Dana Mathewson

He meant to say "I'll run in 2020 if there's still a functioning Democratic Party." Right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/05/biden-says-im-going-to-run-in-2020.html

Twenty-seven days after Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters he would make his third bid for the highest office in the land four years from now. "I'm going to run in 2020," Biden, 74, told a group of reporters at the Capitol Monday

Angela Merkel has called for a burqa ban wherever "legally possible” and says the full Islamic veil is "not appropriate” in Germany.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

You don't suppose she's taking a cue from Trump, do you?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/06/merkel-calls-for-burqa-ban-in-germany.html

Merkel calls for burqa ban in Germany.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Two stories at Gateway Pundit today illustrate the continued attempts by Hillary Clinton to steal this election.

First, Trump lost 16,000 plus votes in Pennsylvania as Democrat-controlled districts keep finding "overlooked" votes. As Joe Hoft points out:

"Massive voter fraud in Pennsylvania has been identified. The final certified results in Pennsylvania show Donald Trump winning the state with 2,961,658 votes, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won 2,913,903 votes. The difference is 47,755 votes. This is what is now reported after absentee ballots were counted as reported on Friday, December 2nd.

Before the recounts on November 29th, the New York Times reported that Donald Trump was winning the state with 2,959,839 votes, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won 2,895,436 votes. The difference was 64,403 votes.

This means that of the 20,736 absentee ballots cast, 18,467 went to Clinton— This is highly suspect.

I"n addition, there were 41,120 more votes cast for President than for the Senate race in Pennsylvania when looking at the final tallies. This too is suspect."

End excerpt.

That last is my argument about the popular vote count. The media is claiming Hillary won by over 2.5 million votes nationwide, and they are claiming this was the biggest blowout in history in terms of the popular vote. Yet none of this, NONE, translated to downballot races. If Hillary really won these popular votes then the Democrats should have made pickups in House races, in state houses, in Governorships. They didn't. Something is rotten in Denmark.

TGP also reports on an Obama appointed judge ordering a hand recount in Michigan - with the Electoral College vote emminent.

"The Detroit News reported:

A federal judge has ordered Michigan election officials to begin a massive hand recount of 4.8 million ballots cast in the presidential election at noon Monday.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith issued a ruling just after midnight Monday in favor of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who sought to let election officials bypass a two-business-day waiting period that would have delayed start of the recount until Wednesday morning.

Goldsmith’s order said the recount "shall commence and must continue until further order of this court.”

"Defendants shall instruct all governmental units participating in the recount to assemble necessary staff to work sufficient hours to assure that the recount is completed in time to comply with the ‘safe harbor’ provision,” of federal election law, Goldsmith wrote.

The deadline to finalize the vote total for the Electoral College is Dec. 13 and federal election law requires a period of "safe harbor” for presidential electors before the presidency is finalized on Dec. 19.

End excerpt.

The scheme is designed to make Michigan miss the EC vote. In fact, I think the plan is to sew so much chaos with the EC vote that Obama and the Courts will intervene, perhaps forcing this into the House of Representatives, where Trump is not popular with the Speaker and other Establishment types and many of the Congressman may be open to, uh, persuasion.

If nothing else this is designed to bloody up Trump.

Does anybody remember Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" during the 2008 Democratic primaries? Rush said he wanted to bloody up Obama, to make him less effective and put his nomination in doubt. He encouraged Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary - just as Democrats have been doing for years to the GOP. Well, this is Hillary's effort to "bloody up" Trump in the same way.

There is no downside here for the Democrats. If they somehow pull out a miracle and win then Santa Clause is good, but if not they still damage Trump and punish voters, and cost Republicans money. This will, of course, draw lots of cash from angry liberals.

No downside.

Donald Trump should find a way to punish them for this, some legal way. This is a penultimate dirty trick, and one does not allow one's enemies to get away with dirty tricks lest they do so again in the future. Politics is much like child-rearing; you have to be firm and consistent. Bad behavior must be punished. it really is that simple.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 699 words, total size 5 kb.

Helen Dyer sends this our way:

Mark Steyn’s explanation of the "97% of scientists” agree with AG fraud

http://humansarefree.com/2016/11/the-97-of-scientists-agree-on-climate.html#more

The '97% of Scientists Agree on Climate Change' Consensus Comes From Just 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists

In the current ridiculous battle over "real news" vs. "fake news," the establishment media liars all claim that climate change is the perfect example of how "fake news" keeps interfering with their truthful facts. They repeatedly claim that 97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change, and therefore anyone who disagrees is obviously shoveling "fake" news. But wait a second. Where does that "97%" claim really come from? They sure repeat it a lot. Is it a legitimate representation of the science?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Helen forwards this:

http://principia-scientific.org/professor-fired-for-exposing-huge-wind-energy-scam/

Top Professor Fired For Exposing Huge Wind Energy Scam Published on August 5, 2014 Written by John Droz Jr Henrik Møller, Denmark’s leading academic expert on noise research, has been fired by his university after exposing a far-reaching cover up by the Danish government of the health risks caused by wind turbine noise pollution. Shock and outrage at this latest example of the heavey-handed cover up of government-backed junk science has brought strong condemnation from independent scientists. John Droz Jr, a respected critic of wind farms, has issued the following condemnatory response: As you probably know, a passion of mine is defending my profession (Science) from assault.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

This courtesy of Helen Dyer and Boz:

http://www.techradar.com/news/theres-finally-something-we-can-use-nuclear-waste-for-to-make-batteries

Scientists finally find a good use for nuclear waste: making batteries

Unlimited clean energy is a world-changing prospect. It's hard to overstate how much the development of a technology that provides power for free would change our civilisation, in most regards for the better. That's why so much money is being spent on research into nuclear fusion and related technologies.

Now, however, a team of physicists and chemists from the University of Bristol have unveiled a 'nuclear battery' that they claim could offer a long-term supply of energy with zero emissions for small, low-power devices. Best of all, it could solve our nuclear waste problem along the way.

Their prototype battery involves a man-made diamond that generates a small electric current when placed in a radioactive field. "There are no moving parts involved, no emissions generated and no maintenance required, just direct electricity generation," said Tom Scott from the University's Interface Analysis Centre.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Helen Dyer

NASA's Goddard Institute has been playing games with the temperature data, according to our friends at No Tricks Zone:

http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.Qqhve9Y1.SsNim6aY.dpbs

"Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

I am blissfully ignorant of italian politics, and hope to largely remain so in the future. Italy is, to my mind, just another quasi-socialist hipster haven, with a lot of hot fashion models, some great food, and a hippie Catholic Pope with a radical hat (who actually lives in another country than Italy.) Beyond that I care little for Italy as a country, because it really has no major bearing on America or on foreign affairs. Oh, I wish Italy well, and know we need to maintain friendship with them, but I'm just not that into the place.

So I haven't really been following the recent Constitutional amendment vote. I don't know much about Italy's government and don't really care.

But word of the thrashing the reform measure received caught my eye, and I just have to comment on a few salient points.

First, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi pushed a major reform of Italy's government. Wikipedia stated that the reforms would reduce the power of the Senate and empower the Presidency - and the Prime Minister. I will spare all and sundry the details of the political machine in Italy and what changes were sought, but suffice it to say there has been a reform movement since the 1980's - a movement that has failed to get these same reforms for decades now. Apparently someone really, really wants them but can't explain why to the general public.

Renzi's efforts got creamed in the referednum, leading him to announce his resignation.

So why did this catch my eye given I find italian politics dull? Well, the last paragraph for starters; this is the hallmark of the Left, to never give up on some plan or scheme. Liberals believe that "history is on their side" - indeed the name they have given themselves is Progessive, as though there is some overarching end to history (outside of the religious ends as seen by Christians or Jews or Muslims) and that they are the foot soldiers in a cosmic battle of righteousness versus darkness. Karl Marx thought so; in The Communist Manifesto he proclaimed the inevitability of Communism because of historical forces, then immediately called for "workers of the world" to "unite. You have only your chains to lose!" This is, of course, completely unnecessary if history will make this happen anyway. Why struggle and fight and battle when you are guaranteed to win? It is part of the madness of the Left that they BELIEVE victory is theirs yet continue an endless Jihad anyway. Why not simply relax and let it come? Sometimes things come faster if you try not to rush it, and sometimes things are better that way. Anyone who has read MacBeth knows that the usurper would have been the King had he simply waited, but by stealing the throne he brought down destruction upon himself.

Liberals never let things go; they are the sorest of sore losers. When Conservatives lose we accept the precedent (even if we don't like it) and go from there, but Liberals always put their program on a back burner, preparing to bring it back up. As a result we have Obamacare, a scheme the Left has been trying to implement for decades. Gay marriage was reviled as a concept but they kept plugging away until they got what they wanted. In fact, if you look at every success of the Left (and they have been legion) of the last fifty years or more you will see something that failed at first but was brought back around repeatedly, until the public was worn down. They call this "education" or "preparation" but in reality it is an attempt to thwart the will of the people. Eventually they do. So they never give up on an idea once it is conceived.

Here in the St.Louis area they did that with a smoking ban. Public outrage at the proposal killed it several times, but the liberals pushing it simply brought it back over and over and eventually it passed. The ancient Greeks used to execute someone who brought an initiative back for a third vote if it failed; they were trying to thwart the will of the people. We now see ourselves as too civilized, so the Progressives can throw continual temper tantrums until they get what they want.

This holds true in Italy as well, apparently; these reforms have been the endgame of the establishment there for decades.

Which tells me quite a bit. It tells me that the elites wanted these reforms to further strengthen the European Union, preparatory to creating an United States of Europe. These reforms are needed for the Anschluss.

The failure of Renzi's efforts has led to a major drop in the value of the Euro out of fear of an Italexit. It seems the Italian People aren't too happy with the Europeanization of their country, and at least want to hold to their old ways.

Another thing that caught my eye was the discovery that the chief strategist for Renzi's reforms was Jim Messina.

No, I'm not talking about the former musical partner of Kenny Loggins, but rather a Democrat operative who managed Barack Obama's campaign and who was instruemental in the passage of the American Care Act aka Obamacare. Messina is considered the "most powerful man you never heard of" in Washington, a former aid to Max Baucus. He's a snake; he was the guy who devised Baucus's notoriously anti-homosexual campaign ad, and later he would be instrumental in ending "don't ask, don't tell" in the military for full acceptance of homosexual behavior - a major change that the Left had sought for a long time (don't ask don't tell was Bill Clinton's initiative, which radically altered the moral code of the U.S. military and Obama completed what Clinton started.) He helped Baucus to stop George W. Bush from creating small private accounts inside of social security, an institution that is going to become insolvent.

He was also Chief of Staff for Byron Dorgan and recently ran a superpac for Hillary Clinton.

What was a leftist political hit man doing running a campaign to reform the Italian government? Apparently he works as a consultant to the British Conservative party, too (who are in no way conservative by the metrics we employ in the U.S.)

American leftists seem to be not just content to screw up the United States but want to export their insane ideas. Snake Eyes James Carville goes around the globe doing likewise, selling his services in places like Argentina to promote the Revolution.

If anything should tell us about the totalitarian nature of Progressivism it should be this. There is an elite cadre that thinks of itself as the masters of the universe, and they seek to seduce the whole world into following them on their road to Hell. Borders are antiquated ideas and mean little to people like Jim Messina. There can be no choice involved, no diversity where this is concerned; the liberal must be obeyed, believed, even celebrated everywhere. We must all go toge4ther hand in hand. Those who will not go joyously into the Kingdom Age will have to be liquidated.

Why? Well, when their ideas are tried on an experimental level they fail. But if the whole world is forced to go along...

So this vote in Italy repudiated the Progressive empire, at least temporarily. The liberals will ride this out and fight another day, and our side may well become complacent (as we usually do, thinking a victory is a victory.) The Left never sleeps in their evil

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1275 words, total size 8 kb.

Jack Kemp

National Geographic made a video...Interesting still photos and text article from UK on what was found after first time the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was opened in over 500 years.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/jesus-christs-tomb-opened-first-9381660?service=responsive


Here's a comment on Lucianne.com from a pilgrim to The Holy Land:

"I have been to this site and to the Garden tomb and only the Garden tomb fits into the Gospel description. The tomb in this article is not in a hillside and did not have a huge stone wheel rolled across the entrance and sealed by the Roman guards. The site in Gethsamene does. It fits scripture perfectly."

Since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s net worth has fallen by $3.7 billion

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp

Linked to from Clarice Feldman's article at American Thinker:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367154.php

Religons Of The World And What Is Acceptable

In case you don't recall, A&E TV has a program called Duck Dynasty. A family (The Robertson's) of rednecks who struck it big with duck calls. Silly show. Sometimes funny, sometimes entertaining.

The Robertson's show doesn't discuss politics or culture. The ending of the show concludes with dinner and a dinner prayer. The patriarch of the Family, Phil Robertson spoke out about his beliefs off camera in a 2014 magazine interview. Of course his conservative Christian views about homosexuality were not accepted by the MSM. After a brief suspension because of Phil's off-screen comments, Duck Dynasty returned to A&E's lineup.
http://www.ew.com/article/2014/05/23/

Fast forward to 2016. HGTV has a remodeling show "Fixer Upper" featuring Chip & Joanna Gaines. I've seen it a few times. They appear to be nice couple and seem to do a good job. No religious overtones that I've seen.

One problem, the Gaines belong to a church where SSM is not accepted. The Gaines' have kept their mouth shouts but are under pressure to state their beliefs. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/chip-joanna-gaines-same-sex-marriage-views-question-article-1.2894180

So Christians who stay true to their beliefs are fair game? Right? Well, if Christians are to be held accountable for their beliefs. What about Muslims?

So if the Gaines' church and pastor can lead to their suspension and/or termination. (Stay tuned) What about a Muslim congressman? https://ricochet.com/393435/buzzfeed-targets-hgtv-hosts-attending-christian-church/

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) hasn't come out publicly for the exclusion of SSM. But it appears that his Imam has.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/310796-rep-keith-ellisons-imam-homosexuality-is-not-what-god-intended/

"It’s not within our paradigm, really, to change the word of God,” said Imam Makram El-Amin, leader of Masjid Al-Nur in Minneapolis. "Our religion is clear about this matter. It’s not a lifestyle that we accept as being part of the natural way of things for human beings. When it comes to that, that’s my position, and that’s Islam’s position. And this incident as tragic and terrible as it is that does not change that,” he said.

Until Congressman Ellison comes forth and denounces his Imam, his mosque and anti-homosexuality Keith Ellison is not in a position to run the DNC. https://keithfordnc.org/ Hell, he shouldn't even be a congressman. We won't even get into his Anti-Semitism and his ties to the Nation of Islam.

If we can't have a Christian couple star in a 30 minute cable show about home fixer uppers, certainly we can't have an anti-homosexual bigot run the DNC. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/kfile-keith-ellison-nation-of-islam/index.html

But when it comes to the hypocrites left we know which religion is acceptable, don't we?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

A Dana mathewson

Well, since I've seen Breitbart castigated as a "fake news source," I'm not sure I should send this...

Anthony Weiner ‘So Broke’ He Can’t Afford Sex Addiction Rehab
Breitbart News

https://apple.news/AJaX6myoZNNmk7bovW2x1Ow

After photos showing disgraced New York Congressman Anthony Weiner back near his pricy New York home, news surfaced that he was found guilty of campaign fund violations, fined $65,000, and is "so broke" that he couldn't finish his stint in sex addiction rehab

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Cry me a river!

Mark Zuckerberg Loses $3.7 Billion Following Trump Election
Breitbart News

https://apple.news/AEh4g0libNcGIgLG-6nCxbA

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Paul Driessen

Pressure groups, regulators and their media allies are railing that Donald Trump plans to "roll back progress” on climate change, energy and the environment. If they define "progress” as ever-expanding laws, regulations, bureaucracies and power – then yes, Mr. Trump does intends to roll them back. And he should.

However, if we examine "progress” against two other standards – pollution reductions to date, and the validity of claims used to justify ever more burdensome and expensive environmental regulations – then we get a very different result. America’s voters do not want to roll back true environmental progress. But we do demand a return to sanity, science, and honest consideration of our overall health, welfare and "human environment” in approving regulations that govern our lives.

My article delves deeply into these important and too often misunderstood issues.

Rolling back environmental progress?

Having achieved major goals, US should refocus EPA and other environmental agencies

Paul Driessen

Donald Trump plans to "roll back progress” on climate change, energy and the environment, activists, regulators and their media allies assert. The claim depends on one’s definition of "progress.”

These interest groups define "progress” as ever-expanding laws, regulations, bureaucracies and power, to bring air and water emissions of every description down to zero, to prevent diseases that they attribute to manmade pollutants and forestall "dangerous manmade climate change.” Achieving those goals requires controlling nearly every facet of our economy, industries, lives, livelihoods and living standards.

If we are talking about halting and reversing this unbridled federal control, President-Elect Trump has promised to roll "progress” back – and not a moment too soon, if we are to rejuvenate our economy.

Federal land, resource and environmental agencies have unleashed tsunamis of regulations in recent years, and President Obama is poised to issue many more before January 20. The total cost of complying with federal rules was about $1 trillion annually in 2006. It has since doubled, raising the federal reporting and compliance burden to $6,000 per person per year, through late-2016.

The Obama Administration has thus far imposed some $743 billion of those new costs, via 4,432 new rules requiring 754 million hours of paperwork, according to a new American Action Forum analysis. https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/passing-1-trillion/ The $2 trillion cumulative annual tab is more than all federal individual and corporate taxes collected in 2015; includes 10 billion hours dealing with paperwork; and does not include state or local regulations. Land use and environmental compliance costs account for a sizable and growing portion of this total.

These costs hogtie innovation, job creation and economic growth. They make millions unemployed.

So let us examine "progress” against two other standards: (1) pollution reductions to date; and (2) the validity of claims used to justify ever more burdensome and expensive environmental regulations.

We can never have zero pollution. The laws of diminishing returns increasingly come into play: getting rid of the last 10% can cost as much as eliminating the initial 90% and is rarely needed. And we cannot control nature’s pollution: volcanoes, forest fires, poisonous algae blooms, deep ocean vents, erosion of rocks bearing mercury and other toxic substances, and other sources.

However, we can reach the point where remaining pollutants pose few or no health risks – and we have largely done so. Since 1970, America’s cars have eliminated nearly 99% of pollutants that once came out of tailpipes, notes Air Quality in America co-author Joel Schwartz. http://www.amazon.com/Air-Quality-America-Reality-Pollution/dp/0844771872/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365622753&sr=1-1&keywords=schwartz+Air+Quality+in+America Refiners have eliminated lead from gasoline and reduced its sulfur content by some 95% – while coal-fired power plants now remove 80-95% of the particulates, mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that they emitted in 1970.

Asthma may be rising, but it’s certainly not because of pollution rates that have fallen dramatically.

Water quality has also skyrocketed. Along the river where I grew up in Wisconsin, a dozen pairs of bald eagles now nest where there were none when I was a kid, when you couldn’t eat the fish or swim in the polluted water. The same thing happened across the USA. Other problems remain to be addressed.

As President-Elect Trump has quipped, "It used to be that cars were made in Flint, and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now our cars are made in Mexico, and you can’t drink the water in Flint.”

That’s because local officials and the USEPA didn’t do their jobs – didn’t monitor or fix failing, corroded lead water pipes. Repairing Flint’s system, and addressing water and sewer problems in other cities, will cost billions of dollars. If we are forced to spend tens or hundreds of billions on exaggerated, fabricated or imaginary risks, there will be little left to resolve our remaining real health problems.

Let us celebrate our progress, and turn our attention to real problems that still must be corrected. Let us also examine claims used to justify regulations – and roll back rules that don’t pass scientific muster.

EPA insists that saving fuel and reducing pollution from now super-clean vehicles requires that cars and light trucks get 54.5 mpg by 2025. But achieving this will force people to drive smaller, lighter, more plasticized, less safe cars – and millions more will be maimed and killed. EPA doesn’t mention that, or acknowledge that fracking ensures another century of oil and gasoline: time to devise new energy sources.

Above all, though, the Environmental Protection Agency’s reason for being, for wanting to steadily expand its budget and personnel, for seeking to regulate our farms, factories, homes and energy supplies, for trying to drive entire industries into bankruptcy – is its assertion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, thereby endangering human health and welfare. The claims do not withstand scrutiny.

Even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise – spurring plant growth worldwide – except during the strong 2015-16 El Niño, average global temperatures have remained steady for 18 years. Polar and Greenland ice caps, sea levels, hurricanes, floods and droughts refuse to behave in accord with climate chaos claims, computer model predictions, or EPA and Obama White House assertions. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/steepest-drop-in-global-temperature-on-record/

Meanwhile, as EPA moves to impose its "Clean Power Plan” and other draconian rules, developed and developing nations alike are building new coal-fired power plants every week, greatly expanding their oil and gas use, and reducing wind and solar subsidies. Even EPA analyses recognize that ending nearly all US fossil fuel use will prevent an undetectable global temperature rise of just 0.02 degrees by 2100.

So EPA has tried to justify its job and economy-killing climate change and coal eradication rules by claiming they will bring huge "ancillary” health benefits. Those claims too are pure hogwash.

US coal-fired power plants emit less than 0.5% of all the mercury that enters Earth’s atmosphere every year from Asian power plants, forest fires, volcanoes, subsea vents and geysers. EPA nonetheless claims its rules will magically bring benefits like an imperceptible 0.00209-point improvement in IQ scores!

The agency also says banning coal-fired power plants will reduce "carcinogenic” and "lethal” levels of microscopic particulate matter (soot) in America’s air. But EPA has no medical evidence that what is still in our air poses actual problems. In fact, EPA-funded researchers illegally subjected human test subjects – including elderly, asthmatic, diabetic and cardiac patients – to 8, 30 or even 60 times more soot per volume (for up to two hours) than what EPA claims is dangerous or lethal. And yet, no one got sick.

Obviously, EPA’s air quality standards and dire warnings about soot are totally out of whack with reality.

The federal government next concocted what it calls the "social cost of carbon” framework. It assigns a price to using carbon-based fuels and emitting carbon dioxide, by blaming US fossil fuels and CO2 for every imaginable and imaginary "harm” to wildlife, climate and humans worldwide. It completely ignores the enormous and undeniable benefits of using those fuels, the equally important benefits of plant-fertilizing CO2, and horrendous damage that would result from eliminating 81% of America’s energy.

Indeed, EPA and other regulators routinely ignore the impacts that their draconian regulations have on people’s jobs, living standards, health and welfare – including reduced or lost incomes, lower nutrition, welfare dependency, drug and alcohol abuse, and shorter life spans. They then present scientists, "health” and "environmental” organizations and advisory committees that approve and applaud the regulations anyway – often because the agencies pay them millions of dollars a year to do so.

That’s how bureaucrats remain powerful, unaccountable and immune from being fired or having to compensate victims for their incompetent or even deliberate falsifications and actions. We end up being protected from exaggerated and fabricated risks, years or decades from now – by having jobs, companies, industries, families, communities, and our overall health and welfare hammered by over-regulation today.

America’s voters rejected this agenda. Over 90% of the nation’s counties voted to Trump the bridge hand to tyranny. We do not want to roll back true environmental progress. But we do demand a return to sanity, science, and honest consideration of our overall health, welfare and "human environment” in approving regulations that govern our lives. Let’s insist that the new Congress and Administration do exactly that.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1560 words, total size 11 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Well, well!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/03/im-democrat-and-im-ashamed-at-how-tone-deaf-weve-become.html

Democrats have a choice: we can make the next four years productive for the American people, or we can choose obstruction.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

George Washington’s recipe for eggnog

The author of this article is a descendant of Washington, got the recipe from his great-grandmother (his "Nonnie”), who swears it’s correct. The bourbon "cooks” the eggs and makes the resulting concoction safe to keep in the refrigerator.

Ingredients:

7 eggs, separated
7 jiggers (1 1/3 cups) bourbon
2 cups milk
7 tbsp (heaping) sugar
1 pt. heavy cream
Nutmeg, grated, to float on top of each cup

Step 1: Using a standing or hand-held mixer with a whisk attachment, beat the egg yolks till they are a lemon color. "I grew up in an agricultural family in western Kentucky, so there was always integrity to our ingredients – a rural wholesomeness found in real eggs and nice fresh dairy from the farm, not the factory,” the author says.

Step 2: Gradually add the bourbon to the egg yolks, beating vigorously until the mixture is thick enough to coat the back of a spoon. At a lower speed, whisk milk into the mixture until it resembles loose custard.
"Although I don’t know the science, my family says the alcohol cooks the eggs (perhaps a benefit of Nonnie using the classic Wild Turkey at 101 proof). The finesse is how we add the bourbon. We pour it into a Pyrex measuring cup, then drizzle it into the yolks tablespoon by tablespoon, incorporating it very well with each addition.”

Step 3: In a separate bowl, beat egg whites till stiff. Add sugar. Continue beating. Add to yolk mixture. In another bowl, beat cream till stiff. Add to mixture, folding in gradually. Store in refrigerator until serving time.
"When the eggnog is done, we transfer it to a Tupperware pitcher and store it in the refrigerator until the next day. You can drink it the same day you make it, but the next day the eggnog will have a luscious density with a foamy, meringue-like top, easily reincorporated by stirring with a wooden spoon. Never add ice. Always nutmeg.”

About 8 servings

To look adequate in a silver punch bowl __ and to serve more friends __ you need two batches. Don’t just double the recipe. Make one batch, clean the utensils, then make a second.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Michael Savage famously called Liberalism a mental disorder, and he was absolutely correct; one cannot find sanity in a philosophy so convoluted and at odds with rationality or common sense. I would argue further that it is a violation of Nature and Nature's God, a system of thought that is anti-nature and anti-life.

The 1960's saw the back to the land movement among the hippie crowd, and the utopian Left denounced industrial civilization as an abomination and artificial, yet what exactly have they been doing? Let me explain.

What is Nature? Nature is the material world around us, and the natural is the obeisance of laws inherent in the material order. What do natural laws demand of us? Well, they push us to labor to survive, and to thrive. All creatures seek to survive and thrive, attempting to propagate their own kind and expand their own territory. This is, or should be, self-evident; anyone who lives in a house knows that bugs try to get in, as do rodents and other creatures, especially at the onset of winter when it gets uncomfortable outside. Why? Because they find in your house a place that is comfortably warm, has food, water, in short, the things they need and want to live and thrive and prosper. The bugs or rodents don't care that they didn't build the house, only that it suits their needs. In the end you wind up calling an exterminator to rid yourself of these nuisances.

See, nature is all about increasing your lifestyle. A mouse will prefer living in your walls to nesting outside in the cold and damp. That is because your walls are better constructed, and take less effort for the squatter tenant to utilize.

This is true of most creatures, I might add. Few actually enjoy discomfort. Man is nearly alone in finding some moral objection to comfort or wealth or increased living standards.

Most animals and plants seek to alter their environments to suite them. Plants did it first, changing the Earth's atmosphere from a largely anoxic brew of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor into the breathable air of today. They broke down the rocks and dust into soil, and helped to channel rivers and whatnot. We see this action today in places like Iceland where volcanoes create new land which is uninhabitable until lichens and mosses and whatnot break down the igneous rock into soil and grasses begin to grow. Eventually this rock in the sea becomes a true island and can be settled by animals, and eventually by Man.

Without the actions of living things the Earth would be more like Mars, rocky and dusty and barren.

And animals change their environment all the time. Anybody ever see a beaver pond? or a bear cave? I just found a huge hornet's nest on my cabin wall; some insects decided to change the environment and build their own home under the eaves of my cabin, to my sorrow. Mice and rats will chew up whatever is handy and pile it into a nest. And that is just a minor change; there are some creatures like locusts that will decimate the entire countryside. Bees, too, make profound changes to the environment by pollinating plants as they collect what they need.

Nature is all about building things. Yet the environmentalists tell us that Man is nothing but a destroyer, Shiva to the Natural World, rather than being a part of Nature.

There has been an anti-humanist streak in Liberalism for a long time, going back to the Romantic movement in the 19th century, certainly, and likely to the Enlightenment where a sort of worship of Nature became prevalent. There was the concept of the "Noble Savage" back in the 18th and early 19th century, the belief that it was better to be poor and unable to control one's environment than to be somehow "artificial". The early Liberals had some bizarre desire to be less comfortable, hungrier, colder, and more miserable. Why? It There has always been a strange estheticism in Man, and there have always been religious orders that emphasized poverty and discomfort. I don't understand it, but it is one of the quirks of human nature. I suspect it is a manifestation of psychological masochism, whereby the powerlessness of an individual over events is imbued with meaning by the person who sees his own lack of power. That is, you know you can't stop suffering so you embrace it to give the illusion of control. It's a weird quirk but it is present in most people to a degree. I suspect the Liberal embrace of Nature without embracing Nature's God led to this. It is very much the Sin of Adam and Eve insofar as they rejected the way God said it should be and placed themselves on the throne. Having done that they found themselves unhappy with being god (who wouldn't? It's a thankless job) and tried to restore that which was lost, but cannot because they reject the owner's manual.

So, by embracing Nature liberals have twisted and distorted it beyond all recognition, turning Man into a parasite on Nature rather than one of God's creatures acting according to the Divine Will.

Now, the environmentalists worship nature as god rather than as the medium in which they exist, and this new god is somehow transcendent insofar as Man is outside of it. Alienation, the motivating force for most liberals, comes from this purposeful divorce of the human from the natural world in which he lives. It is a bizarre situation; by embracing nature the liberal has divorced himself from her, and stands in horrible alienation.

Crazy, I know, but that is why liberalism is a mental disorder.

At any rate, the environmentalists seek to remove the hand of Man from nature because they think it somehow unnatural. They think that, say, a dusty desert is superior to a watered golf course, but most animals would disagree, and birds love to drop in on a well-watered lawn in Vegas or Death Valley or whatnot. See, THEY aren't crazy, and know a good thing when they see it. Man's control of nature is a boon to nonhuman species. Deer eat our gardens, so do rabbits. Many animals forage in dumpsters and whatnot. They know it's better to fill their bellies with our leftovers than to roam free in a pristine wilderness. A wilderness is a place for hunger and privation and want.

But the environmentalists have metastasized into a major force in human society, and they keep pushing to reduce our lives, to cut our power usage, to minimize our construction, to reduce our abilities to travel or to make things or to take steps to make life better for our poor. It is anti-life, a belief in the reversal of that which we have been doing all of our existence. From the moment we are born we seek to gain some measure of control over our environment, and over time we do. We benefit greatly from the control over our environment held by our parents and our neighbors, and children grow into adults who then bear that responsibility. But the environmentalists and indeed the Left want to reverse that.

Look, children used to die all the time in the "good old days" because we did not have adequate control of our environment. Couples would have ten kids hoping two would live. And often the mothers would die in childbirth, so a man \may have two or three wives in his life. That suffering stemmed entirely from a lack of proper control of the environment. Liberals want a return to that. Oh, they won't actually say that, focusing instead on cleanliness or health, but in the final analysis it comes down to that very thing.

Liberals are supporters of all manner of evils that are anti-natural. Abortion. Socialism, which provides plenty of poverty in the interest of "fairness". More people have died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, then under any system in history, and if you include Hitler, who was a leftist, you have quite a horrific tally. Liberals oppose cheap energy, meaning people are cold in winter and hot in summer. Pope Francis recently said air conditioning was a terrible blight on humanity. Huh? Air conditioning prevents people from dying from heat stroke, plus helps prevent mosquito-born illnesses. It is a wonderful invention, and something everyone should have. But Francis believes this Global Warming nonsense and so condemns it.

As Norman Rogers pointed out in an article at American Thinker:

"When Philip Kitcher said that some real pessimists think human extinction may be the result of failing to prevent global warming, a lady in the audience piped up with "they deserve it." One wonders why she didn't say, "We deserve it." Perhaps she views the Columbia community as separate from the human race."

And don't forget the vhemt.orgVoluntary Human Extinction Movement.. As I say, unnatural.

You have their support of unnatural practices. The modern liberal crusade is to normalize men who want to be women, and allowing them to use women’s bathrooms. This is a matter of insanity, yet they support this in the interest of "fairness”. Nature made them men, liberals told them they could be women. It is a usurpation of the godhead.

I could go on and on with the litany of evils the Left supports, but you get the gist; liberalism claims to be pro-human but it opposes the natural drive of humans to build, to create, to improve their lot in life. It is a philosophy that is anti-life and anti-natural. It is the true artifice.

Liberals even oppose the space program. If you go on liberal websites and read about, say, probes on Mars you will see a plethora of snarky comments about "now we're messing up a whole other planet" rather than cheering man's expansion of life to a dead, barren world. Liberals are all about pulling down, restricting, destroying. They hate the idea that we may build, create, expand. We have a number of planets or moons that can be settled by Man and by extension by other creatures from this world, and that should logically be a cause for rejoicing. Isn't it better to grown than to shrink, to live than to die? The Left says no. They are Shiva, the destroyer. In the end they are the ones who truly hate.

Michael Savage had no idea how correct he was when he called Liberalism a mental disorder. It is the child of the Marquis De Sade and Leopold Sacher Von Masoch. It is the warped, diseased view of anti-life.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1784 words, total size 11 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Temperatures are expected to plummet in jolly ole' England this weekend - as low as -5* C, we are given to understand from the U.K. Met Office.

Now the Met is a yuuugge purveyor of Global Warming alarmism, and we were told that cold weather was a thing of the past, a relic of the time before Man destroyed the biosphere with carbon dioxide (boo, sssss!) Yet here we are, barely into Decemner, and a nice freeze is forecast. Gee, it's as though there weren't any warming at all!

I suppose this freeze is caused by Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Global Climate Flatulence. If a guy stubs his toe it is usually ascribed to AGW.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp

The NY Post reports that:
http://nypost.com/2016/12/02/hgtv-responds-to-fixer-upper-same-sex-marriage-controversy/

HGTV is standing by the hosts of its popular home renovation series "Fixer Upper.”

The channel issued a response after BuzzFeed reported earlier this week that Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church whose pastor has spoken out against same-sex marriage, and raised the question of whether gay couples would be welcome on the show.

"We don’t discriminate against members of the LGBT community in any of our shows,” the network said in a statement to The Post. "HGTV is proud to have a crystal clear, consistent record of including people from all walks of life in its series.”

As the site reported, "Fixer Upper,” which recently returned for its fourth season, has never featured an LGBT couple, though other HGTV series like "House Hunters” and "Property Brothers” have.

BuzzFeed’s initial report centered on the Gaineses being members of the Antioch Community Church, "a nondenominational, evangelical, mission-based megachurch” whose pastor, Jimmy Seibert, has been an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage. The story did not specifically confirm that the HGTV hosts shared that belief, only that Seibert has described them as "dear friends.”

END OF QUOTE

The left media has attempted to take "A Bridge Too Far" in condemning people for attending a church that believes in...gasp...the teachings of New and Old TestamentsThe argument that BuzzFeed made was essentially a repudiation of the protections of the First Amendment, which is something a teenager with no basic knowledge fo the Constitution might make - or knowledge of the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Apparently BuzzFeed believes they can wipe those laws off the books merely by saying they aren't "cool" or "acceptable." This was an argument more fitting for Stalinist Russia in the 1930s than for America. Although this isn't the last of such attempts to discriminate against people who believe in the Bible and do not advocate any hate or discrimination themselves, at least BuzzFeed has failed to take the stars of "Fixer Upper" off of the air at HGTV.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

Paul Driessen

In his new article, my young Ugandan mentee Steven Lyazi makes a passionate appeal, asking that African and global leaders do much more to make fossil fuels and electricity available for poor families, nations and communities around the world. Only in that way, he convincingly argues, can the world’s poor improve their lives, living standards, health and life spans.

The world needs more energy!

Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us

Steven Lyazi

Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?

Of all these resources, energy is the most important. Nothing happens without energy.

For most of mankind’s history, human or animal muscle, wood and animal dung, water power, and plant or animal oil provided our energy. But the amount and quality of that energy was limited, and therefore what people could do was also limited.

Then, almost suddenly, people began using coal, and then oil, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power. Our abilities, and our dreams, began to reach for the heavens – at least in many countries. Sadly, many other countries lagged far behind, and many still do.

They are held back, condemned to continued energy poverty – and thus to real poverty and the diseases, malnutrition and desperation that go with that absence of modern energy. This is partly because many nations are governed by incompetent, corrupt leaders, who care only about enriching themselves, their families, and their close friends, allies and supporters.

But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.

They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.

And when they talk about renewable energy, they mean the very limited energy – and economic growth – that come from wind and solar power, or from growing crops for energy instead of to feed our hungry people. They even oppose hydroelectric power for poor nations.

They are rich and well fed, enjoying amazing homes and jobs and technologies in their modern countries. But they tell us poor Africans (and other people) that we must limit our energy and dreams to whatever can come from expensive, insufficient kinds of energies to serve our large and growing populations. This is greedy and selfish, the kind of attitude of people who only think of themselves.

Yes, they use renewable energy, but only a little. Almost all their energy still comes from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydro power. Only a tiny amount comes from wind, solar or biofuels – that they say should be our only sources of energy.

They have money and power, and they can influence what happens to us. But they are causing massive poverty, disease, starvation and death in third world countries.

I support clean energy and don’t want to see dangerous global warming. I agree that everyone should help ensure that we live in a clean environment. Everyone wants that, and to see their children and grandchildren living in a clean environment.

But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.

It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.

Maybe they are right, and humans are warming the earth or changing the climate – a little. But our weather and climate have always changed, and the world was even warmer during the dinosaur era than it is today, and much colder during the ice ages, with no human activities. Climate change has been going on for millions of years ago, but that doesn’t mean today’s changes are because of humans or will be disasters.

Environmental agencies and groups say the world is changing and try to tell us what to do to prevent these changes, which they say will all be bad. But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.

We’ve all been scared to death by horror movies, especially films that are just plausible enough to make us think it could happen. But when these movies (or computer models) are used to scare us away from fossil fuels, that is wrong and we should not be frightened.

What these rich country movie actors, politicians, regulators, scientists and activists forget is that our planet and environment have existed for millions of years, have changed over and over, and will continue to exist either with or without human interference. But we humans have to live here too.

Denying people their right to use fossil fuels is the worst thing someone can do to a fellow human. Western powers developed massively due to cheap fossil fuels and today live like kings. They have no right to deny their living standards to people in developing countries.

Who invented the terms "developing countries” or "third world countries” anyway”? All countries have been developing at some point. In fact, they are always still developing, all the time.

The only wrong interpretation is to say "third world countries” do not have a God-given right to use all their energy, minerals and other resources to develop themselves, and get rich, create good jobs for their people, end poverty and disease, and grow enough food to make everyone well fed and healthy.

In fact, here is a thought for all African leaders: A collective mindset supporting development will make Africa as great as any other region on earth. We all just need to unite around this idea.

The recent United States elections disappointed many people, but made many others happy. To me, they may be a very good thing. They might mean the new President Trump will be a good leader for the entire world. He might make more people question these claims that fossil fuels cause dangerous global warming – and encourage everyone to use more oil, gas and coal to improve our lives, until smart people someday discover different energy sources that really do work.

We all desire to be healthy and live better lives, just like people in developed countries. Yes, we have had greedy, selfish leaders in the past who might have contributed to our status today. But we can and must learn from our mistakes, and Mr. Trump wants to correct his and Mr. Obama’s mistakes.

African and other countries need abundant energy for economic growth. They need all kinds of energy, especially fossil fuels, to become modern and make people’s lives better.

Anyone who tries to prevent us from using these energy resources is denying us our right to improve our lives, and even our right to live, which is the most fundamental right of any human. That is wrong and immoral, and we will no longer tolerate it.

____________

Steven Lyazi is a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda. He served as special assistant to Congress of Racial Equality-Uganda director Cyril Boynes, until Mr. Boynes’ death in January 2015.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1331 words, total size 8 kb.

Wil Wirtanen

If it wasn’t for hypocrisy and lying, liberals/Democrats wouldn’t have a redeeming trait.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.