy push is “all about money.”

“She's getting millions of dollars from the manufacturers of solar panels and windmills…She said these people need this government help. These are the richest billionaires of the country that are kicking in to the Clinton Foundation, to the Clinton campaign, to build windmills and solar panels because it requires a subsidy. Coal stands in the way of that,” he argued.

•How's this one for hypocrisy fueling lunacy?

The modern internal combustion engine first came from Germany and now Germany wants to put a nail in its coffin. The German Bundesrat, a legislative body that represents the sixteen federal states of Germany at the national level, has passed a resolution to ban the internal combustion engine beginning in 2030.
Germany's Spiegel Magazine reported that the country's top legislative body was able to reach a bi-partisan agreement that hopes to allow only zero-emission vehicles on EU roads in 14 years. For the resolution to be instituted across Europe, it will have to be approved by the EU. But according to Forbes, “German regulations traditionally have shaped EU and UNECE regulations.”

Greens party lawmaker Oliver Krischer told Spiegel, “If the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions is to be taken seriously, no new combustion engine cars should be allowed on roads after 2030.”

This is nuts!

The resolution calls on EU automakers to “review the current practices of taxation and dues with regard to a stimulation of emission-free mobility,” of course hoping that a tougher tax burden could encourage manufacturers to push electric vehicles into production sooner.

While more approvals must go through the legislative process, that a country with the fourth-largest auto industry in the world is spearheading such sweeping change is a big sign of future trouble.

•Did you see Al Gore stumping for Hilldabeast?

He and the Democrat presidential nominee appeared together at Miami Dade College last week.

Of course, the location has plenty of symbolic importance — the area has not only just been battered by Hurricane Matthew, it is also a part of the country environuts believe is most vulnerable to sea-level rise.

The Tuesday afternoon appearance last week was timed to coincide with the state's voter registration deadline, and the Clinton campaign announced Sunday that the two politicians would urge Florida voters “to check their registration status and to get registered by October 11 to make their voices heard this election.”

What a couple of carpetbaggers! A Chicago-bred, Arkansas wed, former NY U.S. Senator with a propensity for illegality locked arm-in-arm with a Tennessee tobacco millionaire who lost a narrow election for president and made himself a billionaire on the backs of poor people by scaring them into seeing themselves as a threat to Planet Earth!





•Sunday night's Presidential Debate had a ton of media hype about Donald Trump's 11 year old crude private comments. Supposedly, Hillary Clinton was going to avoid shaking his hand at the start of the debate. True to form, Hillary and Trump did not shake hands to start the debate.

However, did you notice that she shook his hand at the end of the debate?
I guess Trump quelled her concerns enough that she could bring herself to shake his hand.

•The noxious Paris climate accord is set to go into force in early November, but can it be enforced?

The 2015 Paris Agreement, designed to attack capitalism by taking cheap fossil fuel energy away from people, actually says efforts to enforce compliance will be "non-adversarial and non-punitive." How does anyone know if individual governments are complying?

"The key question will be implementing the agreement. There's no legal enforcement of pledges," said Robert Watson, a British-American scientist and former head of the U.N.'s panel of climate experts.

The hope is that governments will feel a "moral obligation" and "peer pressure" to act, Watson said in an interview with Reuters.

Under the Paris Agreement, almost 200 countries have set their own national targets for emissions, with promises to set tougher goals.

It's all a smokescreen. Elect Trump and stop this nonsense in its tracks.

•The EPA last week declared a “Climate Alert” in all 50 states.
"From floods and droughts to dangerous heat islands and other public health effects, communities are facing the very real impacts of climate change," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in unveiling the “alert.”

Here is a sampling of the warnings for each region:

The Northwest is projected to experience changes in the timing of streamflow that will reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

The Southwest is projected to experience increased heat, drought, insect outbreaks, and wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

The Midwest is projected to experience extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding that will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

The Northeast is projected to experience increased precipitation, more frequent and intense storms, and higher average temperatures. These projected changes pose challenges to communities as they protect water and waste infrastructure, maintain water quality, and protect air quality and public health. Many communities are building resilience to the risks they face under current climatic conditions.

The Southeast region is projected to experience higher average temperatures, increased precipitation, and more frequent and intense storms. These projected changes pose challenges to communities as they diversify water source, protect sensitive wetlands and protect people from heat waves. Climate impacts vary from a wet northern area to a dry southwest area.

The Hawaii and Pacific Islands are projected to experience warmer oceans leading to increased coral bleaching and disease outbreaks and changing distribution of tuna fisheries. Freshwater supplies will become more limited on many islands. Coastal flooding and erosion will increase. Mounting threats to food and water security, infrastructure, health, and safety are expected to lead to increasing human migration.

Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the nation, bringing widespread impacts. Sea ice is rapidly receding and glaciers are shrinking. Thawing permafrost is leading to more wildfire, and affecting infrastructure and wildlife habitat. Rising ocean temperatures and acidification will alter valuable marine fisheries.

So, why are the “insect outbreaks” limited to the Northwest and Southwest regions? We have insects in the Midwest.

Your tax dollars at work. Eliminate the EPA.

(The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki can be reached via email to or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•Never one to miss an opportunity to steal the spotlight, President Obama attempted to upstage Israeli icon Shimon Peres at his own funeral last Friday.
“I could somehow see myself in his story, and he could see himself in mine,” said Obama, speaking on behalf of the deceased leader, who not only helped found the state of Israel, but also served stints as both president and prime minister.
Humility knows not this man.

Plus, to add further insult to injury, back home the Obama administration worked overtime to try and declare that Israel's founding father was not buried in Israel.
The service was held at Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, the site of the national cemetery of Israel. The White House press office released to the public Obama's remarks at 7:49 a.m. ET, noting the location of the speech as Mount Herzl, Jerusalem, Israel.

But several hours later, the White House issued what it called a "correction" to the press release. The heading of the press release was "corrected" to strike through the name of the country, Israel.

The location of Mount Herzl is undoubtedly in Israeli territory, on Jerusalem's western side and in a part of the city that is not disputed as Israeli. As the national cemetery, Mount Herzl is the resting place for many of Israel's war heroes and national figures, and is named after Theodor Herzl, the intellectual godfather of the modern state of Israel.

Even when the guy is dead, Obama tries to stick a thumb in his eye - Incredible!

•Obama's power plant rules are facing a key test in court.

The centerpiece of President Barack Obama's climate change strategy faced a key test last week as conservative appeals court judges questioned whether his administration overstepped its legal authority under an air pollution law to make sweeping changes to the U.S. electric sector.

Twenty-seven states led by coal-producer West Virginia and industry groups are challenging the EPA's Clean Power Plan rules before 10 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

They argue that the EPA overstepped its regulatory authority under the federal Clean Air Act when the agency issued the rules. The U.S. Supreme Court has put the regulations on hold while the case is litigated.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by Bush 41, said while he understands the political and moral obligation (gag me!) to address global warming and the importance of the United States to international climate action, the Clean Power Plan's impact on the U.S. economy and on certain coal-reliant communities should require Congress to have a say.

He added that the grave threat of climate change does not give the EPA a "blank check" to use the Clean Air Act flexibly.

Judge Thomas Griffith, another Bush appointee, questioned: "Why is this (debate) not going-on on the Congress floor but in front of a room full of unelected judges?" (Great point!)

Justice Department lawyer Eric Hostetler, representing the EPA, said the agency designed the rule to be cost effective and "deepen" the shift already taking shape in the electric sector toward cleaner energy.

In reality, they're just attacking capitalism.

In comments indicating support for the government's position, Judge Judith Rogers, appointed to the court by former President Bill Clinton, said the EPA should not close its eyes to trends in the electric sector which have seen utilities diversify their energy mix. "You can't survive in this market unless you do that," she said.

What business is it of this judge or any judge to determine whether a power company diversifies its energy mix?

The eventual appeals court ruling could decide the case, even if it goes to the Supreme Court. The Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia left the court ideologically split with four conservatives and four liberals. A 4-4 ruling by the high court would leave in place the appeals court ruling.

The case is being heard by 10 judges rather than 11 because the court's chief judge, Merrick Garland, has recused himself from the case. Garland is Obama's nominee to replace Scalia. Of the 10 judges who will hear the case, six were appointed by Democratic presidents.

A 5-5 ruling would leave the regulations in place.

The outcome of the Nov. 8 presidential election could be pivotal. If Trump wins, the government could reverse the rules or decline to appeal to the Supreme Court should the appeals court strike them down. If Clinton wins, the losing side in the appeals court ruling could be expected to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Vote Trump!





•The dilemma between Trump vs. Hillary for Republicans and conservatives is an easy one to solve.

If you voted for either John McCain or Mitt Romney in the last two presidential elections, you can vote for Donald Trump. Trump is more conservative than both of those previous candidates.

On immigration, it's really no question. On Obamacare, Trump is the only one of those three that has stated he intends to repeal that horrid law. Trump is clear about his intentions on the Supreme Court. Trump is clear on his desire to lower taxes. I'm not sure Romney and McCain were ever that clear on much of anything.
The bottom line though is should a President Trump begin to veer from conservative policy, like Bush 43 did in trying to implement amnesty and on Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, conservatives can rise up and stop him.

Conservatives have absolutely NO chance of stopping a President Hillary.

Vote Trump – he is not as bad as we have voted for previously.

•I've said this many times, I think Ronald Reagan was the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge, but his worst decision by far – worse even than the amnesty plan he signed – was naming George H.W. Bush as his vice president.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but having the RINO King Bush 41 as VP and as President Reagan's successor set in motion a slow moving plan that saw conservatism nearly burned at the stake, with Bush 43's two terms and the rise of the RINO Establishment in the GOP.

•President Obama will meet with actor Leonardo DiCaprio at an upcoming White House-sponsored arts festival to discuss the “dangers” posed by climate change.
They will meet at South by South Lawn (a play on the media and music festival South by Southwest - SXSW) on Oct. 3 to talk about "the importance of protecting the one planet we've got for future generations," according to the White House website.

No word on whether Leo is flying in on his private jet.

The festival also will include the U.S. premiere screening of "Before the Flood," DiCaprio's National Geographic documentary about his time raising climate change awareness around the globe as a U.N. ambassador of peace. Leo blames greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels for driving manmade climate change.

Obama doesn't care but he wants to use it as a wedge against capitalism.

•Can someone behind the Black Lives Matter movement explain this statistic to me?

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks have committed more than half of the homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years. Department of Justice statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides. In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.

I would be interested in a serious explanation of that.

•I got this mailer from a Climate Change group:

“There's no denying the trend that each year our summers get hotter. To compensate for the rise in temperature, we swim; we turn the blinds; we purchase sun shades for our cars; and, we crank our air conditioning: in the car, at work, and at home.

The problem is that our air conditioning units are actually making the planet hotter.
Air conditioning units are, in a word, inefficient. They account for an estimated 5% of annual American energy consumption, and spew 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Moreover, some air conditioning units still contain (and leak) refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons, a very potent and long-lasting greenhouse gas.

The problem has a simple solution, right, to not use air conditioners? Not so fast. Air conditioning units actually do save the lives of children, the elderly, pets.

Cooler temperatures have also proven to increase productivity. Factor in that researchers project the installation of 700 million air conditioners worldwide in the next 15 years, and 1.6 billion by 2050 and the solution doesn't seem so simple.
Humans cannot afford to turn their back entirely on air conditioning, which is why the United States of America, where 86% of households have air conditioning, must push for innovation.

Affordable air conditioning units powered by renewable energy must be made a priority.

Sign to urge the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget and the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget to make air conditioning innovation top priority by increasing the budget for non-defense research and development. It may be the only way the world finds a cool, clean solution.”

Needless to say, I did not sign the petition.





Colin Powell's leaked emails show he was pretty much equally critical of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Interesting though that the Big 3 nightly newscasts put their focus only on the four-star general's derisive remarks about Trump.

“Calling Donald Trump in email, quote, 'a national disgrace,' and Trump's birther movement, quote, 'racist,'” ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir said in introducing Wednesday's explosive story about years' worth of leaked emails that showed a candid and sometimes crude side of Powell.

When Muir threw it to reporter Cecilia Vega, she began her report with all the anti-Trump vitriol that could be mustered from the former Secretary of State's hacked messages.

“He is one of the most famous faces in the GOP, serving under three Republican presidents, but in his hacked emails, Colin Powell calls his own party's nominee 'a national disgrace' and an 'international pariah,'” Vega said, adding that Powell called the congressional investigation into Benghazi “a stupid witch hunt.”

Muir, as well as his counterparts at CBS and NBC, ignored a particularly jarring email from Powell in which he described in coarse terms what former President Bill Clinton was doing with “bimbos at home,” noted Media Research Center's NewsBusters.

Vega did read from the email where Powell attacked Bill Clinton, but omitted the critical details of his sexual exploits. “But in 2014, he wrote, 'I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect,'” Vega read. “He says Clinton has 'unbridled ambition' and calls her 'greedy, not transformational.'”
The full quote from Powell's emails stated: “I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still d---ing bimbos at home (according to the NYP).”

CBS Evening News introduced the report with Scott Pelley saying Powell “took a healthy swing at both candidates,” but the segment focused on Powell's displeasure with the Clinton campaign for fingering (ironic term) him as the reason she used a private email server. The newscast did report a Powell email in which he wrote: "Everything Clinton touches she kind of screws up with hubris."”

NBC reporter Pete Williams gave little time to Powell's thoughts on the candidates, but did report on how Powell believed the birther issue once championed by Trump was racist. The only critical thing Williams reported Powell said in regards to Clinton was that her speaking fees were “the gift that keeps taking.”

At this point, all I believe from anyone in the media or politics is what has been hacked from their emails.

•The Tweet of the week from Twitter came from Cabot Phillips (@cabot_phillips), and addresses the seeming flood of entertainment organizations (NCAA, NBA, ACC, etc.) refusing to host events in North Carolina due to the state's new law, HB2, that essentially prohibits men from using women's restrooms.

“The NCAA plays games in Cuba and China. But they refuse to play in North Carolina because of 'human rights violations' Let that sink in.”


•From the Washington Examiner, top House and Senate lawmakers are engaged in a last-minute push to block the Obama Administration from handing control of the Internet to a private, global organization.

Before you yawn, read-on…

Facing a Sept. 30 deadline, Sen. Ted Cruz, who is perhaps the staunchest congressional opponent to the handoff, said he is "cautiously optimistic" a rider prohibiting the transfer will be included in a must-pass government spending bill that is expected to become law by Sept. 30, the same date the transfer is supposed to take place.

The move would transfer control to a nonprofit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.

The Obama administration has defended the move, which will involve transferring to ICANN the Internet domain name authority (IP addresses) now operated by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA).
Laurence Strickling, the NTIA administrator, said the transfer is necessary to ensure "that the private sector, not governments, takes the lead in setting the future direction of the Internet's domain name system."

Strickling added that the NTIA's stewardship "was intended to be temporary."But Cruz and other critics have labeled the transfer an "Internet surrender," and say the ceding of U.S. control will allow more than 160 countries, including authoritarian regimes, to have some influence over what is allowed and prohibited on the Internet; yes internet freedom is threatened.

Cruz and Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wisc., have introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which would prevent the Obama administration from transferring authority away from the United States. Cruz posed a question to ICANN's CEO and President Goran Marby that aimed to underscore his belief the transfer would truly threaten Internet freedom.

"Is ICANN bound by the First Amendment?" Cruz asked.

"To my understanding, no," Marby replied.


(Email Brian Kubicki at




•I flew my American Flag on 9/11 to remember the victims. I also flew the flag on 9/12 to remember the four that were murdered by radical Islamic terrorists on 9/11 and 9/12/2012. They deserve to be remembered as well.

•In the wake of the nonsense started by Colin Kaepernick, I wonder if it appeared obvious to anyone that he pulled this protest of the National Anthem in an effort to stave off being cut from the 49'ers roster? Also, isn't it ironic that he is playing behind Blaine Gabbert, a former quarterback for the Missouri Tigers?

•Legendary rock band KISS has taken a very big stand at their concerts in response to Kaepernick's aimless protest. KISS, currently on its “Freedom to Rock” Tour fittingly launched on July 4th, makes a point to show respect to the men and women sworn to protect by serving their country in the armed services.
The band typically stops in the middle of the show and recites with the crowd the Pledge of Allegiance.

KISS also puts their patriotism and love of our military in the forefront by giving the Hiring Our Heroes charitable organization $150,000 and then top it off by selecting a current member of the National Guard or Reserve in all 32 cities of the tour to be a roadie for the day to work backstage with the crew and prepare for the evening's concert. In addition, the band partnered with Veteran Tickets Foundation which offers discounted tickets to veterans. To top it all off, the band also gave $125,000 to the Wounded Warrior Project.

Plus, at a recent stop in Worcester, Massachusetts, KISS brought its roadie for the day on stage, along with other members of the military past and present, and led the entire arena in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Lead singer Paul Stanley said:

“You should remember, patriotism is always cool. Loving your country is always cool. Standing up, respecting and honoring our military is always cool. So, to show some respect between pick-throwing, we're going to put our right hands over our hearts and why don't we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”

There are many patriotic American entertainers like KISS standing up for the values and principles that make America exceptional and the greatest nation in the world.

•I definitely recommend catching the movie Sully. There are no politics to it, but it is a great story about American heroes.

•From the Associated Press, we got this nonsense: California's Legislature has approved regulations on cow flatulence and manure – both blamed for releasing greenhouse gases.

The measure was approved shortly before the end of the legislative session Wednesday after its author, Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, agreed to give dairy farms more time to comply.

The legislation seeks to reduce methane emissions associated with manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. Methane is one of several gases known as short-lived climate pollutants that don't persist for long in the atmosphere but are believed by the environmental Left to have a huge influence on the climate.
The bill also calls for efforts to significantly increase composting to eliminate the amount of food waste in landfills, which releases methane when it breaks down.

I have to ask, doesn't composted food release methane as well? How are they supposedly helping the “problem” by mandating composting instead of putting the food into the landfills?

Aren't they just moving the methane to different areas? But it all is in the same global atmosphere!
Republicans say the rules would harm businesses but once again do nothing to stop it.

•National Review had the news that the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has opted to narrow the scope of what can be discussed in the classroom. Last week, three professors co-teaching a course titled “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” released a statement that addressed students who question man-made climate change.

“We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the 'other side' of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course.”
So what about those that simply disagree? The professors “respectfully ask that you do not take this course.” One must wonder - if these professors are positive that man-made climate change is occurring as they suggest, why are they worried about a few students questioning their narrative?

Universities are supposed to be places where students can debate issues and facts and hypotheses openly, which is a tried-and-true method of education. How does the act of suppressing contradictory views help the educational process?

University Communications Director Tom Hutton backed the professors' decision to silence debate rather than encourage free inquiry. “By clearly stating the class focus,” Hutton told The College Fix, “the faculty are (sic) allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative.”

If that rationale was taken seriously, no student would ever enroll in a course that taught beliefs contrary to their own. That seems to be the idea. Preach only to the choir.




•Did you feel the earthquake last week? I didn't – slept right through it.

Did you know it was centered in Pawnee, Oklahoma; population about 2,200. No deaths and scarce notable damage to structures. It was a 5.5 Magnitude quake.

Contrast this with the recent 6.2 Mag. earthquake in central Italy that killed almost 300 people. Those small towns aggregate had about the same population as Pawnee.

So why were there so many more deaths in Italy?

The NY Times (Yes, I'm quoting the NY Fishwrap!) had a great summary about that recently. Some excerpts follow.

Romano Camassi, a seismologist, surveyed the damage from the earthquake which left the village of Casetta in ruins.

Experts like Mr. Camassi, who was part of the first team from Italy's Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology to arrive at the quake zone in central Italy, say the destruction was amplified by vulnerable buildings whose upgrades to anti-seismic codes were deemed too costly for many Italians to carry out, too complicated to finance and too cumbersome to get approved.

Well that and Italians in these towns love the tourist dollars they earn showcasing the “old world charm” of their ancient and extremely unsafe town.

The most central, and inescapable, problem is that Italy is old. About 60 percent of its buildings are estimated to be more than 100 years old. That means that most of the country's architectural heritage was built before any of the modern anti-seismic standards were instituted.

“You can't ask that an ancient structure adhere to norms designed for modern structures, but you can try to improve them, that's the path to take with the objective to save human lives,” said Donatella Guzzoni, an engineer and an expert in the preservation of historic buildings.

“In other countries there is greater renewal of the architectural patrimony. They don't think much about knocking something down to rebuild to different standards,” said Sergio Lagomarsino, an engineering professor at the University of Genoa.

But, as Mr. Lagomarsino pointed out, Italy has a more conservative approach and is aware that preserving its heritage has value for the country.

“In the face of an important building you can't demolish a historic center and rebuild it with fake stones,” he said. “It would 'denaturalize' Italy.”

Earthquakes do a much more efficient job of denaturalizing Italy!

•Did you know that George Soros is helping the Pope?

From Marc Morano's Climate Depot…

The Soros' foundation clearly views Pope Francis as an important ally in the Soros income inequality socialist movement and in the run up to the 2016 U.S. election.

The Soros notes expose a cozy relationship with Cardinal Maradiaga, the Vice Pope, and close confidante of Pope Francis. Cardinal Maradiaga of Honduras is described by the Soros operatives as 'using his influence' within the Vatican to promote the Soros radical economic inequality narrative. Clearly, Maradiaga has been identified by the Soros empire as a key player in the global radical income redistribution movement. Soros' team knows that Maradiaga will happily promote this initiative within the Vatican and, most importantly, with Pope Francis, his close friend.

PICO is the $650,000 grant recipient that will organize activities to engage the Pope on economic and racial justice activities.

PICO is a progressive national network of faith-based organizations. Like health care reform, this newest PICO initiative aims to redistribute wealth by demanding that “faith leaders step into the big banks' boardrooms.”

PICO was founded in 1972 by John Baumann, a Jesuit priest trained in Saul Alinsky community organizing in Chicago in the 1960s.

Another key organization that is financially supported by Soros is the FPL standing for Faith in Public Life. FPL is given its marching orders in the grant. Polling results by FPL are preordained by Soros, as set forth in the grant:

“FPL's media, framing, and public opinion activities, including conducting a poll to demonstrate that Catholic voters are responsive to the Pope's focus on income inequality, and earning media coverage that drives the message that being “pro-family” requires addressing growing inequality.”

There you go. FPL got its marching orders from its funder to conduct a poll and demonstrate that Catholic voters support Pope Francis on income inequality.

Who is FPL, otherwise known as Faith in Public Life? The innocuous and religious sounding organization is another radical leftist Soros funded organization that drives the left's agenda in the faith community.

Who could be against an organization that innocuously calls itself “faith in public life?” FPL is yet another of hundreds of Soros funded satellite organizations masquerading as well-meaning philanthropies which in reality promote a radical economic agenda of anti-capitalism and global redistribution.

Stay tuned, Catholics, for contrived polling data that reflects your overwhelming support for more global and carbon taxes to redistribute your income more equally. Soros will use the Vatican to promote Hillary, his hand-picked presidential candidate.





•One thing about Donald Trump that ensures my vote is he is clear on the faux issue of global warming and solid on energy policy. In his May 26 energy policy speech, he promised “to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan” and “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”

On July 26, Trump told Fox News, “I say it [man-made climate change] could have a minor impact, but nothing, nothing to what they're [climate activists] talking about. And what it's doing is putting us at a tremendous disadvantage as a country because other countries are not adhering to the rules; we are and it makes it impossible for our businesses to compete.”

Conservatives believe public opinion must change significantly before more Republican leaders will follow Trump's assertive approach on global warming. Handled properly, global warming could become a unifying issue for many Republican campaigns.

GOP candidates should follow Trump's lead, making use of opinions of experts like Dr. Roy Spencer ( to clearly explain to the public that global warming is a natural phenomenon and human influence is likely very small. Democrat-driven plans to cripple the coal industry, the most important source of cheap electricity, because of improbable climate concerns is irrational and dangerous.

•Did you know that extreme global warming caused a severe mass extinction of life on Earth 252 million years ago? It took life up to 9 million years to recover.
96 percent of marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial life died off in the Permian-Triassic extinction event.

Experts estimate the mass extinction was likely triggered by an explosive event of volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia. These eruptions lasted for a MILLION YEARS and emitted enormous amounts of volatiles which made Earth unbearably hot.

Life took an extraordinary long time to recover from this extinction, from 5 to 9 million years. Once oceans finally started cooling 6-7 million years after the extinction, nutrient rich waters returned, algae started to grow, resuscitating the oceans, and leading to an explosion of life.

In many ways this mass extinction reset the evolution of life, and paved the way for evolution of dinosaurs. They, in turn, died off in another mass extinction 66 million years ago.

Wonder when the Earth will start the next extinction?

•If you live in Oregon and enjoy air conditioning in the summer, heat in the winter, good food in the refrigerator and safe medicines in your pharmacies, not to mention high tech features of the industrial revolution such as having lights in your home and computers and internet access, you might want to start stocking up on candles and gas generators.

The green energy warriors have pretty much taken over the state legislature in the Beaver State for more than the past decade and they've managed to pass all sorts of interesting laws. One of them was a rule which says that all coal fired power will be ELIMINATED by 2020. The Boardman Coal Plant is scheduled to shut down completely in the next few years and at that point there will be little besides wind turbines in terms of in-state power generation.

The mandate, signed into law earlier this year, was the result of an environmentalist-fueled push by the Democrat-controlled legislature. Under the plan, coal production will end once the Boardman plant shutters in 2020 – utilities would still be able to buy coal power from out of state for another 10 years, until a 2030 deadline to end coal use entirely.

But the phase-out already has groups warning that residents are headed for big rate increases and brownouts.

Tighten purse strings, Oregonians. Energy generation, for now anyway, remains in the realm of the free market and in order to comply with these state mandates, energy is going to cost more. The utility companies don't simply suck up those increased costs - they get passed on to the consumer. Experts estimate energy bills may double current rates. But of course, the lowest income residents will bear the brunt of this awful policy because they spend more on utilities as a percentage of their total income than any other economic group.

Coal currently provides more than a third of Oregon's energy needs. The total energy provided by wind turbines accounts for 8%. And of course that production drops to nearly zero whenever the wind stops blowing.

After 2030, Oregon will have to purchase its power from utilities which use complex federal credit schemes to say they're not delivering coal fired energy. The cost goes up but the actual source of the power doesn't change.

What does change is the reliability of the energy supply when you restrict the number of sources you can draw on. All it will take is one period of high demand when the “approved” sources aren't putting out enough and you've got rolling brownouts or outright blackouts. It shouldn't take more than a few days of that for Oregon's residents to wake up and question precisely what they've gotten themselves into.

Don't say you weren't warned.

(Email Brian at




•The Obama administration refused a legal requirement to study and report on the impact of requiring ethanol in gasoline, the EPA inspector general reported last week.

The administration never conducted studies to determine whether air and water quality benefits from adding corn-based ethanol to gasoline. Such reports to Congress were required every three years under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

The AP investigated the issue and found ethanol far more damaging to the environment than the government predicted. As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, polluted water supplies and destroyed habitat.

The EPA agreed with the inspector general's findings that it had failed to produce studies as legally required. It said it will produce the first report — on the impacts of biofuels — by December 2017, and investigate whether ethanol requirements made other environmental problems worse by September 2024. That will be 17 years after Congress passed a law requiring oil companies to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into their gasoline.

President George W. Bush signed the law and President Obama implemented it.
The EPA told the inspector general that it produced one congressional report about the effects of ethanol on the environmental and conservation in December 2011, at a cost of $1.7 million, then conveniently claimed they ran out of money for future reports. They also said they never received input from Congress on their first report and asserted that three years was too short a period for any significant scientific advances that would have mattered.

•The Washington Times reports that climate change activists are mobilizing to cut the birthrate, arguing that richer nations should discourage people from having children in order to protect them from the ravages of global warming and reduce emissions.

Travis Rieder, assistant director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR that bringing down global fertility by half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us.”

“Here's a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” said Mr. Rieder, who has one child.

He proposed procreation disincentives such as government tax breaks for poor people and tax penalties for rich people, a kind of “carbon tax on kids.”

Poor nations would be cut slack “because they're still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world's. Plus, it just doesn't look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids,” NPR said.

•On Trump…

The single best reason to vote for Donald Trump for president in November is this: the media has effectively chosen the president in the last two elections. They run from Democrat scandal stories and run feverishly toward a hint of scandal from a Republican. Former Democrat staffers populate the Sunday morning shows. They feel empowered at being able to decide who will occupy the Oval Office. The media needs to be brought back down to size. Vote Trump!

•And before you try to look third party, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson said he's no skeptic of man-made global warming and endorsed a “fee” on carbon dioxide emissions.

“I do believe that climate change is occurring,” Johnson said. “I do believe that it is man-caused” and “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”

Johnson's “free market” approach to global warming includes “a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon” to make those who emit the greenhouse gas pay the supposed cost of their actions, according to the Juneau Empire.

“We as human beings want to see carbon emissions reduced significantly,” he said, adding the U.S. only emits “16 percent of the (global) load” Co2.

That's actually only 3% but whose quibbling?

Johnson said: “I don't want to do anything that harms jobs.”

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told campaigners at the American Energy Alliance (AEA) in March he opposed a carbon tax.

“The Obama administration committed an overreach that punishes rather than helps Americans,” Trump answered in AEA's survey. “Under my administration, all EPA rules will be reviewed. Any regulation that imposes undue costs on business enterprises will be eliminated.”

Republicans have been increasingly concerned about attempts to get a carbon tax through Congress. GOP lawmakers often argue taxing CO2 would amount to an energy tax that would raise the price of everything, hurting the poor.

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon tax bill last year to raise $2 trillion over 10 years and reduce CO2 emissions 40 percent.

Whitehouse has also called on the Department of Justice to prosecute those who disagree with him on global warming.

(Email Brian at and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•Watching the amazing Olympic gymnastics competition, and being old, it occurred to me that the gymnasts today can do much more than even the athletes I saw in the '70's. The Olympics have been going on since 1896 for men and 1936 for women. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that the earliest gymnastic competitions were probably amazing the public by doing something as simple as a somersault. “Look at that, Bill….he just did two somersaults in a row - AMAZING!!!”

•I'm working on a detailed endorsement of Donald Trump for president, and am all over the map as to why. Suffice it to say though, if you look at the issues of importance to any presidential election, Trump is way more conservative than either Mitt Romney or John McCain and is even more so than Bush 43, Bob Dole, and Bush 41. I didn't have problems voting for them – well, I did the whole “hold-your-nose” thing as many conservatives did. Look at the issues of national security, immigration, life, taxes, jobs, and energy, and you are better covered by Trump than Hillary by a long, long way.

•To be fair, I do differ with Trump on a lot of issues. Trade for example. Tariffs only raise costs for consumers. If you want to bring jobs like Carrier air conditioning back to America (they moved to Mexico) end the over-regulation by the EPA. Better yet, eliminate the EPA entirely. The department was created by Richard Nixon, for goodness sake.

•The importance here that seems to be emphasized by the Trump run is we really don't need our president to be someone selected by the media. We need someone who stands for the issues we care about. There's really nothing else important in the decision.

•Read on for more EPA-driven nonsense.

•From The Guardian via Climate Depot, dairy groups are blasting methane regulations for massive reductions stating: “Cows expel gas so they don't explode!”

California wants to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by belching and farting of their 5.5 million cows.

Methane gas is said to be 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, but the industry says it's “nature's design” for cows to pass a lot of gas.

California's attempt to curb emissions of methane is facing vocal opposition from a dairy industry that fears government meddling in the flatulence of its cows.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has set a goal of slashing methane emissions by 40% by 2030, from 2013 levels, and has targeted the belching and farting – known as “enteric fermentation” – of California's 5.5 million beef and dairy cows, as well as the manure they create.

A strategy document produced by the regulator states that improved manure management practices, new diets for cattle and “gut microbial interventions” could help cut the amount of methane released into the atmosphere. State legislators are currently considering a bill to enforce these suggestions.

California has moved to limit methane after the state's glowing reputation for climate action received a nasty blow by a natural gas leak this year in the mountains above Los Angeles that took 112 days to plug and spewed 97,100 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere.

But the state's dairy industry has criticized the crackdown on methane leaking from cattle, launching a social media and email campaign that claims the ARB is overstepping its power and raises the specter of exploding cows.

“The focus here is to highlight ARB's efforts at over-regulating the dairy industry,” said Anja Raudabaugh, chief executive of Western United Dairymen. “By nature's design, (cows) pass lots of gas. Quite frankly, we want them to expel gas so they don't explode.”

The Milk Producers Council has also lambasted the prospect of new regulation, with the lobby group's general manager Rob Vandenheuvel stating that the methane rules plan “threatens the future of the California dairy industry.”

“This is about fighting against the ridiculously stupid 'go-it-alone' strategy for implementing business killing regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gases,” Vandenheuvel said.

“When the US talks about going this direction, while countries like China refuse, I call that crazy. When a single state like California does it on its own, I call that absolutely insane.”

In May, the Obama administration unveiled new rules to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by up to 45% by 2025, from 2012 levels. The rules are part of a number of executive actions taken by the president this year – including on emissions from aircraft and refrigerants – in the face of escalating global temperatures.

Neither California nor the federal government, however, has yet adopted an idea from Argentina's government that large backpacks be strapped onto cows to trap methane and turn it into green energy.
Is there any remaining doubt that the environmental movement is utter nonsense?

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




With the Summer Olympics in full-swing, we are hearing a lot more about the Zika virus and what's to be done to fight it. Congress wants to spend over a billion taxpayer dollars on it.

You know what is the best answer to fight the spread of a mosquito-borne illness?

Gerald and Natalie Sirkin wrote a great piece a few years ago that took-on all angles and presented all the relevant facts about the reason tens of millions of people have died of malaria since 1972. Some excerpts follow.

“Fraud in science is a major problem.” So begins “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud” by the late J. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University in San Jose, California.

In World War I, prior to the discovery of the insecticidal potential of DDT, typhus killed more servicemen than bullets. In World War II, typhus was no problem.

The world has marveled at the effectiveness of DDT in fighting malaria, yellow fever, dengue, sleeping sickness, plague, encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, fleas, and lice.

Today (this was 2005), the greatest killer and disabler is malaria, which kills a person every 30 seconds. By the 1960s, DDT had brought malaria near to extinction. “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable,” said the National Academy of Sciences.

Rachel Carson began the countrywide assault on DDT with her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson made errors, some designed to scare, about DDT and synthetic pesticides. “For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception to death,” she intoned.

“This is nonsense,” commented pesticide specialists Bruce N. Ames and Thomas H. Jukes of the University of California at Berkeley. (Ames is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, world renowned. Jukes, was a professor of biophysics and a leader in the defense of DDT.) “Every chemical is dangerous if the concentration is too high. Moreover, 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural… produced by plants to kill off predators,” Ames and Jukes wrote in Reason in 1993.

Her first charge against DDT was that it causes cancer. No search has ever turned up any evidence, despite massive use of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 1960s. Wayland Hayes, U.S. Public Health Service scientist, for 18 months fed to human volunteers daily three times the quantity of DDT that the average American was ingesting annually. None experienced any adverse effect, then or six to ten years later.

“There has never been any convincing evidence that DDT (or pesticide residues in food) has ever caused cancer in man,” concluded Ames and Jukes.

No harm to humans, they turned to bird health, alleging a decline of bald eagles and other birds of prey, which they associated with heavy DDT usage. Rachel Carson led the accusation. The charge is DDT use thins the shells of bird eggs. When nesting parent birds sat on the eggs, the shells cracked and no babies hatched. Carson charged that DDT was bringing bald eagles and robins to the “verge of extinction.”

Bald eagles between 1941 and 1960 migrating over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, doubled during the first six years of DDT use. Their numbers increased from 9,291 in 1946 — before much DDT was used — to 16,163 in 1963 and 19,765 in 1968.

Facts have not impeded the endless repetition of Carson's bird myth. Scientists tested the popular shell-thinning hypothesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed birds for 112 days on a diet with 100 times as much DDT as they were getting from the environment. No thinning of egg shells was found. The DDT had no effect on the birds.

In 1969, the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and National Audubon Society petitioned the Secretary of Agriculture to ban DDT, claiming it is carcinogenic to humans. He agreed to partially phase it out by December 31, 1970, which did not satisfy the environmentalists.

Following Ruckelshaus' ban, the USAID, prodded by a lawsuit by the Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, undertook to discourage other countries from using DDT by threatening to stop foreign aid to any country using it. The threat spread Ruckelshaus's ban worldwide.

The effects of giving up DDT were immediately felt in the malarial areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Sri Lanka (Ceylon), reacting to Silent Spring, in the 1960s gave up DDT. Its malarial cases had decreased from 2.8 million down to 17. After Sri Lanka gave it up, malaria shot back up to over 2.5 million.

South American countries gave up DDT and suffered the customary rise in malaria. Ecuador, which manufactures DDT, resumed using it in 1993. By 1995, Ecuador had reduced its malarial cases by 61 percent.

The search for a malaria-vaccine continues to fail.

The environmentalists' ideological opposition to pesticides has no basis in science. It is a death sentence to millions.




•Boy, it is easy to see media bias in favor of Hillary Clinton at work when you consider all the furor over Trump's being criticized by Khizr Khan, parent of an American soldier son who died in Iraq, at the DNC Convention and there were only dismissive rants against Pat Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, who criticized Hillary Clinton at the RNC convention for lying to her about that bogus internet video being the cause of her son's September 2012 death.

•Have you noticed that whenever Hillary Clinton's nomination is mentioned in the media she is described as “…the first woman from a major political party to be nominated…” and not “…the first woman to run for President?” That's because there have been somewhere near 12 women that have run for President prior to now.

From Business Insider…

US Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is not the first woman to run for president.

As Janet Tavakoli at Tavakoli Structured Finance pointed out on Monday, the first time a woman was nominated was in 1872.

Victoria Woodhull, also the first woman to work on Wall Street, secured the third-party nomination by the Equal Rights Party in the 1872 election.

Her opponents were Horace Greeley, of the Liberal Republican Party, and incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant, of the Radical Republican Party.

Grant won, but Woodhull, along with her supposed vice presidential candidate (he never publicly acknowledged the nomination), Frederick Douglass, ran 48 years before women were even able to vote.

Her story is an amazing one; a rags-to-riches story of a woman from a rural town in Ohio who made it to Wall Street and then the presidential race.

This was the first election after the formation of the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) and the American Woman Suffrage Association in 1869. As a result, protests for women's suffrage became more prevalent. The NWSA held its annual convention in New York City on May 9, 1872. Some of the delegates supported Victoria Woodhull, who had spent the year since the previous NWSA annual meeting touring the New York City environs and giving speeches on why women should be allowed to vote.

Woodhull gave a series of speeches around New York City during the campaign. Her finances were very thin, and when she borrowed money from supporters, she often was unable to repay them. On the day before the election, Woodhull was arrested for "publishing an obscene newspaper" and so was unable to cast a vote for herself.

Interestingly, Woodhull was actually ineligible to be president on Inauguration Day, not because she was a woman (the Constitution and the law were silent on the issue), but because she would not reach the constitutionally prescribed minimum age of 35 until September 23, 1873.

Historians have debated whether to consider her activities a true election campaign. Woodhull and Douglass are not listed in "Election results" on most resources, since the ticket received a negligible percentage of the popular vote and no electoral votes. Also, several suffragettes would attempt to vote in the election. Susan B. Anthony was actually arrested and fined $100 for attempting to vote.

•Catholics (and I am one), this pope!

From, Pope Francis suggested Sunday that Christianity is equally prone to violence as Islam.

When asked by a journalist about the hideous assassination of Fr. Jacques Hamel in northern France who was killed in the name of Islam (the murderer shouted “Alahu Akhbar” while slicing the neck of the aged priest) last Tuesday, the Pope replied that he doesn't like speaking about Islamic violence because there is plenty of Christian violence as well.

Really? How many Christians shout, “God is Great!” while sawing the head off of a living human being?

Pope Francis said that every day when he browses the newspapers, he sees violence in Italy perpetrated by Christians: “this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics!”

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there's everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

This Pope is either certifiably nuts or he IS the Antichrist.

(Email Brian Kubicki at and follow him on Twitter




Secretary of State John Kerry said in Vienna last week said that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State.


The Washington Examiner reported that Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners and refrigerators.
“As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism,” Kerry said. “It's hard for some people to grasp it, but what we – you - are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

Kerry said that most of the substances banned in the Montreal Protocol have increased the use of HFCs and claimed that the coolant was thousands of times more potent than CO2. He added that the increase of HFCs has led to the trend of global climate change.

“The use of hydrofluorocarbons is unfortunately growing,” Kerry said. “Already, the HFCs use in refrigerators, air conditioners, and other items are emitting an entire gigaton of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution into the atmosphere annually. Now, if that sounds like a lot, my friends, it's because it is. It's the equivalent to emissions from nearly 300 coal-fired power plants every single year.”

Not to go all techie on Kerry here but, the basic refrigeration cycle, called the vapor-compression cycle, uses a circulating liquid refrigerant as the medium which absorbs and removes heat from the space to be cooled and then rejects that heat elsewhere. All such systems have four components: a compressor, a condenser, a thermal expansion valve, and an evaporator.

Circulating refrigerant enters the compressor in the thermodynamic state known as a saturated vapor and is compressed to a higher pressure, resulting in a higher temperature as well. The hot, compressed vapor is superheated vapor and it is at a temperature and pressure at which it can be condensed with either cooling water or cooling air flowing across the coil or tubes that contain the refrigerant. There the circulating refrigerant rejects heat from the system and the rejected heat is carried away (via the outdoor unit). The condensed liquid refrigerant, now a saturated liquid, is routed through an expansion valve where it undergoes an abrupt reduction in pressure. That pressure reduction lowers the temperature of the liquid and vapor refrigerant mixture to where it is colder than the temperature of the enclosed space to be refrigerated. A fan then blows across coils in the room containing this cool refrigerant and our sweat glands start to relax.

Notice that throughout this entire process, no refrigerant escapes to the atmosphere. Vapor-compression cycles hold refrigerant in a closed system. Very little of it ever reaches the atmosphere. I've lived in three homes in 30+ years and only once had a refrigerant load need to be charged and that was only a few pounds.

As for release of CO2, I can't determine where Kerry thinks that occurs, because the air blown across the coils indoors or outdoors already has some CO2 in it, so nothing new there.

We should probably just leave it that John Kerry is an idiot, on at least this subject. This is just another example of the left's attempt to attack the free market and private property by stopping us from making life better.

•From, Marc Morano posted a truly fitting petition movement that will put John Kerry's sweat glands where his mouth is.

Sign Petition: 'Remove air conditioning from all US State Department property' – Prompted By Kerry's comments

The petition:
WHEREAS, Secretary of State John F. Kerry has suggested that air conditioners are as big a threat as ISIS, and
WHEREAS, it is the duty of our elected and appointed government officials to lead by example,
THEREFORE, we call upon the U.S. Department of State to remove air conditioning from all property that the Department owns, rents, or otherwise employs, including but not limited to embassies, consulates, office buildings, etc., all vehicles owned and/or operated by the Department, and any other property, real or movable, owned, rented, or otherwise employed by the Department.

I signed the petition and urge others to as well if they feel similarly motivated to make the State Department stink even worse than it does now.

(Email Brian Kubicki at and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•A new seemingly wise move as a result of the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union is the near-elimination of the U.K. equivalent of the EPA; their Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Greg Clark has been appointed Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary as new Prime Minister Theresa May scraps the old Department of Energy and Climate Change.

The appointment signals the end for a department that put climate change at the top of the agenda. Only eight years after it was created by then prime minister Gordon Brown, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is being merged into Clark's new department and losing the "climate change" part of its name.

Naturally, environmentalists immediately reacted to the "shocking" news, voicing fears that the reshaping of departments showed the government was downgrading climate change as a priority.

Now if we can just get someone in the Republican Party to talk about eliminating the Richard Nixon-created EPA.

•In a move that absolutely enamors me with Trump, the Sierra Club published a 37-page report recently attacking presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump for his “regressive” views on global warming.

These are the views of the Sierra Club:

The environmental group's official policy until 1996 was that both birth rates and immigration levels needed to sharply decline to stabilize the U.S. population. The Sierra Club has splintered and lost members over immigration before finally announcing in 2013 that it supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

Now, the organization's only position on population reduction is its promotion of “voluntary family planning and reproductive health services.”

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing” David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club, stated in an interview in 1990.

“…issuing antidotes?!?!” These people are nuts!

The dire predictions of the Sierra Club crazies have consistently failed to materialize. The number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth over the years. The quality of life of the average person has also immeasurably improved.

Their green solution to global warming is to spend lots of money on wind and solar power while banning conventional energy sources that emit carbon dioxide (CO2). This causes the price of electricity to spike, harming poor people.

The price of everything that uses electricity spikes when power costs increase. Poorer people tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on basic needs, like groceries, utilities, clothing, housing and gasoline than wealthier people.

President Obama's Clean Power Plan is estimated to raise the average annual electricity bill from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent of average household income. Minorities tend to have lower than average household income and thus spend a far higher proportion of their money on electricity and energy. The average black household in America will see its annual spending on electricity rise from 4.5 percent to 5.8 percent of income thanks to Obama's Clean Power Plan.

Lower-income black Americans will bear an even larger burden and could spend up to 26 percent of their household income on electricity.

Let's send the Sierra Club packing when President Trump takes office!

•Wally the Whale is back.

Newport Beach lifeguards Monday set out for the second straight day to protect the city's beaches from an unwelcome visitor – the bloated, decaying 45-foot-long carcass of a humpback whale named Wally.

The dead and decomposing animal was floating about five miles off the coast and getting closer, according to lifeguards.

The whale's body is no stranger to the shoreline.

On June 30 it washed ashore at Dockweiler State Beach in Los Angeles County. The next day, officials with the National Marine Fisheries Service identified the 22-ton carcass as Wally, whom biologists had tagged in August. Later that day, crews got the carcass back into the ocean with the help of the high tide, and two lifeguard boats towed it out to sea in hopes that it would decompose naturally. Instead, Wally's body is threatening to return to the coast, which it did this past weekend.

Newport Beach lifeguards saw the carcass Sunday morning. Apparently winds had pushed the blubbery mass to within a mile of the Newport coast.

Lifeguards could see Wally from their headquarters at the Newport Pier without using binoculars. A crew on a rescue boat went out and used a rope already tied around the whale's tail to tow the carcass due south. Lifeguard boats aren't designed to transport something so massive, so it was slow going, taking the entire day.

At around 5 p.m. Sunday, the crew let Wally's body go about 14 miles from the shore, but the winds have pushed it back toward land.

(Email Brian Kubicki at




•The mayor of Kansas City, Sly James, posted the following on Twitter after the mass murder in Dallas on July 8:

“Tragic deaths in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis and Dallas! Slow motion mass murder here. Families ripped apart. Racism and guns. Bad combination!”

How can any reasonable person, much less a supposedly major city's leading political official, link the situations in Baton Rouge, LA and Falcon Heights, MN with the hideous mass murder committed in Dallas?

Both the Baton Rouge and Falcon Heights situations involved law enforcement people doing their jobs. While both situations resulted in the death of the person being apprehended, both are also currently under investigation. Those investigations may result in the police officers involved being exonerated or found guilty of some charge involved with the taking of the victims' lives.

The mass murder in Dallas involved no such uncertainty. The police officers who were killed or injured were targeted for their uniform and skin color and were engaged in doing their jobs – keeping order during a protest and protecting people once the shooter began killing. The killer is known and there is no question of his guilt. The victims are known and there is no doubt as to their innocence.

Sly James should apologize to the people of Kansas City.

•Also, Mayor James, I was wondering if you knew that at least 64 people were shot in the nation's third largest city, Chicago, over the Independence Day weekend, including four people who were fatally wounded?

You haven't mentioned any of those shootings in your Twitter statements. Chicago has suffered 329 homicides already in 2016. Your own city, KCMO, has seen 52 homicides this year. One person was killed this weekend in each of the cities of Baton Rouge and Falcon Heights.

A little perspective from our public officials is important.

•Like most local governments, Montgomery County in Maryland is always looking to generate revenue. So when they imposed a 5-cent tax on disposable plastic shopping bags in 2012, they claimed the intent was to change behavior, not squeeze more blood from taxpayers' wallets.

It is claimed that plastic bags make up about a third of the trash found in the county's streams and stormwater ponds. Many end up in the rivers. Charging shoppers a nickel for each plastic or paper bag would prod them to embrace environmentally friendly reusable sacks - they hoped.

So, four years have passed and the county assembled data tracking the impact of the bag tax.

Revenue from plastic-bag sales grew 3.2 percent from 2014 to 2015. More plastic and paper bags were being issued at big-chain grocery stores, where county officials thought the tax would be most effective in reducing the use of disposable bags.

Convenience stores, pharmacies and department stores in Montgomery County had reductions in bag sales, however. Traps at 15 stream sites in the county monitored by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments show a decline in the number of plastic bags collected, from 856 in 2011 to 777 in 2015. That's just 79 fewer plastic bags over a 4 year period - hardly worth the effort!

County Council member Roger Berliner (a Democrat of course!), the chairman of the transportation and environment committee, said he finds it troubling that they haven't seen more of a decrease in the sales of bags, especially at grocery stores.
A Washington Post investigation last year found that only about a third of the revenue from the D.C. tax was used for pollution control and watershed protection in the city. The rest went to staff salaries and education. They always seem to need more tax money for staff salaries!

Since going into effect in January 2012, Montgomery's tax has generated $10.4 million for pollution and stormwater control programs.

On a recent morning in downtown Silver Spring, the spotty compliance was in plain view. Shoppers at Whole Foods and Safeway appeared to be more consistent users of reusable bags.

Safeway patrons doing lighter shopping tended to leave toting one or two plastic sacks, paying the 5-10 cent tax for the bags.

Truth of it is, if a product or service is needed and in-demand, such as the convenience of disposable plastic bags, people will pay a little bit extra to continue to receive the benefit that product or service offers.

Taxes never were designed for, and should never be used to control behavior. Taxes are supposed to be collected for funding the constitutionally limited things that government is authorized to administer. We did not create government to control how we conduct our lives, taken that we operate within the laws on the books. This ridiculous movement to try to stop us from toting our groceries back from their place of purchase is no business of government, either to try and control us or to enrich their own coffers.

•Prayers for the families of the murdered and injured officers in Dallas!

(Email Brian Kubicki at and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)





•Scientists have found a large “life-saving” reserve of helium in Tanzania.
The world's supply of helium is running out. That might not seem like a big deal, party balloons notwithstanding, but it's actually crucial to a number of things that humans need, like MRI scanners and nuclear energy.

Helium is usually only found accidentally, usually when drilling for oil or natural gas. The scientists have discovered that volcanic activity can provide the intense temperatures that are needed to release helium from ancient rocks. In the Tanzanian East African Rift Valley, this activity has pushed the gas out of deep rocks and into shallower gas fields.

By combining the new understanding of helium geochemistry with seismic images of gas trapping structures, the new Tanzanian gas field has been calculated to have a probable resource of 54 billion cubic feet (BCf) in just one area.

To put this into perspective, global consumption of helium is about 8 BCf per year and the United States Federal Helium Reserve, which is the world's largest supplier, has a current reserve of just 24.2 BCf. Total known reserves in the USA are around 153 BCf. This is a game changer for the future security of society's helium needs and similar finds in the future may not be far away.

Now that the research has established the importance of volcanic activity for helium release, the same strategy for finding the gas can be applied all over the world. Prospectors will be looking for areas of volcanic activity combined with potential gas trapping structures.

More evidence the Earth is much more powerful than we are.

•Did you see where a Tesla Model S driver using the car's semi-autonomous Autopilot feature died when the car hit an 18-wheeler? It was the first known fatality involving the new technology.

The collision occurred May 7 when the big-rig made a left turn in front of the Model S at an intersection on a divided highway in Williston, Florida. “Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied” and the car drove under the trailer, Tesla representatives said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sent a Special Crash Investigations Team to examine the vehicle and the crash scene. Experts from the agency's Office of Defects Investigation plan to examine the design and performance of the Autopilot system. The agency said in a statement that opening an investigation “should not be construed as a finding that” the agency “believes there is either a presence or absence of a defect in the subject vehicles.”

Since the federal government gave $5 billion to Tesla, isn't this “investigation” like letting the fox investigate chicken disappearances from the coop?

The crash raises the long-anticipated liability question of autonomous driving: Who is at fault when someone dies? Tesla has already made statements to isolate themselves from liability by requiring drivers to acknowledge responsibility when placing the controls on Autopilot and by calling Autopilot a safety system designed to augment a driver's vigilance.

•STOP THE PRESSES! Farmers think global warming is a political construct!
Farmers are perhaps the segment of the population most affected by climate change, so you'd think they were a bit more realistic and informed about its reality.
Via Forbes, a survey conducted by Iowa State Professor J. Arbuckle and Purdue University professor Linda Prokopy of 5,000 Cornbelt farmers—representing about 60% of U.S. corn production and 80% of farmland in the region—found that only 8% believed climate change is taking place and caused primarily by human activity. That 8% figure is significantly lower than the general population. A poll from January found that 27% of the general public primarily blames human activity.

As always, listen to the farmers. They know better!

•San Franciscans, say goodbye to Styrofoam. On Tuesday, the city unanimously passed an ordinance banning the sale of any product made from polystyrene, the petroleum-based compound that's molded into disposable dishware, packing materials, and beach toys—among other things.

In 2007, the city prohibited the use of polystyrene use all to-go food containers. More than 100 cities, along with Washington DC, now have similar laws in place. (The first Styrofoam ban was passed in 1988 by the City of Berkeley.) But San Francisco's new ordinance, part of the city's goal of "zero waste" (no pooping allowed is no doubt next!) by 2020, is the broadest yet. As of January 1, 2017 it will be unlawful to sell polystyrene packing materials (those infuriating foam peanuts, for instance), day-use coolers, trays used in meat and fish packaging, and even foam dock floats and mooring buoys.

(Email Brian at




•Isn't it despicable how our current political leadership is so quick to use acts of terror as an excuse to shove their gun control political agenda (or any other political agenda) down America's throats?

If you hear the media refer to an AR-15-style rifle as an "assault weapon" or an “assault rifle,” you can tell that he or she likely supports banning these weapons or simply does not understand their function. An "assault weapon" is a political term created by anti-gun legislators in 1980's California to ban some semi-automatic rifles there. (Credit to a friend on social media for that information!)

For background, the AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild Armalite corporation. The AR-15 was developed as a lighter 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The "AR" in all ArmaLite pattern firearms simply stands for "ArmaLite Rifle" and can be found on most of the company's firearms: AR-5, a .22 caliber rifle; the AR-7, another .22 caliber; the AR-17 shotgun; the AR-10 rifle; and the AR-24 pistol. The “AR” does not stand for “Assault Rifle.”

In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world. After modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted by the United States military as the M16 rifle.
In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian use and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then. Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) that were marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.

Today, the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and are popular among civilian shooters and law enforcement forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity.

•Can someone explain to me why we have dolphin-safe tuna but no tuna-safe dolphin?

Why is it only the cute animals that are used as fodder for animal rights activists? A gorilla threatens a baby and is killed by humans and the activists lose their minds. An alligator kills a kid, the authorities go on an alligator killing rampage and never find the attacking alligator and nobody in the animal rights activist world raises an eyebrow in disdain or anger.

We really are living in an upside-down world!

•Sir Bob Geldof, former lead singer of the Boomtown Rats, claims to know that all humans will die before 2030.

Why is it always the celebrities (Cher, Geldof, Matt Damon, etc.) that have this keen insight into knowing how we best must live? Most of these morons can't balance a checkbook and they know what's good and bad for us over the next 17 years?

The musician-turned-activist says the world will end in 17 years. The 61 year old purported sage based his miserable prediction on the effects of climate change.
“The world can decide in a fit of madness to kill itself," he told a group of youngsters at a summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. “We may not get to 2030. We need to address the problem of climate change urgently”

He finished his speech by apologizing for being "bloody miserable," but added: "just get on with it."

Such inspiration.

•The world's richest nations have long been fueled by oil, coal and natural gas, but President Obama warned last Friday that less affluent countries trying to take the same path will put the planet “under water.”

Kind of like the bad guy, Cal, in the movie Titanic who kept knocking people off the sides of his lifeboat because they were going to swamp it.

In an interview with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Obama said he hoped social media will help convince the poor freezing and dehydrated schlubs around the globe to walk away from cheap fossil fuels, which he says contribute to rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere, never mind that those energy sources are also less expensive and more reliable than any of the green energy alternatives he's always blabbering about.

Don't believe me? Read it yourself in his own words:

“In terms of the problems we have to solve, energy is a classic example, the issue of climate change,” Mr. Obama said at the three-day Global Entrepreneurship Summit at Stanford University.

“There are entire continents, sub-Saharan Africa or the Indian sub-continent, where people are developing rapidly. They're getting connected,” he said.

"They're going to need electricity, they're going to need energy, but if they duplicate the ways that we produce energy here, or have in the past, then the entire planet is under water.”

So screw you poor people. You aren't entitled to cheap energy. You have to continue wallowing around in the mud and disease and rot while we continue using cheap fossil fuels.

What an outlook this Obama has!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at




•Can someone explain the wisdom behind Obama blaming the terrorism behind the Orlando nightclub massacre on the NRA and the Second Amendment when it was Obama who put our world's most dangerous weapons, nuclear, in the grasp of the world's most dangerous terrorist regime (Iran) via the Iran Deal?

•Did you know that 13 state attorneys general are attempting to file RICO type charges (Passed in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO] is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It allows prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise) against private citizens who express skepticism that mankind causes climate change. Of course, California has gone further off the cliff, proposing state law that would prosecute skeptics.

The group, led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, call themselves the Attorneys General United for Clean Power.

Legal experts claim the odds of the DOJ acting are slim because there are no easily quantifiable costs the government can seek reimbursement for. But that doesn't impede a group of non-scientists from trying to use the force of government to enact political power, and that's the most disgusting part of it all.

Well, be careful what you wish for, Democrats. The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.
Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in a letter they sent in response to the Democrats' letter. The Republican group was headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”
Sadly, neither Kansas' (Derek Schmidt) or Missouri's (Chris Koster) AG's were signees.

•The FBI director says he doesn't think they could've done anything different to prevent the Orlando mass shooting at a nightclub. Robbie Abell, co-owner of Lotus Gunworks, reported Orlando killer Omar Mateen to authorities weeks before he committed the worst mass shooting in US history. Mateen came into the store in South Florida in May and asked for heavy-duty body armor like the kind used by law enforcement. Staff at the store, which does not sell body armor, felt it was a strange demand.

After his request was denied, Mateen asked to buy bulk ammunition. Though Lotus does sell ammunition, staff shut down his request and refused to sell him anything else. They subsequently reported the incident to the FBI. Abell told the media: “The questions he was asking were not the normal questions a normal person would be asking…He just seemed very odd.” Mateen was speaking to someone on the phone in Arabic while in the store and was texting someone while walking around the store. The store staff was already on high alert since authorities recently warned them to look out for suspicious activity in the area.

•I find it particularly hypocritical that when the South Carolina murderer opened fire in a church, killing nine people, the liberal media went after the Confederate flag to the degree that the South Carolina Republican governor acted soon afterwards to ban the flag on all state grounds. Yet this radical Islamic Orlando shooter is in very few media accounts identified as beholden to the “flag” of Islam?

As a matter of fact, Obama's AG Loretta Lynch has been running around explaining that they were going to edit the transcripts of the 911 calls Mateen made during the shooting to shield indications that he was acting in the name of Islam and in league with ISIS. After tremendous backlash, they relented and un-redacted the transcript (seen in brackets below).

Dispatcher: “Emergency 911, this is being recorded.”
Mateen: “In the name of God (they changed Allah to God) the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]”
Dispatcher: “What?”
Mateen: “Praise be to God (Allah), and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God(Allah). I let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings.”
Dispatcher: “What's your name?”
Mateen: “My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted] (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State).”
Dispatcher: “Ok, What's your name?”
Mateen: “I pledge allegiance to [omitted](Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) may God (Allah) protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of[omitted] (the Islamic State).”

How pathetic!
Hold your noses!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at




•The terrorist mass murder in an Orlando nightclub last weekend wasn't a tragedy, hate crime (what crime isn't a hate crime?), extreme homophobia, gun violence, or domestic terrorism. Those represent a smattering of the media characterizations of it.

Everyone wants to enact their own little political leverage on the situation, for maximum “never let a crisis go to waste” Democrat-led effect.

This horrid attack was caused by one thing: Radical Islamic Terrorism.
I was pleased to hear Obama at least call it terrorism. I was very pleased to hear Donald Trump call it what it was – Radical Islamic Terrorism, and it is war.

•Washington Post liberal writer, Jenna Johnson, went completely off the deep end of the objectivity pool by leading her column with the following headline:

“Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.”

Trump's quote:

"Look, we're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind…And the something else in mind -- you know, people can't believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on."

When you say someone is connected to an event, you are implying that they wanted it to occur or that they were actually complicit in that event occurring. That is nonsense.

Trump's concerns are the same concerns expressed whenever Obama opines on a terrorist act. Obama bends over backward to avoid saying the words, Radical Islamic Terrorism.


That's the question the media elite should be asking. The Washington Post won't be able to ask Donald Trump that for awhile though because he banned them from his rallies, presumably for the above-noted report.

•The Democrat Party has a problem.

Beyond being a party of death, theft, and financial irresponsibility, they have a mixed message on Muslims and homosexuals.

Muslims abhor homosexuality. In Iran they consider homosexuality an offense punishable by as much as death. Any type of sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage is forbidden in Iran.

However, strangely enough, transsexuality in Iran is legal if accompanied by a sex change operation. As a result, Iran is the sex-change operation capital of the world outside of Thailand. That gives a new meaning to the mantra, “Change or Die!” Much of the other Muslim countries have similar laws.

The problem with the Democrats is they also refuse to call out Muslims for their positions on homosexuality.

In the past, Democrats seemed to find it easy to turn a blind eye to the Muslim world's view of homosexuality. Somehow, they probably saw their refusal to link Radical Islamic Terrorism to terrorist acts when they raised their ugly head as a tacit global criticism of Islam. That way, they could be seen as friendly to Muslims and earn their vote as a unified electorate.

But after this mass murder, they can no longer maintain that inconsistent position. Democrats cannot strive to earn the votes of Muslims as a voting block and look the other way when one of their disciples (moderate or radical) opens fire in a crowded nightclub frequented by people who chose to express their sexuality in a homosexual manner (see what I did there?).

Votes are earned when you are consistent with your philosophy.

•The Star's Yael Abouhalkah (?@YaelTAbouhalkah if you are curious) on Sunday tweeted the following prayer after the mass murder: