December 09, 2016
Foul-Mouthed Francis
Timothy Birdnow
Pope Francis is comparing "fake news" to, well, ingesting feces for sexual purposes
First, this Pope is a dope, not having a clue as to what he is addressing. But worse, he is unseemly and crude far beyond any codes of decency that should be maintained by the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Benedict must come out of retirement to remove this anti-Pope from office.
Pope Francis is comparing "fake news" to, well, ingesting feces for sexual purposes
First, this Pope is a dope, not having a clue as to what he is addressing. But worse, he is unseemly and crude far beyond any codes of decency that should be maintained by the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Benedict must come out of retirement to remove this anti-Pope from office.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
Obama Orders Cyber Putsch, er, Review of Voter Hacking
Timothy Birdnow
Here it goes.
Barack Hussein Obama (Peace Be Upon Him!) has issued orders to "examine" the "Russian hacking" of voter systems in the last election.
According to the article Obama wants the report on his desk before he leaves office. Why?
Could it be he may not plan to leave? If his panel can find "serious" interference with the election than he may well suspend the transfer of power. The argument would revolve around the "fact" that Hillary won the popular vote (she won perhaps a plurality but did not reach 50%, and there were no down-ballot pickups for the Democrats to belie the assertion.) Was that why Hill Stein, er. Jill Stein has been pursuing recounts in places where she has zero hope of gaining anything?
Community organizers work in chaos and social disorder in the way some artists work in paints or marble. It is how they promote "change". Obama is in his heart and soul a community organizer, meaning he is a revolutionary and thus he wants chaos and disorder. Even if he has no plans of overturning the results of the election (and I don't really believe even he would be so bold) he wants to bloody up Trump as much as possible, to delegitimize The Donald and make history rewrite the events of November.
This is despicable.
Here it goes.
Barack Hussein Obama (Peace Be Upon Him!) has issued orders to "examine" the "Russian hacking" of voter systems in the last election.
According to the article Obama wants the report on his desk before he leaves office. Why?
Could it be he may not plan to leave? If his panel can find "serious" interference with the election than he may well suspend the transfer of power. The argument would revolve around the "fact" that Hillary won the popular vote (she won perhaps a plurality but did not reach 50%, and there were no down-ballot pickups for the Democrats to belie the assertion.) Was that why Hill Stein, er. Jill Stein has been pursuing recounts in places where she has zero hope of gaining anything?
Community organizers work in chaos and social disorder in the way some artists work in paints or marble. It is how they promote "change". Obama is in his heart and soul a community organizer, meaning he is a revolutionary and thus he wants chaos and disorder. Even if he has no plans of overturning the results of the election (and I don't really believe even he would be so bold) he wants to bloody up Trump as much as possible, to delegitimize The Donald and make history rewrite the events of November.
This is despicable.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.
A Bone to Pick; 15 Minues of Fame About Nothing
Timothy Birdnow
During the second Presidential debate held at Washington University in St. Louis a star was born. Questions were taken from a pre-selected group of undecided voters, and one man caught the public eye when asking a question about energy policy. Ken Bone, a technician at a coal plant, became an instant sensation with his mild demeanor, his handlebar mustache and his red Christmas sweater (which he donned because he split the pants in his suit the day of the debate). Mr. Bone touched something in the American psyche.
I figured he would be a fifteen minute guy, and would sink back into the primordial soup from which he emerged. Not so; Mr. Bone became one of the most popular Halloween costumes, and he is still quite sought-after. Yesterday he was interviewed on the Mark Reardon show on KMOX radio (following the Rush Limbaugh Show)
Nothing against Mr. Bone, who seems to be a fine fellow and who has done quite a bit of good with the time given him. (He donated his red sweater to the Izod museum for a ten grand donation to a charity that helps pay for honor flights for veterans, for instance.) He has numerous endorsements, and mostly is donating the profits to charity. He has a quarter of a million followers on Twitter - an increase of almost a quarter of a million since he had six previously and two were his grandmother. His fame does not appear to be abating overmuch.
Bone was quite shrewd about this; he never said and will never say who he wound up voting for, thus avoiding alienating half of his fans. He preaches being decent and reasonable and has not really profited from his time, thus avoiding the pitfalls of substantive fame. Nobody can say a bad word against the man. In an era of acrimony and political cock fighting Bone is a breath of fresh air, a gulf of tranquility in an ocean of storms.
I suppose George Thoroughgood would say he's bad to the bone.
But why is he still around? Most big fads, starting with the tulip bulb craze in Holland in the 1630's, end after a short time. Usually the less substantive the craze the faster it passes. A friendly voice and a fuzzy seater should have died within days. Yet Bone is still around. Why Thinking about it, I really don't like the answer.
Ken Bone typifies some of the most onerous aspects of modernity. His success is very much like the trophies given to little t-ball players, where the whole league gets an individual trophy merely for participating. There was a time when excellence was beloved by Americans, and demanded of us as the price to fame and success. As Patton says in the move of the same name, America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Or we used to.
But that has changed as America has evolved (thanks to the childish thinking and sore loser mentality of the Left) into an egalitarian society, one where excellence is not rewarded or cherished so much as is equality of outcome. We don't give awards to people who win, people who accomplish great things, but rather we award and reward just showing up so that we may all be equal. Ken Bones is the penultimate in this; he did nothing, accomplished nothing, yet is lionized, a celebrity who is famous for the same reason that the Kardassians are - for being famous. Ken Bone is a participatory award.
And that is more true than in most cases. The man went into the second Presidential debate without knowing who he was going to vote for, which means he made no effort to learn anything. For all his likely wonderful qualities he is shallow as a wading pool, because any thoughtful or educated person would know who and what these candidates are by this point. It bespeaks a monstrous ignorance, a mind that has not bothered to understand the deep divide between Americans and why those divides are there. Bone is not ideological, and anyone who is not ideological is not paying adequate attention. If you are an adult in this country you should know what you believe. Armed with those beliefs you should then know what you think, and why. And armed with THAT you should inform yourself adequately to choose a side by the second Presidential debate. Ken Bone did none of this.
So he is as shallow as a puddle after a rainstorm.
Look, not everybody has to be a scholar or a political analyst, but one should know one's own mind. Choosing sides in the war for America's soul is not optional. It is no less than the war waged in Heaven between Michael and his angels and Lucifer and his; it is a battle between moral and spiritual forces with monumental consequences. If you haven't bothered to choose sides you aren't a serious person.
For decades America has been plagued by horrible notions of relativism and non-judgementalism. These ideas were born of Academia and promoted into the general culture by the media, by educators, and by the entertainment industries. We have been told that the only evil is to judge, and that all morality is relative, so we have no right to judge, say, radical Islam. This was and is an assault on Christianity and Judaism, on tradition and morality. It was the way to create the Brave New World that so many on the Left wanted, a world where Man is the sole determinant of what is right or wrong, where any sort of sexual behavior is to be celebrated, where reality can be molded and modified by an act of Will. It is the dream of being God. At it's core is a rejection of God and His moral order. It is a placing of Man on the throne of Heaven and the government to replace the Church. It is an ancient and evil belief system. But few who actually follow it even know they are acolytes of the Darkness, having been seduced by the buzzwords and sophistic arguments endlessly reinforced by the media and others in control of the dissemination of information. Being a good person is, in the view of many of our younger people these days, a function of blind acceptance of anything except normalcy, religion, or the other cornerstones of Americanism. We never, ever promote success because, as Barack Obama stated "you didn't build that!" Any success or accomplishment stems from good fortune or privilege. Accomplishment and success are now seen as an illusion, and relativism means rejecting it.
So along comes a Ken Bone and the public goes wild. Why? Because he is the Seinfeld of American politics, a character about nothing.
Bone does not judge. Bone does not show passion. Bone does not get angry, or demand the truth. Bone is fuzzy and warm. He is the poster boy for the post-modern America.
In Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World we learn early on that the society seeks to remove all passions by relieving the societal tensions that drove people to do great things. Sex was free and easy to take away the pressure of sexual repression. People were given easy, unimportant work and drugs to help take the edge off their problems. People lived empty lives of easy pleasure and no meaning. The Savage, a man raised outside of the plastic paradise, couldn't face the emptiness and eventually committed suicide.
That is what we are creating in our post-modern world. Ken Bone is the perfect model, a man who does not seem to hold strong opinions, who lacks passion, an amiable simple fellow willing to let others ultimately decide the fate of himself and his family.
America was founded by people of passion, settled by passionate Christian believers and can-do types willing to sacrifice and struggle. Modern Americans are like hothouse orchids, beautiful and fragile. The Snowflake phenomenon is a great example; children who can't face reality and must create "safe spaces" to protect their tender sensibilities. Ken Bone is the perfect ambassador to the Snowflakes. But snowflakes melt when it rains or the sun shines; they are fragile and ephemeral. America will be no different if we do not return to a world governed by reality and not our dreams.
Ken Bone is a dream, a longed-for type of person who floats on the surface of the ocean of storms. He shouldn't have lasted this long, and that he has is a testament to the collapse of the American psyche.
During the second Presidential debate held at Washington University in St. Louis a star was born. Questions were taken from a pre-selected group of undecided voters, and one man caught the public eye when asking a question about energy policy. Ken Bone, a technician at a coal plant, became an instant sensation with his mild demeanor, his handlebar mustache and his red Christmas sweater (which he donned because he split the pants in his suit the day of the debate). Mr. Bone touched something in the American psyche.
I figured he would be a fifteen minute guy, and would sink back into the primordial soup from which he emerged. Not so; Mr. Bone became one of the most popular Halloween costumes, and he is still quite sought-after. Yesterday he was interviewed on the Mark Reardon show on KMOX radio (following the Rush Limbaugh Show)
Nothing against Mr. Bone, who seems to be a fine fellow and who has done quite a bit of good with the time given him. (He donated his red sweater to the Izod museum for a ten grand donation to a charity that helps pay for honor flights for veterans, for instance.) He has numerous endorsements, and mostly is donating the profits to charity. He has a quarter of a million followers on Twitter - an increase of almost a quarter of a million since he had six previously and two were his grandmother. His fame does not appear to be abating overmuch.
Bone was quite shrewd about this; he never said and will never say who he wound up voting for, thus avoiding alienating half of his fans. He preaches being decent and reasonable and has not really profited from his time, thus avoiding the pitfalls of substantive fame. Nobody can say a bad word against the man. In an era of acrimony and political cock fighting Bone is a breath of fresh air, a gulf of tranquility in an ocean of storms.
I suppose George Thoroughgood would say he's bad to the bone.
But why is he still around? Most big fads, starting with the tulip bulb craze in Holland in the 1630's, end after a short time. Usually the less substantive the craze the faster it passes. A friendly voice and a fuzzy seater should have died within days. Yet Bone is still around. Why Thinking about it, I really don't like the answer.
Ken Bone typifies some of the most onerous aspects of modernity. His success is very much like the trophies given to little t-ball players, where the whole league gets an individual trophy merely for participating. There was a time when excellence was beloved by Americans, and demanded of us as the price to fame and success. As Patton says in the move of the same name, America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Or we used to.
But that has changed as America has evolved (thanks to the childish thinking and sore loser mentality of the Left) into an egalitarian society, one where excellence is not rewarded or cherished so much as is equality of outcome. We don't give awards to people who win, people who accomplish great things, but rather we award and reward just showing up so that we may all be equal. Ken Bones is the penultimate in this; he did nothing, accomplished nothing, yet is lionized, a celebrity who is famous for the same reason that the Kardassians are - for being famous. Ken Bone is a participatory award.
And that is more true than in most cases. The man went into the second Presidential debate without knowing who he was going to vote for, which means he made no effort to learn anything. For all his likely wonderful qualities he is shallow as a wading pool, because any thoughtful or educated person would know who and what these candidates are by this point. It bespeaks a monstrous ignorance, a mind that has not bothered to understand the deep divide between Americans and why those divides are there. Bone is not ideological, and anyone who is not ideological is not paying adequate attention. If you are an adult in this country you should know what you believe. Armed with those beliefs you should then know what you think, and why. And armed with THAT you should inform yourself adequately to choose a side by the second Presidential debate. Ken Bone did none of this.
So he is as shallow as a puddle after a rainstorm.
Look, not everybody has to be a scholar or a political analyst, but one should know one's own mind. Choosing sides in the war for America's soul is not optional. It is no less than the war waged in Heaven between Michael and his angels and Lucifer and his; it is a battle between moral and spiritual forces with monumental consequences. If you haven't bothered to choose sides you aren't a serious person.
For decades America has been plagued by horrible notions of relativism and non-judgementalism. These ideas were born of Academia and promoted into the general culture by the media, by educators, and by the entertainment industries. We have been told that the only evil is to judge, and that all morality is relative, so we have no right to judge, say, radical Islam. This was and is an assault on Christianity and Judaism, on tradition and morality. It was the way to create the Brave New World that so many on the Left wanted, a world where Man is the sole determinant of what is right or wrong, where any sort of sexual behavior is to be celebrated, where reality can be molded and modified by an act of Will. It is the dream of being God. At it's core is a rejection of God and His moral order. It is a placing of Man on the throne of Heaven and the government to replace the Church. It is an ancient and evil belief system. But few who actually follow it even know they are acolytes of the Darkness, having been seduced by the buzzwords and sophistic arguments endlessly reinforced by the media and others in control of the dissemination of information. Being a good person is, in the view of many of our younger people these days, a function of blind acceptance of anything except normalcy, religion, or the other cornerstones of Americanism. We never, ever promote success because, as Barack Obama stated "you didn't build that!" Any success or accomplishment stems from good fortune or privilege. Accomplishment and success are now seen as an illusion, and relativism means rejecting it.
So along comes a Ken Bone and the public goes wild. Why? Because he is the Seinfeld of American politics, a character about nothing.
Bone does not judge. Bone does not show passion. Bone does not get angry, or demand the truth. Bone is fuzzy and warm. He is the poster boy for the post-modern America.
In Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World we learn early on that the society seeks to remove all passions by relieving the societal tensions that drove people to do great things. Sex was free and easy to take away the pressure of sexual repression. People were given easy, unimportant work and drugs to help take the edge off their problems. People lived empty lives of easy pleasure and no meaning. The Savage, a man raised outside of the plastic paradise, couldn't face the emptiness and eventually committed suicide.
That is what we are creating in our post-modern world. Ken Bone is the perfect model, a man who does not seem to hold strong opinions, who lacks passion, an amiable simple fellow willing to let others ultimately decide the fate of himself and his family.
America was founded by people of passion, settled by passionate Christian believers and can-do types willing to sacrifice and struggle. Modern Americans are like hothouse orchids, beautiful and fragile. The Snowflake phenomenon is a great example; children who can't face reality and must create "safe spaces" to protect their tender sensibilities. Ken Bone is the perfect ambassador to the Snowflakes. But snowflakes melt when it rains or the sun shines; they are fragile and ephemeral. America will be no different if we do not return to a world governed by reality and not our dreams.
Ken Bone is a dream, a longed-for type of person who floats on the surface of the ocean of storms. He shouldn't have lasted this long, and that he has is a testament to the collapse of the American psyche.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1443 words, total size 9 kb.
DHS Hacked Georgia Voter System?
Timothy Birdnow
I suggested that the hacking of the voting systems in ARizona and Illinois were NOT acts of Russian espionage as the Obama Administration has claimed but rather was a domestic act by our own government. I have had, of course, zero proof to that assertion, but the claims these hacks were Russian are equally without proof and I have suspected for some time that our overseers in the dark bureacracies were attempting to fiddle with the election (and likely in Hillary Clinton's favor). My sense was born almost completely out of the knowlege that the NSA and other such super-secret outfits have been compiling all manner of data on U.S. citizens and the next step for such an agency would be to implenent it's vision. In other words, I have a hunch based on motive, means, and opportunity - the three legs of a criminal investigation. The U.S. has a motive to maintain the status quo, the means to do it (the best cyber people in the world and intimate knowlege of the protocols and algorithms of these systems), and, well, plenty of top guys sitting around with time on their hands.
But again, no proof.
Now it comes ot our attemtion that The Department of Homeland Security may have hacked the Georgia Voter system without the foreknowlege or permission of state officials:
"The attempt took place on Nov. 15, a few days after the presidential election. The office of the Georgia Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing the state’s elections.
"At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network,†Kemp wrote in the letter, which was also sent to the state’s federal representatives and senators. "Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network. This is especially odd and concerning since I serve on the Election Cyber Security Working Group that your office created.â€
"The Department of Homeland Security has received Secretary Kemp’s letter,†a DHS spokesperson told CyberScoop. "We are looking into the matter. DHS takes the trust of our public and private sector partners seriously, and we will respond to Secretary Kemp directly.â€
End excerpt.
Perhaps this attempt was the "clean up" effort? Was the system maybe hacked before the election? If our government is hacking voter systems to test them, are they perhaps not motifying them?
I suggested that the hacking of the voting systems in ARizona and Illinois were NOT acts of Russian espionage as the Obama Administration has claimed but rather was a domestic act by our own government. I have had, of course, zero proof to that assertion, but the claims these hacks were Russian are equally without proof and I have suspected for some time that our overseers in the dark bureacracies were attempting to fiddle with the election (and likely in Hillary Clinton's favor). My sense was born almost completely out of the knowlege that the NSA and other such super-secret outfits have been compiling all manner of data on U.S. citizens and the next step for such an agency would be to implenent it's vision. In other words, I have a hunch based on motive, means, and opportunity - the three legs of a criminal investigation. The U.S. has a motive to maintain the status quo, the means to do it (the best cyber people in the world and intimate knowlege of the protocols and algorithms of these systems), and, well, plenty of top guys sitting around with time on their hands.
But again, no proof.
Now it comes ot our attemtion that The Department of Homeland Security may have hacked the Georgia Voter system without the foreknowlege or permission of state officials:
"The attempt took place on Nov. 15, a few days after the presidential election. The office of the Georgia Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing the state’s elections.
"At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network,†Kemp wrote in the letter, which was also sent to the state’s federal representatives and senators. "Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network. This is especially odd and concerning since I serve on the Election Cyber Security Working Group that your office created.â€
"The Department of Homeland Security has received Secretary Kemp’s letter,†a DHS spokesperson told CyberScoop. "We are looking into the matter. DHS takes the trust of our public and private sector partners seriously, and we will respond to Secretary Kemp directly.â€
End excerpt.
Perhaps this attempt was the "clean up" effort? Was the system maybe hacked before the election? If our government is hacking voter systems to test them, are they perhaps not motifying them?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:46 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.
Doomed to Repeat
Fay Voshell
This one is good, too. Sent by my eldest son.
http://theweek.com/articles/665446/how-conservatives-outintellectualized-progressives
The vital center is imploding throughout the Western world. Liberal norms and institutions face a greater challenge than at any time since the end of the Second World War. And so defenders of the liberal order seek, often desperately, to remind themselves of what principles they stand for and the premises that underlie their deepest political and moral convictions.
That's what I take Molly Worthen to be doing in her recent, admirable essay in The New York Times. Worthen writes as a liberal who admires the way the American right has built an infrastructure of programs and institutes where young conservatives receive instruction in the history of political philosophy from Aristotle and Xenophon on down to James Madison, Adam Smith, and beyond.
Worthen thinks liberals should do something similar:
Read the rest!
This one is good, too. Sent by my eldest son.
http://theweek.com/articles/665446/how-conservatives-outintellectualized-progressives
The vital center is imploding throughout the Western world. Liberal norms and institutions face a greater challenge than at any time since the end of the Second World War. And so defenders of the liberal order seek, often desperately, to remind themselves of what principles they stand for and the premises that underlie their deepest political and moral convictions.
That's what I take Molly Worthen to be doing in her recent, admirable essay in The New York Times. Worthen writes as a liberal who admires the way the American right has built an infrastructure of programs and institutes where young conservatives receive instruction in the history of political philosophy from Aristotle and Xenophon on down to James Madison, Adam Smith, and beyond.
Worthen thinks liberals should do something similar:
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
For Nothing Will This Help You
Jack Kemp
In regards to the recounts in the Rust Belt states Hillary lost,I can't wait until Dec. 19 when the U.S. Senate certifies the Electoral Votes and shuts up this one argument and liberal fantasy of still electing Hillary.
You remember that joke I told, dating from the 1920s when Fordham and New York University had football teams? Fordham was where Vince Lombardi played college football and was one of the "four pillars of granite" on defense.
Fordham (a Catholic university in the Bronx) was playing NYU (with a largely Jewish population). NYU was losing badly. In desperation, NYU's quarterback decided to call the signals in Yiddish.
"Fier und drasic (34), acht undt fiertsk (48)..."
From across the line, one of the Fordham linebackers calls out, "Fin gournish helfen!" (Yiddish for 'for nothing will this help you!').
Jill Stein is trying to be the NYU quarterback with Hillary as her running back.
In regards to the recounts in the Rust Belt states Hillary lost,I can't wait until Dec. 19 when the U.S. Senate certifies the Electoral Votes and shuts up this one argument and liberal fantasy of still electing Hillary.
You remember that joke I told, dating from the 1920s when Fordham and New York University had football teams? Fordham was where Vince Lombardi played college football and was one of the "four pillars of granite" on defense.
Fordham (a Catholic university in the Bronx) was playing NYU (with a largely Jewish population). NYU was losing badly. In desperation, NYU's quarterback decided to call the signals in Yiddish.
"Fier und drasic (34), acht undt fiertsk (48)..."
From across the line, one of the Fordham linebackers calls out, "Fin gournish helfen!" (Yiddish for 'for nothing will this help you!').
Jill Stein is trying to be the NYU quarterback with Hillary as her running back.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
HypoClaire
Brian Birdnow
McCaskill is grandstanding here. AS the ranking minority member of the Defense Appropriations Committee she should know about this...and she probably did. She is feigning outrage now because the report has been made public! What a complete fraud she is, and always has been!
From: Senator Claire McCaskill <senator@mccaskill.senate.gov>
Date: Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:14 PM
Subject: 125 billion?
I'm going to get to the bottom of this.
According to a Washington Post exposé published this week, the Pentagon buried a report that exposed $125 billion of waste in their budget:
"Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results."
If true, this is unacceptable—and today I told the Department of Defense that I want a full copy of this study, along with any background data.
The American people deserve to know if—while some in Congress were busy debating cuts to vital services, furloughing employees, and threatening working peoples' pensions—the Department of Defense knew it could be saving the American people billions and billions of dollars... and did nothing.
I'm going to get to the bottom of this, you have my word.
sig
McCaskill is grandstanding here. AS the ranking minority member of the Defense Appropriations Committee she should know about this...and she probably did. She is feigning outrage now because the report has been made public! What a complete fraud she is, and always has been!
From: Senator Claire McCaskill <senator@mccaskill.senate.gov>
Date: Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:14 PM
Subject: 125 billion?
I'm going to get to the bottom of this.
According to a Washington Post exposé published this week, the Pentagon buried a report that exposed $125 billion of waste in their budget:
"Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results."
If true, this is unacceptable—and today I told the Department of Defense that I want a full copy of this study, along with any background data.
The American people deserve to know if—while some in Congress were busy debating cuts to vital services, furloughing employees, and threatening working peoples' pensions—the Department of Defense knew it could be saving the American people billions and billions of dollars... and did nothing.
I'm going to get to the bottom of this, you have my word.
sig
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.
December 08, 2016
Hillary and Yankees Comparison
Jack Kemp
And he even mentioned the 1960 Yankees in the body of the text. But I don't think he copied me, as this comparison is easy to come up with.
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/what-hillary-and-the-2003-yankees-have-in-common/
What Hillary and the 2003 Yankees Have in Common
A month out from the 2016 election and Clinton's supporters still can't accept their defeat
by Jeffrey H. Anderson | Updated 06 Dec 2016 at 7:43 AM
One month after Election Day, Hillary Clinton still hasn’t — in the words of Chris Wallace — "absolutely accept[ed] the result of the election.†As Wallace put it in the third presidential debate, when addressing Donald Trump, "Sir, there is a tradition in this country … that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country.†At the time, Clinton called the notion that anyone would do otherwise "horrifying.â€
Fast forward to December. Clinton, who lost by the not-exactly-razor-thin margin of 74 electoral votes (306 to 232), has joined a desperate recount effort, while her partisans continue to claim her advantage in the national popular vote somehow carries great weight.
In truth, however, it was Clinton’s own botched electoral strategy — and eight years of President Obama’s extreme liberalism — that led to her defeat. Instead of focusing on Main Street voters, Clinton ran her entire campaign out of the Democrats’ identity-politics playbook. Yet, while faring about equally well as previous GOP nominee Mitt Romney among white voters (winning by 21 points versus Romney’s 20), Trump did far better among black voters (losing by 80 points versus Romney’s 87), Latino voters (losing by 36 points versus Romney’s 44), and Asian voters (losing by 36 points versus Romney’s 47). That’s right: An immigration hawk rode to victory while doing better than his GOP predecessor with all races.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s having captured a higher share of the national popular vote is a fact most suitable for future trivia contests. There have been plenty of people or teams that have done well in a way that wasn’t the ultimate object of the game.
In the 2003 World Series, the New York Yankees outscored the Florida Marlins by a tally of 21 runs to 17 runs. But the Marlins beat the Yankees, 4 games to 2. (The Marlins lost twice by scores of 6-1 and won four close games.) The year before, the San Francisco Giants scored more runs than the Anaheim Angels (44 to 41), but the Angels won the series (4 games to 3).
In 1960, the New York Yankees outscored the Pittsburgh Pirates by a margin of more than 2-1 — 55 runs to 27 (winning three times by double digits but losing four games by 7 runs combined). Does Team Hillary think the Yankees should have hung a banner that year and called themselves world champions? Do they think the Pirates should take down the banner that hangs in their stadium today?
Read it all at Lifezette.
And he even mentioned the 1960 Yankees in the body of the text. But I don't think he copied me, as this comparison is easy to come up with.
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/what-hillary-and-the-2003-yankees-have-in-common/
What Hillary and the 2003 Yankees Have in Common
A month out from the 2016 election and Clinton's supporters still can't accept their defeat
by Jeffrey H. Anderson | Updated 06 Dec 2016 at 7:43 AM
One month after Election Day, Hillary Clinton still hasn’t — in the words of Chris Wallace — "absolutely accept[ed] the result of the election.†As Wallace put it in the third presidential debate, when addressing Donald Trump, "Sir, there is a tradition in this country … that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country.†At the time, Clinton called the notion that anyone would do otherwise "horrifying.â€
Fast forward to December. Clinton, who lost by the not-exactly-razor-thin margin of 74 electoral votes (306 to 232), has joined a desperate recount effort, while her partisans continue to claim her advantage in the national popular vote somehow carries great weight.
In truth, however, it was Clinton’s own botched electoral strategy — and eight years of President Obama’s extreme liberalism — that led to her defeat. Instead of focusing on Main Street voters, Clinton ran her entire campaign out of the Democrats’ identity-politics playbook. Yet, while faring about equally well as previous GOP nominee Mitt Romney among white voters (winning by 21 points versus Romney’s 20), Trump did far better among black voters (losing by 80 points versus Romney’s 87), Latino voters (losing by 36 points versus Romney’s 44), and Asian voters (losing by 36 points versus Romney’s 47). That’s right: An immigration hawk rode to victory while doing better than his GOP predecessor with all races.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s having captured a higher share of the national popular vote is a fact most suitable for future trivia contests. There have been plenty of people or teams that have done well in a way that wasn’t the ultimate object of the game.
In the 2003 World Series, the New York Yankees outscored the Florida Marlins by a tally of 21 runs to 17 runs. But the Marlins beat the Yankees, 4 games to 2. (The Marlins lost twice by scores of 6-1 and won four close games.) The year before, the San Francisco Giants scored more runs than the Anaheim Angels (44 to 41), but the Angels won the series (4 games to 3).
In 1960, the New York Yankees outscored the Pittsburgh Pirates by a margin of more than 2-1 — 55 runs to 27 (winning three times by double digits but losing four games by 7 runs combined). Does Team Hillary think the Yankees should have hung a banner that year and called themselves world champions? Do they think the Pirates should take down the banner that hangs in their stadium today?
Read it all at Lifezette.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.
Pruitt Takes the EPA
Dana Mathewson
Liberals' heads will explode. No, make that "are already exploding." Isn't this fun?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/07/trump-to-nominate-oklahoma-ag-pruitt-to-lead-epa.html
President-elect Donald Trump is planning to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt – an outspoken critic of the EPA – to lead the environmental agency, a senior transition source confirmed to Fox News
Liberals' heads will explode. No, make that "are already exploding." Isn't this fun?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/07/trump-to-nominate-oklahoma-ag-pruitt-to-lead-epa.html
President-elect Donald Trump is planning to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt – an outspoken critic of the EPA – to lead the environmental agency, a senior transition source confirmed to Fox News
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
December 07, 2016
Liberty Cannot Be Preserved without Knowlege
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a thoughtful article that makes an astute observation:
"It seems the same citizens who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 after his disastrous first four years voted for her. Many people who go the polls in our generation are simply not thinking. They are less informed and thoughtful citizens than idolaters."
[...]
...ruminate on the recent election with its astonishing tens of millions of Americans who cast their ballots for that criminal woman with no record of accomplishment as a senator, and a record as secretary of state of one foreign policy calamity after another; she who had been recklessly irresponsible in using a private, secret email server that surely exposed the entirety of State Department communications to hostile foreign powers; this influence peddler who stuffed her payoffs into a charitable foundation, then billed her daughter’s wedding to it. One can only puzzle over the possible reasons that tens of millions of Americans voted as they did when all this was public knowledge.
Some of her supporters, the poorest, likely voted for her in the belief that she would continue the food stamps and disability payments and any other government handouts to them.
Others, though, seemed to have voted for an image of Hillary Clinton completely divorced from who she really is. They voted for what she represented. They voted for an idol. Americans have become a nation of idol worshippers "…as seen on TV!†Entertainers, politicians, athletes. Isn’t that how Donald Trump launched his public career?..."
End excerpt.
Sha'i ben-Tekoa is absolutely spot on here, and America has always presupposed an informed, engaged electorate. That was the reason the Founders limited the vote to white, male, landholders; not out of some prejudicial spite against women or minorities or the poor, but rather to prevent the very thing we now have happening in America, namely, people voting entirely based on self-interest or being easily swayed by demogogues.
Case in point; my wife's sister has a Fragile X child who suffers mental retardation. In fact, he was too low in terms of social functioning to get into a group home (his parents started one for him). Now, I love the young man dearly, but should such a person be voting? Not only does he have the vote but he went dutifully to the polls this November and voted for - you guessed it - Hillary. Why? He said she has nice sikin (a most debatable claim). That his mother and was a big Hillary supporter may have played some role.
A person with his disability has no business choosing a national leader. He does not understand the issues, does not understand the implications, of voting. In short, he is the perfect Democrat; votes the way THEY want him to when they tell him. That's why the Democrats have been laboring to make voting absolutely universal; they don't want an informed electorate because they are demogogues. They want people who are constitutionally unfit to make such decisions overruling those who understand the issues.
Ben-Tekoa is absolutely correct in the fear of what has become of the electorate, because Hillary DID win the popular vote (most likely, although I suspect not by very much although her official tally is over 2.5 million. I suspect most of those votes were bogus, illegal aliens or other unqualified voters.) A nation that could knowingly put Hillary into office despite her legal issues and moral duplicity is a nation that cares nary a wit for morality or the rule of law, both absolutely critical things for the survival of a nation such as ours.
The Founders knew this. John Adams said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious peopleâ€. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â€
Adams also said:
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.â€
and
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.â€
And America has moved away from all these things. Morality has moved from an universal principle delineated in the Bible and fostered by religion to become merely a social convention, and that malleable to the desires of the those with the loudest voices. Knowlege for Knowlege' sake is baffling to most people these days, and we have fashioned a fictitious reality composed of easy platitudes and politically correct "facts" that are designed to promote a liberal worldview. I once argued with a black kid online and he asserted that the REPUBLICANS flooded Kansas with redneck slaveholders to make Kansas a slave state in 1856! He really believed that! He was ignorant of the fact that the GOP ran it's first candidate for President in that election, and that it was an anti-slavery party. Bleeding Kansas was a DEMOCRAT disaster and had nothing to do with Republicans, but how can you convince someone of the facts when they have been taught all their lives a lie.
Most black voters think Jim Crow was a Republican plot; they don't know the GOP actually fought it and were the guys who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These same people vote.
That's not to pick on black voters; there are plenty of examples in the white community as well. It is unacceptable, too, in the age of the internet where a little research should lead you to the truth. But the Left owns the major internet outlets and most young people get their news from the internet age version of Pravda - Yahoo News. They are too lazy to examine the other side of the news. Google, Facebook, Twitter, The Huffington Post, all of the major names online are leftist propoganda organs, and so the modern young people miseducate themselves.
How does such a nation survive? Almost all young people believe in antrhopogenic Global Warming because they ahve been carefully taught, and when they become voters they will support international treaties that will create the borderlyess empire. I see no way of stopping that, and the Gang Green know it, too, which is why they maintain the fiction of this kabuki dance even while reality has absolutely failed to back their claims; they know if they wait long enough and keep pushing back the date for doomsday they will eventually get the brainwashed into a position to give then their program.
Until we address the social and educational rot in America we cannot reverse any of our problems.
Here is a thoughtful article that makes an astute observation:
"It seems the same citizens who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 after his disastrous first four years voted for her. Many people who go the polls in our generation are simply not thinking. They are less informed and thoughtful citizens than idolaters."
[...]
...ruminate on the recent election with its astonishing tens of millions of Americans who cast their ballots for that criminal woman with no record of accomplishment as a senator, and a record as secretary of state of one foreign policy calamity after another; she who had been recklessly irresponsible in using a private, secret email server that surely exposed the entirety of State Department communications to hostile foreign powers; this influence peddler who stuffed her payoffs into a charitable foundation, then billed her daughter’s wedding to it. One can only puzzle over the possible reasons that tens of millions of Americans voted as they did when all this was public knowledge.
Some of her supporters, the poorest, likely voted for her in the belief that she would continue the food stamps and disability payments and any other government handouts to them.
Others, though, seemed to have voted for an image of Hillary Clinton completely divorced from who she really is. They voted for what she represented. They voted for an idol. Americans have become a nation of idol worshippers "…as seen on TV!†Entertainers, politicians, athletes. Isn’t that how Donald Trump launched his public career?..."
End excerpt.
Sha'i ben-Tekoa is absolutely spot on here, and America has always presupposed an informed, engaged electorate. That was the reason the Founders limited the vote to white, male, landholders; not out of some prejudicial spite against women or minorities or the poor, but rather to prevent the very thing we now have happening in America, namely, people voting entirely based on self-interest or being easily swayed by demogogues.
Case in point; my wife's sister has a Fragile X child who suffers mental retardation. In fact, he was too low in terms of social functioning to get into a group home (his parents started one for him). Now, I love the young man dearly, but should such a person be voting? Not only does he have the vote but he went dutifully to the polls this November and voted for - you guessed it - Hillary. Why? He said she has nice sikin (a most debatable claim). That his mother and was a big Hillary supporter may have played some role.
A person with his disability has no business choosing a national leader. He does not understand the issues, does not understand the implications, of voting. In short, he is the perfect Democrat; votes the way THEY want him to when they tell him. That's why the Democrats have been laboring to make voting absolutely universal; they don't want an informed electorate because they are demogogues. They want people who are constitutionally unfit to make such decisions overruling those who understand the issues.
Ben-Tekoa is absolutely correct in the fear of what has become of the electorate, because Hillary DID win the popular vote (most likely, although I suspect not by very much although her official tally is over 2.5 million. I suspect most of those votes were bogus, illegal aliens or other unqualified voters.) A nation that could knowingly put Hillary into office despite her legal issues and moral duplicity is a nation that cares nary a wit for morality or the rule of law, both absolutely critical things for the survival of a nation such as ours.
The Founders knew this. John Adams said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious peopleâ€. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â€
Adams also said:
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.â€
and
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.â€
And America has moved away from all these things. Morality has moved from an universal principle delineated in the Bible and fostered by religion to become merely a social convention, and that malleable to the desires of the those with the loudest voices. Knowlege for Knowlege' sake is baffling to most people these days, and we have fashioned a fictitious reality composed of easy platitudes and politically correct "facts" that are designed to promote a liberal worldview. I once argued with a black kid online and he asserted that the REPUBLICANS flooded Kansas with redneck slaveholders to make Kansas a slave state in 1856! He really believed that! He was ignorant of the fact that the GOP ran it's first candidate for President in that election, and that it was an anti-slavery party. Bleeding Kansas was a DEMOCRAT disaster and had nothing to do with Republicans, but how can you convince someone of the facts when they have been taught all their lives a lie.
Most black voters think Jim Crow was a Republican plot; they don't know the GOP actually fought it and were the guys who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These same people vote.
That's not to pick on black voters; there are plenty of examples in the white community as well. It is unacceptable, too, in the age of the internet where a little research should lead you to the truth. But the Left owns the major internet outlets and most young people get their news from the internet age version of Pravda - Yahoo News. They are too lazy to examine the other side of the news. Google, Facebook, Twitter, The Huffington Post, all of the major names online are leftist propoganda organs, and so the modern young people miseducate themselves.
How does such a nation survive? Almost all young people believe in antrhopogenic Global Warming because they ahve been carefully taught, and when they become voters they will support international treaties that will create the borderlyess empire. I see no way of stopping that, and the Gang Green know it, too, which is why they maintain the fiction of this kabuki dance even while reality has absolutely failed to back their claims; they know if they wait long enough and keep pushing back the date for doomsday they will eventually get the brainwashed into a position to give then their program.
Until we address the social and educational rot in America we cannot reverse any of our problems.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1086 words, total size 7 kb.
Hillary Should have Picked Sanders
Dana mathewson
Trump knew what he was doing when he picked Kellyanne Conway to run his show. Here she shows a great deal of political astuteness.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/kellyanne-conway-sanders-better-vp/2016/12/04/id/762083/
Trump knew what he was doing when he picked Kellyanne Conway to run his show. Here she shows a great deal of political astuteness.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/kellyanne-conway-sanders-better-vp/2016/12/04/id/762083/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
Trump Makes Deal with Softbank to Create 50,000 jobs
Jack Kemp
I was in midtown Manhattan today and walked by Trump tower. There are police baracades one block south for protesters and baracades stopping parking in front of the building. And a small, temporary police shack on the corner. And a woman CNN reporter was set up across to street to do a live broadcast. Many tourists were taking pictures of the building as well.
After I left the area, minutes later, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how Trump came out of the Tower and told the media this news about SoftBank investing billions in the U.S. Trump isn't waiting around for the Golf-Hacker-In-Chief to leave the White House. He's doing what the people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania - and elsewhere - voted for him to do.
http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/
Trump says SoftBank will invest $50 billion in the US, aiming to create 50,000 jobs
Trump: SoftBank agrees to invest $50B in US 1 Hour Ago | 02:59
Donald Trump said Monday that Japan's SoftBank has agreed to invest $50 billion in the U.S., aiming to create 50,000 jobs.
He announced the deal after meeting with SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, a Japanese billionaire and technology investor, at Trump Tower in New York. On Twitter, Trump claimed that Son said he "would never do this" if Trump had not won the presidential election.
But the $50 billion will come from a previously announced $100 billion international investment fund set up with Saudi Arabia, according to Dow Jones.
I was in midtown Manhattan today and walked by Trump tower. There are police baracades one block south for protesters and baracades stopping parking in front of the building. And a small, temporary police shack on the corner. And a woman CNN reporter was set up across to street to do a live broadcast. Many tourists were taking pictures of the building as well.
After I left the area, minutes later, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how Trump came out of the Tower and told the media this news about SoftBank investing billions in the U.S. Trump isn't waiting around for the Golf-Hacker-In-Chief to leave the White House. He's doing what the people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania - and elsewhere - voted for him to do.
http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/
Trump says SoftBank will invest $50 billion in the US, aiming to create 50,000 jobs
Trump: SoftBank agrees to invest $50B in US 1 Hour Ago | 02:59
Donald Trump said Monday that Japan's SoftBank has agreed to invest $50 billion in the U.S., aiming to create 50,000 jobs.
He announced the deal after meeting with SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, a Japanese billionaire and technology investor, at Trump Tower in New York. On Twitter, Trump claimed that Son said he "would never do this" if Trump had not won the presidential election.
But the $50 billion will come from a previously announced $100 billion international investment fund set up with Saudi Arabia, according to Dow Jones.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.
December 06, 2016
Mo. Governor-elect's Wife Robbed at Gunpoint; the Fruits of Appeasement to Black Lives Matter
Timothy Birdnow
The wife of Missouri Governor-elect Eric Greitens was robbed at gunpoint coming out of Cafe Ventana, a restaurant near the the campus of St. Louis University. in the city of St. Louis.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/wife-of-gov--elect-greitens-robbed-at-gunpoint-in/article_997b47e7-5d9f-5f6c-8c94-2332b35a38ec.html
St. Louis is a Democratic Party paradise, and this is what you get where anti-gun and anti-law and order types reign. St. Louis is ground zero for Black Lives Matter and crime has skyrocketed since the Mike Brown Ferguson riots and the tepid response by the Democratic Mayor and the Democratic outgoing Governor.
St. Louis University has been a magnet for BLM terrorists. SLU President Fred Pistello sent out a note to alumni when the Brown riots erupted saying Black Lives Matter was decidedly Catholic and in the spirit of SLU. He then allowed the SLU campus to be invaded by activists - Occupy SlU - who squatted for months in the quadrangle. As part of the "clocktower accords" Pistello promised to institute radical reforms the squatters demanded - including erecting a statue to them. In preparation for this Pistello removed a statue of Father Desmet, which he and the other leftists on campus claimed was racist because an Indian was kneeling in front of a priest.
Any wonder why criminals think Midtown - the area where St. Louis University is located - is fertile ground?
That's about to change. Greitens isn't going to take this sort of thing lightly.
The wife of Missouri Governor-elect Eric Greitens was robbed at gunpoint coming out of Cafe Ventana, a restaurant near the the campus of St. Louis University. in the city of St. Louis.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/wife-of-gov--elect-greitens-robbed-at-gunpoint-in/article_997b47e7-5d9f-5f6c-8c94-2332b35a38ec.html
St. Louis is a Democratic Party paradise, and this is what you get where anti-gun and anti-law and order types reign. St. Louis is ground zero for Black Lives Matter and crime has skyrocketed since the Mike Brown Ferguson riots and the tepid response by the Democratic Mayor and the Democratic outgoing Governor.
St. Louis University has been a magnet for BLM terrorists. SLU President Fred Pistello sent out a note to alumni when the Brown riots erupted saying Black Lives Matter was decidedly Catholic and in the spirit of SLU. He then allowed the SLU campus to be invaded by activists - Occupy SlU - who squatted for months in the quadrangle. As part of the "clocktower accords" Pistello promised to institute radical reforms the squatters demanded - including erecting a statue to them. In preparation for this Pistello removed a statue of Father Desmet, which he and the other leftists on campus claimed was racist because an Indian was kneeling in front of a priest.
Any wonder why criminals think Midtown - the area where St. Louis University is located - is fertile ground?
That's about to change. Greitens isn't going to take this sort of thing lightly.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.
Microwave Fracking
Timothy Birdnow
Fracking is fun, but Microwaves are marvelous!
Microwave oil drilling is coming soon, and it will greatly expand our ability to get at oil - including the icky oil shale, which currently requires strip mining to get at. There are at least 1.5 TRILLION barrels of oil we will be able to tap using this technology.
According to Oilprice.com:
"These trillion barrels are contained in oil shale, in the Green River formation. Although it sounds confusingly identical to shale oil, it’s not, and this is why fracking does not work on it. Something else does work on oil shale, though, and that’s microwaves.
Oil shale, unlike shale oil, is not oil per se; it’s a solid organic material accumulation in shale rocks. To get the oil, you need extremely high temperatures, which are currently being achieved with the environmentally disastrous methods of strip mining – crushing the rock formation and then heating it up to liquefy the oil – and steam injection into the rock. Neither of these methods is particularly effective, which is why we haven’t been hearing much more about the Green River formation.
Microwaves, on the other hand, are capable of doing the job of the steam more effectively, more efficiently, and, what’s particularly important when it comes to oil and gas, more sparingly for the environment.
The idea of using microwaves to get to the fossil fuels hiding in shale rock is not new. In fact, it has been studied since at least 1983. The idea, as expressed by modern-day proponents such as Colorado-based Qmast, is to point a microwave beam with the power of, say, 500 regular microwave ovens to the shale formation and liquefy the crude in this particular sector. The crude then flows freely to a wellbore in the vicinity. According to Qmast’s CTO Peter Kearl, this vicinity – the space that this beam can heat up – can reach 80 feet from the wellbore.
Eighty feet is not a lot, were it not for the estimate that one single microwave-stimulated well can yield up to 800,000 barrels of crude. For now, this sounds too good to be true, and Qmast has not yet started doing trials outside the lab. It does have plans to launch trials outside the lab next year, and even has the ambition to start producing crude by the end of the year. "
End excerpt.
And this method does not produce nasty waste-water. Oh, and it can be powered by methane extracted from the well itslf. Again from the article:
"The very notion of microwaving to extract oil shale is mouthwatering, because it is a water-free process, and doesn’t leave behind waste—one of the main points of contention between the oil industry and environmentalists. It can also save on new-well investment by maximizing the yield from existing wells.
It is perhaps precisely for these reasons that some of these same environmentalists are adamant that microwaving must never be put to wide-scale use as a fossil fuel extraction method: because it will undermine efforts to switch to renewables, much in the same way that cheap oil did.
Leaving the anti-renewables consideration aside, there’s a much bigger problem with microwaves as a means of extracting oil, and that’s money. Microwaving a piece of shale rock 1,000 feet below ground takes quite a lot of energy. Now, this energy could come from the associated gas at the well or—why not—from renewable sources. Even so, the pumping cost per well remains about $9, which is more or less the same as the pumping cost of a conventional or a fracking well. In other words, for all its benefits, the microwave approach needs higher international oil prices to become commercially viable.
The good news is that until this happens, it can be used for other purposes, such as cleaning up clogged wells and de-blocking shale oil deposits where water prevents the crude from flowing to the wellbore. These multiple applications certainly increase the technology’s chances of success at some point in the future. It’s just unclear when exactly we will get to this point."
End excerpt.
And while the cost is still high, it will come down as the technology becomes established.
Expect a huge fight over this and some more dissembling criticisms from liberals. They don't want us to use oil. Some want us to use renewables because they believe in it, but many environmentalists want to power America down, to return the continent to it's pre-settlement condition, or as near as posssible. No energy is what they want.
And our buddies in the Arab world and in Russia aren't going to like this at all. Right now petrodollars fund the turmoil in the Middle East, giving the cash needed to run groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram. Driving the price of oil down (which competing oil invariably does) strangles these evil enterprises in utero. Money is what gave the Islamic world the power to attack us. If we become energy independent they lose.
Ditto the Russians. How can Putin invade Ukraine or any other place if he doesn't have the money? As I noted at Pajama Media after Putin invaded Georgia, the Russians were forced to pull out because they ran out of money. War is expensive. And taking the money out of our enemies purses is critical to brokering peace; peace comes not from agreements but when one side cannot carry on. Strangle the oil money and our big enemies can't carry on against us.
This is wonderful news!
Fracking is fun, but Microwaves are marvelous!
Microwave oil drilling is coming soon, and it will greatly expand our ability to get at oil - including the icky oil shale, which currently requires strip mining to get at. There are at least 1.5 TRILLION barrels of oil we will be able to tap using this technology.
According to Oilprice.com:
"These trillion barrels are contained in oil shale, in the Green River formation. Although it sounds confusingly identical to shale oil, it’s not, and this is why fracking does not work on it. Something else does work on oil shale, though, and that’s microwaves.
Oil shale, unlike shale oil, is not oil per se; it’s a solid organic material accumulation in shale rocks. To get the oil, you need extremely high temperatures, which are currently being achieved with the environmentally disastrous methods of strip mining – crushing the rock formation and then heating it up to liquefy the oil – and steam injection into the rock. Neither of these methods is particularly effective, which is why we haven’t been hearing much more about the Green River formation.
Microwaves, on the other hand, are capable of doing the job of the steam more effectively, more efficiently, and, what’s particularly important when it comes to oil and gas, more sparingly for the environment.
The idea of using microwaves to get to the fossil fuels hiding in shale rock is not new. In fact, it has been studied since at least 1983. The idea, as expressed by modern-day proponents such as Colorado-based Qmast, is to point a microwave beam with the power of, say, 500 regular microwave ovens to the shale formation and liquefy the crude in this particular sector. The crude then flows freely to a wellbore in the vicinity. According to Qmast’s CTO Peter Kearl, this vicinity – the space that this beam can heat up – can reach 80 feet from the wellbore.
Eighty feet is not a lot, were it not for the estimate that one single microwave-stimulated well can yield up to 800,000 barrels of crude. For now, this sounds too good to be true, and Qmast has not yet started doing trials outside the lab. It does have plans to launch trials outside the lab next year, and even has the ambition to start producing crude by the end of the year. "
End excerpt.
And this method does not produce nasty waste-water. Oh, and it can be powered by methane extracted from the well itslf. Again from the article:
"The very notion of microwaving to extract oil shale is mouthwatering, because it is a water-free process, and doesn’t leave behind waste—one of the main points of contention between the oil industry and environmentalists. It can also save on new-well investment by maximizing the yield from existing wells.
It is perhaps precisely for these reasons that some of these same environmentalists are adamant that microwaving must never be put to wide-scale use as a fossil fuel extraction method: because it will undermine efforts to switch to renewables, much in the same way that cheap oil did.
Leaving the anti-renewables consideration aside, there’s a much bigger problem with microwaves as a means of extracting oil, and that’s money. Microwaving a piece of shale rock 1,000 feet below ground takes quite a lot of energy. Now, this energy could come from the associated gas at the well or—why not—from renewable sources. Even so, the pumping cost per well remains about $9, which is more or less the same as the pumping cost of a conventional or a fracking well. In other words, for all its benefits, the microwave approach needs higher international oil prices to become commercially viable.
The good news is that until this happens, it can be used for other purposes, such as cleaning up clogged wells and de-blocking shale oil deposits where water prevents the crude from flowing to the wellbore. These multiple applications certainly increase the technology’s chances of success at some point in the future. It’s just unclear when exactly we will get to this point."
End excerpt.
And while the cost is still high, it will come down as the technology becomes established.
Expect a huge fight over this and some more dissembling criticisms from liberals. They don't want us to use oil. Some want us to use renewables because they believe in it, but many environmentalists want to power America down, to return the continent to it's pre-settlement condition, or as near as posssible. No energy is what they want.
And our buddies in the Arab world and in Russia aren't going to like this at all. Right now petrodollars fund the turmoil in the Middle East, giving the cash needed to run groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram. Driving the price of oil down (which competing oil invariably does) strangles these evil enterprises in utero. Money is what gave the Islamic world the power to attack us. If we become energy independent they lose.
Ditto the Russians. How can Putin invade Ukraine or any other place if he doesn't have the money? As I noted at Pajama Media after Putin invaded Georgia, the Russians were forced to pull out because they ran out of money. War is expensive. And taking the money out of our enemies purses is critical to brokering peace; peace comes not from agreements but when one side cannot carry on. Strangle the oil money and our big enemies can't carry on against us.
This is wonderful news!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 926 words, total size 6 kb.
The New Conservative Majority?
Brian Birdnow
As we now reach the one month anniversary of Donald Trump’s wholly unexpected presidential election victory we see the emerging fallout of this win, which recounts and desperate efforts to woo electors will not change. First of all, a look at the Democratic Party shows shock and bewilderment, as the Party regulars fully expected to win in a walk. The stories about champagne corks popping on the campaign plane the afternoon of November 8th testify to the level of their certainty. The Democrats have to get used to the fact that they lost to a candidate they called a "carnival barker,†among other things. The mainstream news media shares this sense of shock, but will add a deep and unrelenting sense of hostility to the mix. They got it all wrong from understanding the national mood, all the way to predicting how the election would play out, and the media do not like being shown up. Most of the conservative media, and those Republicans who voted for Trump, are understandably gleeful over the election results, and this includes those who are rejoicing over Hillary Clinton’s fall, rather than Donald Trump’s ascent. The potential trouble spot in this scenario for the conservative movement is the growing conviction that our side has established a "new conservative governing majority.†The Trump Era will no doubt provide many lessons of historical significance, but our side had better be careful before we blithely announce victory, and declare that the foe is vanquished. Recent history and the cyclical nature of politics should be our guides.
When we review the electoral situation from our admittedly short perspective we see that Trump, the less liberal candidate won the election. Trump’s commitment to the conservative movement has been minimal in the past, and he avoided calling himself a "conservative†during the campaign. He is now stocking his cabinet with conservatives like Ben Carson, Tom Price and others. This may be seen as a bouquet tossed to the right wing, or it may be seen as a willingness to admit that the conservatives can run things better than the establishment types. We shall see over the course of time.
We must also note in our review that our side beat Hillary Clinton, and we should be happy, in fact we should be pleased as punch about this development. Still, we should remember that many Democrats argued, amazingly, that Hillary Clinton was too much a pillar of the community, was too much of an insider, and was, in fact, too conservative to represent the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is shifty and chameleon-like, but no one can take the argument that she is too conservative at face value. In any event, many Democrats voted for an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, and some sat out the general election as a silent protest. So, we haven’t completely subdued the enemy just yet.
Recent history should caution us that we have bumps in the road ahead. Our side has been through this before. Back in the halcyon days of the 1980s many conservative intellectuals digested the two Reagan landslides, a booming economy, and victory in the Cold War and believed that these stunning occurrences heralded an era of conservative dominance. That confident, almost complacent sense of setting the terms of debate crashed during the feckless Presidency of George HW Bush.
The conservative side bounced back with the near-realigning election of 1994. Newt Gingrich, the true visionary, nationalized the midterm elections and engineered a huge victory, delivering control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to the Republican Party for the first time in forty years. The GOP establishment, astonished by the victory, gladly took power and remained a congressional majority for twelve years. They accomplished some things, but dropped the ball a number of times, too. More recently, the Obama era has proved more difficult to chart and categorize. The Democrats won big victories in 2008 and 2012, when Obama headed their ticket, but the Republicans won big in 2010 and 2014, when the president was not running, at least officially. In no case did the predictions of a new era of conservative dominance materialize. So, there is no telling what the future has in store.
Let us take a measured look at what did happen a month ago before we begin planning for our new era of dominance. First of all, we know that the Democrats wrote off the white working class voters, and realize now that they made a big mistake. The Democrats also discounted Catholic voters as a bloc to be courted, and as we heard in the WikiLeaks releases, senior Democrats referred to the Catholic faith in highly unflattering terms. The white working class and the Catholic voters finally perceived the depths of liberal and Democratic hostility and they voted accordingly. The Catholic vote went to Obama twice, but they abandoned the Democrats this time. It remains to be seen whether this is a long-term trend or if most working class whites and Catholic voters will return to their former political home, the Democratic Party.
We also saw the end result of Democratic identity politics crashing on the shoals of common sense and sanity. Many of those who voted Republican saw the Democrats as appealing to an assortment of every marginal pressure group under the sun. The Democrats seemed bent on cobbling together an alliance of LGBT activists, illegal immigrants, anyone who can claim to be a minority, and trial lawyers thrown in for good measure. The Party seemed more interested in putting men in girl’s restrooms than in dealing with national problems.
There is now much evidence that the Democrats see this issue more clearly than they did on November 8th. The Clinton campaign has ruefully admitted that the candidate’s "Basket of Deplorables†remark caused untold damage to the ticket. We will see the Democrats making a pitch to reconnect with those deplorables before the next election.
Yes, we are in for exciting politics in the next few years. Still, it would be in the interest of all conservatives to remember that a triumph, no matter how sweet, does not usually win a war. We have won a big victory, but have much work ahead!
As we now reach the one month anniversary of Donald Trump’s wholly unexpected presidential election victory we see the emerging fallout of this win, which recounts and desperate efforts to woo electors will not change. First of all, a look at the Democratic Party shows shock and bewilderment, as the Party regulars fully expected to win in a walk. The stories about champagne corks popping on the campaign plane the afternoon of November 8th testify to the level of their certainty. The Democrats have to get used to the fact that they lost to a candidate they called a "carnival barker,†among other things. The mainstream news media shares this sense of shock, but will add a deep and unrelenting sense of hostility to the mix. They got it all wrong from understanding the national mood, all the way to predicting how the election would play out, and the media do not like being shown up. Most of the conservative media, and those Republicans who voted for Trump, are understandably gleeful over the election results, and this includes those who are rejoicing over Hillary Clinton’s fall, rather than Donald Trump’s ascent. The potential trouble spot in this scenario for the conservative movement is the growing conviction that our side has established a "new conservative governing majority.†The Trump Era will no doubt provide many lessons of historical significance, but our side had better be careful before we blithely announce victory, and declare that the foe is vanquished. Recent history and the cyclical nature of politics should be our guides.
When we review the electoral situation from our admittedly short perspective we see that Trump, the less liberal candidate won the election. Trump’s commitment to the conservative movement has been minimal in the past, and he avoided calling himself a "conservative†during the campaign. He is now stocking his cabinet with conservatives like Ben Carson, Tom Price and others. This may be seen as a bouquet tossed to the right wing, or it may be seen as a willingness to admit that the conservatives can run things better than the establishment types. We shall see over the course of time.
We must also note in our review that our side beat Hillary Clinton, and we should be happy, in fact we should be pleased as punch about this development. Still, we should remember that many Democrats argued, amazingly, that Hillary Clinton was too much a pillar of the community, was too much of an insider, and was, in fact, too conservative to represent the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is shifty and chameleon-like, but no one can take the argument that she is too conservative at face value. In any event, many Democrats voted for an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, and some sat out the general election as a silent protest. So, we haven’t completely subdued the enemy just yet.
Recent history should caution us that we have bumps in the road ahead. Our side has been through this before. Back in the halcyon days of the 1980s many conservative intellectuals digested the two Reagan landslides, a booming economy, and victory in the Cold War and believed that these stunning occurrences heralded an era of conservative dominance. That confident, almost complacent sense of setting the terms of debate crashed during the feckless Presidency of George HW Bush.
The conservative side bounced back with the near-realigning election of 1994. Newt Gingrich, the true visionary, nationalized the midterm elections and engineered a huge victory, delivering control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to the Republican Party for the first time in forty years. The GOP establishment, astonished by the victory, gladly took power and remained a congressional majority for twelve years. They accomplished some things, but dropped the ball a number of times, too. More recently, the Obama era has proved more difficult to chart and categorize. The Democrats won big victories in 2008 and 2012, when Obama headed their ticket, but the Republicans won big in 2010 and 2014, when the president was not running, at least officially. In no case did the predictions of a new era of conservative dominance materialize. So, there is no telling what the future has in store.
Let us take a measured look at what did happen a month ago before we begin planning for our new era of dominance. First of all, we know that the Democrats wrote off the white working class voters, and realize now that they made a big mistake. The Democrats also discounted Catholic voters as a bloc to be courted, and as we heard in the WikiLeaks releases, senior Democrats referred to the Catholic faith in highly unflattering terms. The white working class and the Catholic voters finally perceived the depths of liberal and Democratic hostility and they voted accordingly. The Catholic vote went to Obama twice, but they abandoned the Democrats this time. It remains to be seen whether this is a long-term trend or if most working class whites and Catholic voters will return to their former political home, the Democratic Party.
We also saw the end result of Democratic identity politics crashing on the shoals of common sense and sanity. Many of those who voted Republican saw the Democrats as appealing to an assortment of every marginal pressure group under the sun. The Democrats seemed bent on cobbling together an alliance of LGBT activists, illegal immigrants, anyone who can claim to be a minority, and trial lawyers thrown in for good measure. The Party seemed more interested in putting men in girl’s restrooms than in dealing with national problems.
There is now much evidence that the Democrats see this issue more clearly than they did on November 8th. The Clinton campaign has ruefully admitted that the candidate’s "Basket of Deplorables†remark caused untold damage to the ticket. We will see the Democrats making a pitch to reconnect with those deplorables before the next election.
Yes, we are in for exciting politics in the next few years. Still, it would be in the interest of all conservatives to remember that a triumph, no matter how sweet, does not usually win a war. We have won a big victory, but have much work ahead!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:07 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1043 words, total size 6 kb.
Recount in Michigan Turns up Democrat Vote Fraud
Jack Kemp
This is rich. A recount in Michigan highlights voter irregularities and fraud in Detroit.
Jack
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/
Half of Detroit votes may be
ineligible for recount
Detroit News, by Chad Livengood and Joel Kurth
, 12/6/2016 2:04:01 AM
One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots. Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month. Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662. According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted.
This is rich. A recount in Michigan highlights voter irregularities and fraud in Detroit.
Jack
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/
Half of Detroit votes may be
ineligible for recount
Detroit News, by Chad Livengood and Joel Kurth
, 12/6/2016 2:04:01 AM
One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots. Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month. Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662. According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
Winning the Cold War with Iran
Jack Kemp
Caroline Glick, besides being a senior editor at the Jerusalem Post, is also a former Israeli Army Intelligence officer. She was born and raised in the U.S.
Jack
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/glick-michael-flynn-and-what-he-means-trumps-foreign-policy
Glick: Michael Flynn and What he Means for Trump's Foreign Policy
With Mattis and Flynn at his side, Trump intends to bring down the Iranian regime as a first step toward securing an unconditional victory in the war against radical Islam.
12.5.2016
In the US and around the world, people are anxiously awaiting US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement of his choice to serve as secretary of state. There is no doubt that Trump’s choice for the position will tell us a great deal about the direction his foreign policy is likely to take.
But the fact is that we already have sufficient information to understand what his greatest focus will be.
Trump’s announcement last week that he has selected Marine General James Mattis to serve as his defense secretary is a key piece of the puzzle.
Mattis has a sterling reputation as a brilliant strategist and a sober-minded leader. His appointment has garnered plaudits across the ideological spectrum.
In 2013, US President Barack Obama summarily removed Mattis from his command as head of the US Military’s Central Command. According to media reports, Mattis was fired due to his opposition to Obama’s strategy of embracing Iran, first and foremost through his nuclear diplomacy. Mattis argued that Iran’s nuclear program was far from the only threat Iran constituted to the US and its allies. By empowering Iran through the nuclear deal, Obama was enabling Iran’s rise as a hegemonic power throughout the region.
Mattis’s dim view of Iran is shared by Trump’s choice to serve as his national security adviser. Lt. General Michael Flynn’s appointment has been met with far less enthusiasm among Washington’s foreign policy elites.
Caroline Glick, besides being a senior editor at the Jerusalem Post, is also a former Israeli Army Intelligence officer. She was born and raised in the U.S.
Jack
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/glick-michael-flynn-and-what-he-means-trumps-foreign-policy
Glick: Michael Flynn and What he Means for Trump's Foreign Policy
With Mattis and Flynn at his side, Trump intends to bring down the Iranian regime as a first step toward securing an unconditional victory in the war against radical Islam.
12.5.2016
In the US and around the world, people are anxiously awaiting US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement of his choice to serve as secretary of state. There is no doubt that Trump’s choice for the position will tell us a great deal about the direction his foreign policy is likely to take.
But the fact is that we already have sufficient information to understand what his greatest focus will be.
Trump’s announcement last week that he has selected Marine General James Mattis to serve as his defense secretary is a key piece of the puzzle.
Mattis has a sterling reputation as a brilliant strategist and a sober-minded leader. His appointment has garnered plaudits across the ideological spectrum.
In 2013, US President Barack Obama summarily removed Mattis from his command as head of the US Military’s Central Command. According to media reports, Mattis was fired due to his opposition to Obama’s strategy of embracing Iran, first and foremost through his nuclear diplomacy. Mattis argued that Iran’s nuclear program was far from the only threat Iran constituted to the US and its allies. By empowering Iran through the nuclear deal, Obama was enabling Iran’s rise as a hegemonic power throughout the region.
Mattis’s dim view of Iran is shared by Trump’s choice to serve as his national security adviser. Lt. General Michael Flynn’s appointment has been met with far less enthusiasm among Washington’s foreign policy elites.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.
California's Talking Donkeys
Dana Mathewson
Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and the government should prevent them from owning firearms."
Columnist Burt Prelutsky in the L.A. Times
"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on "Macbeth." The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."
Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and the government should prevent them from owning firearms."
Columnist Burt Prelutsky in the L.A. Times
"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on "Macbeth." The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
Codevilla Explains Everything
Helen Dyer
Outstanding article which explains nearly everything.
http://www.claremont.org/download_pdf.php?file_name=1106Codevilla.pdf
Outstanding article which explains nearly everything.
http://www.claremont.org/download_pdf.php?file_name=1106Codevilla.pdf
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
Laugh and the World Laughs with You, Cry and You're a Democrat
Dana Mathewson
Brother-in-law David sends this. Kurt Schlichter's not my fave, but this IS fun.
...http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/12/05/laughing-at-liberals-as-they-lose-their-minds-n2254561
Dana Mathewson
Brother-in-law David sends this. Kurt Schlichter's not my fave, but this IS fun.
...http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/12/05/laughing-at-liberals-as-they-lose-their-minds-n2254561
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:46 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
85kb generated in CPU 0.0214, elapsed 0.1931 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.1779 seconds, 218 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.1779 seconds, 218 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
