Dana Mathewson

Excellent. It seems that Leftist professors don't like it when their BS gets distributed outside the classroom. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Dennis exposes them here, deftly: https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/02/21/why-professors-object-to-being-recorded-n2288106?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

William Kay

Here is a new video discussing some largely unknown aspects of Pierre Elliot Trudeau's past and his connection to Canadian environmentalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIBCQUcrnk

The secret history of Pierre Trudeau. William Kay www.ecofascism.com Pierre Trudeau

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

This guy ain't a Christian. Sorry.

SD Bishop Calls on Catholics to Protest Trump: ‘We Must All Become Disrupters’
Breitbart News

https://apple.news/AYl_X85McNuyK9xsJtsgoOA

In a pointed speech this weekend, the bishop of San Diego attacked U.S. President Donald Trump, telling his audience of social justice warriors that they must disrupt his efforts to fulfill his campaign promises

A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP:

When his social justice warriors tell the Bishop that the Catholic Church has no right to a tax exemption and must perform gay marriages under penalty of jail and church closures, the SD Bishop will say, "What? Huh? What is going on?" as the police escort him out the door to either jail or his new cathedral (the govt. will seize the old one) now located in a strip mall next to a yarn goods store.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Interesting article from WND, sent by Friend Ken. Oh, the dangers of an out-of-control ego!

As I read it I couldn't help but think:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And
"Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/now-democrats-call-obama-shadow-government-the-devil/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp

Now that the Democrats want to talk about cozying up to the Russians...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
"On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Read the Rest!

A NOTE FROM OUR OLD FRIEND jUDSON pHILLIPS:

An oldie but goodie and the left does not want to talk about that or about the time John Kerry went to Paris, while still an officer in the United States Navy and gave aid and comfort to the NV and Viet Cong.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://theresurgent.com/mcmaster-pick-a-nightmare-for-russia/

By Brian Sikma | February 21, 2017, 05:30am | @briansikma

On Monday, President Donald Trump proved he’s not only capable of neutralizing a negative and potentially damaging narrative, but he’s also willing to make personnel changes that will force some of his loudest skeptics to reassess their criticism of his still-nascent administration.

To the casual observer, Trump’s pick of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster to be his national security adviser is merely the continuation of a theme. McMaster is replacing retired Gen. Mike Flynn who left the Administration last week after anonymous leaks and his own decision to withhold information about conversations he had with Russian officials proved to be a politically toxic mix.

In replacing Flynn, a retired general, with McMaster, a currently serving three-star Army officer, Trump is doing more than just surrounding himself with the credibility of military professionals. His pick signals a potentially important evolution in his administration’s outlook on the world, the threats posed by various potential adversaries, and America’s response to both diplomatic and military challenges.

McMaster is now the fourth general officer to serve in the Trump administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis rose to the highest ranks of military leadership while earning a reputation as a tough-talking, deep-thinking Marine Corps officer who was simultaneously comfortable debating academics and inspiring young grunts. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly is also a retired Marine general.

But while Mattis and Kelly have appeared to be natural fits in their respective jobs, with Trump arguing on the campaign trail for both increased defense spending (something Mattis has echoed) and tougher border security (a position shared by Kelly), McMaster is not so easily identified with a specific Trump policy aim.

In fact, if Flynn got into trouble for being too cozy with Russia, McMaster is the anti-Flynn.
READ THE REST.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Brian Birdnow

Trump selected H.R. McMaster as the new National Security Adviser. This is his best pick yet, there could not be a better one! McMaster is one of our kind of people. The liberals are going to howl on this one!!!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Getting thirsty just thinking about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/02/17/kentucky-house-panel-approves-bill-to-let-bars-restaurants-buy-vintage-bourbon.html.

Collectors no longer need to hold onto their liquor.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I'd like some ruling, perhaps, on just what doctors can and can't do with the information. But this idea that you "can easily find another doctor" is BS.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/19/florida-doctors-can-ask-patients-about-guns-court-rules.html

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Florida doctors can talk to patients about gun safety, declaring a law aimed at restricting such discussions a violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp forwards this:

Dozens of illegals fired for skipping work on ‘Day without immigrants’

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 7 kb.

Jack Kemp

You can't make this stuff up...

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/more-paint-and-less-hate-change-org-petition-calls-for-end-to-black-targets-at-shooting-ranges/

‘More paint and less hate’: Online petition calls for end to ‘black targets’ at shooting ranges

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A quick thought on the "Shadow Government" business and the attack on Mike Flynn. It seems likely that the leaker to the news outlets is inside one of the national security organizations. Well, who comprises these organizations these days?

Millenials, that's who. The computer age has made computer skills absolutely necessary to these agencies and no older person is really qualified to use the machines, not in the way the young are, who don't just use them (as I do) but who become almost a part of them, an extension of the machine. I learned to use computers as an adult (well, in college) and my skills are limited. There are better people in this world who did what I did, but the young grow up using them and the Millenials are the working-age demographic most capable of handling modern technology.

But the Millenials are also the least educated generation. They are great with gadgets but know little beyond them, and their education has been largely at the hands of liberal teachers and professors who emphasized multiculturalism, social justice, and the other leftist nonsense that has come to dominate education since 1990. So, we have placed our safety in the hands of a generation steeped in political correctness, in alienation and anomie, in materialism and a belief that national borders are so passe', so 20th century.

These are the rank and file in the modern national security apparatus. We do not have tests for political or social or religious beliefs or opinions when we hire, but merely we test for competence and check the general background. We don't know who or what we are getting in these positions. If, say, the NSA needs a data analyst they hire some Millenial with a van dyke and a stocking cap and sandals. See, he's really good with computers! But he may have no common sense and no real feeling for his country. He probably has been raised as a privileged child, hanging out in his parent's basement playing video games and hacking websites. He's a great technician, but is that all there is to it?

No. I suspect many of the people working in our national security agencies are only loyal out of a desire to keep their jobs. If they think they can get away with leaking someting damaging to a President they don't agree with they will do it.

It is an impossible situation; we need the best at computers and the new technology, but the best at that are perhaps the worst in other ways. We are putting social justice warriors in hipster vglasses in sensitive positiions and then wondering why this is producing problems.

I watched the movie Snowden the other day. Of course it's vintage Oliver Stone paranoia, but it got me to thinking; Snowden was where he was because of his extraordinary computer abilities, nothing else. He had a GED, after all. Had it been me, I would have been told to not darken their doorway when I applied for a job at the CIA, but Snowden's grandfather had been a Rear Admiral in the Coast Guard (which got him some doors opened) and his ability with computers made them overlook some of his failings. Whatever one thinks of Snowden or what he did it can well be argued that he was not really mature enough to hold so sensitive a position. Even if Mr. Snowden himself was I doubt many of his associates there were.

(For the record, I tend to support Snowden, as there is a moral issue involved, one that transcends a signed oath of nondisclosure. But it was not to be broken lightly. I don't know if Snowden did break it lightly or not, but ultimately it is immaterial to the events that transpired I know many good conservatives bitterly disagree, seeing him as a traitor. And they are right to do so, becdause you can't let classified information out like that, even in a good cause because those who aren't engaged in a good cause will have a justification for leaking; see what happened in this Mike Flynn affair.)

In bygone days the world was run by older men. While this may have led to a certain ossifycation, it had a real purpose, because the young are quick to re-invent the wheel, and usually crash the car on the wheels that have already been found wanting. Young people had to be tempered by time and trial and eventually would become worthy of running things. No more; the technical revolution has placed them in the big chairs, and those with maturity and the wisdom of age are cast aside as relics. As William F. Nolan said in his novel "Logan's Run" the young use, they do not really create. That was the upshot of the whole novel, and it is well worth reading. (Do not watch the movie except for mild entertainment as it was nowhere near the quality or content of the book.)

Logan's Run is about a civilization ruled by young people where you are euthanized on your 21st birthday to control the population. Logan, a "sandman" or hunter of those who sought to avoid the grim reaper, came to believe (in his quest to destroy the fabled "sanctuary" where "runners" could be free) that his society was dying because there weren't any older, mature people. It's a great novel and well worth reading if you have the time.

At any rate that is the problem in the CIA, NSA, and other agencies; there are too many youths in those places, with too little respect for the culture and institutions of America.

This will only get worse over time.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 960 words, total size 6 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I found this on the Townhall site this morning and am excerpting it. Actually, I'm including only the comments in the article from its author, Christine Rousselle. She has including the Tweet announcing the event, and I swear the Tweet is not satire, though you may find it hard to believe.

"A little more than a week ago, the organizers of the Women's March on Washington announced an upcoming strike for women. Now, the date has been announced: "A Day Without A Woman" strike will take place on March 8, which is also International Women's Day."

[...]

"...Does anyone really need to be reminded of the importance of women? I mean, none of us would exist without them. This whole "general strike" seems absolutely ridiculous. This will continue to build resentment rather than build bridges and attempt to heal the divide in the nation. There's no need to have a "general strike"--people on the left who don't support President Trump should shift their efforts to winning "general elections" instead."

Short and sweet. Just what is this going to accomplish, other than give a bunch of unemployed, pissed-off women something to do other than sit around, drink chardonnay (or Diet Coke) and eat Cheetos? And yell obscenities at each other, because nobody else is listening to them, of course.

The entire article, including the all-important Tweet, is here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/02/16/date-announced-for-the-a-day-without-a-woman-strike-n2286931?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Daren Jonescu

The National Football League has officially put the State of Texas on notice: if that state persists in denying men with peculiar sexual proclivities access to public rooms full of young girls with their pants down, then Texas may be denied the privilege of hosting any more Super Bowls.

To be precise, as you probably know, Texas lawmakers are proposing a law similar to North Carolina's, restricting access to public bathrooms and changing rooms to people of the actual biological sex for which those facilities were designed. In response to this brazen challenge to the progressive denial of common sense, the NFL has issued a statement, as described by CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-warns-texas-over-bathroom-bill-no-super-bowl-for-you/

The NFL sharpened its warning to Texas on Friday about a "bathroom bill" targeting transgender people, suggesting for the first time that the football-crazed state could miss out on hosting another Super Bowl if the proposal is enacted.

"If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events," league spokesman Brian McCarthy said in response to an email question about the Texas bill.

end excerpt.

So Texas is "targeting" (very objective reporting!) transgender people by suggesting that only biological females should use bathrooms designed for biological females. Why is this controversial? Because it is "inconsistent with [the NFL's] values." Really? And when was this great table of NFL values etched in stone? Would the NFL have taken up this issue as a matter of principle at any time prior to, say, five years ago? A decade or two ago, the idea of the NFL as a public defender of transgenderism -- insofar as anyone would have known what that was -- would have been the premise of a comedy sketch. Furthermore, no mainstream comedy troupe would have hesitated to perform that sketch, whereas today, of course, the concept would violate "SNL values," or whatever.

That is to say, the NFL itself, if looked at over a ten-year period, is inconsistent with "NFL values." These supposed values, in other words, are no deeply held moral position; they are nothing but another corporate entity's kowtowing obeisance to the radical progressive zeitgeist. Transgenderism in general, and transgender bathroom access in particular, are (ersatz) issues that were on almost no American's radar just a few years ago, but which are now suddenly, supposedly, so clear cut and unambiguous that anyone who has not immediately embraced the one and only correct side of the issue deserves public shaming, boycotting, punishment.

A notion we laughed at when the very liberal Monty Python troupe joked about it in 1979 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA is now an absolute truth -- an unquestionable "value" -- the denial of which warrants a public stoning. And no less than the most popular sports organization in America, the NFL (Nothing but Frilly Lingerie?) has joined the battle as a defender of the "right" of men who wear dresses to use the same bathroom as your daughter.

Yes, that's right, football -- the domain of manly violence, steroid-enraged tough guys, O.J. Simpson, and the most gruesomely infamous case of sports-related serial pedophilia in our time -- has taken to dictating sexual ethics to the citizens of America. Do the sport's kingpins suspect they have a few more skeletons in their closet, and hope to get ahead of the curve by normalizing men invading girls' bathrooms before it becomes another awkward scandal for them?

In any case, my real question about all of this holier than thou humanism from the NFL is this: How many Americans are prepared to give up watching football in order to take a stand against corporate bullying?

For years, various institutions of mainstream America have actively contributed to the progressive avalanche burying conservatives, religious people, and in general all those obsolete men and women collectively dubbed "traditional Americans." From the corporate world to Hollywood (i.e., the corporate world in designer gowns), and from the educational establishment http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/public_education_progressivisms_unbeatable_advantage.html to the music industry (i.e., the corporate world with no clothes), ordinary decency, piety, privacy, and self-reliance are continually under threat of moral condemnation and social shunning.

From Google and Facebook to the NBA and the NCAA, prominent fixtures of everyday American life have declared themselves opposed on principle to any tenet from the Bible that cannot be recast in secular, neo-Marxist terms; to any use of language not approved by the Frankfurt School descendants who regulate public education and public discourse; to any attitude about race or sex that falls short of the very latest leftist consensus on historical revisionism and affirmative action (what is "affirmed" by the act of societal self-flagellation, by the way?); and to any attempt to preserve a common sense view of human nature against the onslaught of politically correct doublethink that is intended, both in high-flown theory and in thuggish practice, to wipe common sense and nature off the face of the Earth forever.

Conservatives tend to get all riled up about these outrages within their own echo chamber, but many do next to nothing to combat them in practice. "After all," they tell each other by way of mutual support, "what are we supposed to do? Give up watching sports?"

Imagine that: Giving up a transient pleasure for the sake of a principle -- who woulda thunk it!

Remember, this is not a simple case of political disagreement, where boycotting one's rival might seem tantamount to condemning pluralism per se. No one is suggesting you stop visiting your sister's house for Thanksgiving because she votes Democrat, or even that you stop eating at your favorite fast food restaurant because its CEO supported Hillary Clinton. We are not talking about simple disagreement, but rather a concerted effort to silence you, to exclude you from normal society until you agree to conform, and ultimately to delete you and your unacceptable views from the social and intellectual landscape altogether. It is the progressives, such as the NFL, who are refusing to break bread with those who disagree with them.

Your country's noblest traditions and philosophical foundations are being eroded by what amounts to an organized national defamation campaign. You are being publicly branded an immoral holdout from a reactionary past, a racist, sexist, phobic obstacle to equal rights and human dignity. The NFL, an entertainment group which exists entirely at the mercy of your patronage, has officially designated you an enemy of freedom and tolerance -- "tolerance" being today's euphemism for progressivism's absolute intolerance of the West's moral, religious, and political traditions. So sure are these corporate entertainment moguls that you need them more than they need you that they have no reservation about insulting you to your face by threatening your elected representatives with reprisals, effectively taunting you: "What are you going to do about it?"

If it isn't high time for American conservatives, constitutionalists, patriots, to forego a pleasure for the sake of a principle, then I don't know when that time would be. This is a simple test of the resolve of people who claim they "want their country back." Saying, "I won't watch another Meryl Streep or Ashley Judd movie" is no great stand for people who might never have seen one in the first place, and certainly wouldn't lose anything by so depriving themselves. Giving up football might actually hurt a little for a lot of American conservatives, including many Texans -- but doesn't giving up freedom hurt a lot more?

The NFL is using its presumed social indispensability as leverage to twist the arm of a state's politicians to comply with its "values," i.e., with the politically correct agenda to which the league has sold itself, probably in exchange for being left alone by the progressive establishment that has long demonized football for its "war-like" nature. The surest way to shut them up is to shut them down -- turn off the TV, stop buying tickets, tell them where they can stick their Super Bowl.

If "traditional Americans" can't give up football -- mere entertainment -- as a more-than-symbolic stand in defense of their liberty, their moral traditions, and their daughters' safety, then how can they be expected to show the fortitude required to win the multigenerational culture war that looms?

The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, fortunes, and honor to one another and to their cause, risking far more than their immediate pleasures in search of their dream of a free republic. Now, many of the most prominent beneficiaries of their courage, and the courage of many subsequent generations of warriors, have banded together in a brotherhood of decline, vowing to undermine the family, civility, and private conscience -- necessary conditions for the survival of the republic as conceived -- in favor of a dream of the void: "progress" into a moral and intellectual dissipation that serves only the interests of an entrenched establishment, such establishments always benefiting most from a population drained of higher purpose and spiritual strength.

The NFL, at this moment, is serving as the progressive death cult's canary in the coal mine. If a year without football proves to be a higher price than Texans, and all Americans, are willing to pay for the sake of their children, their reason, and their right to say "two plus two equals four," with or without the Super Bowl, then what hope is left for a nation that, more than any other, rises or falls on the character of its private citizens?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1587 words, total size 10 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A simple thought; when Edward Snowdsen spilled the beans on spying on the U.S. public by America's intelligence agencies, most Democrats were all for throwing the book at him.

that 4 out of 5 Democratic candidates supported severe penalties for the whistle blowing NSA contractor, for example.

According to the article:

But perhaps the most interesting discussion of privacy and surveillance came next, when Anderson followed up talk of the NSA with its most famed whistleblower. The moderator took the opportunity to ask every candidate whether Edward Snowden was a traitor or a hero. And despite whatever prior rhetoric came up against NSA surveillance, the overwhelming majority of the stage fell in line with the current White House position on the matter.

COOPER: Governor Chafee, Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?

CHAFEE: No, I would bring him home. The courts have ruled that what he did—what he did was say the American...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Bring him home, no jail time?

CHAFEE: ... the American government was acting illegally. That's what the federal courts have said; what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment. So I would bring him home.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?

CLINTON: He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.

COOPER: Should he do jail time?

ClINTON: In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don't think he should be brought home without facing the music.

COOPER: Governor [Martin] O'Malley, Snowden?

(APPLAUSE)

O'MALLEY: Anderson, Snowden put a lot of Americans' lives at risk. Snowden broke the law. Whistleblowers do not run to Russia and try to get protection from Putin. If he really believes that, he should be back here.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, Edward Snowden?

SANDERS: I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined.

COOPER: Is he a hero?

SANDERS: He did—he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that. But I think what he did in educating us should be taken into consideration before he is (inaudible).

COOPER: Senator [Jim] Webb, Edward Snowden?

WEBB: I—well, I—I would leave his ultimate judgment to the legal system. Here's what I do believe. We have a serious problem in terms of the collection of personal information in this country. And one of the things that I did during the FISA bill in 2007, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was introduce with Russ Feingold two amendments basically saying, "We understand the realities of how you have to collect this broad information in the Internet age, but after a certain period of time, you need to destroy the personal information that you have if people have not been brought—if criminal justice proceedings have not been brought against them."

We've got a vast data bank of information that is ripe for people with bad intentions to be able to use. And they need to be destroyed.

End excerpt.

And nearly 38% of Democrats polled thought Mr. Snowden should not be pardoned, according to The Hill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also sought to hold Snowden to strict account.

"But a leading Democrat, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, took an opposing view. "I disagree with Rand Paul that we should plea-bargain with him prior to him coming back,” he said.

The senator appeared after Paul on the ABC program, where both men were asked about a New York Times editorial about Snowden that cited "the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed,” and suggested that the United States offer Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency."

End excerpt.

Hillary Clinton too called for strict accountability for Snowden.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/clinton-sanders-snowden-nsa-democratic-debate

So where are the cries by Democrats to hold the natioanl Security ooperatives who have been leaking damaging rumors about Michael Flynn and other Trump people accountable? The silence is deafening.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 737 words, total size 5 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Here is an interesting bit of science; a huge pool of carbonate melt in the Earth's upper mantle shows that there is a massive amount of subterranean carbon.

According to the article:

"Scientists using the world's largest array of seismic sensors found a huge area of melting carbon covering 1.8 million km2 (684 000 mi2), 350 km (217.5 miles) beneath the Western US. The discovery challenges accepted the understanding of how much carbon the Earth contains and suggests it is much more than previously understood."

[...]


"Under the western US is a huge underground partially-molten reservoir of liquid carbonate. It is a result of one of the tectonic plates of the Pacific Ocean forced underneath the western USA, undergoing partial melting thanks to gasses like CO2 and H2O contained in the minerals dissolved in it.”

As a result of this study, scientists now understand the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s upper mantle may be up to 100 trillion metric tons. In comparison, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates the global carbon emission in 2011 was nearly 10 billion metric tons – a tiny amount in comparison. The deep carbon reservoir discovered by Dr. Hier-Majumder will eventually make its way to the surface through volcanic eruptions, and contribute to climate change albeit very slowly."

End excerpts.

We really shouldn't be surprised; carbon is ubiquitous in the solar system, and a casual study of Venus (a planet similar to our own in some ways) shows massive amounts of carbon is trappped underground (and in the Venusian atmosphere). The differences between Earth and Venus can be studied to better understand both planets and why Earth is so hospitable and Venus, well, is worse than Detroit.

The paper's abstract goes on to say that this region of partial melt is a result of volatiles acting on the sequestered carbon.

Which leads us to the obvious question; how much carbon in the Earth's atmosphere is a result of volcanic release and outgassing as opposed to human industrial emissions? Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 2 to four molecules per every ten thousand molecules of air; a trace amount) has been assumed to be a result of industrial emissions, but is it really? Is it possible that we have been grossly underestimating the amounts of carbon dioxide being released from inside the Earth?

But, but, but, why is it INCREASING? Surely that is caused by industrial emissions!

Perhaps, but perhaps it has to do with changing planetary conditions. Look, the Earth doesn't sit still. It rotates, and orbits the Sun. It is constantly in different aspects to other gravitational bodies (like Jupiter). It wobbles in different ways - the yearly wobble gives us seasons, and the longer term wobbles give us Milankovich Cycles, which govern the comings and goings of ice ages and the like. We only understand what any of these cycles do on the Earth's surface, but have never really had a way to study the planet's interior. I suspect Milankovich Cycles change the planet's interior in many and varied ways.

And let us not forget magnetic effects. We are only now coming to understand the role of magnetism in the solar system, and there is evidence the planets are all subject to magnetic effects. Those effects seem to be quite powerful, sometimes far more than one would expect from a straightforward look at the overall system.

The Earth's magnetic field is currently in the process of shifting it's poles. It has grown quite feeble in recent years and many scientists think a shift is immanent. That would mean magnetic north would be in Antarctica and magnetic south somewhere in the Arctic. Why is it changing now?

Who knows; it could tie in with magnetic fields emitted by the Sun. But one thing is certain; if the poles are shifting in polarity there is bound to be some stirring up of the interior of the planet. And such stirring will mean more outgassing, just as food in a pot outgasses water vapor when stirred. One wonders if this big pool of subterranean carbon fondue is indicative of an increase in outgassing.

The fact is, we don't really know. Although the science establishment wants us to believe they know these things, the reality is most of their estimates on planetary outgassing and the like are statistical in nature, based on computer models. Nobody actually measures this stuff. They can't; the world is too big. So they assume things based on what they have measured, and work with theoretical models to adjust it as they think necessary. If the models are wrong then the final product is wrong; garbage in, garbage out.

So we really don't know WHY atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing. I would further say we really don't know how much it is at all; in the U.S. it is determined almost entirely by testing the air at Mauna Kea observatory, which sits on the edge of an active volcanoe. There are also satellite imaging, and some other, lesser known sources, but one wonders if we are getting a true picture of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Perhaps more of it is outgassing than we thought. Clearly there is more carbon in the Earth than we believed.

Another point to ponder here; as Thomas Lifson points out at American Thinker, this discovery buttresses the Russian theory that oil is abiotic and not a "fossil fuel" at all. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/warmists_convert_a_stunning_scientific_discovery_into_a_sign_of_looming_armageddon.html

That will mean there will never be peak oil, or not until the Earth is mined to the point that we can dismantle the planet. Of course, we wouldn't want to use that much oil, because it would indeed over pollute the atmosphere, but we are far, far from that. It is unquestionable that by the time we would reach such a point we will either be technologically beyond oil or in civilizational collapse, so what the heck!

In conclusion, I have to point out that the Earth has been around a long, long time and atmospheric carbon dioxide has been much higher and during periods much colder than now. There really is no proof of global warming save in computer models, models that lack flexibility. Arrhenius was right about the basics of this, but calculations for one system ofemsten do not work for another. Shoot, scientists have been trying for decades to unify the four fundamental forces of nature, with only minor success. You can't simply swap systems.

Planets are not finished products but work in progress. We need to understand that simple fact.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1101 words, total size 7 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Pat Buchanan nails it again. We survived this kind of thing once. Not sure about it this time around.

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2017/02/14/is-the-left-playing-with-fire-again-n2285515?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

See our website at: www.danamarthamusic.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp

Well, now NFL blacks are experts on Middle Eastern politics - as long as it is against the Jews...
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/jay-maxson/2017/02/13/spurred-1960s-radicals-nfl-players-boycotting-israel-trip
Spurred on by 1960s Radicals, NFL Players Boycotting Israel Trip
By Jay Maxson | February 13, 2017 | 8:26 AM EST

With the Super Bowl done and gone, it’s going to be a long offseason for pro football fans. For a growing, vocal and unhappy band of leftist brothers, the offseason can’t last long enough.
Now some NFL players are linking arms with Palestinians in opposition to Israel. All these activists ought to make it official and form a political action committee.
Over the weekend, ESPN.com News Services reported:

Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett has withdrawn from a group of NFL players planning to visit Israel next week.
Writing about his decision in posts on Twitter and Instagram on Friday night, Bennett said he was concerned that the goodwill tour, which is sponsored by the Israeli government, would be viewed as showing preference to Israel over Palestine.

Bennett, the brother of the New England Patriots’ Martellus Bennett, who is boycotting the team’s visit to President Trump at the White House, wrote:

Dear World,
I was scheduled to make a visit to Israel with fellow NFL players. I was excited to see this remarkable and historic part of the world with my own eyes. I was not aware, until reading this article about the trip in the Times of Israel, that my itinerary was being constructed by the Israeli government for the purposes of making me, in the words of a government official, an "influencer and opinion-former” who would then be "an ambassador of good will,” I will not be used in such a manner. When I do go to Israel – and I do plan to go – it will be to see not only Israel but also the West Bank and Gaza so I can see how the Palestinians, who have called this land home for thousands of years, live their lives.
One of my heroes has always been Muhammed Ali. I know that Ali always stood strongly with the Palestinian people, visiting refugee camps, going to rallies, and always willing to be a "voice for the voiceless.” I want to be a "voice for the voiceless,” and I cannot do that by going on this kind of a trip to Israel.
I know that this will anger some people and inspire others. But please know that I did this not for you, but to be in accord with my own values and my own conscience. Like 1968 Olympian John Carlos always says, "There is no partial commitment to justice. You are either in or you’re out.” Well, I’m in.
Sincerely,
Michael Bennett

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Excellent political analysis.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/10/why-the-resistance-wont-be-the-new-tea-party/

Think of it this way. The most successful conservative Democrat in American politics right now is: Donald J. Trump—the very man the "Resistance” was formed to resist....

Yes, and the previous most successful conservative Democrat was Ronald Reagan who beat a faux conservative Democrat, Jimmy Carter before trouncing a big spending lib, Walter "I'm gonna raise your taxes" Mondale.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.