March 13, 2017
Gang Green Tries to Rewrite Ocean Temperature Data
Timothy Birdnow
It just doesn't stop. Despite no evidence of planetary warming in 20 years the purveyors of Global Warming alarmism continue to push the meme that Earth is warming - and keep playing games with the historical record and with temperature data. Here is the latest such attempt.
From the article in Physorg:
"The oceans may be storing 13 percent more heat than previously estimated, according to a new study co-authored by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The finding, published in the journal Science Advances, is based on a new analysis of how ocean temperatures have changed since 1960. The research team, led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, compared their results to estimates published in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013.
"In other words, the planet is warming quite a lot more than we thought," said NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a study co-author."
End excerpt.
Ah, now we are finding a familiar name; Kevin Trenberth featured quite prominently in the CRU e-mail scandals.
Back in 2009 Trenberth admitted in a hacked e-mail:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
And he has been feverishly trying to prove the missing heat has gone into the deep oceans - despite there being no theory whatsoever to explain how heat moves DOWNWARD into an increasingly dense ocean. Anybody who has seen a hot air balloon fly knows that heat rises and cold sinks.
And Trenberth ignores the fact that the number of Argo probes - floating buoys designed to measure ocean temperatures - has been systematically reduced over the last decade.
Well, actually Trenberth knows it, and has an answer. From the Physorg article:
"The finding, published in the journal Science Advances, is based on a new analysis of how ocean temperatures have changed since 1960. The research team, led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, compared their results to estimates published in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013.
"In other words, the planet is warming quite a lot more than we thought," said NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a study co-author.
The vast majority of excess heat trapped on Earth by greenhouse gas emissions—about 90 percent—is stored in the oceans, but measuring how the heat content of the oceans has changed over time has been a challenge due to sparse observations.
Historically, the temperature of ocean waters was measured by a variety of ships, but this limited observations to areas where ships traveled. In more recent decades, measurements of ocean heat have increased, thanks to new observational techniques. In 2000, scientists began deploying a network of thousands of floats called Argo to profile conditions in the top layer of the ocean extending down 2,000 meters (6,562 feet). Argo achieved near global coverage in 2005, though some remote regions are still not sampled.
To fill the large gaps in the historical ocean temperature record, the research team used a combination of statistical techniques and model output to determine how useful a single observation can be for inferring information about the surrounding area, as well as how the temperatures in different parts of the world's oceans relate to one another. They found that, in most regions, a single ocean observation could provide valuable information about conditions as far as 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) away.
To check if they were correct, they used Argo observations. At first, they chose data from only a small number of floats in the network to mimic the scarcity of observations that would have been available in the mid-20th century. Then they used their new technique to create an entire ocean temperature map based on those few observations. When they checked their map against the full complement of Argo observations, they found that their reconstruction tracked closely with reality.
"The results were remarkable," Trenberth said. "They give us much more confidence about what the ocean heat content was, stretching back to the late 1950s."
End excerpt.
So his answer to the problem of decreasing actual physical measurements is to, well, guess. Since he thinks the heat is there he is simply going to extrapolate any data that makes this case. And they use these results to REWRITE HISTORICAL DATA thus furthering their meme.
We have always been at war with Eastasia!
If a corporation did this there would be indictments and jail sentences; you would be guilty of attempting to swindle investors. But a government-funded scientist is held to a different standard.
Look at it this way; suppose instead of actually counting votes in every precinct in the last election we simply took samples from big cities and extrapolated it. The result? Madam President. The reality is that you can't do what this group is trying to do, because it is inaccurate. Actually, what Ternberth and co. are doing is worse; trying to change previous elections based on a statistical sampling from the last sample. They are taking a few "votes" and saying "this is how everybody voted and always have". It's not just unscientific but ridiculous.
Of course, they couch it in statistical terms, but in the end a rose by another name is still a rose - and a cowpie still stinks.
And let us remember that Kevin Trenberth was one of the driving forces in a letter sent to Barack Obama asking him to use RICO statutes to silence Global Warming critics. He is hardly an unbiased seeker after Truth.
In fact, this is no doubt little more than advocacy couched as science, and the science journals like Physorg fall right in line with it. The fundamental principle in Science is doubt, not Belief. This issue has become a matter of Faith.
It just doesn't stop. Despite no evidence of planetary warming in 20 years the purveyors of Global Warming alarmism continue to push the meme that Earth is warming - and keep playing games with the historical record and with temperature data. Here is the latest such attempt.
From the article in Physorg:
"The oceans may be storing 13 percent more heat than previously estimated, according to a new study co-authored by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The finding, published in the journal Science Advances, is based on a new analysis of how ocean temperatures have changed since 1960. The research team, led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, compared their results to estimates published in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013.
"In other words, the planet is warming quite a lot more than we thought," said NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a study co-author."
End excerpt.
Ah, now we are finding a familiar name; Kevin Trenberth featured quite prominently in the CRU e-mail scandals.
Back in 2009 Trenberth admitted in a hacked e-mail:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
And he has been feverishly trying to prove the missing heat has gone into the deep oceans - despite there being no theory whatsoever to explain how heat moves DOWNWARD into an increasingly dense ocean. Anybody who has seen a hot air balloon fly knows that heat rises and cold sinks.
And Trenberth ignores the fact that the number of Argo probes - floating buoys designed to measure ocean temperatures - has been systematically reduced over the last decade.
Well, actually Trenberth knows it, and has an answer. From the Physorg article:
"The finding, published in the journal Science Advances, is based on a new analysis of how ocean temperatures have changed since 1960. The research team, led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, compared their results to estimates published in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013.
"In other words, the planet is warming quite a lot more than we thought," said NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a study co-author.
The vast majority of excess heat trapped on Earth by greenhouse gas emissions—about 90 percent—is stored in the oceans, but measuring how the heat content of the oceans has changed over time has been a challenge due to sparse observations.
Historically, the temperature of ocean waters was measured by a variety of ships, but this limited observations to areas where ships traveled. In more recent decades, measurements of ocean heat have increased, thanks to new observational techniques. In 2000, scientists began deploying a network of thousands of floats called Argo to profile conditions in the top layer of the ocean extending down 2,000 meters (6,562 feet). Argo achieved near global coverage in 2005, though some remote regions are still not sampled.
To fill the large gaps in the historical ocean temperature record, the research team used a combination of statistical techniques and model output to determine how useful a single observation can be for inferring information about the surrounding area, as well as how the temperatures in different parts of the world's oceans relate to one another. They found that, in most regions, a single ocean observation could provide valuable information about conditions as far as 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) away.
To check if they were correct, they used Argo observations. At first, they chose data from only a small number of floats in the network to mimic the scarcity of observations that would have been available in the mid-20th century. Then they used their new technique to create an entire ocean temperature map based on those few observations. When they checked their map against the full complement of Argo observations, they found that their reconstruction tracked closely with reality.
"The results were remarkable," Trenberth said. "They give us much more confidence about what the ocean heat content was, stretching back to the late 1950s."
End excerpt.
So his answer to the problem of decreasing actual physical measurements is to, well, guess. Since he thinks the heat is there he is simply going to extrapolate any data that makes this case. And they use these results to REWRITE HISTORICAL DATA thus furthering their meme.
We have always been at war with Eastasia!
If a corporation did this there would be indictments and jail sentences; you would be guilty of attempting to swindle investors. But a government-funded scientist is held to a different standard.
Look at it this way; suppose instead of actually counting votes in every precinct in the last election we simply took samples from big cities and extrapolated it. The result? Madam President. The reality is that you can't do what this group is trying to do, because it is inaccurate. Actually, what Ternberth and co. are doing is worse; trying to change previous elections based on a statistical sampling from the last sample. They are taking a few "votes" and saying "this is how everybody voted and always have". It's not just unscientific but ridiculous.
Of course, they couch it in statistical terms, but in the end a rose by another name is still a rose - and a cowpie still stinks.
And let us remember that Kevin Trenberth was one of the driving forces in a letter sent to Barack Obama asking him to use RICO statutes to silence Global Warming critics. He is hardly an unbiased seeker after Truth.
In fact, this is no doubt little more than advocacy couched as science, and the science journals like Physorg fall right in line with it. The fundamental principle in Science is doubt, not Belief. This issue has become a matter of Faith.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:57 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1014 words, total size 7 kb.
Anotheer Warmist talking point goes POOF
Dana Mathewson
I know it's "settled science" (NOT). But we still chat about it when we can.
Here's some interesting news: It’s been a staple of Globalwarmism that rising temperatures risk mass species extinction, but what appears to be going extinct at a rapid rate are warmist cliches. One of them is that the mass extinction of the Permian-Triassic era 250 million years ago was caused by global warming. Except, as reported by Emily Litella yesterday in Science Daily, it was the sudden ice age before the warming period that is responsible for the extinction:
Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course of its history. One of the most important happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary 250 million years ago. Over 95% of marine species disappeared and, up until now, scientists have linked this extinction to a significant rise in Earth temperatures. But researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, working alongside the University of Zurich, discovered that this extinction took place during a short ice age which preceded the global climate warming. (Emphasis in the article)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/another-warmist-talking-point-goes-poof.php
Read that link for Science Daily too!
I know it's "settled science" (NOT). But we still chat about it when we can.
Here's some interesting news: It’s been a staple of Globalwarmism that rising temperatures risk mass species extinction, but what appears to be going extinct at a rapid rate are warmist cliches. One of them is that the mass extinction of the Permian-Triassic era 250 million years ago was caused by global warming. Except, as reported by Emily Litella yesterday in Science Daily, it was the sudden ice age before the warming period that is responsible for the extinction:
Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course of its history. One of the most important happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary 250 million years ago. Over 95% of marine species disappeared and, up until now, scientists have linked this extinction to a significant rise in Earth temperatures. But researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, working alongside the University of Zurich, discovered that this extinction took place during a short ice age which preceded the global climate warming. (Emphasis in the article)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/another-warmist-talking-point-goes-poof.php
Read that link for Science Daily too!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.
Those “devastating†EPA reductions
Paul Driessen
President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are seeking significant reductions in Environmental Protection Agency programs, personnel and budgets. Their proposal is generating predictable howls from the professional progressive outrage community. However, they are absolutely essential if we are to get EPA under control and back to its original mission – and get the American economy and job-creating machine working again.
My article this week lays out the details
Those "devastating†EPA reductions
Budget and personnel cuts reflect environmental progress and essential regulatory reforms
Paul Driessen
The Trump White House wants significant reductions at the Environmental Protection Agency: two dozen or more programs, including a dozen dealing with President Obama’s climate initiatives; a 20% downsizing in EPA’s 15,000-person workforce; and a one-fourth reduction in its $8.1 billion budget.
The plan requires congressional approval, and thus is hardly a "done deal.†Not surprisingly, it is generating howls of outrage. Former U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says the proposal would be "crippling,†and "devastating for the agency's ability to protect public health.â€
One employee resigned because the cuts would prevent him from serving "environmental justice†and "vulnerable communities.†A congressman claimed EPA is "already operating at 1989 staffing levels,†and the reductions could mean "cutting the meat and muscle with the fat.â€
A deep breath and objective assessment are in order.
1) Since EPA was created in December 1970, America’s environmental progress has been amazing. Our cars now emit less than 2% of the pollutants that came out of tailpipes 47 years ago. Coal-fired power plant particulate, mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions are 10-20 % of their 1970 levels. The white plumes above factory and power plant "smoke stacks†are 90% steam (water vapor) and plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (which Obama EPA officials disingenuously called "carbon pollutionâ€).
Our lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas are infinitely cleaner and far safer to drink from or swim in. The notorious lead contamination in Flint, Michigan water occurred under Gina McCarthy’s watch, because her agency didn’t do its job. It was her EPA officials who also triggered the infamous Gold King Mine blowout that contaminated hundreds of miles of river water with arsenic and other toxic metals.
So much for "protecting public health,†ensuring "environmental justice,†and safeguarding our most "vulnerable communities.†It’s as if we’ve come full circle, and now need to be protected from EPA. In truth, that goes all the way back to the agency’s first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, who ignored his own scientists, banned DDT, and sentenced tens of millions of Africans and Asians to death from malaria.
2) EPA became bloated, incompetent and derelict in its fundamental duties largely because it became ideological, politicized and determined to control what it was never intended to regulate. Through mission creep, sue-and-settle lawsuits, and an eight-year quest to help "fundamentally transform†America’s energy and economic system, it attempted to regulate every rivulet, puddle and other "Water of the US,†stuck its nose in numerous local affairs – like the road to a nickel mine in Michigan – and colluded with environmentalists to block Alaska’s Pebble Mine before a permit application had even been submitted.
Most egregious was the agency’s use of alleged "dangerous manmade climate change†to justify its "war on coal,†its "Clean Power Plan,†and its determination to slash fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions by regulating nearly every factory, farm, hospital, mall, drilling project and vehicle in America.
EPA’s other chief climate crusade target was methane, which it called "an extremely powerful climate pollutant†and absurdly claimed is responsible for "a fourth of all global warming to date.†Methane is a tiny 0.00017% of Earth’s atmosphere – equivalent to $1.70 out of $1 million (and compared to 0.04% for CO2) – and U.S. energy operations account for less than a tenth of all annual natural and manmade methane emissions. To control that, EPA wanted industry to spend billions of dollars per year.
It also demanded that cars and light trucks get 54.5 mpg by 2025. To meet that standard, automakers would have to downsize and plasticize vehicles, making them less safe and causing thousands of serious injuries and deaths – a reality that EPA ignored in its cost/benefit and environmental justice analysis.
When states, industries or experts raised questions about EPA’s "CO2 endangerment†decision, its biased and dishonest "social cost of carbon†analysis, or its use of "secret science†and highly suspect computer models to justify "climate chaos†claims – the agency railed about "intimidation†and "interference†with its mandate to "protect public health and welfare.†It’s time to take those questions seriously.
3) EPA obviously has too many anti-energy, anti-development staff, programs and dollars looking for more activities to regulate and terminate, to justify their existence. As these programs are properly and necessarily cut back, EPA budgets and personnel should likewise be reduced.
4) Complying with EPA and other government regulations inflicts staggering costs that reverberate throughout our economy, as businesses and families struggle to read, comprehend and comply with them. The Competitive Enterprise Institute calculated that federal regulations alone cost $1.885 trillion per year – prior to the epic regulatory tsunami of 2016 – with the Obama era alone generating $800 billion to $890 billion in annual regulatory burdens, the American Action Forum estimated.
EPA alone is responsible for well over $353 billion of the cumulative annual federal regulatory bill, CEI’s Wayne Crews estimated, based on 2012 data from the first four years of the Obama presidency. Just as disturbing, the total federal regulatory bill is equal to all individual and corporate tax payments combined.
Even more frightening, embedded in those federal regulations are fines and jail terms for some 5,000 federal crimes and 300,000 less serious criminal offenses. An absence of intent to violate the law, even failure to know and understand millions of pages of laws and regulations, even the mistaken assumption that no agency could possibly implement such an absurd rule, is no excuse. You’re still guilty as charged.
These regulatory burdens crush innovation, job creation, economic growth, and business and family wellbeing. They kill jobs, raise the cost of energy, food, products and services, reduce living standards, harm health and shorten lives. They violate any honest concept of "environmental justice.†Poor, minority, working class and other vulnerable families are hardest hit.
5) In fact, environmental justice is little more than a meaningless, malleable, phony concoction whose primary purpose is promoting progressive programs. Whatever EPA seeks to do advances justice and protects the vulnerable. Whatever an industry does or wants is unjust. Whenever anyone criticizes an agency action, it reflects racism or callous disregard for public health.
Only the effects of government regulations, and the actions of government regulators, appear to be exempt from recrimination, intimidation and penalties imposed in the name of environmental justice.
6) Fully 98% of all counties in the United States voted for Donald Trump and his vision for a less regulated, more prosperous nation, with fewer diktats from a Washington, DC that exempts itself from rules it inflicts on others. They did not vote for rolling back real environmental progress – and know full well that President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are doing no such thing.
They also know there is ample room – and abundant need – for the proposed EPA reductions. That’s why a CNN/ORC poll after Mr. Trump’s February 28 speech found that 70% of Americans who watched felt more optimistic about the nation’s future, and his policies and priorities were what the country needs now.
7) If President Trump’s program, budget and personnel proposals for EPA are approved, many highly paid agency employees will lose their jobs. That’s always painful, as thousands of coal miners, power plant operators and other employees in communities impacted by heavy-handed EPA regulations can attest – and as the powerful new documentary film "Collateral Damage†demonstrates.
However, downsizing is often essential to the survival of a company – or a country. As President Obama was fond of saying, elections have consequences. Let’s hope Congress and the Trump Administration move forward on EPA restructuring, stand firmly in the face of the predictable forces of professional outrage, and do a good job explaining why these changes are absolutely essential.
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.
President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are seeking significant reductions in Environmental Protection Agency programs, personnel and budgets. Their proposal is generating predictable howls from the professional progressive outrage community. However, they are absolutely essential if we are to get EPA under control and back to its original mission – and get the American economy and job-creating machine working again.
My article this week lays out the details
Those "devastating†EPA reductions
Budget and personnel cuts reflect environmental progress and essential regulatory reforms
Paul Driessen
The Trump White House wants significant reductions at the Environmental Protection Agency: two dozen or more programs, including a dozen dealing with President Obama’s climate initiatives; a 20% downsizing in EPA’s 15,000-person workforce; and a one-fourth reduction in its $8.1 billion budget.
The plan requires congressional approval, and thus is hardly a "done deal.†Not surprisingly, it is generating howls of outrage. Former U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says the proposal would be "crippling,†and "devastating for the agency's ability to protect public health.â€
One employee resigned because the cuts would prevent him from serving "environmental justice†and "vulnerable communities.†A congressman claimed EPA is "already operating at 1989 staffing levels,†and the reductions could mean "cutting the meat and muscle with the fat.â€
A deep breath and objective assessment are in order.
1) Since EPA was created in December 1970, America’s environmental progress has been amazing. Our cars now emit less than 2% of the pollutants that came out of tailpipes 47 years ago. Coal-fired power plant particulate, mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions are 10-20 % of their 1970 levels. The white plumes above factory and power plant "smoke stacks†are 90% steam (water vapor) and plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (which Obama EPA officials disingenuously called "carbon pollutionâ€).
Our lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas are infinitely cleaner and far safer to drink from or swim in. The notorious lead contamination in Flint, Michigan water occurred under Gina McCarthy’s watch, because her agency didn’t do its job. It was her EPA officials who also triggered the infamous Gold King Mine blowout that contaminated hundreds of miles of river water with arsenic and other toxic metals.
So much for "protecting public health,†ensuring "environmental justice,†and safeguarding our most "vulnerable communities.†It’s as if we’ve come full circle, and now need to be protected from EPA. In truth, that goes all the way back to the agency’s first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, who ignored his own scientists, banned DDT, and sentenced tens of millions of Africans and Asians to death from malaria.
2) EPA became bloated, incompetent and derelict in its fundamental duties largely because it became ideological, politicized and determined to control what it was never intended to regulate. Through mission creep, sue-and-settle lawsuits, and an eight-year quest to help "fundamentally transform†America’s energy and economic system, it attempted to regulate every rivulet, puddle and other "Water of the US,†stuck its nose in numerous local affairs – like the road to a nickel mine in Michigan – and colluded with environmentalists to block Alaska’s Pebble Mine before a permit application had even been submitted.
Most egregious was the agency’s use of alleged "dangerous manmade climate change†to justify its "war on coal,†its "Clean Power Plan,†and its determination to slash fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions by regulating nearly every factory, farm, hospital, mall, drilling project and vehicle in America.
EPA’s other chief climate crusade target was methane, which it called "an extremely powerful climate pollutant†and absurdly claimed is responsible for "a fourth of all global warming to date.†Methane is a tiny 0.00017% of Earth’s atmosphere – equivalent to $1.70 out of $1 million (and compared to 0.04% for CO2) – and U.S. energy operations account for less than a tenth of all annual natural and manmade methane emissions. To control that, EPA wanted industry to spend billions of dollars per year.
It also demanded that cars and light trucks get 54.5 mpg by 2025. To meet that standard, automakers would have to downsize and plasticize vehicles, making them less safe and causing thousands of serious injuries and deaths – a reality that EPA ignored in its cost/benefit and environmental justice analysis.
When states, industries or experts raised questions about EPA’s "CO2 endangerment†decision, its biased and dishonest "social cost of carbon†analysis, or its use of "secret science†and highly suspect computer models to justify "climate chaos†claims – the agency railed about "intimidation†and "interference†with its mandate to "protect public health and welfare.†It’s time to take those questions seriously.
3) EPA obviously has too many anti-energy, anti-development staff, programs and dollars looking for more activities to regulate and terminate, to justify their existence. As these programs are properly and necessarily cut back, EPA budgets and personnel should likewise be reduced.
4) Complying with EPA and other government regulations inflicts staggering costs that reverberate throughout our economy, as businesses and families struggle to read, comprehend and comply with them. The Competitive Enterprise Institute calculated that federal regulations alone cost $1.885 trillion per year – prior to the epic regulatory tsunami of 2016 – with the Obama era alone generating $800 billion to $890 billion in annual regulatory burdens, the American Action Forum estimated.
EPA alone is responsible for well over $353 billion of the cumulative annual federal regulatory bill, CEI’s Wayne Crews estimated, based on 2012 data from the first four years of the Obama presidency. Just as disturbing, the total federal regulatory bill is equal to all individual and corporate tax payments combined.
Even more frightening, embedded in those federal regulations are fines and jail terms for some 5,000 federal crimes and 300,000 less serious criminal offenses. An absence of intent to violate the law, even failure to know and understand millions of pages of laws and regulations, even the mistaken assumption that no agency could possibly implement such an absurd rule, is no excuse. You’re still guilty as charged.
These regulatory burdens crush innovation, job creation, economic growth, and business and family wellbeing. They kill jobs, raise the cost of energy, food, products and services, reduce living standards, harm health and shorten lives. They violate any honest concept of "environmental justice.†Poor, minority, working class and other vulnerable families are hardest hit.
5) In fact, environmental justice is little more than a meaningless, malleable, phony concoction whose primary purpose is promoting progressive programs. Whatever EPA seeks to do advances justice and protects the vulnerable. Whatever an industry does or wants is unjust. Whenever anyone criticizes an agency action, it reflects racism or callous disregard for public health.
Only the effects of government regulations, and the actions of government regulators, appear to be exempt from recrimination, intimidation and penalties imposed in the name of environmental justice.
6) Fully 98% of all counties in the United States voted for Donald Trump and his vision for a less regulated, more prosperous nation, with fewer diktats from a Washington, DC that exempts itself from rules it inflicts on others. They did not vote for rolling back real environmental progress – and know full well that President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are doing no such thing.
They also know there is ample room – and abundant need – for the proposed EPA reductions. That’s why a CNN/ORC poll after Mr. Trump’s February 28 speech found that 70% of Americans who watched felt more optimistic about the nation’s future, and his policies and priorities were what the country needs now.
7) If President Trump’s program, budget and personnel proposals for EPA are approved, many highly paid agency employees will lose their jobs. That’s always painful, as thousands of coal miners, power plant operators and other employees in communities impacted by heavy-handed EPA regulations can attest – and as the powerful new documentary film "Collateral Damage†demonstrates.
However, downsizing is often essential to the survival of a company – or a country. As President Obama was fond of saying, elections have consequences. Let’s hope Congress and the Trump Administration move forward on EPA restructuring, stand firmly in the face of the predictable forces of professional outrage, and do a good job explaining why these changes are absolutely essential.
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
08:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1405 words, total size 10 kb.
Cultural Marxism and the Alt-Right
William Kay
There is a new posting titled "Cultural Marxism and the Alt-Right" at Environmentalism is fascism .
.
http://www.ecofascism.com/
Table of Contents:
The Alt-Right on Cultural Marxism
A Condensed Version of David North’s The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique
A Brief History of the Frankfurt School
Cultural Marxism, Environmentalism, and Sex
Conclusion: Red-Baiter & Red Poseur: a marriage made in heaven
For a video condensation of the same, check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jalF9ulBw5M
William Kay
There is a new posting titled "Cultural Marxism and the Alt-Right" at Environmentalism is fascism .
.
http://www.ecofascism.com/
Table of Contents:
The Alt-Right on Cultural Marxism
A Condensed Version of David North’s The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique
A Brief History of the Frankfurt School
Cultural Marxism, Environmentalism, and Sex
Conclusion: Red-Baiter & Red Poseur: a marriage made in heaven
For a video condensation of the same, check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jalF9ulBw5M
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
How to cut down on State welfare costs
Jack Kemp
How to cut down on Wefare Costs
"State Welfare Dept.
Press 1 for English
Press 2 for Swedish
Press 3 for Japanes
Press 4 for German
Press 5 for Norwegian
How to cut down on Wefare Costs
"State Welfare Dept.
Press 1 for English
Press 2 for Swedish
Press 3 for Japanes
Press 4 for German
Press 5 for Norwegian
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
March 12, 2017
Who Won the Hillary/Trump Debates?
Dana Mathewson
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/the-great-debate-experiment.php
Did Donald Trump somehow defeat Hillary Clinton in their three preelection debates on the merits? Or did Clinton suffer from an irrational prejudice against her because she is of the female persuasion?
Professor Maria Guadaloupe set out to conduct an experiment through a theatrical production. She sought to test the role of sex ("genderâ€) in shaping perceptions by switching the sex of the candidates: "She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?â€
Implicit in the experiment is Professor Guadaloupe’s hypothesis that sex was crucial. The reactions of a New York audience to her play would test the hypothesis. Guadaloupe and her colleague Joe Salvatore "began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.â€
The experiment took the form of a play Guadaloupe developed with Salvatore. Titled Her Opponent, the production featuring actors performing excerpts from each of the three debates with the actors replicating the tone and gestures of their originals—but with the sex switched. Donald Trump was reborn as Brenda King; Hillary Clinton was transformed into Jonathan Gordon.
The show sold out twice for performances in New York City on January 28. According the story in the New York Times, "Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn’t lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won.â€
The audience completed two surveys, one before the show asking questions about their impressions of the real-life Trump–Clinton debates and one after the show seeking to the King–Gordon restaging. Each performance was also followed by a discussion.
The experiment did not exactly confirm the hypothesis: "Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.†Eileen Reynolds tells the rest of the story at NYU News.
End excerpt.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/the-great-debate-experiment.php
Did Donald Trump somehow defeat Hillary Clinton in their three preelection debates on the merits? Or did Clinton suffer from an irrational prejudice against her because she is of the female persuasion?
Professor Maria Guadaloupe set out to conduct an experiment through a theatrical production. She sought to test the role of sex ("genderâ€) in shaping perceptions by switching the sex of the candidates: "She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?â€
Implicit in the experiment is Professor Guadaloupe’s hypothesis that sex was crucial. The reactions of a New York audience to her play would test the hypothesis. Guadaloupe and her colleague Joe Salvatore "began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.â€
The experiment took the form of a play Guadaloupe developed with Salvatore. Titled Her Opponent, the production featuring actors performing excerpts from each of the three debates with the actors replicating the tone and gestures of their originals—but with the sex switched. Donald Trump was reborn as Brenda King; Hillary Clinton was transformed into Jonathan Gordon.
The show sold out twice for performances in New York City on January 28. According the story in the New York Times, "Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn’t lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won.â€
The audience completed two surveys, one before the show asking questions about their impressions of the real-life Trump–Clinton debates and one after the show seeking to the King–Gordon restaging. Each performance was also followed by a discussion.
The experiment did not exactly confirm the hypothesis: "Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.†Eileen Reynolds tells the rest of the story at NYU News.
End excerpt.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.
Sarah Palin Calls it RINO-Care
Jack Kemp
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/11/exclusive-palin-paul-ryans-rino-care-socialized-medicine-president-trump-will-step-in-fix/
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and the first major GOP figure to endorse President Donald Trump, is calling out House Speaker Paul Ryan for what she says is "RINO-Care.â€
Ryan introduced what he calls the "American Health Care Act,†a bill that does not repeal Obamacare but only amends it. For the last several days, senior Republicans ranging from members of the House Freedom Caucus to other House Republicans to Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and more have raised serious concerns with the bill. Some call it Obamacare 2.0, others call it Obamacare Lite or Ryan-care, and now Palin—in her first interview on the topic, coming on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel this weekend—calls it "RINO-Care.â€
"I do want to speak about this, but I am tempted to say not another word from our fearless leaders about this new form of Obamacare that I’m going to call RINO-care—not another word from them until we are definitively told that there is no provision whatsoever allowing Congress to exempt itself whatsoever with this law,†Palin said. "As with anything else mandated by Congress, every single dotted I and crossed T better apply to them, too, and not just the people who they are lording this thing over because remember this is government-controlled health care, the system that requires enrollment in an unaffordable, unsustainable, unwanted, unconstitutional continuation of government-run medicine, and even in this new quasi-reformed proposal, there is still an aspect of socialism. That’s the whole premise here.â€
Palin expressed serious concern with the fact that Ryan’s healthcare bill does not eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate. It just shifts the mandate—which requires all Americans to purchase a health insurance plan even if they do not want one. Under Obamacare, those who do not comply, pay a tax to the federal government. Under Ryan’s plan, those who not comply, pay a fee to the insurance companies.
End excerpt.
A NOTE FROM DANA MATHEWSON
She's right. Apparently, politicians have this disease -- they can't "create" something that doesn't have their controlling hands all over it, and doesn't have them telling the citizens what we MUST do.
Read it all!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/11/exclusive-palin-paul-ryans-rino-care-socialized-medicine-president-trump-will-step-in-fix/
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and the first major GOP figure to endorse President Donald Trump, is calling out House Speaker Paul Ryan for what she says is "RINO-Care.â€
Ryan introduced what he calls the "American Health Care Act,†a bill that does not repeal Obamacare but only amends it. For the last several days, senior Republicans ranging from members of the House Freedom Caucus to other House Republicans to Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and more have raised serious concerns with the bill. Some call it Obamacare 2.0, others call it Obamacare Lite or Ryan-care, and now Palin—in her first interview on the topic, coming on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel this weekend—calls it "RINO-Care.â€
"I do want to speak about this, but I am tempted to say not another word from our fearless leaders about this new form of Obamacare that I’m going to call RINO-care—not another word from them until we are definitively told that there is no provision whatsoever allowing Congress to exempt itself whatsoever with this law,†Palin said. "As with anything else mandated by Congress, every single dotted I and crossed T better apply to them, too, and not just the people who they are lording this thing over because remember this is government-controlled health care, the system that requires enrollment in an unaffordable, unsustainable, unwanted, unconstitutional continuation of government-run medicine, and even in this new quasi-reformed proposal, there is still an aspect of socialism. That’s the whole premise here.â€
Palin expressed serious concern with the fact that Ryan’s healthcare bill does not eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate. It just shifts the mandate—which requires all Americans to purchase a health insurance plan even if they do not want one. Under Obamacare, those who do not comply, pay a tax to the federal government. Under Ryan’s plan, those who not comply, pay a fee to the insurance companies.
End excerpt.
A NOTE FROM DANA MATHEWSON
She's right. Apparently, politicians have this disease -- they can't "create" something that doesn't have their controlling hands all over it, and doesn't have them telling the citizens what we MUST do.
Read it all!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.
They're Coming to America - to Play
Jack Kemp
In regards to the story of immigrants having an entitlement mentality yes the 'immigrants" (colonizers) sure do have an entitlement mentality. I bet they will demand street signs in Arabic in Michigan and Jersey City.
As for the welfare mentality of immigrants, I think I previously told you the joke about the new Iranian immigrant who meet for the first time in Los Angeles. One starts talking in Farsi and his friend says, "Akbar, we're in American now. Speak Spanish!"
And then there is the other joke about the two immigrants in New York City who are walking down the street when they see a wallet full of $20 bills on the sidewalk. One of them goes to pick it up and his friend says to him, "What? We are in America one day and you already want to work?"
In regards to the story of immigrants having an entitlement mentality yes the 'immigrants" (colonizers) sure do have an entitlement mentality. I bet they will demand street signs in Arabic in Michigan and Jersey City.
As for the welfare mentality of immigrants, I think I previously told you the joke about the new Iranian immigrant who meet for the first time in Los Angeles. One starts talking in Farsi and his friend says, "Akbar, we're in American now. Speak Spanish!"
And then there is the other joke about the two immigrants in New York City who are walking down the street when they see a wallet full of $20 bills on the sidewalk. One of them goes to pick it up and his friend says to him, "What? We are in America one day and you already want to work?"
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
Christians, not Musilims, are Syria's Holocaust Victims
Jack Kemp
The obvious concluding sentences of this article by Rabbi Spero:
If there is a genocide parallel, it involves the Christians of the Middle East, who have for decades been targets of the Muslim genocide against them simply for being Christian. And yet the left has been silent regarding the plight of Christians. During the Obama years, Christian immigration here from Islamic territories was, based on population percentages, 90% less than what it should have been. Mr. Obama moralized about "not using a religious litmus test" to over-weight Muslim immigration while severely undercutting and ignoring thousands of Christian refugees begging to be rescued from the Islamic jihad against them.
Thus, one can't be blamed for wondering if specific concern by the left for Muslim migrants and lack of concern or outrage regarding oppressed Christian refugees has more to do with transforming our demographics and historic culture, changing our voting patterns and outcomes, and diminishing the historic Judeo-Christian outlook in our civic life.
The Jewish community needs to be mindful that it has become the nation's highest victim of attacks precisely, as reported in 2014, because of assailants coming from the Muslim community. Such is the case for Jews not only here, but even more so in Europe. In addition, using their dislike for Israel to justify their aggression, many Muslim groups on college campuses are viciously harassing and physically attacking Jewish students all across America. There are also far too many postings and rally signs coming from members of Islamic groups calling for "throwing Jews into the ovens" or "wishing Hitler had finished the job."
Some involved in this violence are themselves young immigrants from Islamic countries, while others are the offspring of immigrants. This is all the more reason for comprehensive and serious background checking. Tough and thorough vetting is good for America and can prevent the importation and implementation of anti-Semitism. The onus of proof should be on those seeking entry here, not the U.S. government.
While we all agree that not all 100% of immigrants from these countries are on a jihadist or sharia mission, way too many are. To those bullied and shoved on campus, or those killed in an explosion in Fort Lauderdale, Boston, Columbus, San Bernardino, or Nashville, it's little comfort or solace that their lives or limbs was taken only from the bad 30%.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly called for and is working toward establishing safe havens in Mideast territories closer to the locations of those wishing to leave war-torn areas. Saving the lives of fellow Americans is a religious, historic, and civic duty. President Trump's goals and tenacity represent moral and genuine leadership.
END QUOTE
Read the whole article at...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/no_middle_eastern_refugees_cant_be_compared_to_holocaust_victims.html
The obvious concluding sentences of this article by Rabbi Spero:
If there is a genocide parallel, it involves the Christians of the Middle East, who have for decades been targets of the Muslim genocide against them simply for being Christian. And yet the left has been silent regarding the plight of Christians. During the Obama years, Christian immigration here from Islamic territories was, based on population percentages, 90% less than what it should have been. Mr. Obama moralized about "not using a religious litmus test" to over-weight Muslim immigration while severely undercutting and ignoring thousands of Christian refugees begging to be rescued from the Islamic jihad against them.
Thus, one can't be blamed for wondering if specific concern by the left for Muslim migrants and lack of concern or outrage regarding oppressed Christian refugees has more to do with transforming our demographics and historic culture, changing our voting patterns and outcomes, and diminishing the historic Judeo-Christian outlook in our civic life.
The Jewish community needs to be mindful that it has become the nation's highest victim of attacks precisely, as reported in 2014, because of assailants coming from the Muslim community. Such is the case for Jews not only here, but even more so in Europe. In addition, using their dislike for Israel to justify their aggression, many Muslim groups on college campuses are viciously harassing and physically attacking Jewish students all across America. There are also far too many postings and rally signs coming from members of Islamic groups calling for "throwing Jews into the ovens" or "wishing Hitler had finished the job."
Some involved in this violence are themselves young immigrants from Islamic countries, while others are the offspring of immigrants. This is all the more reason for comprehensive and serious background checking. Tough and thorough vetting is good for America and can prevent the importation and implementation of anti-Semitism. The onus of proof should be on those seeking entry here, not the U.S. government.
While we all agree that not all 100% of immigrants from these countries are on a jihadist or sharia mission, way too many are. To those bullied and shoved on campus, or those killed in an explosion in Fort Lauderdale, Boston, Columbus, San Bernardino, or Nashville, it's little comfort or solace that their lives or limbs was taken only from the bad 30%.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly called for and is working toward establishing safe havens in Mideast territories closer to the locations of those wishing to leave war-torn areas. Saving the lives of fellow Americans is a religious, historic, and civic duty. President Trump's goals and tenacity represent moral and genuine leadership.
END QUOTE
Read the whole article at...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/no_middle_eastern_refugees_cant_be_compared_to_holocaust_victims.html
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.
Canada Will Regret All the Refugees
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://nypost.com/2017/03/11/why-canada-will-come-to-regret-its-embrace-of-refugees/
Why Canada will come to regret its embrace of refugees
By Kyle Smith
Pretty soon the US might not be the only North American country clamoring for tighter security on its southern border. Because suddenly, in the age of Trump, Canada has an illegal-immigrant problem.
No, Barbra Streisand, Keegan-Michael Key and Bryan Cranston have not yet made good on their threats to pack up their stuff and slip into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s immigrant-loving Canada if Trump won. But at an almost-unguarded point just off Roxham Road in upstate Champlain, desperate people, many of them Muslims, are sneaking across the border from the US to Canada. Once arrested in Canuckland, they get a bus ticket to Montreal, a comfy room (the YMCA is a popular spot) and a hearing into their refugee status.
I call that a win-win: Prime Minister Dreamboat gets all the refugees he wants, and America no longer has to worry about the exact same people. Each illegal crossing represents one less headache for us, one more headache for them — sorry, one more beautiful soul to bask in Trudeau’s utopia.
"To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,†Trudeau tweeted last month, trolling Trump.
That isn’t exactly how things work in the non-Twitter world, of course: The March 8 New York Times story about the secret crossing noted that if the same migrants turned up at a legal border checkpoint attempting to gain entry to Canada while asking for asylum, they would be turned away, ordered to remain in the US.
End excerpt.
http://nypost.com/2017/03/11/why-canada-will-come-to-regret-its-embrace-of-refugees/
Why Canada will come to regret its embrace of refugees
By Kyle Smith
Pretty soon the US might not be the only North American country clamoring for tighter security on its southern border. Because suddenly, in the age of Trump, Canada has an illegal-immigrant problem.
No, Barbra Streisand, Keegan-Michael Key and Bryan Cranston have not yet made good on their threats to pack up their stuff and slip into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s immigrant-loving Canada if Trump won. But at an almost-unguarded point just off Roxham Road in upstate Champlain, desperate people, many of them Muslims, are sneaking across the border from the US to Canada. Once arrested in Canuckland, they get a bus ticket to Montreal, a comfy room (the YMCA is a popular spot) and a hearing into their refugee status.
I call that a win-win: Prime Minister Dreamboat gets all the refugees he wants, and America no longer has to worry about the exact same people. Each illegal crossing represents one less headache for us, one more headache for them — sorry, one more beautiful soul to bask in Trudeau’s utopia.
"To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,†Trudeau tweeted last month, trolling Trump.
That isn’t exactly how things work in the non-Twitter world, of course: The March 8 New York Times story about the secret crossing noted that if the same migrants turned up at a legal border checkpoint attempting to gain entry to Canada while asking for asylum, they would be turned away, ordered to remain in the US.
End excerpt.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.
March 11, 2017
America's Worst Beers
Dana Mathewson
It's instructive to consider that all of these are products of either Anheuser-Busch ("Fine. How's yours?") or Molson Coors Brewing Company. So you needn't look for Sam Adams or any craft beers here. Probably no surprises here.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2017/03/11/25-worst-tasting-beers-in-america/
A NOTE FROM TIM:
I don't agree with Natural Light being worse than Bud Lite. Both are horrible beers, but Natty has a somewhat pleasant taste whereas BL tastes like toilet water. King Cobra belongs there; it is horrid. I think Corona belongs very much at the top of this list; if you drink it without the lime you realize it is reminiscent of bathwater that your dog inhabited. Don't really disagree with most of the picks, though.
It's instructive to consider that all of these are products of either Anheuser-Busch ("Fine. How's yours?") or Molson Coors Brewing Company. So you needn't look for Sam Adams or any craft beers here. Probably no surprises here.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2017/03/11/25-worst-tasting-beers-in-america/
A NOTE FROM TIM:
I don't agree with Natural Light being worse than Bud Lite. Both are horrible beers, but Natty has a somewhat pleasant taste whereas BL tastes like toilet water. King Cobra belongs there; it is horrid. I think Corona belongs very much at the top of this list; if you drink it without the lime you realize it is reminiscent of bathwater that your dog inhabited. Don't really disagree with most of the picks, though.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.
Tornados Converge on the Ozark Hilton
Timothy Birdnow
Just a quick personal note. Thursday I went to the Ozark Hilton, that fabled place immortalized in legend and song. The temperature was in the mid 70's, making it an ideal day to visit. I had work to do (I always have work to do there) and arrived in mid-afternoon to get to it. I wanted to nail up some boards I found to act as siding (the OH has been nothing but a tarpaper shack for years now) and the work was humming along nicely, so I let time get away from me.
For new readers, the Ozark Hilton is a tarpaper shack I constructed out of materials scrounged from the alleys and dumpsters of St. Louis. Deep in the Ozark mountains, the OH is, uh, a bit rustic, with no electricity, no gas, no running water, no toilet. I light with kerosene, heat with a barrel stove (actually just a barrel with a stove pipe sticking out and a Weber kettle barbeque lid to keep the smoke in), use a couple of cinder blocks for a toilet. In summer I run a battery-operated fan on really hot days. he OH is a two room cabin with a giant picture window made from an old glass door. The structure was built with old boards and constructed in a less than workmanlike manner; I just slapped it together as best I could. A tin roof rounds out the place. I didn't even really cut any boards, just fit pieces together like a mixture of many jigsaw puzzles. It really is a sort of Frankenstein's monster in splintery wood.
At any rate, I was busy and let time get away. It wouldn't have been that much of an issue except that a storm started blowing in and I had to work fast to light my fire (it was going to cool off considerably) and get my 12 lamps lit (it takes that many to have reasonable light). By the time I finished there was a torrential downpour falling from the sky. I was able to finish filling my lamps inside, however, so all was well.
Well, maybe not well. I tried to watch a movie (the five hour epic Gettysburg) but couldn't hear it without putting an ear phone in. I use a battery operated DVD player (I used to read but my eyesight has gotten too poor for that in the low light) and I plug it into a batter, one of those kind used to jump cars. The end result is I can watch movies all night if I wish. But I found it increasingly difficult to hear the movie; rain was coming out of the sky like Noah's flood.
Amazingly (and I am always amazed by it) the cabin remained as dry and snug as always. If rain had started coming out of the ground I wouldn't have noticed except it would have seeped through the floor, probably. But despite the endless pounding of rain on sheet metal the cabin did fine.
But then my first emergency alert came through. Flash flood warning. I didn't sweat it; the Ozark Hilton sits at the top of a ridge, not far from the state highway. The valley below might wash out, but my property drains extremely well - so well that the worst flooding disappears in minutes. It's part of the water table for Big Springs, the mammoth spring that feeds the Current River.
But I DID worry the other FOUR times the emergency alert went off on my phone; tornado warnings for my area! Take immediate shelter, the warning said. Fat chance of that! The best I could do was stay in the cabin and hope the rickety structure held together. My wife asked me later what my emergency plan entailed and I informed her:
"kiss my lily white posterior goodbye". That about sums it up; there is no storm cellar or even a good indentation to hide in. If a tornadoes passed the cabin I would become a resident of Oz.
Maybe I should rename it the Oz-ark Hilton!
It was more than a little scary, let me tell you. But then, sitting on a ridge above a valley in the heavy woodland, the OH is in a fairly unlikely tornado alley. Tornadoes like flat country, and I once heard it said that Indians always claimed they didn't like rivers. I'm not on a river, but at least I am not too far from one.
Despite the worst Mother Nature could throw, I made it through fine. In fact, it felt rather cozy, snuggled into my little cabin with a warm fire while a terrible storm raged just outside of paper thin walls. I am always amazed at how sturdy that ratty old place can be.
I didn't even have any falling debris. A week ago a similar storm rolled through and knocked over a couple of tress, which I had to move out of my drive. One was too big to move, and was hanging over the road. I simply drove under it. I will have to deal with it eventually; get my chainsaw serviced and chop it up. But nothing dropped this time. I am always a bit worried; some trees that weren't much at the time I started building are now hanging over the cabin and I fear they may eventually fall on it. I am going to have to do something about them at some point. But they aren't an issue yet.
And so I survived a series of tornadoes in my little rat's nest (and it is, too; the little love children invade my cabin when I am not there, chewing up everything and generally making themselves nuisances. I've poisoned them, but more keep coming. Wish I had a better way to chase them off, but there isn't any that I can see. I tried dumping used cat litter, and that seemed to work to a degree, but my cats have all died, so it's no longer an option.)
A final thought; there is a need in a man for danger, and the wild certainly beckons. I go to my property to get away from it all, and I can enjoy a sense of danger and feel the great savage. It's all a farce, because I am not in the wilderness - I have a highway a couple of hundred yards from my cabin, for crying out loud! But I can pretend to be a pioneer and enjoy it. The reality is, if I were to be forced to actually live that way my existence would be miserable beyond measure. Civilization can be a great annoyance, but in the end it is superior by far to true wilderness living. There is a reason civilization was created in the first place; the simple life isn't so simple, and it is far from entertaining as a way of life.
Just a quick personal note. Thursday I went to the Ozark Hilton, that fabled place immortalized in legend and song. The temperature was in the mid 70's, making it an ideal day to visit. I had work to do (I always have work to do there) and arrived in mid-afternoon to get to it. I wanted to nail up some boards I found to act as siding (the OH has been nothing but a tarpaper shack for years now) and the work was humming along nicely, so I let time get away from me.
For new readers, the Ozark Hilton is a tarpaper shack I constructed out of materials scrounged from the alleys and dumpsters of St. Louis. Deep in the Ozark mountains, the OH is, uh, a bit rustic, with no electricity, no gas, no running water, no toilet. I light with kerosene, heat with a barrel stove (actually just a barrel with a stove pipe sticking out and a Weber kettle barbeque lid to keep the smoke in), use a couple of cinder blocks for a toilet. In summer I run a battery-operated fan on really hot days. he OH is a two room cabin with a giant picture window made from an old glass door. The structure was built with old boards and constructed in a less than workmanlike manner; I just slapped it together as best I could. A tin roof rounds out the place. I didn't even really cut any boards, just fit pieces together like a mixture of many jigsaw puzzles. It really is a sort of Frankenstein's monster in splintery wood.
At any rate, I was busy and let time get away. It wouldn't have been that much of an issue except that a storm started blowing in and I had to work fast to light my fire (it was going to cool off considerably) and get my 12 lamps lit (it takes that many to have reasonable light). By the time I finished there was a torrential downpour falling from the sky. I was able to finish filling my lamps inside, however, so all was well.
Well, maybe not well. I tried to watch a movie (the five hour epic Gettysburg) but couldn't hear it without putting an ear phone in. I use a battery operated DVD player (I used to read but my eyesight has gotten too poor for that in the low light) and I plug it into a batter, one of those kind used to jump cars. The end result is I can watch movies all night if I wish. But I found it increasingly difficult to hear the movie; rain was coming out of the sky like Noah's flood.
Amazingly (and I am always amazed by it) the cabin remained as dry and snug as always. If rain had started coming out of the ground I wouldn't have noticed except it would have seeped through the floor, probably. But despite the endless pounding of rain on sheet metal the cabin did fine.
But then my first emergency alert came through. Flash flood warning. I didn't sweat it; the Ozark Hilton sits at the top of a ridge, not far from the state highway. The valley below might wash out, but my property drains extremely well - so well that the worst flooding disappears in minutes. It's part of the water table for Big Springs, the mammoth spring that feeds the Current River.
But I DID worry the other FOUR times the emergency alert went off on my phone; tornado warnings for my area! Take immediate shelter, the warning said. Fat chance of that! The best I could do was stay in the cabin and hope the rickety structure held together. My wife asked me later what my emergency plan entailed and I informed her:
"kiss my lily white posterior goodbye". That about sums it up; there is no storm cellar or even a good indentation to hide in. If a tornadoes passed the cabin I would become a resident of Oz.
Maybe I should rename it the Oz-ark Hilton!
It was more than a little scary, let me tell you. But then, sitting on a ridge above a valley in the heavy woodland, the OH is in a fairly unlikely tornado alley. Tornadoes like flat country, and I once heard it said that Indians always claimed they didn't like rivers. I'm not on a river, but at least I am not too far from one.
Despite the worst Mother Nature could throw, I made it through fine. In fact, it felt rather cozy, snuggled into my little cabin with a warm fire while a terrible storm raged just outside of paper thin walls. I am always amazed at how sturdy that ratty old place can be.
I didn't even have any falling debris. A week ago a similar storm rolled through and knocked over a couple of tress, which I had to move out of my drive. One was too big to move, and was hanging over the road. I simply drove under it. I will have to deal with it eventually; get my chainsaw serviced and chop it up. But nothing dropped this time. I am always a bit worried; some trees that weren't much at the time I started building are now hanging over the cabin and I fear they may eventually fall on it. I am going to have to do something about them at some point. But they aren't an issue yet.
And so I survived a series of tornadoes in my little rat's nest (and it is, too; the little love children invade my cabin when I am not there, chewing up everything and generally making themselves nuisances. I've poisoned them, but more keep coming. Wish I had a better way to chase them off, but there isn't any that I can see. I tried dumping used cat litter, and that seemed to work to a degree, but my cats have all died, so it's no longer an option.)
A final thought; there is a need in a man for danger, and the wild certainly beckons. I go to my property to get away from it all, and I can enjoy a sense of danger and feel the great savage. It's all a farce, because I am not in the wilderness - I have a highway a couple of hundred yards from my cabin, for crying out loud! But I can pretend to be a pioneer and enjoy it. The reality is, if I were to be forced to actually live that way my existence would be miserable beyond measure. Civilization can be a great annoyance, but in the end it is superior by far to true wilderness living. There is a reason civilization was created in the first place; the simple life isn't so simple, and it is far from entertaining as a way of life.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1162 words, total size 6 kb.
Child Rapes Driven by "Immigrant Privilege"
Jack Kemp forwards this article by Ann Coulter:
'Immigrant Privilege' Drives Child Rape Epidemic
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-03-08.html
Ann Coulter
Before breathing a sigh of relief that, unlike Western Europe, we don't have Muslim rapists pouring into our country, recall that we have Mexican rapists pouring into our country.
Almost all peasant cultures are brimming with rapists, pederasts and child abusers. Latin America just happens to be the peasant culture closest to the United States, while the Muslims are closest to Europe.
According to North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement, immigrants commit hundreds of sex crimes against children in North Carolina every month -- 350 in the month of April 2014, 299 in May, and more than 400 in August and September. More than 90 percent of the perpetrators are Hispanic.
They aren't even counting legal immigrants. Aren't those worse? Only certain Republicans get excited about the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. The rest of America is trying to understand the point of the last 40 years of legal immigration. Why was this necessary?
Below is a very short excerpt from a few days in November 2013. As Stalin is supposed to have said, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
-- Bundez, Jose, Juan (11/12/2013): Felony Sex Offense -- Parental Role
-- Aguilar-Sandoval, Jersson: Felony First Degree Sexual Offense; Felony First Degree Rape; Felony First Degree Kidnapping
-- Aguilar, Rafael (11/04/2013): Felony Indecent Liberties With Child
-- Aguilar, Rigoberto, Castellano (11/04/2013): Felony First Degree Rape; Felony Indecent Liberties With Child; Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def>4-<6yr
(Note: That's Sex With a Child Between 4 and 6 Years Old.)
-- Yxchajchal-Lacam, Jose, Daniel (11/12/2013): Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def>4-<6yr
-- Manzano, Gustavo, Adolfo (11/20/2013): Felony Indecent Liberties With Child; Felony Rape of a Child
-- Monje, Alcides, Aguilar (11/18/2013): Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def >=6yr; Felony Indecent Liberties With Child 13.
The list, for a single month in a single state, goes on in the same vein through 87 separate offenders. When not providing North Carolina meatpackers with cheap labor, immigrant workers seem to spend all their time raping little girls.
Read it all at http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-03-08.html
'Immigrant Privilege' Drives Child Rape Epidemic
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-03-08.html
Ann Coulter
Before breathing a sigh of relief that, unlike Western Europe, we don't have Muslim rapists pouring into our country, recall that we have Mexican rapists pouring into our country.
Almost all peasant cultures are brimming with rapists, pederasts and child abusers. Latin America just happens to be the peasant culture closest to the United States, while the Muslims are closest to Europe.
According to North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement, immigrants commit hundreds of sex crimes against children in North Carolina every month -- 350 in the month of April 2014, 299 in May, and more than 400 in August and September. More than 90 percent of the perpetrators are Hispanic.
They aren't even counting legal immigrants. Aren't those worse? Only certain Republicans get excited about the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. The rest of America is trying to understand the point of the last 40 years of legal immigration. Why was this necessary?
Below is a very short excerpt from a few days in November 2013. As Stalin is supposed to have said, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
-- Bundez, Jose, Juan (11/12/2013): Felony Sex Offense -- Parental Role
-- Aguilar-Sandoval, Jersson: Felony First Degree Sexual Offense; Felony First Degree Rape; Felony First Degree Kidnapping
-- Aguilar, Rafael (11/04/2013): Felony Indecent Liberties With Child
-- Aguilar, Rigoberto, Castellano (11/04/2013): Felony First Degree Rape; Felony Indecent Liberties With Child; Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def>4-<6yr
(Note: That's Sex With a Child Between 4 and 6 Years Old.)
-- Yxchajchal-Lacam, Jose, Daniel (11/12/2013): Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def>4-<6yr
-- Manzano, Gustavo, Adolfo (11/20/2013): Felony Indecent Liberties With Child; Felony Rape of a Child
-- Monje, Alcides, Aguilar (11/18/2013): Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def >=6yr; Felony Indecent Liberties With Child 13.
The list, for a single month in a single state, goes on in the same vein through 87 separate offenders. When not providing North Carolina meatpackers with cheap labor, immigrant workers seem to spend all their time raping little girls.
Read it all at http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-03-08.html
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.
Tranny Traffic Signals
Recently Jack Kemp reported on gender confusion regarding Australian traffic signals; having all men on the Walk sign was deemed sexist and so the Down Unders spent real money turning themselves upside down in an effort to please the estrogen set (or the set lacking adequate estrogen perhaps.) See Jack's piece here.
Anyway, Mr. Kemp makes the following observation:
"You know, this traffic light icon image problem could be solved at minimal expense, without having to buy one new piece of equipment. Local politicians around the world could simply declaire that the male-appearing figure on the traffic lights is now, by Official Proclimation. The politicians could proclaim that on alterrnative days their traffic light icons are either a male figure or world famous aviatrix Amelia Earhard in her baggy trousers. Starting on a Sunday, the signs would be (every other day) Amelia getting ready to walk out to her airplane. Costs involved: one piece of parchment, calling a press conference. Mechanaical equipment costs involved: zero. Problem solved.
Who am I kidding? If that proclamation was made, then there would be complaints by transvestites and radical feminists demanding a traffic light symbol of a skirt wearing icon. And other feminists would claim the skirted icon is sexist because many women wear slacks these days. Later others would demand that the skirt shown is too short and offends Muslims and religiously modest Jews and Hindus and even Christians. There is no end to this insanity, if given into.
Anyway, Mr. Kemp makes the following observation:
"You know, this traffic light icon image problem could be solved at minimal expense, without having to buy one new piece of equipment. Local politicians around the world could simply declaire that the male-appearing figure on the traffic lights is now, by Official Proclimation. The politicians could proclaim that on alterrnative days their traffic light icons are either a male figure or world famous aviatrix Amelia Earhard in her baggy trousers. Starting on a Sunday, the signs would be (every other day) Amelia getting ready to walk out to her airplane. Costs involved: one piece of parchment, calling a press conference. Mechanaical equipment costs involved: zero. Problem solved.
Who am I kidding? If that proclamation was made, then there would be complaints by transvestites and radical feminists demanding a traffic light symbol of a skirt wearing icon. And other feminists would claim the skirted icon is sexist because many women wear slacks these days. Later others would demand that the skirt shown is too short and offends Muslims and religiously modest Jews and Hindus and even Christians. There is no end to this insanity, if given into.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.
GOP Rearranges Deck Chairs on HMS Obamacare
Here is an excellent essay explaining why Swampy care is an attempt by Congress at porcine farding:
Why are Republicans still subsidizing private health insurance?
By Robert Romano
One obvious drawback to the new health care system proposed by Congressional Republicans from a free market perspective is the continued presence of private insurance subsidies, this time via refundable tax credits.
It raises an obvious question: If the Republican legislative plan to repeal Obamacare is a "market-based" approach to health care that will bring down costs, why do private insurance policies need to be subsidized?
Contextually, the proposed bill fails to repeal or address the Obamacare insurance regulations, the American Medical Association's monopoly on doctor certification via control of medical schools, the Food and Drug Administration monopoly on approving new drugs, and the government-created state-by-state insurance monopolies, which appear to drive up the cost of premiums by limiting competition. It does not address medical malpractice reform.
These are some of the historic cost-drivers that make it harder if not impossible to bring affordable, alternative insurance policies to patients.
Where is the Uber of insurance companies?
We're told by GOP Congressional leaders that the reason the bill does not go after any of these cost-drivers is because of Senate rules on reconciliation that limit votes to only tax and spending items with direct budgetary impact.
Meaning, Congressional Republicans are crafting a new national health care system — comprising almost one-fifth of the $18.6 trillion U.S. economy — based on what the Senate parliamentarian will allow to get through on budget reconciliation. That is no way to construct a policy of such significance, but here we are.
There are other problems — such as encouraging further Medicaid expansion through the end of 2019, including the federal matching funds, and $2 billion a year for "safety net funding" for non-expansion states — but they arise as political choices made by Congressional leaders, not constraints from the reconciliation process.
In 2015, Republicans passed budget reconciliation legislation, H.R. 3762, which former President Barack Obama vetoed in 2016, which included ending Medicaid expansion, premium subsidies, cost-sharing subsidies, the individual and employer mandates, reinsurance, risk corridors and risk-adjustment, and the taxes and spending from the health care law.
This set the minimal standard for what might be achieved under the reconciliation process, but notably missing were some of the same cost drivers enumerated above and market reforms that might address them.
So, let us not pretend we are driving down costs — instead, we are padding these shortcomings with billions of dollars of new tax credit subsidies. It is a new entitlement. And if history is any judge, it will never go away.
From 2000 to 2015, the nominal growth of health care premiums — individual and family — have consistently outpaced the nominal growth of household median income, according to data compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Individual premiums grew an average 7 percent a year, family premiums grew 7.6 percent a year — but incomes only grew 2.1 percent.
That said, the growth rate of health care premiums was already coming down throughout the 2000s before Obamacare was enacted. In 2011, after the insurance regulations of the health care law went into effect, there was another tremendous spike in premiums.
A cynic might suggest the now GOP-proposed tax credits appear as a tacit admission on lawmakers' parts that they do not believe costs are coming down. That must be because they do not think market-based reforms are ever going to be implemented — and so they buy into the idea that health care must be subsidized in order to be affordable.
Because if the plan now under consideration truly brought down costs, nobody would think it needs to be subsidized — and nobody would be talking about future phases to get the job done.
If the biggest impediment to real, market-based health care reform is the Harry Reid-appointed Senate parliamentarian — Elizabeth MacDonough — then it's time to overrule her and change the rules, either by expanding what types of provisions can be included under reconciliation or, ideally, by just eliminating the legislative filibuster.
Since the advent of the cloture rule in 1917 — now 100 years old — Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority. And if history holds, they never will. Over that time, the size and scope of the federal government has dramatically expanded — and been locked in — because of Senatorial supermajorities Democrats gained in the 1930s, 1960s, 1970s and in 2009-10, when Obamacare was enacted.
The filibuster has not served to limit government, it has locked in its maximization and made the free market something of a fairy tale. Moreover, with the direct election of senators, the Senate cloture rule is an unnecessary antique, when voters can hold senators accountable via elections every two years. Overall, eliminating the filibuster would make the government more responsive to the will of the people.
It would also open up tax reform, entitlement reform and you name it over the next couple of years.
If the Senate overreaches in a non-filibuster world, the American people would be able to respond at the polls — just as they will sure react if Congressional Republicans fail to keep their campaign promises.
President Donald Trump in all likelihood will never be more powerful than he is right now. You don't get to phase two if phase one fails. If Senate rules stand in the way of implementing free market reforms, then change Senate rules and fix our broken health care system, including eliminating subsidies. No more excuses.
Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.
Why are Republicans still subsidizing private health insurance?
By Robert Romano
One obvious drawback to the new health care system proposed by Congressional Republicans from a free market perspective is the continued presence of private insurance subsidies, this time via refundable tax credits.
It raises an obvious question: If the Republican legislative plan to repeal Obamacare is a "market-based" approach to health care that will bring down costs, why do private insurance policies need to be subsidized?
Contextually, the proposed bill fails to repeal or address the Obamacare insurance regulations, the American Medical Association's monopoly on doctor certification via control of medical schools, the Food and Drug Administration monopoly on approving new drugs, and the government-created state-by-state insurance monopolies, which appear to drive up the cost of premiums by limiting competition. It does not address medical malpractice reform.
These are some of the historic cost-drivers that make it harder if not impossible to bring affordable, alternative insurance policies to patients.
Where is the Uber of insurance companies?
We're told by GOP Congressional leaders that the reason the bill does not go after any of these cost-drivers is because of Senate rules on reconciliation that limit votes to only tax and spending items with direct budgetary impact.
Meaning, Congressional Republicans are crafting a new national health care system — comprising almost one-fifth of the $18.6 trillion U.S. economy — based on what the Senate parliamentarian will allow to get through on budget reconciliation. That is no way to construct a policy of such significance, but here we are.
There are other problems — such as encouraging further Medicaid expansion through the end of 2019, including the federal matching funds, and $2 billion a year for "safety net funding" for non-expansion states — but they arise as political choices made by Congressional leaders, not constraints from the reconciliation process.
In 2015, Republicans passed budget reconciliation legislation, H.R. 3762, which former President Barack Obama vetoed in 2016, which included ending Medicaid expansion, premium subsidies, cost-sharing subsidies, the individual and employer mandates, reinsurance, risk corridors and risk-adjustment, and the taxes and spending from the health care law.
This set the minimal standard for what might be achieved under the reconciliation process, but notably missing were some of the same cost drivers enumerated above and market reforms that might address them.
So, let us not pretend we are driving down costs — instead, we are padding these shortcomings with billions of dollars of new tax credit subsidies. It is a new entitlement. And if history is any judge, it will never go away.
From 2000 to 2015, the nominal growth of health care premiums — individual and family — have consistently outpaced the nominal growth of household median income, according to data compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Individual premiums grew an average 7 percent a year, family premiums grew 7.6 percent a year — but incomes only grew 2.1 percent.
That said, the growth rate of health care premiums was already coming down throughout the 2000s before Obamacare was enacted. In 2011, after the insurance regulations of the health care law went into effect, there was another tremendous spike in premiums.
A cynic might suggest the now GOP-proposed tax credits appear as a tacit admission on lawmakers' parts that they do not believe costs are coming down. That must be because they do not think market-based reforms are ever going to be implemented — and so they buy into the idea that health care must be subsidized in order to be affordable.
Because if the plan now under consideration truly brought down costs, nobody would think it needs to be subsidized — and nobody would be talking about future phases to get the job done.
If the biggest impediment to real, market-based health care reform is the Harry Reid-appointed Senate parliamentarian — Elizabeth MacDonough — then it's time to overrule her and change the rules, either by expanding what types of provisions can be included under reconciliation or, ideally, by just eliminating the legislative filibuster.
Since the advent of the cloture rule in 1917 — now 100 years old — Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority. And if history holds, they never will. Over that time, the size and scope of the federal government has dramatically expanded — and been locked in — because of Senatorial supermajorities Democrats gained in the 1930s, 1960s, 1970s and in 2009-10, when Obamacare was enacted.
The filibuster has not served to limit government, it has locked in its maximization and made the free market something of a fairy tale. Moreover, with the direct election of senators, the Senate cloture rule is an unnecessary antique, when voters can hold senators accountable via elections every two years. Overall, eliminating the filibuster would make the government more responsive to the will of the people.
It would also open up tax reform, entitlement reform and you name it over the next couple of years.
If the Senate overreaches in a non-filibuster world, the American people would be able to respond at the polls — just as they will sure react if Congressional Republicans fail to keep their campaign promises.
President Donald Trump in all likelihood will never be more powerful than he is right now. You don't get to phase two if phase one fails. If Senate rules stand in the way of implementing free market reforms, then change Senate rules and fix our broken health care system, including eliminating subsidies. No more excuses.
Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.
GOP's Epic Betrayal on Swampcare
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://theresurgent.com/president-trump-exposes-planned-parenthood/
Swampcare: The Great Betrayal
By Erick Erickson |
Since 2010, Republicans have repeatedly promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is now universally referred to as Obamacare. Last week, Republicans finally unveiled their alternative to Obamacare and it is best described as swampcare. Far from repealing Obamacare or replacing Obamacare, it only tweaks the Affordable Care Act and does nothing to drain the swamp.
Obamacare has never been popular. It has never polled above fifty percent. Democrats have invented a host of reasons why it polls so terribly including that people just do not realize Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. It is simply not popular. More people were hurt by Obamacare than helped. It created a massive new and costly entitlement and expanded the least efficient, least effective existing entitlement program — Medicaid.
For all of its flaws, and the flaws outweigh the benefits, the Democrats included mechanisms to keep government spending on Obamacare from exploding in the first several years of the legislation’s enactment. Many of those provisions are the massively unpopular parts of the legislation. They include employer mandates on providing insurance, individual mandates forcing people to buy insurance, and taxes on generous healthcare plans.
In enacting their swampcare alternative, Republicans will scuttle all the things people have hated about Obamacare, but they will not restructure the legislation to save money. The Republicans’ plan will wind up costing taxpayers even more. On top of that, they are not really even getting rid of the individual mandate. Under swampcare, instead of paying the government a fine for failing to get insurance, people will pay insurance companies a penalty if they cancel insurance then get new insurance later. The constitutionality of that provision alone is dubious
Read it all.
This from Dana Mathewson
Bottom line: either ObamaCare goes down to ignominious defeat -- or the Trump Administration, along with what's left of the Republican party, does.
Fay Voshell replies:
Pretty much.
If the infrastructure of O care remains intact while Republicans tinker with the edges, then O is victorious. His legacy remains intact, as the foundations remain untouched. The Democrats win. Government universal healthcare wins. Control of our lives by government wins. Big government wins.
And so on and so forth.
Sigh..
Dana Mathewson answers:
And it appears to me (I may be mistaken, but I don't think so) that it's all because too many of the elephants in Washington don't want to work with Trump.
Tim replies:
I wonder if this isn't the point; Ryan and the Establishment hate Trump badly enough that they would put a poison pill legislation in play just to hurt him. They have to know America doesn't want this.
And a word for Jack Kemp:
s (and the rules - and the RINOs) hold us hostage, saying Swampcare is the most possible of first steps. He's read the entire bill online and sees savings for the middle class. I really can't judge this bill against something we want but can't get now, but in the last seven years the GOP was run by RINOs - and they still haven't left. I hope that Trump has some end run around Obamacare, such as making parts of it not required to buy by citizens which would mean a de facto defunding and death of Obamacare. This whole thing is a convoluted mess worthy of a Rocky and Bullwinkle parody of Congressional thought and (in)action.
And again from Mr. Birdnow:
Hmm. I'm not surprised; ERickson probably has trouble taking Trump's side. Oh, and that "rules hold us hostage" thing? Didn''t stop Harry Reid, why should it stop us? I don't know when the Republicans are going to learn to play hardball, but they had better do so soon. And it's past time they punished the Democrats for the "nuclear Option".
Here they have the Democrats nearly finished and they are going to let them walk away from this.
And Fay replies:
Ever since FDR (if not before) the Left has sent the agenda for big government while conservatives have reacted to the Left rather than setting the agenda even when they had the opportunity to do so.
http://theresurgent.com/president-trump-exposes-planned-parenthood/
Swampcare: The Great Betrayal
By Erick Erickson |
Since 2010, Republicans have repeatedly promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is now universally referred to as Obamacare. Last week, Republicans finally unveiled their alternative to Obamacare and it is best described as swampcare. Far from repealing Obamacare or replacing Obamacare, it only tweaks the Affordable Care Act and does nothing to drain the swamp.
Obamacare has never been popular. It has never polled above fifty percent. Democrats have invented a host of reasons why it polls so terribly including that people just do not realize Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. It is simply not popular. More people were hurt by Obamacare than helped. It created a massive new and costly entitlement and expanded the least efficient, least effective existing entitlement program — Medicaid.
For all of its flaws, and the flaws outweigh the benefits, the Democrats included mechanisms to keep government spending on Obamacare from exploding in the first several years of the legislation’s enactment. Many of those provisions are the massively unpopular parts of the legislation. They include employer mandates on providing insurance, individual mandates forcing people to buy insurance, and taxes on generous healthcare plans.
In enacting their swampcare alternative, Republicans will scuttle all the things people have hated about Obamacare, but they will not restructure the legislation to save money. The Republicans’ plan will wind up costing taxpayers even more. On top of that, they are not really even getting rid of the individual mandate. Under swampcare, instead of paying the government a fine for failing to get insurance, people will pay insurance companies a penalty if they cancel insurance then get new insurance later. The constitutionality of that provision alone is dubious
Read it all.
This from Dana Mathewson
Bottom line: either ObamaCare goes down to ignominious defeat -- or the Trump Administration, along with what's left of the Republican party, does.
Fay Voshell replies:
Pretty much.
If the infrastructure of O care remains intact while Republicans tinker with the edges, then O is victorious. His legacy remains intact, as the foundations remain untouched. The Democrats win. Government universal healthcare wins. Control of our lives by government wins. Big government wins.
And so on and so forth.
Sigh..
Dana Mathewson answers:
And it appears to me (I may be mistaken, but I don't think so) that it's all because too many of the elephants in Washington don't want to work with Trump.
Tim replies:
I wonder if this isn't the point; Ryan and the Establishment hate Trump badly enough that they would put a poison pill legislation in play just to hurt him. They have to know America doesn't want this.
And a word for Jack Kemp:
s (and the rules - and the RINOs) hold us hostage, saying Swampcare is the most possible of first steps. He's read the entire bill online and sees savings for the middle class. I really can't judge this bill against something we want but can't get now, but in the last seven years the GOP was run by RINOs - and they still haven't left. I hope that Trump has some end run around Obamacare, such as making parts of it not required to buy by citizens which would mean a de facto defunding and death of Obamacare. This whole thing is a convoluted mess worthy of a Rocky and Bullwinkle parody of Congressional thought and (in)action.
And again from Mr. Birdnow:
Hmm. I'm not surprised; ERickson probably has trouble taking Trump's side. Oh, and that "rules hold us hostage" thing? Didn''t stop Harry Reid, why should it stop us? I don't know when the Republicans are going to learn to play hardball, but they had better do so soon. And it's past time they punished the Democrats for the "nuclear Option".
Here they have the Democrats nearly finished and they are going to let them walk away from this.
And Fay replies:
Ever since FDR (if not before) the Left has sent the agenda for big government while conservatives have reacted to the Left rather than setting the agenda even when they had the opportunity to do so.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 702 words, total size 5 kb.
Trump Calls Planned Parenthood's Bluff
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://theresurgent.com/president-trump-exposes-planned-parenthood/
President Trump Exposes Planned Parenthood
By David Closson
Earlier this week Planned Parenthood reportedly rejected an offer from President Donald Trump that would have allowed the "health care provider†to continue receiving $500 million dollars in annual federal funding on the one condition that the organization discontinue providing abortion services. Not surprisingly, the proposal was rejected immediately.
In a statement to the New York Times, President Trump said:
"As I said throughout the campaign, I am pro-life and I am deeply committed to investing in women’s health and plan to significantly increase federal funding in support of non-abortion services such as cancer screenings,†he said. "Polling shows the majority of Americans oppose public funding for abortion, even those who identify as pro-choice. There is an opportunity for organizations to continue the important work they do in support of women’s health, while not providing abortion services.â€
President Trump’s offer to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the United States, is significant on several fronts.
First, the President exposed Planned Parenthood’s fallacious "3% claim.â€
Planned Parenthood has alleged for years that abortion services comprise only 3% of their business. Although this claim has been repeatedly debunked, Planned Parenthood has publicly argued that they are a holistic women’s health organization and that abortion is only one service among many that they offer.
Do read the entire article.
http://theresurgent.com/president-trump-exposes-planned-parenthood/
President Trump Exposes Planned Parenthood
By David Closson
Earlier this week Planned Parenthood reportedly rejected an offer from President Donald Trump that would have allowed the "health care provider†to continue receiving $500 million dollars in annual federal funding on the one condition that the organization discontinue providing abortion services. Not surprisingly, the proposal was rejected immediately.
In a statement to the New York Times, President Trump said:
"As I said throughout the campaign, I am pro-life and I am deeply committed to investing in women’s health and plan to significantly increase federal funding in support of non-abortion services such as cancer screenings,†he said. "Polling shows the majority of Americans oppose public funding for abortion, even those who identify as pro-choice. There is an opportunity for organizations to continue the important work they do in support of women’s health, while not providing abortion services.â€
President Trump’s offer to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the United States, is significant on several fronts.
First, the President exposed Planned Parenthood’s fallacious "3% claim.â€
Planned Parenthood has alleged for years that abortion services comprise only 3% of their business. Although this claim has been repeatedly debunked, Planned Parenthood has publicly argued that they are a holistic women’s health organization and that abortion is only one service among many that they offer.
Do read the entire article.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
March 09, 2017
Your federal tax dollars at work
Jack Kemp
Here are your tax dollars at work:
Here are your tax dollars at work:
http://nypost.com/2017/03/08/college-kids-are-using-student-loans-for-wild-spring-break-trips/
A growing number of students, it seems, will use their student loans to fund their upcoming fun-in-the-sun spring breaks.
Roughly 30 percent of US students will tap into their growing pile
of college debt to pay for their weeklong frolic, a survey from LendEDU
revealed.
That’s up from last year, when a separate survey, conducted by
Google Consumer Surveys on behalf of Student Loan Hero, found that
about 20 percent of students spent their loan cash on dining out,
entertainment and spring breaks.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
FISA Warrant Turned up Nothing on Trump
Timothy Birdnow
There actually WAS a FISA warrant to spy on Trump.
http://circa.com/politics/fbi-probe-of-donald-trump-and-russia-during-election-yielded-no-evidence-of-crimes
Turned up nothing.
There actually WAS a FISA warrant to spy on Trump.
http://circa.com/politics/fbi-probe-of-donald-trump-and-russia-during-election-yielded-no-evidence-of-crimes
Turned up nothing.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
"Patriarchy" causes white woman to win St. Louis Dem primary
Jack Kemp
http://theresurgent.com/a-woman-won-a-democratic-primary-and-the-patriarchy-is-to-blame/
A Woman Won a Democratic Primary and the Patriarchy is to Blame
By Erick Erickson | March 8, 2017, 11:41pm
St. Louis, MO is a majority black city in the shadow of Ferguson. It had its Democratic Party primary for mayor and Lyda Krewson, a female member of the city council, won by 888 votes, beating the city’s treasurer, Tishuara Jones. Who is to blame? Black men. That’s right. The patriarchy elected a white woman over a black woman who has been a Black Lives Matter activist.
There were three other black candidates. All of them were male and on the city council. The second place finisher, Jones, is upset, saying, "I’m really disappointed that the ego, patriarchy and sexism won the day yesterday.†If only those men had gotten out of the way, a woman would have won. Except, a woman did win. The problem, you see, is that the woman who won is white.
Democracy, you will remember, is only legitimate if it works to the left’s advantage. If it does not, it has to be patriarchy, racism, or a rigged system to blame.
End excerpt.
A NOTE FROM ST. LOUISAN TIM:
First, I have to disagree with Mr. Erickson's characterizing St. Louis as "majority black" as this is not quite the case; according to City Data St. Louis is 46.5% black, 43.5% white with the remainder being Hispanic or Asian or other. Blacks hold a plurality, not a majority in St. Louis.
And as so many of them are transients, they often do not register to vote. St. Louis is a city with a very high rental to homeowner ratio, and while most of the whites in the city either own or have long-term leases, the lion's share of blacks rent. The result? The south portion of the city is a reasonably stable area with higher income while the north tends to be poorer with people coming and going.
The end result has been the whites have largely controlled city government. Not always; there have been two black mayors out of the last five. And one of those (the very capable Mayor Clarence Harmon) was fairly well to do and lived in the rather affluent neighborhood of Compton Heights, and was not considered "black" by many of the north St. Louis residents. Only Freeman Bosley was considered as representative of the black community here, and he was pretty much a poor executive.
That said, I don't disagree with Erickson's points. I do want to make the following observations:
First, Lyda Krewson is the whitest of white bread rich liberals you are going to meet. A resident of the very trendy Central West End area, Krewson lives on a private street, a gated community with pretty mansions and lots of wealthy people. In fact, this is one of the wealthiest parts of the city. She is your classic Limousine Liberal.
According to her website:
"Lyda has unapologetically taken on the tough and controversial issues including a comprehensive smoking ban and the state’s concealed carry statutes. She led the way on modernizing city government as the first alderman to support across-the-board charter reform. Lyda also played a key role in the successful effort to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen from 28 to 14."
End excerpt.
Gun control is her signature issue, although forcing people to not smoke seems high on her priority list. Now that last - government reform and reducing the number of Aldermen - may seem conservative/libertarian on the face of it but is really just a way to increase government power. Charter reform means changing the restrictions placed on St. Louis by the State of Missouri, restrictions that were, by and large, quite beneficial to the city. St. Louis is it's own county, and has to maintain itself as a county as well as a city. The city sought to eliminate that, make the city government the sole authority in St.. Louis. The end result may be a streamlining of functions but it also meant no competition, so the city can be as corrupt as it wants. The Metropolitan Police are called that even though they aren't police to the entire metropolitan area, but rather because the city did not control them; they ultimately reported to the state. That actually was a good thing, because St. Louis was a place where tickets weren't a source of revenue and residents weren't bothered by cops over minor things. That is going to change, thanks to Madam Krewson. And reducing the number of Aldermen means it will be easier to pass legislation.
(By the way, I've had fun over the years with call centers "what city do you live in?" "St. Louis." "What county?" "the City of St. Louis." "Yes, but what COUNTY?!")
Everything she seeks to do empowers government.
That said, Krewson had the money and the influence to win this election. Her opponents simply did not. The best known opponent was Aldermanic President Lewis Reed. Reed has always been a bit squirrelly, and he has pushed for tax increases as well as a gun buyback program. is also from outside the metropolitan area (Joliette Ill.) which can hurt his credentials. As a black man he does not comport with the stereotype, and the result is he didn't get a lot of black votes. It also hurt him that Freeman Bosley Jr., former black Mayor of St. Louis, didn't back him much.
The other candidates were tied to Black Lives Matter; Antonio French, for instance, was a leader of the protest marches/riots.
And so, with the black vote split, a white woman took the primary, which means she will be mayor, as the Democratic Primary IS the election in solidly blue St. Louis. Tishuara Jones was never likely to win the Mayorship.
Jones is the daughter of former city Comptroller Virvus Jones and a former Missouri State rep. She was a favorite of Black Lives Matter, along with French.
Her crazy comment here about misogyny is indicative of the Progressive mindset; she didn't lose because people feared putting a person supported by domestic terrorists in the Mayorship, but rather because she is a woman.
In the end Krewson appeared to be the "safest" candidate. And she had the most money, and support from the establishment here.
Sadly, this is going to add fuel to the fire in the metropolitan area; the black community was furious when St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley - a black man - lost in the Democratic primary to a white Steve Stenger. The local black politicians were so angry they endorsed a Republican. But there is more to it; I am firmly convinced the riots in Ferguson were certainly fueled in part by the anger of black political people over Dooley's loss, and they supported - at least tacitly - the protests that formed in Ferguson at the time.
This could wind up having serious repercussions.
St. Louis is a precariously balanced city, with the balance of power slightly favoring the white community. The black community wants that to change. One wonders how far they are willing to go with this.
http://theresurgent.com/a-woman-won-a-democratic-primary-and-the-patriarchy-is-to-blame/
A Woman Won a Democratic Primary and the Patriarchy is to Blame
By Erick Erickson | March 8, 2017, 11:41pm
St. Louis, MO is a majority black city in the shadow of Ferguson. It had its Democratic Party primary for mayor and Lyda Krewson, a female member of the city council, won by 888 votes, beating the city’s treasurer, Tishuara Jones. Who is to blame? Black men. That’s right. The patriarchy elected a white woman over a black woman who has been a Black Lives Matter activist.
There were three other black candidates. All of them were male and on the city council. The second place finisher, Jones, is upset, saying, "I’m really disappointed that the ego, patriarchy and sexism won the day yesterday.†If only those men had gotten out of the way, a woman would have won. Except, a woman did win. The problem, you see, is that the woman who won is white.
Democracy, you will remember, is only legitimate if it works to the left’s advantage. If it does not, it has to be patriarchy, racism, or a rigged system to blame.
End excerpt.
A NOTE FROM ST. LOUISAN TIM:
First, I have to disagree with Mr. Erickson's characterizing St. Louis as "majority black" as this is not quite the case; according to City Data St. Louis is 46.5% black, 43.5% white with the remainder being Hispanic or Asian or other. Blacks hold a plurality, not a majority in St. Louis.
And as so many of them are transients, they often do not register to vote. St. Louis is a city with a very high rental to homeowner ratio, and while most of the whites in the city either own or have long-term leases, the lion's share of blacks rent. The result? The south portion of the city is a reasonably stable area with higher income while the north tends to be poorer with people coming and going.
The end result has been the whites have largely controlled city government. Not always; there have been two black mayors out of the last five. And one of those (the very capable Mayor Clarence Harmon) was fairly well to do and lived in the rather affluent neighborhood of Compton Heights, and was not considered "black" by many of the north St. Louis residents. Only Freeman Bosley was considered as representative of the black community here, and he was pretty much a poor executive.
That said, I don't disagree with Erickson's points. I do want to make the following observations:
First, Lyda Krewson is the whitest of white bread rich liberals you are going to meet. A resident of the very trendy Central West End area, Krewson lives on a private street, a gated community with pretty mansions and lots of wealthy people. In fact, this is one of the wealthiest parts of the city. She is your classic Limousine Liberal.
According to her website:
"Lyda has unapologetically taken on the tough and controversial issues including a comprehensive smoking ban and the state’s concealed carry statutes. She led the way on modernizing city government as the first alderman to support across-the-board charter reform. Lyda also played a key role in the successful effort to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen from 28 to 14."
End excerpt.
Gun control is her signature issue, although forcing people to not smoke seems high on her priority list. Now that last - government reform and reducing the number of Aldermen - may seem conservative/libertarian on the face of it but is really just a way to increase government power. Charter reform means changing the restrictions placed on St. Louis by the State of Missouri, restrictions that were, by and large, quite beneficial to the city. St. Louis is it's own county, and has to maintain itself as a county as well as a city. The city sought to eliminate that, make the city government the sole authority in St.. Louis. The end result may be a streamlining of functions but it also meant no competition, so the city can be as corrupt as it wants. The Metropolitan Police are called that even though they aren't police to the entire metropolitan area, but rather because the city did not control them; they ultimately reported to the state. That actually was a good thing, because St. Louis was a place where tickets weren't a source of revenue and residents weren't bothered by cops over minor things. That is going to change, thanks to Madam Krewson. And reducing the number of Aldermen means it will be easier to pass legislation.
(By the way, I've had fun over the years with call centers "what city do you live in?" "St. Louis." "What county?" "the City of St. Louis." "Yes, but what COUNTY?!")
Everything she seeks to do empowers government.
That said, Krewson had the money and the influence to win this election. Her opponents simply did not. The best known opponent was Aldermanic President Lewis Reed. Reed has always been a bit squirrelly, and he has pushed for tax increases as well as a gun buyback program. is also from outside the metropolitan area (Joliette Ill.) which can hurt his credentials. As a black man he does not comport with the stereotype, and the result is he didn't get a lot of black votes. It also hurt him that Freeman Bosley Jr., former black Mayor of St. Louis, didn't back him much.
The other candidates were tied to Black Lives Matter; Antonio French, for instance, was a leader of the protest marches/riots.
And so, with the black vote split, a white woman took the primary, which means she will be mayor, as the Democratic Primary IS the election in solidly blue St. Louis. Tishuara Jones was never likely to win the Mayorship.
Jones is the daughter of former city Comptroller Virvus Jones and a former Missouri State rep. She was a favorite of Black Lives Matter, along with French.
Her crazy comment here about misogyny is indicative of the Progressive mindset; she didn't lose because people feared putting a person supported by domestic terrorists in the Mayorship, but rather because she is a woman.
In the end Krewson appeared to be the "safest" candidate. And she had the most money, and support from the establishment here.
Sadly, this is going to add fuel to the fire in the metropolitan area; the black community was furious when St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley - a black man - lost in the Democratic primary to a white Steve Stenger. The local black politicians were so angry they endorsed a Republican. But there is more to it; I am firmly convinced the riots in Ferguson were certainly fueled in part by the anger of black political people over Dooley's loss, and they supported - at least tacitly - the protests that formed in Ferguson at the time.
This could wind up having serious repercussions.
St. Louis is a precariously balanced city, with the balance of power slightly favoring the white community. The black community wants that to change. One wonders how far they are willing to go with this.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1204 words, total size 8 kb.
98kb generated in CPU 0.0783, elapsed 0.5406 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.5303 seconds, 196 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.5303 seconds, 196 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
