April 21, 2017
The math never works for green energy
Wil Wirtanen
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/20/169658/
Wil Wirtanen
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/20/169658/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:29 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.
Please watch climate treaty video and SIGN PETITION to President Trump
Paul Driessen
Myron Ebell is Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. He provides the following background on what is happening with President Trump’s possibly wavering promise to withdraw the United States from the heavy-handed Paris climate (non)treaty. He urges Americans to watch CEI’s short new video … and sign a petition asking the President to keep his vitally important promise.
Informative talking points, articles and blog posts follow the link to the CEI video. Cal Beisner’s article is especially valuable, as it succinctly presents the most important reasons the United States and President Trump should take a seat at the head of the table, and lead the world away from this disastrous agreement – which would destroy modern industrial economies, distribute their wealth to other nations, and do virtually nothing to reduce future global warming or prevent future climate changes or extreme weather events.
Ebell says Trump Administration senior officials will meet at 1:30 this afternoon (April 17) to try to come to a consensus on what to do about keeping President Trump's campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty. It is his understanding that the meeting will probably not agree on a recommendation to President Trump, who will make the final decision in the coming weeks. It is also his understanding that those in favor of keeping the President's campaign promise and those in favor of breaking it are fairly evenly balanced. This is contrary to news reports that the promise-breakers are on the verge of winning. One concern is that Energy Secretary Rick Perry appears to have gone wobbly.
This battle between the American "Deplorables†and the Washington Swamp has monumental consequences for our access to reliable, affordable energy, and thus for our future lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties.
Today CEI launched a 45-second internet video ad urging the President to keep his promise. The video asks viewers to sign a petition.
https://cei.org/StopParisClimateTreaty
Please watch the video and sign the petition.
Then send the link to friends, family, colleagues and appropriate people you know in the White House and Congress. Urge them to watch the video and to pass it along to others.
For those on Twitter, the President's handle is @realDonaldTrump.
Here are some talking points and articles about the Paris Climate Treaty:
* President Trump campaigned on the promise to "cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to UN global warming programs." The agreement is designed to transfer wealth from the United States to developing countries, and would cost trillions of dollars to implement.
* The Paris Agreement is an unfair deal that allows countries like China and India - which have far fewer environmental protections in place than does the U.S. - to continue to increase their greenhouse gas emissions, while we take very costly steps to dramatically decrease ours.
* The promises made by the Obama administration in entering the agreement would cost American workers hundreds of thousands of jobs, and our economy hundreds of billions of dollars - harming America's competitiveness in the global marketplace, and handing an advantage to China and other nations.
o Because the Paris Agreement requires member countries to increase their emission reduction commitments every five years, staying in the agreement would mean even more harm to American workers, families, and the economy over time.
o This stands in direct conflict with President Trump's plan to create 25 million new American jobs, re-establishing the United States as a global leader in manufacturing and an engine of economic growth.
* Some argue that we should remain in the Paris Agreement to keep our "seat at the table." However, the fundamental goal of the Paris Agreement is to drive participating nations toward emissions reductions that are mathematically incompatible with economic growth.
o Furthermore, remaining in the agreement and reducing our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is inconsistent with the construct of the agreement itself. Provisions exist only for participating nations to strengthen their commitments, not weaken them.
o Even providing for a rescission of our current NDC, continued U.S. participation in the agreement ensures a future administration will once again put forward unattainable, economically damaging NDCs.
o It is also unrealistic to believe that the U.S. could extract concessions regarding the development and use of fossil fuels, particularly given the negative reaction by other members at the recent G7 Energy meeting to a proposal to include reference to fossil fuels in a joint statement of the G7 nations.
* In stark contrast to the previous administration, President Trump has made clear that his priorities include energy policies that maximize the use of America's vast untapped resources; environmental policies that focus on protecting and preserving our air, water, and wildlife; and regulatory policies that put Americans back to work, unleashing our nation's full economic potential. The Paris Climate Treaty stands as an obstacle to each of those goals.
op-ed by Cal Beisner: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/17/paris-climate-agreement-should-be-exited-by-us/
op-ed by Paul Driessen: https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/04/15/real-science-must-guide-policy-n2313721?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
blog post by Chris Horner and Marlo Lewis: https://cei.org/blog/white-house-floats-excuses-break-trump's-promise-cancel-paris-climate-treaty<https://cei.org/blog/white-house-floats-excuses-break-trump's-promise-cancel-paris-climate-treaty>
blog post by Marlo Lewis: https://cei.org/blog/saving%C2%A0coal-most-foolish-reason-support-paris-agreement
op-ed by John Barrasso: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/28/paris-climate-agreement-should-be-nixed/
op-ed by Chris Horner: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/7/paris-climate-pact-should-be-abandoned/
blog post by Bret Schaefer: http://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ignore-the-critics-if-trump-withdraws-paris-climate-agreement-he-will
blog post by Nick Loris: http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/save-american-jobs-leave-the-paris-agreement-now
op-ed by Joel Kotkin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/04/17/trump039s_choice_populism
scholarly article by Bjorn Lomborg: http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
Myron Ebell is Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. He provides the following background on what is happening with President Trump’s possibly wavering promise to withdraw the United States from the heavy-handed Paris climate (non)treaty. He urges Americans to watch CEI’s short new video … and sign a petition asking the President to keep his vitally important promise.
Informative talking points, articles and blog posts follow the link to the CEI video. Cal Beisner’s article is especially valuable, as it succinctly presents the most important reasons the United States and President Trump should take a seat at the head of the table, and lead the world away from this disastrous agreement – which would destroy modern industrial economies, distribute their wealth to other nations, and do virtually nothing to reduce future global warming or prevent future climate changes or extreme weather events.
Ebell says Trump Administration senior officials will meet at 1:30 this afternoon (April 17) to try to come to a consensus on what to do about keeping President Trump's campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty. It is his understanding that the meeting will probably not agree on a recommendation to President Trump, who will make the final decision in the coming weeks. It is also his understanding that those in favor of keeping the President's campaign promise and those in favor of breaking it are fairly evenly balanced. This is contrary to news reports that the promise-breakers are on the verge of winning. One concern is that Energy Secretary Rick Perry appears to have gone wobbly.
This battle between the American "Deplorables†and the Washington Swamp has monumental consequences for our access to reliable, affordable energy, and thus for our future lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties.
Today CEI launched a 45-second internet video ad urging the President to keep his promise. The video asks viewers to sign a petition.
https://cei.org/StopParisClimateTreaty
Please watch the video and sign the petition.
Then send the link to friends, family, colleagues and appropriate people you know in the White House and Congress. Urge them to watch the video and to pass it along to others.
For those on Twitter, the President's handle is @realDonaldTrump.
Here are some talking points and articles about the Paris Climate Treaty:
* President Trump campaigned on the promise to "cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to UN global warming programs." The agreement is designed to transfer wealth from the United States to developing countries, and would cost trillions of dollars to implement.
* The Paris Agreement is an unfair deal that allows countries like China and India - which have far fewer environmental protections in place than does the U.S. - to continue to increase their greenhouse gas emissions, while we take very costly steps to dramatically decrease ours.
* The promises made by the Obama administration in entering the agreement would cost American workers hundreds of thousands of jobs, and our economy hundreds of billions of dollars - harming America's competitiveness in the global marketplace, and handing an advantage to China and other nations.
o Because the Paris Agreement requires member countries to increase their emission reduction commitments every five years, staying in the agreement would mean even more harm to American workers, families, and the economy over time.
o This stands in direct conflict with President Trump's plan to create 25 million new American jobs, re-establishing the United States as a global leader in manufacturing and an engine of economic growth.
* Some argue that we should remain in the Paris Agreement to keep our "seat at the table." However, the fundamental goal of the Paris Agreement is to drive participating nations toward emissions reductions that are mathematically incompatible with economic growth.
o Furthermore, remaining in the agreement and reducing our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is inconsistent with the construct of the agreement itself. Provisions exist only for participating nations to strengthen their commitments, not weaken them.
o Even providing for a rescission of our current NDC, continued U.S. participation in the agreement ensures a future administration will once again put forward unattainable, economically damaging NDCs.
o It is also unrealistic to believe that the U.S. could extract concessions regarding the development and use of fossil fuels, particularly given the negative reaction by other members at the recent G7 Energy meeting to a proposal to include reference to fossil fuels in a joint statement of the G7 nations.
* In stark contrast to the previous administration, President Trump has made clear that his priorities include energy policies that maximize the use of America's vast untapped resources; environmental policies that focus on protecting and preserving our air, water, and wildlife; and regulatory policies that put Americans back to work, unleashing our nation's full economic potential. The Paris Climate Treaty stands as an obstacle to each of those goals.
op-ed by Cal Beisner: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/17/paris-climate-agreement-should-be-exited-by-us/
op-ed by Paul Driessen: https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/04/15/real-science-must-guide-policy-n2313721?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
blog post by Chris Horner and Marlo Lewis: https://cei.org/blog/white-house-floats-excuses-break-trump's-promise-cancel-paris-climate-treaty<https://cei.org/blog/white-house-floats-excuses-break-trump's-promise-cancel-paris-climate-treaty>
blog post by Marlo Lewis: https://cei.org/blog/saving%C2%A0coal-most-foolish-reason-support-paris-agreement
op-ed by John Barrasso: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/28/paris-climate-agreement-should-be-nixed/
op-ed by Chris Horner: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/7/paris-climate-pact-should-be-abandoned/
blog post by Bret Schaefer: http://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ignore-the-critics-if-trump-withdraws-paris-climate-agreement-he-will
blog post by Nick Loris: http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/save-american-jobs-leave-the-paris-agreement-now
op-ed by Joel Kotkin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/04/17/trump039s_choice_populism
scholarly article by Bjorn Lomborg: http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:28 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 888 words, total size 7 kb.
April 20, 2017
CIA Director John Brennan Colluded with Foreign Agents to Bring down Trump, Flynn
Timothy Birdnow
For months now we have been treated to a fake news narrative that says Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. This narrative has been buttressed by strategic leaks of confidential information. The big story to the media has been how the Russians "hacked the election" and they are desperately trying to pin this to Trump, calling him a traitor and demanding his impeachment or resignation. But the real news story is not that at all; at most, the Russians hacked the DNC server and got some embarassing e-mails out - e-mails that had little impact on the election. We do not know that the Russians did this hacking either; we were toDld by Crowdstrike, a private firm hired by the DNC itself that they found metadata that suggested Russian hackers (as if professionals of this caliber would make such dunderheaded mistakes as leaving metadata in showing Russian origins.) Thus far there has been a whole lot of nothing in this Russian business. But it has served a very real purpose, keeping pressure on Trump so as to immobilize him.
The big question is not about Trump but about who is doing the leaking, and why. We now have the name.
John Brennan, former CIA Diretor.
Yes sir; Brennan, theMuslim Brotherhood Dhimmi and suspected convert to Islam, has been outed as the source.
According to the American Spectator and based on British investigative reporting Brennan set this up with the help of British Intelligence and the Estonian government (who feared Trump would pull the U.S. out of NATO and leave them defenseless.) For his part, Brennan wanted to keep his job (rather desperately) as head of the CIA and did not want his work of fornicating with the Jihadists to be reversed. That was why he oversaw the destruction of Mike Flynn, a man Brennan detested for his tough stand against the Religion of Pieces.
If the situation was reversed this would be wall-to-wall news on all major outlets. Instead we are hearing about the resignation of Bill O'Reilley from Fox News.
Article III Section III of the U.S. Constitution defines Treason as:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court".
End excerpt.
Certainly working with foreign powers to hurt the lawfully elected President dances near the edge of treason. A motivation designed to make for a softer American policy toward certain hostile nations (as it seems likely Brennan did) most certainly meets the standard. According to 18 U.S. Code § 2381 the person so guilty:
"shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States"
Our covert agencies must be held to strict accountability; they operate on the honor system, and have been given enormous power in return for the promise of virtuous behavior. A director of the CIA must be beyond reproach; to use that office to subvert the lawful government of these United States is an act that is utterly intolerable and must be punished with terrible retribution, to deter others. Brennan should receive the maximum penalty the law allows for this.
Sadly, I fear the GOP in Congress will be unwilling to even follow up on this. John McCain will likely be uncharacteristically quiet.
For months now we have been treated to a fake news narrative that says Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. This narrative has been buttressed by strategic leaks of confidential information. The big story to the media has been how the Russians "hacked the election" and they are desperately trying to pin this to Trump, calling him a traitor and demanding his impeachment or resignation. But the real news story is not that at all; at most, the Russians hacked the DNC server and got some embarassing e-mails out - e-mails that had little impact on the election. We do not know that the Russians did this hacking either; we were toDld by Crowdstrike, a private firm hired by the DNC itself that they found metadata that suggested Russian hackers (as if professionals of this caliber would make such dunderheaded mistakes as leaving metadata in showing Russian origins.) Thus far there has been a whole lot of nothing in this Russian business. But it has served a very real purpose, keeping pressure on Trump so as to immobilize him.
The big question is not about Trump but about who is doing the leaking, and why. We now have the name.
John Brennan, former CIA Diretor.
Yes sir; Brennan, theMuslim Brotherhood Dhimmi and suspected convert to Islam, has been outed as the source.
According to the American Spectator and based on British investigative reporting Brennan set this up with the help of British Intelligence and the Estonian government (who feared Trump would pull the U.S. out of NATO and leave them defenseless.) For his part, Brennan wanted to keep his job (rather desperately) as head of the CIA and did not want his work of fornicating with the Jihadists to be reversed. That was why he oversaw the destruction of Mike Flynn, a man Brennan detested for his tough stand against the Religion of Pieces.
If the situation was reversed this would be wall-to-wall news on all major outlets. Instead we are hearing about the resignation of Bill O'Reilley from Fox News.
Article III Section III of the U.S. Constitution defines Treason as:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court".
End excerpt.
Certainly working with foreign powers to hurt the lawfully elected President dances near the edge of treason. A motivation designed to make for a softer American policy toward certain hostile nations (as it seems likely Brennan did) most certainly meets the standard. According to 18 U.S. Code § 2381 the person so guilty:
"shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States"
Our covert agencies must be held to strict accountability; they operate on the honor system, and have been given enormous power in return for the promise of virtuous behavior. A director of the CIA must be beyond reproach; to use that office to subvert the lawful government of these United States is an act that is utterly intolerable and must be punished with terrible retribution, to deter others. Brennan should receive the maximum penalty the law allows for this.
Sadly, I fear the GOP in Congress will be unwilling to even follow up on this. John McCain will likely be uncharacteristically quiet.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.
April 19, 2017
Quacking like a Duck in Education
Jack Kemp
Check out an AT article today called "K-12: Quacks Rule" By Bruce Deitrick Price
In 1950 Harvard-educated businessman Albert Lynd published an attack on our Education Establishment. His book was aggressively titled Quackery in the Public Schools.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/k12_quacks_rule.html
It explains much of why young people can't think or do practical things.
Check out an AT article today called "K-12: Quacks Rule" By Bruce Deitrick Price
In 1950 Harvard-educated businessman Albert Lynd published an attack on our Education Establishment. His book was aggressively titled Quackery in the Public Schools.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/k12_quacks_rule.html
It explains much of why young people can't think or do practical things.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:43 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
White Libs Choose White Guy Over a Woman in Georgia
Jack Kemp
http://theresurgent.com/white-liberals-choosing-a-white-guy-over-a-woman-in-georgia/
White Liberals Choosing a White Guy Over a Woman in Georgia
By Erick Erickson | April 19, 2017, 05:53am
One liberal last night on Twitter, after it was clear Handel would go into a runoff, attacked her as "childless.†He later deleted the tweet, but declared his support of Ossoff because he thinks Karen Handel would support "big government having its mits on my daughter and her body choice.†He, of course, is okay with big government paying for abortions.
It is a fascinating dynamic.
Karen Handel actually resigned from the Susan G. Komen Foundation after it walked away from its decision to stop giving to Planned Parenthood. The left is outraged by that. The left claims they support women for office, but it became apparently last night that only women who support killing children can get the left’s support.
The result is that liberals across America are going to rally to a thirty year old white guy who does not even live in the district he wants to represent instead of sending the first Republican woman from Georgia to Congress. What is more funny is that the Democratic delegation from Georgia is 100% non-white and the entire Georgia delegation is 100% male. Consequently, the left would rather send one more white guy and bring diversity to the Democrat delegation.
They really don’t care about equal rights or women. What they care about is killing kids. Because Karen Handel does not favor it, they’ll attack her as childless, which they typically like, and claim she can have no authority on the issue, but a childless, white male can.
The logic of the left never has consistency unless you remember that abortion is their chief sacrement and religious rite. All other considerations come after it, particularly when they have a candidate who supports it with a government subsidy.
http://theresurgent.com/white-liberals-choosing-a-white-guy-over-a-woman-in-georgia/
White Liberals Choosing a White Guy Over a Woman in Georgia
By Erick Erickson | April 19, 2017, 05:53am
One liberal last night on Twitter, after it was clear Handel would go into a runoff, attacked her as "childless.†He later deleted the tweet, but declared his support of Ossoff because he thinks Karen Handel would support "big government having its mits on my daughter and her body choice.†He, of course, is okay with big government paying for abortions.
It is a fascinating dynamic.
Karen Handel actually resigned from the Susan G. Komen Foundation after it walked away from its decision to stop giving to Planned Parenthood. The left is outraged by that. The left claims they support women for office, but it became apparently last night that only women who support killing children can get the left’s support.
The result is that liberals across America are going to rally to a thirty year old white guy who does not even live in the district he wants to represent instead of sending the first Republican woman from Georgia to Congress. What is more funny is that the Democratic delegation from Georgia is 100% non-white and the entire Georgia delegation is 100% male. Consequently, the left would rather send one more white guy and bring diversity to the Democrat delegation.
They really don’t care about equal rights or women. What they care about is killing kids. Because Karen Handel does not favor it, they’ll attack her as childless, which they typically like, and claim she can have no authority on the issue, but a childless, white male can.
The logic of the left never has consistency unless you remember that abortion is their chief sacrement and religious rite. All other considerations come after it, particularly when they have a candidate who supports it with a government subsidy.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.
Who was a Jew in Soviet 1970s
Jack Kemp
This is an old joke from the days of Jews protesting and wanting to leave the Soviet Union, but it still is funny (in my opinion).
To counter criticism in the West, the Soviet Union orchestrated a trip for Western journalists to see how Jews lived in Russia at that time. But first, the Soviets had a trick at one of sites to be visited.
Communist Party officials went to a non-Jewish factory worker named Ivan and told him to pretend he was a Jew and tell the Western journalists that he was treated fine by the government and his work boss.
The journalists came to the factory, Ivan lied about being a Jew, and everyone was happy.
After the Western journalists left, an hour later a Communist Party official went to Ivan and said, "That was a great performance. You can go back to being yourself."
To this, Ivan replied, "Too late. I've already applied for a visa to immigrate to Israel!"
This is an old joke from the days of Jews protesting and wanting to leave the Soviet Union, but it still is funny (in my opinion).
To counter criticism in the West, the Soviet Union orchestrated a trip for Western journalists to see how Jews lived in Russia at that time. But first, the Soviets had a trick at one of sites to be visited.
Communist Party officials went to a non-Jewish factory worker named Ivan and told him to pretend he was a Jew and tell the Western journalists that he was treated fine by the government and his work boss.
The journalists came to the factory, Ivan lied about being a Jew, and everyone was happy.
After the Western journalists left, an hour later a Communist Party official went to Ivan and said, "That was a great performance. You can go back to being yourself."
To this, Ivan replied, "Too late. I've already applied for a visa to immigrate to Israel!"
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
In the Pitts
Brian Birdnow takes on Leonard Pitts Jr. of the Miami Herald:
Dear Mr. Pitts,
In your Miami Herald column, reprinted today, April 18, 2017 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch you lament the fact that you will disappoint a reader identified as "BP" because you do not intend to become a "beacon of light" in order to please her. You will, if the tone of your column is any indication, remain as bitter and accusatory as you have been for many years.
You did say in the column, "I am after all, the same guy who once wrote columns denouncing politicians who blithely floated the idea of secession." Are we to infer from this piece that you have now reassessed your thinking and believe that secession is a good idea? Can we make the further inference that you bashed supposed secessionists back in 2009 when they opposed your President and his goal of "fundamentally transforming" the USA, but now support those trying to detach California from the Union? If that is the case then you are guilty of hypocrisy in the sense that you attack those who propose something that you support when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.
I will congratulate on one point. You actually managed to get through a column with out descending into a diatribe of racial hatred. For that we must be grateful!
Brian E. Birdnow
Dear Mr. Pitts,
In your Miami Herald column, reprinted today, April 18, 2017 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch you lament the fact that you will disappoint a reader identified as "BP" because you do not intend to become a "beacon of light" in order to please her. You will, if the tone of your column is any indication, remain as bitter and accusatory as you have been for many years.
You did say in the column, "I am after all, the same guy who once wrote columns denouncing politicians who blithely floated the idea of secession." Are we to infer from this piece that you have now reassessed your thinking and believe that secession is a good idea? Can we make the further inference that you bashed supposed secessionists back in 2009 when they opposed your President and his goal of "fundamentally transforming" the USA, but now support those trying to detach California from the Union? If that is the case then you are guilty of hypocrisy in the sense that you attack those who propose something that you support when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.
I will congratulate on one point. You actually managed to get through a column with out descending into a diatribe of racial hatred. For that we must be grateful!
Brian E. Birdnow
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.
I use to be young and stupid, now I am old and stupid i.e. a Democrat
Wil Wirtanen
Two commenters quoted Booker T. They fit to a T, no pun intended.
"Sometimes it has happened that Negro college students,as a result of the conditions under which they were taught,
have yielded to the temptation to become mere agitators, unwilling and unfit to do any kind of useful or constructive work."
-- Booker T Washington
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles,the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public.Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
~ Booker T. Washington
The second one hits the nail on the head Sharpton, 0bama, et. Al.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/student_activists_demand_college_take_action_against_conservative_journalists.html
Wil Wirtanen
Two commenters quoted Booker T. They fit to a T, no pun intended.
"Sometimes it has happened that Negro college students,as a result of the conditions under which they were taught,
have yielded to the temptation to become mere agitators, unwilling and unfit to do any kind of useful or constructive work."
-- Booker T Washington
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles,the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public.Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
~ Booker T. Washington
The second one hits the nail on the head Sharpton, 0bama, et. Al.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/student_activists_demand_college_take_action_against_conservative_journalists.html
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.
I politely teach Delta how to design a website title
Jack Kemp
Here is a list of your rights as an airline passanger:
From Legal Shield...
https://www.legalshield.com/blog/know-your-rights-airline-passenger?utm_campaign=Member+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-96ygvdmGlSj5sCtOD4P7CYYJjlekivd1iXQFxTAUDpX75qoLP67HS4RMbWsFbkN5yCd9qBP3sjq9tGGrenJVhVuDcdyQ&_hsmi=50861252&utm_content=50861252&utm_source=hs_email&hsCtaTracking=42622cb5-2be5-40eb-9dc0-fed43d37e16d%7Cd27b17ea-14ae-4ccd-98ca-459989c1890d
Here's another problem with the airlines, but no one got thrown off a plane...so far.
I first booked my flight to visit fellow Aviary writer Dana Mathewson and his wife Martha in July on a travel website and was not given a seat assignment but got a six CAPITAL LETTER code for my flight. So I then phoned Delta. During the delay in them calling me back, I went online to try to get my seat. Later, on the return call from Delta, they told me I would only be given my seat when I got to JFK Airport because of the type of method (and cost) used to book the flight.
After that, I went online to Delta's homepage again to look for information on a flight confirmation, first looking at the My Trips pulldown menu on the left side which used a term called "Confirmation Number" with no explanation. But when I later looked at the Delta pulldown menu for Check In, there was a little icon for an explanation that I could click on that said "Confirmation Number" was my six CAPITAL LETTER code. This was confusing and I decided to call in a complaint to Delta.
After telling a lady manager that I used to be a computer programmer and then stating the obvious, that the words "Confirmation Number" would lead a customer to expect an actual number. I also said that if I were the systems analyst on this project, I would order the actual computer programmer to come up with a less confusing choice of words. Being on a roll, I then said that I had just given the airline $1000 worth of computer consulting for free. Not only did the woman I talk to agree with me about the poor wording/website design, but she overrode the system from her terminal and entered an aisle seat for me (she gave me that choice) in row 22 - about two and half months in advance of other people who booked by my or similar methods. I thanked her for her consideration and said I would mention her help when Delta contacted me with a follow up email enquiring how I liked the telephone service I received that night.
Being a programmer/analyst is in our blood. Right, Dana? And also in our blood is being a writer, chosing word meanings carefully. Right, Dana, Fay (Voshel), Tim (Birdnow)?
Here is a list of your rights as an airline passanger:
From Legal Shield...
https://www.legalshield.com/blog/know-your-rights-airline-passenger?utm_campaign=Member+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-96ygvdmGlSj5sCtOD4P7CYYJjlekivd1iXQFxTAUDpX75qoLP67HS4RMbWsFbkN5yCd9qBP3sjq9tGGrenJVhVuDcdyQ&_hsmi=50861252&utm_content=50861252&utm_source=hs_email&hsCtaTracking=42622cb5-2be5-40eb-9dc0-fed43d37e16d%7Cd27b17ea-14ae-4ccd-98ca-459989c1890d
Here's another problem with the airlines, but no one got thrown off a plane...so far.
I first booked my flight to visit fellow Aviary writer Dana Mathewson and his wife Martha in July on a travel website and was not given a seat assignment but got a six CAPITAL LETTER code for my flight. So I then phoned Delta. During the delay in them calling me back, I went online to try to get my seat. Later, on the return call from Delta, they told me I would only be given my seat when I got to JFK Airport because of the type of method (and cost) used to book the flight.
After that, I went online to Delta's homepage again to look for information on a flight confirmation, first looking at the My Trips pulldown menu on the left side which used a term called "Confirmation Number" with no explanation. But when I later looked at the Delta pulldown menu for Check In, there was a little icon for an explanation that I could click on that said "Confirmation Number" was my six CAPITAL LETTER code. This was confusing and I decided to call in a complaint to Delta.
After telling a lady manager that I used to be a computer programmer and then stating the obvious, that the words "Confirmation Number" would lead a customer to expect an actual number. I also said that if I were the systems analyst on this project, I would order the actual computer programmer to come up with a less confusing choice of words. Being on a roll, I then said that I had just given the airline $1000 worth of computer consulting for free. Not only did the woman I talk to agree with me about the poor wording/website design, but she overrode the system from her terminal and entered an aisle seat for me (she gave me that choice) in row 22 - about two and half months in advance of other people who booked by my or similar methods. I thanked her for her consideration and said I would mention her help when Delta contacted me with a follow up email enquiring how I liked the telephone service I received that night.
Being a programmer/analyst is in our blood. Right, Dana? And also in our blood is being a writer, chosing word meanings carefully. Right, Dana, Fay (Voshel), Tim (Birdnow)?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.
April 18, 2017
Green Energy: An Offer They Can't Refuse
Timothy Birdnow
The Sicilian Mafia is going Green - and youse guys better do it too or else!
http://dailybail.com/home/the-mafia-is-moving-into-green-energy.html
From the article:
"Italian police have recently discovered links between the Sicilian crime families known as the Cosa Nostra, and wind and solar power companies in the area. Law enforcement officers have taken around a dozen crime bosses off to jail, along with corrupt officials and company executives; they have also seized around 30 percent of Sicily’s wind farms, and have frozen more than $2 billion worth of assets.
Back in 2010 a similar police operation saw the seizure of over 40 companies, land, buildings, factories, bank accounts, stocks, cars, and yachts from the Sicilian business man Vito Nicastri, also known as the ‘Lord of the Wind’ due to his investments in wind farms and solar panel factories.
It is likely that the Mafia has been attracted to renewable energy for several reasons; Sicily is a sunny, windy island that offers great alternative energy opportunities; much like Germany and Spain, Italy has been awarding generous subsidies to try and encourage the development of renewable energy projects; and also, the renewable energy industry offers a legitimate business which is likely to be around for many years and can provide a good front for the family"
End excerpt.
The Mafia is attracted where there is a lot of money and that is corruptible. Green energy is all that and more, a mafio wet dream where government money flows like water and there is little accountability. It has the same allure as the labor unions or running numbers. Look at the fortunes made by Al Gore, way, who is now worth over a hundred and seventy million (his net worth when he ran for President was around a million.) Nice work when you can get it.
And there is lots of it to be had. The U.S. government alone has pumped in something like $79 BILLION dollars, and that does not take into account money spent by the U.N., or the Europeans, or the Australians or whatnot. Then there are private foundations, such as George Soros' Tides Foundation, which pump in even more. Then there are universities. And let us not forget the millions poured in by oil companies as well. It is beyond big business; it is astronomical.
And where there is big money there is organized crime.
In fact, if I were a mafia Don I would be quite proud to have hatched up such a lucrative scheme. It's better than any protection racket or petty gambling con.
Business execs must go to Al Gore hat in hand "be my friend, Don Goreleone!" If you don't you may find a figurative horse's head in your bed.
Timothy Birdnow
The Sicilian Mafia is going Green - and youse guys better do it too or else!
http://dailybail.com/home/the-mafia-is-moving-into-green-energy.html
From the article:
"Italian police have recently discovered links between the Sicilian crime families known as the Cosa Nostra, and wind and solar power companies in the area. Law enforcement officers have taken around a dozen crime bosses off to jail, along with corrupt officials and company executives; they have also seized around 30 percent of Sicily’s wind farms, and have frozen more than $2 billion worth of assets.
Back in 2010 a similar police operation saw the seizure of over 40 companies, land, buildings, factories, bank accounts, stocks, cars, and yachts from the Sicilian business man Vito Nicastri, also known as the ‘Lord of the Wind’ due to his investments in wind farms and solar panel factories.
It is likely that the Mafia has been attracted to renewable energy for several reasons; Sicily is a sunny, windy island that offers great alternative energy opportunities; much like Germany and Spain, Italy has been awarding generous subsidies to try and encourage the development of renewable energy projects; and also, the renewable energy industry offers a legitimate business which is likely to be around for many years and can provide a good front for the family"
End excerpt.
The Mafia is attracted where there is a lot of money and that is corruptible. Green energy is all that and more, a mafio wet dream where government money flows like water and there is little accountability. It has the same allure as the labor unions or running numbers. Look at the fortunes made by Al Gore, way, who is now worth over a hundred and seventy million (his net worth when he ran for President was around a million.) Nice work when you can get it.
And there is lots of it to be had. The U.S. government alone has pumped in something like $79 BILLION dollars, and that does not take into account money spent by the U.N., or the Europeans, or the Australians or whatnot. Then there are private foundations, such as George Soros' Tides Foundation, which pump in even more. Then there are universities. And let us not forget the millions poured in by oil companies as well. It is beyond big business; it is astronomical.
And where there is big money there is organized crime.
In fact, if I were a mafia Don I would be quite proud to have hatched up such a lucrative scheme. It's better than any protection racket or petty gambling con.
Business execs must go to Al Gore hat in hand "be my friend, Don Goreleone!" If you don't you may find a figurative horse's head in your bed.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.
Swiss Find Solar Link to Planetary Warming
Timothy Birdnow
Swiss researchers have confirmed the Sun is a climate forcing.
http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx
After kowtowing to the "Man is causing the Earth to melt" alarmism, the article states:
"Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum."
End excerpt.
Get that! That big thermonuclear reactor in the sky actually makes a difference on planetary temperatures.
And I rather doubt they factor in solar related issues (like cosmic rays or magnetic resonance) that may influence planetary temperatures indirectly.
The more we learn the more simplistic and cartoonish the global warming models appear. Today we learn the Sun warms the planet. Tomorrow? Who knows? Maybe we'll determine that rain makes you wet.
Swiss researchers have confirmed the Sun is a climate forcing.
http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx
After kowtowing to the "Man is causing the Earth to melt" alarmism, the article states:
"Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum."
End excerpt.
Get that! That big thermonuclear reactor in the sky actually makes a difference on planetary temperatures.
And I rather doubt they factor in solar related issues (like cosmic rays or magnetic resonance) that may influence planetary temperatures indirectly.
The more we learn the more simplistic and cartoonish the global warming models appear. Today we learn the Sun warms the planet. Tomorrow? Who knows? Maybe we'll determine that rain makes you wet.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.
April 17, 2017
Peggy Noonan good piece on Bannon
Jack Kemp forwards this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/steve-bannon-may-have-something-to-offer-1492126592
Does Steve Bannon Have Something to Offer?
In 2014 the beleaguered White House aide raised important moral questions about today’s capitalism.
By
Peggy Noonan
My late friend Bill Safire, the tough and joyous New York Times columnist, once gave me good advice. I was not then a newspaper columnist, but he’d apparently decided I would be. This is what he said: Never join a pile-on, always hit ’em when they’re up. Don’t criticize the person who’s already being attacked. What’s the fun in that, where’s the valor? Hit them when they’re flying high and it takes some guts.
So, in the matter of Steve Bannon :
I think we can agree he brings a certain amount of disorder. They say he’s rough and tough, and there’s no reason to doubt it. They say he leaks like a sieve and disparages his rivals, and this can be assumed to be correct: They all do that in this White House. He is accused of saying incendiary things and that is true. A week into the administration he told Michael Grynbaum of the Times the media should "keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.†"I love a gunfight,†he reportedly said in the middle of his latest difficulties. When he tried to muscle members of the Freedom Caucus to vote for the ObamaCare replacement bill, a congressman blandly replied, "You know, the last time someone ordered me to do something I was 18 years old, and it was my daddy, and I didn’t listen to him, either.†When I said a while back that some of the president’s aides are outlandish, and confuse strength with aggression, he was in mind.
But there’s something low, unseemly and ugly in the efforts to take him out so publicly and humiliatingly, to turn him into a human oil spot on the tarmac—this not only from his putative colleagues but now even the president. "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,†Mr. Trump purred to the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin.
Read the rest!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/steve-bannon-may-have-something-to-offer-1492126592
Does Steve Bannon Have Something to Offer?
In 2014 the beleaguered White House aide raised important moral questions about today’s capitalism.
By
Peggy Noonan
My late friend Bill Safire, the tough and joyous New York Times columnist, once gave me good advice. I was not then a newspaper columnist, but he’d apparently decided I would be. This is what he said: Never join a pile-on, always hit ’em when they’re up. Don’t criticize the person who’s already being attacked. What’s the fun in that, where’s the valor? Hit them when they’re flying high and it takes some guts.
So, in the matter of Steve Bannon :
I think we can agree he brings a certain amount of disorder. They say he’s rough and tough, and there’s no reason to doubt it. They say he leaks like a sieve and disparages his rivals, and this can be assumed to be correct: They all do that in this White House. He is accused of saying incendiary things and that is true. A week into the administration he told Michael Grynbaum of the Times the media should "keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.†"I love a gunfight,†he reportedly said in the middle of his latest difficulties. When he tried to muscle members of the Freedom Caucus to vote for the ObamaCare replacement bill, a congressman blandly replied, "You know, the last time someone ordered me to do something I was 18 years old, and it was my daddy, and I didn’t listen to him, either.†When I said a while back that some of the president’s aides are outlandish, and confuse strength with aggression, he was in mind.
But there’s something low, unseemly and ugly in the efforts to take him out so publicly and humiliatingly, to turn him into a human oil spot on the tarmac—this not only from his putative colleagues but now even the president. "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,†Mr. Trump purred to the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin.
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.
More on the CT Prep School Pervs
Jack Kemp
But wait. There's more!
From the National Enquirer. This story, in broader scope, isn't going away.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/boarding-school-sexual-abuse-choate-rosemary/
There's horror in Hollywood as a boarding school favored by the rich and famous is hit with allegations of widespread sexual abuse — with students saying staffers sexually assaulted and abused students for decades! 24 victims have come forward to say the abuse dates back to the early 1960s — when future stars Michael Douglas, Glenn Close and Jamie Lee Curtis all attended the school.
But wait. There's more!
From the National Enquirer. This story, in broader scope, isn't going away.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/boarding-school-sexual-abuse-choate-rosemary/
There's horror in Hollywood as a boarding school favored by the rich and famous is hit with allegations of widespread sexual abuse — with students saying staffers sexually assaulted and abused students for decades! 24 victims have come forward to say the abuse dates back to the early 1960s — when future stars Michael Douglas, Glenn Close and Jamie Lee Curtis all attended the school.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
Finally - Gay Porn star says Protect U.S. from Muslim "Barbarians"
Jack Kemp
Finally, a gay leader understands that one can be too liberal for one's own good....
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/04/16/exclusive-gay-porn-kingpin-protect-america-muslim-barbarians/
The United States and the West in general must protect themselves from Muslim "barbarians as vigorously as they (Muslims) protect their society, their way of living, their way of thinking,†Michael Lucas, a gay pornographic film actor and director, charged in a radio interview.
Lucas recommended strictly limiting the U.S. refugee program and other immigration to cultures and societies that "share our values.â€
"We can be like a sports team,†argued Lucas. "We can choose the crème de la crème. Doctors. Engineers. Programmers from all over the world. But from the world that is sharing our values. That is my very strong belief.â€
Lucas is founder and CEO of Lucas Entertainment, New York’s largest gay adult film company and one of the biggest gay porn production companies in the world. He is also the director and producer of numerous documentaries, including "Campaign of Hate: Russia and Gay Propaganda,†released in 2014.
Lucas made his comments in an interview to air on this reporter’s Sunday night talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,†broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.
Jack Kemp
Finally, a gay leader understands that one can be too liberal for one's own good....
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/04/16/exclusive-gay-porn-kingpin-protect-america-muslim-barbarians/
The United States and the West in general must protect themselves from Muslim "barbarians as vigorously as they (Muslims) protect their society, their way of living, their way of thinking,†Michael Lucas, a gay pornographic film actor and director, charged in a radio interview.
Lucas recommended strictly limiting the U.S. refugee program and other immigration to cultures and societies that "share our values.â€
"We can be like a sports team,†argued Lucas. "We can choose the crème de la crème. Doctors. Engineers. Programmers from all over the world. But from the world that is sharing our values. That is my very strong belief.â€
Lucas is founder and CEO of Lucas Entertainment, New York’s largest gay adult film company and one of the biggest gay porn production companies in the world. He is also the director and producer of numerous documentaries, including "Campaign of Hate: Russia and Gay Propaganda,†released in 2014.
Lucas made his comments in an interview to air on this reporter’s Sunday night talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,†broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.
Real science must guide policy
Paul Driessen
My article this week recaps testimony by four scientist witnesses at the recent House Science Committee hearings on assumptions, policy implications and scientific principles of climate change. It then makes a thought-provoking and I hope compelling case that the supposed "consensus†or "settled†science on "dangerous manmade climate change†is much in dispute and driven by faulty computer models and other major deficiencies.
Most important, that junk science is being used to justify demands that the United States and world eliminate the carbon-based fuels that provide 80% of the energy that makes modern industry, civilization and living standards possible – and that are needed to lift billions more people out of poverty and disease. Those demands require solid, incontrovertible evidence that climate alarmists are right. There is no such evidence.
Real science must guide policy
Climate alarmists use faulty science and bald assertions to demand end to fossil fuels
Paul Driessen
All too many alarmist climate scientists have received millions in taxpayer grants over the years, relied on computer models that do not reflect real-world observations, attacked and refused to debate scientists who disagree with manmade climate cataclysm claims, refused to share their computer algorithms and raw data with reviewers outside their circle of fellow researchers – and then used their work to make or justify demands that the world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and have lifted billions out of nasty, brutish, life-shortening poverty and disease.
A recent US House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on assumptions, policy implications and scientific principles of climate change showcased this. Testimony by climate scientists Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr. contrasted sharply with that of Dr. Michael Mann.
Christy noted that Congress and the public have been getting biased analyses and conclusions that begin with and attempt to confirm the belief that human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions drive climate change. He said government should "organize and fund credible ‘Red Teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise.†He demonstrated how average global temperatures predicted by dozens of models for 2015 are now off by a full half-degree Celsius (0.9 F) from what has actually been measured.
Curry discussed how she has been repeatedly vilified as an "anti-science†climate change "denier†and "disinformer.†But she focused on the role of the scientific method, especially as related to the complex forces involved in climate change – and especially when used to advise on policy and law. Real science means positing and proving a hypothesis with convincing real world evidence. Models can help, but only if they accurately reflect the total climate system and their results conform to real world observations.
Pielke discussed his own mistreatment as a "denier†and showed that there is "little scientific basis†for claims that extreme weather events (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts) have increased in recent decades due to GHG emissions. In fact, IPCC and other studies reveal that the USA and world have had "remarkable good fortune†with extreme weather in recent years, compared to the past: 23 major hurricanes hit the US East Coast 1915-1964; but only 9 in 1965-2016 – and not one since October 2005. He also offered 18 specific recommendations for improving scientific integrity in climate science.
Mann said the other three witnesses represent a "tiny minority†who stand opposed to the 97% who agree that "climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.†He defended his "hockey stick†historic temperature graph, claimed climate models have been "tested vigorously and rigorously†and have "passed a number of impressive tests,†insisted that warming [of a couple hundredths of a degree] in recent years proves that manmade global warming "has continued unabated,†and accused those who contest these statements of being "anti-science†deniers.
The "97% consensus†is imaginary – a fabrication. One source was a survey sent to 10,256 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. But their number was arbitrarily reduced to 77 "expert†or "active†climate researchers, of which 75 agreed with two simplistic questions that many would support. (Has Earth warmed since 1800? Did humans play a significant role?) Voila! 97% consensus. But what about the other 3,069 respondents? 75 out of 3,146 is barely 0.02 percent. Purported consensus studies by Cook, Oreskes and others were just as bogus.
Moreover, governments have been spending billions of dollars annually on climate research. The vas majority went to the alarmist camp. If $25,000 or $100,000 a year from fossil fuel interests can "buy†skeptical scientists, as we are often told, how much "consensus†can billions purchase? If many scientists who contest "dangerous manmade climate change†are harassed, or threatened with RICO prosecutions, how many will have the courage to speak out and challenge the "consensus†and "settled science�
These are timely questions. On April 12, 1633 the Catholic Church convicted astronomer Galileo Galilei of heresy, for refusing to accept its doctrine that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
But far more important, the climate battle is not merely a debate over miasma versus germ theory of disease, AC versus DC current, or geologic mechanisms behind plate tectonics. It’s far more even than disagreements over how much humans might be affecting Earth’s climate, or how bad (or beneficial) future changes might be, on a planet where climate fluctuations have occurred throughout history.
Manmade climate catastrophe claims are being used to justify demands that the United States and world eliminate the carbon-based fuels that provide 80% of the energy that makes modern industry, civilization and living standards possible – and that continue to lift billions of people out of poverty and disease.
Climate alarmists want that radical transformation to take place right now. McKinsey & Company, the UN and assorted activists say the world must spend some $93 trillion over the next 15 years to convert completely from fossil fuels to "sustainable†energy! Or it will be too late. Our planet will be doomed.
Claims and demands like those require solid, incontrovertible proof that climate alarmists are right. Not just computer models, repeated assertions, "peer review†among like-minded researchers seeking their next government grant, or a partial-degree of warming amid multiple El Niños and cooling cycles. They require "Red Team†analyses and open, unfettered debate over every aspect of human and natural influences on Earth’s climate, the ways carbon dioxide improves plant growth, and the need for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity and motor fuel for every person in every nation.
We haven’t had any of that so far. Up to now, climate chaos is just one more Club of Rome supposedly looming disaster, supposedly caused by human intervention in natural processes, supposedly requiring immediate, fundamental changes in human behavior, to avoid supposed global calamities – threats to the very survival of our wildlife, civilization and planet. It’s all assertions, devoid of persuasive evidence.
It’s true that virtually all nations have signed the Paris accords. However, only President Obama signed it for the USA; the Senate never ratified the decision. And the US reduced its CO2 emissions by 12.5% since 2007, while Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose 0.7% in one year, 2014-2015.
Britain is looking into rescinding some 2020 clean energy targets and using more coal and natural gas. EU nations are realizing that overpriced, unreliable wind and solar power is hammering families and killing their jobs and economies. Virtually all the developing nations that signed onto the Paris (non)treaty did so because they were promised trillions of dollars in climate "adaptation, mitigation and reparation†money.
That brings us to another April anniversary: the 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Tambora. This monumental volcanic explosion blew an inconceivable 4,650 feet off the volcano; sent 36 cubic miles of ash, rock, sulfur and other gases into the atmosphere; triggered tsunamis that killed over 10,000 people; and caused serious climate changes and crop failures that killed 80,000 more over the following year.
We may be about to witness another volcanic explosion. Under the Paris insanity, developed nations are expected to de-carbonize, de-industrialize and curb their growth – while sending $100 billion per year to ruling elites in developing countries that are not required to trim fossil fuel use or GHG emissions.
It cannot and will not happen. In fact, industrialized nations are already reneging on their pledges, refusing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, or recasting current foreign aid as Paris climate money. China, India, Brazil and poor countries are outraged. They want new money, more money – or else they will walk away from their commitments, and the Paris house of cards will collapse. It should collapse.
Billions of people are still energy-deprived, impoverished, diseased and starving. Millions are dying needlessly every year. Faulty, authoritarian climate and "sustainability†claims are being use to perpetuate these travesties. It’s time to help poor countries get the same energy, technologies and opportunities we have – so that they can take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people.
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.
My article this week recaps testimony by four scientist witnesses at the recent House Science Committee hearings on assumptions, policy implications and scientific principles of climate change. It then makes a thought-provoking and I hope compelling case that the supposed "consensus†or "settled†science on "dangerous manmade climate change†is much in dispute and driven by faulty computer models and other major deficiencies.
Most important, that junk science is being used to justify demands that the United States and world eliminate the carbon-based fuels that provide 80% of the energy that makes modern industry, civilization and living standards possible – and that are needed to lift billions more people out of poverty and disease. Those demands require solid, incontrovertible evidence that climate alarmists are right. There is no such evidence.
Real science must guide policy
Climate alarmists use faulty science and bald assertions to demand end to fossil fuels
Paul Driessen
All too many alarmist climate scientists have received millions in taxpayer grants over the years, relied on computer models that do not reflect real-world observations, attacked and refused to debate scientists who disagree with manmade climate cataclysm claims, refused to share their computer algorithms and raw data with reviewers outside their circle of fellow researchers – and then used their work to make or justify demands that the world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and have lifted billions out of nasty, brutish, life-shortening poverty and disease.
A recent US House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on assumptions, policy implications and scientific principles of climate change showcased this. Testimony by climate scientists Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr. contrasted sharply with that of Dr. Michael Mann.
Christy noted that Congress and the public have been getting biased analyses and conclusions that begin with and attempt to confirm the belief that human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions drive climate change. He said government should "organize and fund credible ‘Red Teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise.†He demonstrated how average global temperatures predicted by dozens of models for 2015 are now off by a full half-degree Celsius (0.9 F) from what has actually been measured.
Curry discussed how she has been repeatedly vilified as an "anti-science†climate change "denier†and "disinformer.†But she focused on the role of the scientific method, especially as related to the complex forces involved in climate change – and especially when used to advise on policy and law. Real science means positing and proving a hypothesis with convincing real world evidence. Models can help, but only if they accurately reflect the total climate system and their results conform to real world observations.
Pielke discussed his own mistreatment as a "denier†and showed that there is "little scientific basis†for claims that extreme weather events (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts) have increased in recent decades due to GHG emissions. In fact, IPCC and other studies reveal that the USA and world have had "remarkable good fortune†with extreme weather in recent years, compared to the past: 23 major hurricanes hit the US East Coast 1915-1964; but only 9 in 1965-2016 – and not one since October 2005. He also offered 18 specific recommendations for improving scientific integrity in climate science.
Mann said the other three witnesses represent a "tiny minority†who stand opposed to the 97% who agree that "climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.†He defended his "hockey stick†historic temperature graph, claimed climate models have been "tested vigorously and rigorously†and have "passed a number of impressive tests,†insisted that warming [of a couple hundredths of a degree] in recent years proves that manmade global warming "has continued unabated,†and accused those who contest these statements of being "anti-science†deniers.
The "97% consensus†is imaginary – a fabrication. One source was a survey sent to 10,256 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. But their number was arbitrarily reduced to 77 "expert†or "active†climate researchers, of which 75 agreed with two simplistic questions that many would support. (Has Earth warmed since 1800? Did humans play a significant role?) Voila! 97% consensus. But what about the other 3,069 respondents? 75 out of 3,146 is barely 0.02 percent. Purported consensus studies by Cook, Oreskes and others were just as bogus.
Moreover, governments have been spending billions of dollars annually on climate research. The vas majority went to the alarmist camp. If $25,000 or $100,000 a year from fossil fuel interests can "buy†skeptical scientists, as we are often told, how much "consensus†can billions purchase? If many scientists who contest "dangerous manmade climate change†are harassed, or threatened with RICO prosecutions, how many will have the courage to speak out and challenge the "consensus†and "settled science�
These are timely questions. On April 12, 1633 the Catholic Church convicted astronomer Galileo Galilei of heresy, for refusing to accept its doctrine that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
But far more important, the climate battle is not merely a debate over miasma versus germ theory of disease, AC versus DC current, or geologic mechanisms behind plate tectonics. It’s far more even than disagreements over how much humans might be affecting Earth’s climate, or how bad (or beneficial) future changes might be, on a planet where climate fluctuations have occurred throughout history.
Manmade climate catastrophe claims are being used to justify demands that the United States and world eliminate the carbon-based fuels that provide 80% of the energy that makes modern industry, civilization and living standards possible – and that continue to lift billions of people out of poverty and disease.
Climate alarmists want that radical transformation to take place right now. McKinsey & Company, the UN and assorted activists say the world must spend some $93 trillion over the next 15 years to convert completely from fossil fuels to "sustainable†energy! Or it will be too late. Our planet will be doomed.
Claims and demands like those require solid, incontrovertible proof that climate alarmists are right. Not just computer models, repeated assertions, "peer review†among like-minded researchers seeking their next government grant, or a partial-degree of warming amid multiple El Niños and cooling cycles. They require "Red Team†analyses and open, unfettered debate over every aspect of human and natural influences on Earth’s climate, the ways carbon dioxide improves plant growth, and the need for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity and motor fuel for every person in every nation.
We haven’t had any of that so far. Up to now, climate chaos is just one more Club of Rome supposedly looming disaster, supposedly caused by human intervention in natural processes, supposedly requiring immediate, fundamental changes in human behavior, to avoid supposed global calamities – threats to the very survival of our wildlife, civilization and planet. It’s all assertions, devoid of persuasive evidence.
It’s true that virtually all nations have signed the Paris accords. However, only President Obama signed it for the USA; the Senate never ratified the decision. And the US reduced its CO2 emissions by 12.5% since 2007, while Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose 0.7% in one year, 2014-2015.
Britain is looking into rescinding some 2020 clean energy targets and using more coal and natural gas. EU nations are realizing that overpriced, unreliable wind and solar power is hammering families and killing their jobs and economies. Virtually all the developing nations that signed onto the Paris (non)treaty did so because they were promised trillions of dollars in climate "adaptation, mitigation and reparation†money.
That brings us to another April anniversary: the 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Tambora. This monumental volcanic explosion blew an inconceivable 4,650 feet off the volcano; sent 36 cubic miles of ash, rock, sulfur and other gases into the atmosphere; triggered tsunamis that killed over 10,000 people; and caused serious climate changes and crop failures that killed 80,000 more over the following year.
We may be about to witness another volcanic explosion. Under the Paris insanity, developed nations are expected to de-carbonize, de-industrialize and curb their growth – while sending $100 billion per year to ruling elites in developing countries that are not required to trim fossil fuel use or GHG emissions.
It cannot and will not happen. In fact, industrialized nations are already reneging on their pledges, refusing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, or recasting current foreign aid as Paris climate money. China, India, Brazil and poor countries are outraged. They want new money, more money – or else they will walk away from their commitments, and the Paris house of cards will collapse. It should collapse.
Billions of people are still energy-deprived, impoverished, diseased and starving. Millions are dying needlessly every year. Faulty, authoritarian climate and "sustainability†claims are being use to perpetuate these travesties. It’s time to help poor countries get the same energy, technologies and opportunities we have – so that they can take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people.
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.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1534 words, total size 11 kb.
Trumping healthcare’s bad hand
Paul Driessen
This article by my colleague Scot Faulkner offers fascinating insights into our healthcare problems and the Republicans’ failure thus far to repeal, replace and fix Obamacare. It also presents some excellent ideas that could significantly – and in general inexpensively – improve US healthcare.
Trumping healthcare’s bad hand
Some history lessons and suggestions to improve US healthcare without breaking the bank
Scot Faulkner
As the White House and Republican leaders continue debates and negotiations on a new bill, the blamestorming continues over the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Congressional Republicans have only themselves to blame. Since returning to majority in the House in January 2011, Republicans have formally voted 54 times to address all or part of Obamacare. Six were votes on full appeal.
In 2015, H.R. 132 is typical of these efforts. It simply stated: "such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.†Why didn’t Republicans vote on this a few weeks ago?
Republicans did not vote on simply going back in time, because they thought government should play a significant role in healthcare. It should not. Crippling regulations need to be changed and the private sector needs to be encouraged. Last month’s legislation did not clear the way for these solutions.
The Republicans’ problem is squandering six years with legislation designed more for fundraising and campaigning than governing. Instead, they could have viewed their repeal and replace efforts as prototyping or beta-testing a new product or APP. They could have tested ideas and built Republican consensus. Not doing this led to disaster. What to do next?
In 2013, I outlined a patient-centric versus politician-centric approach. Maybe now it will be followed. Those wanting an expanded governmental role in healthcare and those opposing it are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong way.
The debate over national healthcare policy has lasted over a century – intensifying during the Clinton Administration and since Obamacare. It has always been about coverage, liability, and finance, never about care protocols and patients. If making health affordable is everyone’s stated goal, then why not focus on the actual care, health, and wellness of Americans?
America remains the best place on Earth to have an acute illness or shock-trauma injury. Our nation’s emergency rooms and first responder protocols are unequaled. Princess Diana may have lived had her car accident happened in New York City instead of Paris. America’s diagnostic methods and equipment are unequaled. That’s why patients from all over the globe seek answers to complex symptoms by visiting the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Sloan Kettering and countless other world class facilities.
The other side of American healthcare is its failings in chronic care, expense, and a system that is controlled by the medical profession, pharmaceutical companies and insurance industry. This triad of entrenched interests has prevented the widespread use of substances and therapies deemed effective in most of the world.
Thankfully, an increasing number of healthcare professionals are embracing global best practices, virtual technology, and patient-centric methods. Some are even exploring homeopathic and nutritional treatments that are common place around the globe, but viewed as "nontraditional†in America. These innovations are improving the health of patients while driving down costs. This is the arena where policy-makers should check their partisanship at the door. Seeking ways to improve healthcare, not health financing, will ultimately make health affordable to us all.
I have personal experience with the convergence of these worlds. Since 2007, I have been the primary caregiver to several family members with serious chronic conditions. These conditions have been punctuated by emergency care and major surgeries. Making decisions and managing treatment across this spectrum has been a real education that has helped me identify four major areas of opportunity for health and healthcare improvement, while addressing the affordability of private and public health services.
First, not all ailments require doctors and prescription medications. Government and industry policies drive people away from cheaper and more effective natural remedies. Herbal remedies have been successfully used since the first humans. For example, apple cider vinegar has completely solved acid reflex. Cayenne pepper has improved heart function.
However, natural substances are not covered as a medical expense either by insurance or tax deductions. Instead, acid reflex sufferers must pay for over-the-counter treatments (which are also not covered by insurance or tax deductions), or must obtain expensive prescriptions after paying to see a doctor or specialist. Being a natural treatment, the vinegar regime also avoids side effects and drug interactions. Why not go "back to the future†and find ways to support these more affordable and effective treatments?
Second, nurse practitioners form one of the new front lines of care. The overwhelming majority of my family’s office visits are with a nurse practitioner interacting with the patient and lab technicians. Occasionally, a doctor will review the information and discuss treatment options with the patient. Supporting the evolution to nurse practitioners through education, professional certification, protocol modifications and pricing would reduce costs and expand health options for professionals and patients.
Third, community caregiving is another new frontline of achieving and sustaining wellness. In 2009-2011, I was part of the planning team for developing a community-based care system for the Atlanta area. We found a disturbing pattern – patients, especially Medicare/Medicaid patients, arrive in hospital emergency rooms when their chronic conditions (diabetes, congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, eg) become acute. These patients are treated at the most expensive point of care: emergency room. Once they are released, many do not have the support (family, friends, neighbors) or the capacity (some form of dementia) to follow a treatment regime that would prevent the next emergency room visit. These revolving door patients drive-up costs and end-up in a cycle of deterioration.
Our solution was to develop a community-based healthcare network. Such networks are known as "Accountable Care Organizations†(ACOs). They break-out of traditional hospital and doctor office environments to forge partnerships with the community – churches, social workers, local government, neighbor associations, and nonprofits. A needy patient with chronic conditions is assessed holistically.
This includes risk factors (i.e. smoking, alcoholism, drugs) and environmental factors (family & home environment). A care plan is developed and assigned to a multi-faceted care team (comprising community resources) and a care manager. Doctors and nurses are part of the team. The majority of health actions take place among family and community – driven by electronic medical records, aided by remote sensors and virtual care, and guided by the managed care team.
The result of this holistic approach is improved care, sustainable health and reduced costs. It is the one way Medicare and Medicaid costs can be substantially reduced while enhancing quality of life. There are initiatives to promote this methodology within the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but it is occurring too slowly and is too isolated. ACOs are making a difference, but no major politician has embraced the concept and neither party has promoted them as a way to reduce Entitlement costs.
Fourth, families have always been a pivotal component in healthcare. Whether it is a parent staying home to care for sick children, or adult children caring for ailing parents, family caregiving is vital; but it is also emotionally and financially draining.
Having been the care manager, medical power of attorney, and patient advocate for both my parents and my wife, I know how much time is spent with ailing family members. Current IRS regulations provide for listing parents as dependents based only upon financial support.
However, there are no tax credits or deductions for those who have the medical power of attorney and devote countless hours to direct care or acting as the patient’s advocate for managing their care. Politicians at both the state and federal levels should provide relief for this indispensable and growing volunteer service sector. Supporting Family-based assistance will save billions in public assistance.
According to the National Alliance of Caregiving, 70 million Americans provide unpaid assistance and support to older people and adults with disabilities. Forty percent of these caregivers provide care for 2-5 years, while approximately 29% provide care for 5-10 years. Unpaid caregiving by family and friends has an estimated national economic value (in 2004) of $306 billion annually – exceeding combined costs for nursing home care ($103.2 billion) and home health care ($36.1 billion). This value is increasing as the population ages.
These four areas of opportunity will not address every health issue or entirely diffuse the fiscal bombs strapped to medical entitlements, but they are a good nonpartisan start. It is time for politicians to focus on the wellbeing of patients, not themselves.
Scot Faulkner was Chief Administrative Officer for the U.S. House of Representatives.He served on the ACO team for the Southeast Atlanta Health Care System [SAHCS], as an advisor to Kinexum, a medical research consortium, and as an advisor on professional standards and ethics to the American College of Dentists. He has been the medical power of attorney and primary caregiver for his spouse and parents since 2007.
This article by my colleague Scot Faulkner offers fascinating insights into our healthcare problems and the Republicans’ failure thus far to repeal, replace and fix Obamacare. It also presents some excellent ideas that could significantly – and in general inexpensively – improve US healthcare.
Trumping healthcare’s bad hand
Some history lessons and suggestions to improve US healthcare without breaking the bank
Scot Faulkner
As the White House and Republican leaders continue debates and negotiations on a new bill, the blamestorming continues over the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Congressional Republicans have only themselves to blame. Since returning to majority in the House in January 2011, Republicans have formally voted 54 times to address all or part of Obamacare. Six were votes on full appeal.
In 2015, H.R. 132 is typical of these efforts. It simply stated: "such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.†Why didn’t Republicans vote on this a few weeks ago?
Republicans did not vote on simply going back in time, because they thought government should play a significant role in healthcare. It should not. Crippling regulations need to be changed and the private sector needs to be encouraged. Last month’s legislation did not clear the way for these solutions.
The Republicans’ problem is squandering six years with legislation designed more for fundraising and campaigning than governing. Instead, they could have viewed their repeal and replace efforts as prototyping or beta-testing a new product or APP. They could have tested ideas and built Republican consensus. Not doing this led to disaster. What to do next?
In 2013, I outlined a patient-centric versus politician-centric approach. Maybe now it will be followed. Those wanting an expanded governmental role in healthcare and those opposing it are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong way.
The debate over national healthcare policy has lasted over a century – intensifying during the Clinton Administration and since Obamacare. It has always been about coverage, liability, and finance, never about care protocols and patients. If making health affordable is everyone’s stated goal, then why not focus on the actual care, health, and wellness of Americans?
America remains the best place on Earth to have an acute illness or shock-trauma injury. Our nation’s emergency rooms and first responder protocols are unequaled. Princess Diana may have lived had her car accident happened in New York City instead of Paris. America’s diagnostic methods and equipment are unequaled. That’s why patients from all over the globe seek answers to complex symptoms by visiting the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Sloan Kettering and countless other world class facilities.
The other side of American healthcare is its failings in chronic care, expense, and a system that is controlled by the medical profession, pharmaceutical companies and insurance industry. This triad of entrenched interests has prevented the widespread use of substances and therapies deemed effective in most of the world.
Thankfully, an increasing number of healthcare professionals are embracing global best practices, virtual technology, and patient-centric methods. Some are even exploring homeopathic and nutritional treatments that are common place around the globe, but viewed as "nontraditional†in America. These innovations are improving the health of patients while driving down costs. This is the arena where policy-makers should check their partisanship at the door. Seeking ways to improve healthcare, not health financing, will ultimately make health affordable to us all.
I have personal experience with the convergence of these worlds. Since 2007, I have been the primary caregiver to several family members with serious chronic conditions. These conditions have been punctuated by emergency care and major surgeries. Making decisions and managing treatment across this spectrum has been a real education that has helped me identify four major areas of opportunity for health and healthcare improvement, while addressing the affordability of private and public health services.
First, not all ailments require doctors and prescription medications. Government and industry policies drive people away from cheaper and more effective natural remedies. Herbal remedies have been successfully used since the first humans. For example, apple cider vinegar has completely solved acid reflex. Cayenne pepper has improved heart function.
However, natural substances are not covered as a medical expense either by insurance or tax deductions. Instead, acid reflex sufferers must pay for over-the-counter treatments (which are also not covered by insurance or tax deductions), or must obtain expensive prescriptions after paying to see a doctor or specialist. Being a natural treatment, the vinegar regime also avoids side effects and drug interactions. Why not go "back to the future†and find ways to support these more affordable and effective treatments?
Second, nurse practitioners form one of the new front lines of care. The overwhelming majority of my family’s office visits are with a nurse practitioner interacting with the patient and lab technicians. Occasionally, a doctor will review the information and discuss treatment options with the patient. Supporting the evolution to nurse practitioners through education, professional certification, protocol modifications and pricing would reduce costs and expand health options for professionals and patients.
Third, community caregiving is another new frontline of achieving and sustaining wellness. In 2009-2011, I was part of the planning team for developing a community-based care system for the Atlanta area. We found a disturbing pattern – patients, especially Medicare/Medicaid patients, arrive in hospital emergency rooms when their chronic conditions (diabetes, congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, eg) become acute. These patients are treated at the most expensive point of care: emergency room. Once they are released, many do not have the support (family, friends, neighbors) or the capacity (some form of dementia) to follow a treatment regime that would prevent the next emergency room visit. These revolving door patients drive-up costs and end-up in a cycle of deterioration.
Our solution was to develop a community-based healthcare network. Such networks are known as "Accountable Care Organizations†(ACOs). They break-out of traditional hospital and doctor office environments to forge partnerships with the community – churches, social workers, local government, neighbor associations, and nonprofits. A needy patient with chronic conditions is assessed holistically.
This includes risk factors (i.e. smoking, alcoholism, drugs) and environmental factors (family & home environment). A care plan is developed and assigned to a multi-faceted care team (comprising community resources) and a care manager. Doctors and nurses are part of the team. The majority of health actions take place among family and community – driven by electronic medical records, aided by remote sensors and virtual care, and guided by the managed care team.
The result of this holistic approach is improved care, sustainable health and reduced costs. It is the one way Medicare and Medicaid costs can be substantially reduced while enhancing quality of life. There are initiatives to promote this methodology within the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but it is occurring too slowly and is too isolated. ACOs are making a difference, but no major politician has embraced the concept and neither party has promoted them as a way to reduce Entitlement costs.
Fourth, families have always been a pivotal component in healthcare. Whether it is a parent staying home to care for sick children, or adult children caring for ailing parents, family caregiving is vital; but it is also emotionally and financially draining.
Having been the care manager, medical power of attorney, and patient advocate for both my parents and my wife, I know how much time is spent with ailing family members. Current IRS regulations provide for listing parents as dependents based only upon financial support.
However, there are no tax credits or deductions for those who have the medical power of attorney and devote countless hours to direct care or acting as the patient’s advocate for managing their care. Politicians at both the state and federal levels should provide relief for this indispensable and growing volunteer service sector. Supporting Family-based assistance will save billions in public assistance.
According to the National Alliance of Caregiving, 70 million Americans provide unpaid assistance and support to older people and adults with disabilities. Forty percent of these caregivers provide care for 2-5 years, while approximately 29% provide care for 5-10 years. Unpaid caregiving by family and friends has an estimated national economic value (in 2004) of $306 billion annually – exceeding combined costs for nursing home care ($103.2 billion) and home health care ($36.1 billion). This value is increasing as the population ages.
These four areas of opportunity will not address every health issue or entirely diffuse the fiscal bombs strapped to medical entitlements, but they are a good nonpartisan start. It is time for politicians to focus on the wellbeing of patients, not themselves.
Scot Faulkner was Chief Administrative Officer for the U.S. House of Representatives.He served on the ACO team for the Southeast Atlanta Health Care System [SAHCS], as an advisor to Kinexum, a medical research consortium, and as an advisor on professional standards and ethics to the American College of Dentists. He has been the medical power of attorney and primary caregiver for his spouse and parents since 2007.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1528 words, total size 11 kb.
What is Trump’s Endgame in Korea?
Daren Jonescu
(The following article originally appeared at American Thinker.)
As I live and work in the Republic of Korea, I naturally have a certain immediate interest in the latest Trump vs. Kim saber-rattling — as in, "Am I on the brink of being hustled to an airport with a one-way ticket out of Dodge?†On the other hand, in a land permanently in a state of low-simmering war — no peace accord between North and South Korea ever having been signed — one tends to fall into an unhealthy default assumption that since nothing major has happened before, nothing major will happen this time.
In fact, to observe the demeanor of my Korean friends, colleagues, students, and neighbors is to be palliated to near-coma levels. Threats and agitations from the North Korean regime have been such a normal part of life in the ROK for so many decades that for a foreigner who has lived here and been immersed in the day to day life of Korean society long enough, it’s hard to imagine what, short of a missile strike on Seoul (or perhaps more than one), would push the average South Korean into a state of urgent concern.
The North vows to annihilate the South on a regular basis, carries out high-level weapons tests timed to get the most attention as deliberate provocations, and has, in recent years, shelled an inhabited South Korean island (killing several people and destroying property) and sunk an ROK Navy ship with a torpedo. These events are top news headlines in the ROK, of course, and cause the usual moment of outrage and frustration, just as they would if they were reports of events happening on the other side of the world. That these outrages are not on the other side of the world; that the threats are against their own people, the deaths from among their own fellow citizens; and that the military assault was directed against their own Navy, which carries a more personal implication in the ROK, where all healthy young men are conscripted for two years of military service — the men on that torpedoed ship could have been anyone’s sons or brothers — makes the typical Korean’s numbness to the threats and provocations almost surreal.
And I do not use the word "surreal†casually. There is an oneiric quality to the South’s approach to the North and everything it represents, suggestive of our reactions in dreams: the events feel real, but yet somehow do not quite stir the dreamer to a fully engaged response. This may have something to do with the specific nature of the threat. For the North Korean regime, from its inception, has fallen outside the bounds of reason to such an extent that it may be hard to see the danger it represents as falling within those bounds. It’s a little like having a crazy aunt living upstairs. She talks a lot and makes wild threats; occasionally we have a family meeting to discuss her condition and whether more radical action has to be taken. But somehow the sheer insanity of what she is doing and saying makes her seem less dangerous, as though she is operating, mentally, so far outside the realm of normal human efficacy that we can’t help feeling that all the wild promises she makes must be equally outside the realm of normal cause and effect. None of it seems completely substantial, but rather just a lot of explosions in her crazy mind. We therefore wish she would go away, but feel little motivation to exert all the energy needed to take the active, complicated steps that would actually get her out of the house.
Now the U.S. military is actively challenging the North regarding its nuclear ambitions. How serious the challenge is depends on which news source, or which "leaked†story, you choose to believe. Are we talking about a "preemptive strike,†as NBC implies, or not? But there is no question that the rhetoric has heated somewhat, and that the unspoken rhetoric of deployment has heated even more. The big questions are: Can this escalation end in anything fruitful, and what exactly is the Trump administration’s endgame in this situation?
There is no doubt that U.S. policy for a generation has emboldened the North — both Kim Jong-Il (he of the five holes-in-one during his first ever round of golf) and now his son Kim Jong-Un — to pursue an ever-whackier line of provocations and propaganda. Even a lunatic and world champion of Short Man Syndrome like Kim Jong-Il was sensitive to the benefits of serving wine and parades to a world champion of Unfeminine Woman Syndrome like Madeleine Albright. A less tolerant and legitimizing stand from the U.S., and a strong statement that the time for empty "negotiation†with the pot-bellied crackpots is over, are reasonable and long-overdue steps.
However, it would be unwise to ignore the irreversible damage done by a generation of treating the North with excessive forbearance and as trustworthy negotiators. The time for dealing bluntly and cavalierly with your crazy aunt is when she is still just talking a lot of inconsequential nonsense in the attic, not after she has stolen and loaded your shotgun and is aiming it at the door. The young Kim Jong-Un has real weapons, a lot of them, and has already shown himself to be unhinged and ruthless — or rather carelessly bold — in the manner of an extreme sufferer of his family’s congenital Short Man Syndrome. It is reasonable to assume that the only thing that prevents him from trying to rain a hundred missiles on the twenty million residents of metropolitan Seoul is that he still thinks he has more to gain from the threat than the deed.
What is his breaking point? What would push him into desperate action? Certainly any sense that his grip on power was being immediately threatened from without would be likely to trigger a catastrophically foolish response from a man seemingly capable only of foolishness of one sort or another.
The basis of playing chicken with anyone is the presumption one makes that one’s adversary is rational enough to flinch, which is to say that he has a natural propensity to step back from the brink of disaster. But if he doesn’t, or if he has made a literal or figurative suicide pact with himself, then what?
One might object that Kim Jong-Un is no Islamic suicide bomber; he wants to survive. That may be true, and it is certainly difficult to imagine the overfed, unstable Kim having even the twisted, maniacal courage of a jihadist. However, one cannot underestimate the influence of the North’s own propaganda on the psyche of its latest Dear Leader. His hold on power requires that he continue to be perceived as godlike, invincible, capable of superhuman feats, born to rule his people, and immovable. How much of that vision, force-fed to his starving population daily, has penetrated his own skull? A young heir to a small but monolithic kingdom who possesses the ability and the will to kill political rivals, including family members, with impunity is probably inclined to half-believe his own hype. All the talk of destroying the South Korean and American aggressors may well have sunk deep into his unrestrained and unchallenged mind, causing him to have more faith in himself, his arsenal, and the loyalty of his enormous military, than is warranted by the facts.
If so, then he must be approached with caution, as offensive as that prospect may be. No, the United States military, alone or in conjunction with the ROK’s, is not seriously threatened with defeat at the hands of North Korea. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that in the process of dealing roughly with this crazy aunt, now that she has been allowed access to the ammunition, she is very likely to spend a lot of bullets prior to being subdued. In this case, those bullets could strike one of the ripest targets on the planet, situated within easy range of even the most inept shooters.
Perhaps it never had to come to this, but this is where it has come. We are seeing the results of allowing progressives to control foreign policy in a dangerous world. South Korea had its own period of "Sunshine Policy†toward the North, as leftist sympathizers with the communist system tried to imagine the system could be judged separately from the regime. Likewise, American progressives have spent almost thirty years imagining the Kim family, though crazy, somehow presided over a system worthy of self-determination and autonomy. Now, like it or not, this folly has created an intractable problem. We cannot wish away the North’s arsenal and nuclear developments. They are here, real, and nightmarish, achieved right under the noses of successive progressive morons, East and West, left and right. The question is how to handle this new, far more difficult crazy aunt problem.
Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump appealed to his base in part by promising that he would not engage in globetrotting military projects where immediate American interests were not at stake. He even threatened to leave South Korea and Japan to fend for themselves against the North Korean nuclear threat. Who knows exactly what caused the recent about-face on those attitudes? But if this strong posturing against North Korea is the Trump administration’s attempt to further ingratiate itself with the so-called "globalist†wing of the Washington establishment, or to boost Trump’s poll numbers as patriotic displays of firepower tend to do, then the strategists had better take heed.
North Korea is not Syria. The Syrian regime has no serious capacity to inflict massive harm on an American ally. And Syria’s weapons, such as they are, are effectively aimed inward, against internal threats. North Korea’s weapons, much more deadly than Syria’s, are all aimed outward — and aimed specifically at America’s two most important, most politically sound, and most economically powerful allies in the region.
Whatever President Trump and his team have in mind here, let’s hope they are weighing all these factors carefully, and not succumbing to infatuation with their own hype. Kim Jong-Un’s regime might tumble like a house of cards at the first serious confrontation. But it is at least as likely, cultish power and megalomania being what they are, that Kim will choose to go out with a bang — a bang that could have historically significant impact on the Republic of Korea and Japan.
I truly hope Trump, or someone among his chief advisors, understands this. I hate traveling on short notice.
Read more from Daren at www.darenjonescu.com
(The following article originally appeared at American Thinker.)
As I live and work in the Republic of Korea, I naturally have a certain immediate interest in the latest Trump vs. Kim saber-rattling — as in, "Am I on the brink of being hustled to an airport with a one-way ticket out of Dodge?†On the other hand, in a land permanently in a state of low-simmering war — no peace accord between North and South Korea ever having been signed — one tends to fall into an unhealthy default assumption that since nothing major has happened before, nothing major will happen this time.
In fact, to observe the demeanor of my Korean friends, colleagues, students, and neighbors is to be palliated to near-coma levels. Threats and agitations from the North Korean regime have been such a normal part of life in the ROK for so many decades that for a foreigner who has lived here and been immersed in the day to day life of Korean society long enough, it’s hard to imagine what, short of a missile strike on Seoul (or perhaps more than one), would push the average South Korean into a state of urgent concern.
The North vows to annihilate the South on a regular basis, carries out high-level weapons tests timed to get the most attention as deliberate provocations, and has, in recent years, shelled an inhabited South Korean island (killing several people and destroying property) and sunk an ROK Navy ship with a torpedo. These events are top news headlines in the ROK, of course, and cause the usual moment of outrage and frustration, just as they would if they were reports of events happening on the other side of the world. That these outrages are not on the other side of the world; that the threats are against their own people, the deaths from among their own fellow citizens; and that the military assault was directed against their own Navy, which carries a more personal implication in the ROK, where all healthy young men are conscripted for two years of military service — the men on that torpedoed ship could have been anyone’s sons or brothers — makes the typical Korean’s numbness to the threats and provocations almost surreal.
And I do not use the word "surreal†casually. There is an oneiric quality to the South’s approach to the North and everything it represents, suggestive of our reactions in dreams: the events feel real, but yet somehow do not quite stir the dreamer to a fully engaged response. This may have something to do with the specific nature of the threat. For the North Korean regime, from its inception, has fallen outside the bounds of reason to such an extent that it may be hard to see the danger it represents as falling within those bounds. It’s a little like having a crazy aunt living upstairs. She talks a lot and makes wild threats; occasionally we have a family meeting to discuss her condition and whether more radical action has to be taken. But somehow the sheer insanity of what she is doing and saying makes her seem less dangerous, as though she is operating, mentally, so far outside the realm of normal human efficacy that we can’t help feeling that all the wild promises she makes must be equally outside the realm of normal cause and effect. None of it seems completely substantial, but rather just a lot of explosions in her crazy mind. We therefore wish she would go away, but feel little motivation to exert all the energy needed to take the active, complicated steps that would actually get her out of the house.
Now the U.S. military is actively challenging the North regarding its nuclear ambitions. How serious the challenge is depends on which news source, or which "leaked†story, you choose to believe. Are we talking about a "preemptive strike,†as NBC implies, or not? But there is no question that the rhetoric has heated somewhat, and that the unspoken rhetoric of deployment has heated even more. The big questions are: Can this escalation end in anything fruitful, and what exactly is the Trump administration’s endgame in this situation?
There is no doubt that U.S. policy for a generation has emboldened the North — both Kim Jong-Il (he of the five holes-in-one during his first ever round of golf) and now his son Kim Jong-Un — to pursue an ever-whackier line of provocations and propaganda. Even a lunatic and world champion of Short Man Syndrome like Kim Jong-Il was sensitive to the benefits of serving wine and parades to a world champion of Unfeminine Woman Syndrome like Madeleine Albright. A less tolerant and legitimizing stand from the U.S., and a strong statement that the time for empty "negotiation†with the pot-bellied crackpots is over, are reasonable and long-overdue steps.
However, it would be unwise to ignore the irreversible damage done by a generation of treating the North with excessive forbearance and as trustworthy negotiators. The time for dealing bluntly and cavalierly with your crazy aunt is when she is still just talking a lot of inconsequential nonsense in the attic, not after she has stolen and loaded your shotgun and is aiming it at the door. The young Kim Jong-Un has real weapons, a lot of them, and has already shown himself to be unhinged and ruthless — or rather carelessly bold — in the manner of an extreme sufferer of his family’s congenital Short Man Syndrome. It is reasonable to assume that the only thing that prevents him from trying to rain a hundred missiles on the twenty million residents of metropolitan Seoul is that he still thinks he has more to gain from the threat than the deed.
What is his breaking point? What would push him into desperate action? Certainly any sense that his grip on power was being immediately threatened from without would be likely to trigger a catastrophically foolish response from a man seemingly capable only of foolishness of one sort or another.
The basis of playing chicken with anyone is the presumption one makes that one’s adversary is rational enough to flinch, which is to say that he has a natural propensity to step back from the brink of disaster. But if he doesn’t, or if he has made a literal or figurative suicide pact with himself, then what?
One might object that Kim Jong-Un is no Islamic suicide bomber; he wants to survive. That may be true, and it is certainly difficult to imagine the overfed, unstable Kim having even the twisted, maniacal courage of a jihadist. However, one cannot underestimate the influence of the North’s own propaganda on the psyche of its latest Dear Leader. His hold on power requires that he continue to be perceived as godlike, invincible, capable of superhuman feats, born to rule his people, and immovable. How much of that vision, force-fed to his starving population daily, has penetrated his own skull? A young heir to a small but monolithic kingdom who possesses the ability and the will to kill political rivals, including family members, with impunity is probably inclined to half-believe his own hype. All the talk of destroying the South Korean and American aggressors may well have sunk deep into his unrestrained and unchallenged mind, causing him to have more faith in himself, his arsenal, and the loyalty of his enormous military, than is warranted by the facts.
If so, then he must be approached with caution, as offensive as that prospect may be. No, the United States military, alone or in conjunction with the ROK’s, is not seriously threatened with defeat at the hands of North Korea. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that in the process of dealing roughly with this crazy aunt, now that she has been allowed access to the ammunition, she is very likely to spend a lot of bullets prior to being subdued. In this case, those bullets could strike one of the ripest targets on the planet, situated within easy range of even the most inept shooters.
Perhaps it never had to come to this, but this is where it has come. We are seeing the results of allowing progressives to control foreign policy in a dangerous world. South Korea had its own period of "Sunshine Policy†toward the North, as leftist sympathizers with the communist system tried to imagine the system could be judged separately from the regime. Likewise, American progressives have spent almost thirty years imagining the Kim family, though crazy, somehow presided over a system worthy of self-determination and autonomy. Now, like it or not, this folly has created an intractable problem. We cannot wish away the North’s arsenal and nuclear developments. They are here, real, and nightmarish, achieved right under the noses of successive progressive morons, East and West, left and right. The question is how to handle this new, far more difficult crazy aunt problem.
Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump appealed to his base in part by promising that he would not engage in globetrotting military projects where immediate American interests were not at stake. He even threatened to leave South Korea and Japan to fend for themselves against the North Korean nuclear threat. Who knows exactly what caused the recent about-face on those attitudes? But if this strong posturing against North Korea is the Trump administration’s attempt to further ingratiate itself with the so-called "globalist†wing of the Washington establishment, or to boost Trump’s poll numbers as patriotic displays of firepower tend to do, then the strategists had better take heed.
North Korea is not Syria. The Syrian regime has no serious capacity to inflict massive harm on an American ally. And Syria’s weapons, such as they are, are effectively aimed inward, against internal threats. North Korea’s weapons, much more deadly than Syria’s, are all aimed outward — and aimed specifically at America’s two most important, most politically sound, and most economically powerful allies in the region.
Whatever President Trump and his team have in mind here, let’s hope they are weighing all these factors carefully, and not succumbing to infatuation with their own hype. Kim Jong-Un’s regime might tumble like a house of cards at the first serious confrontation. But it is at least as likely, cultish power and megalomania being what they are, that Kim will choose to go out with a bang — a bang that could have historically significant impact on the Republic of Korea and Japan.
I truly hope Trump, or someone among his chief advisors, understands this. I hate traveling on short notice.
Read more from Daren at www.darenjonescu.com
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1783 words, total size 11 kb.
April 16, 2017
He is Risen!
The Resurrection:
Mark 16
The Resurrection
16 Saturday evening, when the Sabbath ended, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went out and purchased burial spices so they could anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on Sunday morning,[a] just at sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3 On the way they were asking each other, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?†4 But as they arrived, they looked up and saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled aside.
5 When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe sitting on the right side. The women were shocked, 6 but the angel said, "Don’t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. 7 Now go and tell his disciples, including Peter, that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died.â€
8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.
[The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.]
[Shorter Ending of Mark]
Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen.
[Longer Ending of Mark]
9 After Jesus rose from the dead early on Sunday morning, the first person who saw him was Mary Magdalene, the woman from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went to the disciples, who were grieving and weeping, and told them what had happened. 11 But when she told them that Jesus was alive and she had seen him, they didn’t believe her.
12 Afterward he appeared in a different form to two of his followers who were walking from Jerusalem into the country. 13 They rushed back to tell the others, but no one believed them.
14 Still later he appeared to the eleven disciples as they were eating together. He rebuked them for their stubborn unbelief because they refused to believe those who had seen him after he had been raised from the dead.[d]
15 And then he told them, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. 16 Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned. 17 These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages.[e] 18 They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.â€
19 When the Lord Jesus had finished talking with them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 20 And the disciples went everywhere and preached, and the Lord worked through them, confirming what they said by many miraculous signs.
John 20
20 Early on Sunday morning,[a] while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. 2 She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. She said, "They have taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!â€
3 Peter and the other disciple started out for the tomb. 4 They were both running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He stooped and looked in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he didn’t go in. 6 Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there, 7 while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings. 8 Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in, and he saw and believed— 9 for until then they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead. 10 Then they went home.
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
11 Mary was standing outside the tomb crying, and as she wept, she stooped and looked in. 12 She saw two white-robed angels, one sitting at the head and the other at the foot of the place where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 "Dear woman, why are you crying?†the angels asked her.
"Because they have taken away my Lord,†she replied, "and I don’t know where they have put him.â€
14 She turned to leave and saw someone standing there. It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognize him. 15 "Dear woman, why are you crying?†Jesus asked her. "Who are you looking for?â€
She thought he was the gardener. "Sir,†she said, "if you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will go and get him.â€
16 "Mary!†Jesus said.
She turned to him and cried out, "Rabboni!†(which is Hebrew for "Teacherâ€).
17 "Don’t cling to me,†Jesus said, "for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’â€
18 Mary Magdalene found the disciples and told them, "I have seen the Lord!†Then she gave them his message.
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 That Sunday evening the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them! "Peace be with you,†he said. 20 As he spoke, he showed them the wounds in his hands and his side. They were filled with joy when they saw the Lord! 21 Again he said, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.†22 Then he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.â€
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 One of the twelve disciples, Thomas (nicknamed the Twin), was not with the others when Jesus came. 25 They told him, "We have seen the Lord!â€
But he replied, "I won’t believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.â€
26 Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. "Peace be with you,†he said. 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!â€
28 "My Lord and my God!†Thomas exclaimed.
29 Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.â€
Purpose of the Book
30 The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue to believe[d] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name
Mark 16
The Resurrection
16 Saturday evening, when the Sabbath ended, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went out and purchased burial spices so they could anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on Sunday morning,[a] just at sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3 On the way they were asking each other, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?†4 But as they arrived, they looked up and saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled aside.
5 When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe sitting on the right side. The women were shocked, 6 but the angel said, "Don’t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. 7 Now go and tell his disciples, including Peter, that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died.â€
8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.
[The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.]
[Shorter Ending of Mark]
Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen.
[Longer Ending of Mark]
9 After Jesus rose from the dead early on Sunday morning, the first person who saw him was Mary Magdalene, the woman from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went to the disciples, who were grieving and weeping, and told them what had happened. 11 But when she told them that Jesus was alive and she had seen him, they didn’t believe her.
12 Afterward he appeared in a different form to two of his followers who were walking from Jerusalem into the country. 13 They rushed back to tell the others, but no one believed them.
14 Still later he appeared to the eleven disciples as they were eating together. He rebuked them for their stubborn unbelief because they refused to believe those who had seen him after he had been raised from the dead.[d]
15 And then he told them, "Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. 16 Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned. 17 These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages.[e] 18 They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.â€
19 When the Lord Jesus had finished talking with them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 20 And the disciples went everywhere and preached, and the Lord worked through them, confirming what they said by many miraculous signs.
John 20
20 Early on Sunday morning,[a] while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. 2 She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. She said, "They have taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!â€
3 Peter and the other disciple started out for the tomb. 4 They were both running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He stooped and looked in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he didn’t go in. 6 Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there, 7 while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings. 8 Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in, and he saw and believed— 9 for until then they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead. 10 Then they went home.
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
11 Mary was standing outside the tomb crying, and as she wept, she stooped and looked in. 12 She saw two white-robed angels, one sitting at the head and the other at the foot of the place where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 "Dear woman, why are you crying?†the angels asked her.
"Because they have taken away my Lord,†she replied, "and I don’t know where they have put him.â€
14 She turned to leave and saw someone standing there. It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognize him. 15 "Dear woman, why are you crying?†Jesus asked her. "Who are you looking for?â€
She thought he was the gardener. "Sir,†she said, "if you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will go and get him.â€
16 "Mary!†Jesus said.
She turned to him and cried out, "Rabboni!†(which is Hebrew for "Teacherâ€).
17 "Don’t cling to me,†Jesus said, "for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’â€
18 Mary Magdalene found the disciples and told them, "I have seen the Lord!†Then she gave them his message.
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 That Sunday evening the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them! "Peace be with you,†he said. 20 As he spoke, he showed them the wounds in his hands and his side. They were filled with joy when they saw the Lord! 21 Again he said, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.†22 Then he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.â€
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 One of the twelve disciples, Thomas (nicknamed the Twin),
But he replied, "I won’t believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.â€
26 Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. "Peace be with you,†he said. 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!â€
28 "My Lord and my God!†Thomas exclaimed.
29 Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.â€
Purpose of the Book
30 The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue to believe[d] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1259 words, total size 8 kb.
Egg Rolls are not the Province of Government
Timothy Birdnow
Tomorrow will be Easter Monda, and the traditional White House Easter Egg Roll. The roll is a tradtion on the White House lawn since Rutherford B. Hayes offered his yard to children who had been kicked off of the Capitol grounds by Congress back in 1878.
It has grown to be one of the largest annual events in Washington.
This year President Donald Trump appears to want to scale it back, and the media - ever on the lookout for a negative word to say about The Donald - is apoplectic. What Ebeneazer Scrooge or Mr. Potter are to Christmas Trump now is to Easter, a killjoy who wants to take Easter eggs from little kids and cook the Easter Bunny.
Unlike the Obama Administration which found new ways to waste taxpayer money, Trump appears to want to scale this thing back. In recent years it had gotten totally out of hand, with live entertainment (Behonce' is a fairly regular performer) cooking demonstrations, and sporting events, and it is hideously expensive. Trump, who won't get any big name performers anyway since they are boycotting him, will use military bands and whatnot for music. In short, he's cutting back.
And well he should; there is no reason to take money from taxpayers to throw these kinds of lavish parties. Obama didn't use his personal stash of cash for it, and Trump is recognizing a cold, hard fact. Yes, it's a lot of fun, but government is not about fun but about providing for the common defense and regulating interstate commerce. Fun wasn't in the deal.
Oh, I realize I will be called a killjoy, but we have gotten far, far away from the type of government originally sold to the colonies. It was a classic bait=and=switch, with the central government growing despite the checks and balances put in place. Now our government is a true leviathan, sucking up much of the wealth produced by Americans for fun and games like this tradition. We have enslaved those very young children who will be rolling eggs on the White House lawn with crushing debt, debt that they will ultimately never be able to repay. But, heck, we gave them a big, fun post-Eaaster party! Somehow I think that is a Pyrric comfort.
I hear the objections; it's only once a year, we can't become skinflints, etc. But anyone who knows anything about budgeting their money knows you cut the frills first. Government is so used to unlimited funds that they are unwilling to cut anything at all, and so we waste our national essence in all ways. An Easter egg roll is a frivolity, and one that the White House SHOULD cut back on as a way of showing they mean business. Average Americans are always being asked to make sacrifices - it's time government did the same.
At least Barack Obama didn't rename it the Spring Roll or whatnot.
I leave you with this final thought; according to the Bible government has the power of the sword to punish evildoers, and it is clear that government was instituted by God for a limited purpose. Yes, Easter egg rolls are fun, but well beyond the scope of purpose set down in the Bible and in our Constitution. Until we return to that frame of reference we will find ourselves wandering in a wilderness of despair and red ink.
Tomorrow will be Easter Monda, and the traditional White House Easter Egg Roll. The roll is a tradtion on the White House lawn since Rutherford B. Hayes offered his yard to children who had been kicked off of the Capitol grounds by Congress back in 1878.
It has grown to be one of the largest annual events in Washington.
This year President Donald Trump appears to want to scale it back, and the media - ever on the lookout for a negative word to say about The Donald - is apoplectic. What Ebeneazer Scrooge or Mr. Potter are to Christmas Trump now is to Easter, a killjoy who wants to take Easter eggs from little kids and cook the Easter Bunny.
Unlike the Obama Administration which found new ways to waste taxpayer money, Trump appears to want to scale this thing back. In recent years it had gotten totally out of hand, with live entertainment (Behonce' is a fairly regular performer) cooking demonstrations, and sporting events, and it is hideously expensive. Trump, who won't get any big name performers anyway since they are boycotting him, will use military bands and whatnot for music. In short, he's cutting back.
And well he should; there is no reason to take money from taxpayers to throw these kinds of lavish parties. Obama didn't use his personal stash of cash for it, and Trump is recognizing a cold, hard fact. Yes, it's a lot of fun, but government is not about fun but about providing for the common defense and regulating interstate commerce. Fun wasn't in the deal.
Oh, I realize I will be called a killjoy, but we have gotten far, far away from the type of government originally sold to the colonies. It was a classic bait=and=switch, with the central government growing despite the checks and balances put in place. Now our government is a true leviathan, sucking up much of the wealth produced by Americans for fun and games like this tradition. We have enslaved those very young children who will be rolling eggs on the White House lawn with crushing debt, debt that they will ultimately never be able to repay. But, heck, we gave them a big, fun post-Eaaster party! Somehow I think that is a Pyrric comfort.
I hear the objections; it's only once a year, we can't become skinflints, etc. But anyone who knows anything about budgeting their money knows you cut the frills first. Government is so used to unlimited funds that they are unwilling to cut anything at all, and so we waste our national essence in all ways. An Easter egg roll is a frivolity, and one that the White House SHOULD cut back on as a way of showing they mean business. Average Americans are always being asked to make sacrifices - it's time government did the same.
At least Barack Obama didn't rename it the Spring Roll or whatnot.
I leave you with this final thought; according to the Bible government has the power of the sword to punish evildoers, and it is clear that government was instituted by God for a limited purpose. Yes, Easter egg rolls are fun, but well beyond the scope of purpose set down in the Bible and in our Constitution. Until we return to that frame of reference we will find ourselves wandering in a wilderness of despair and red ink.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 3 kb.
Ivanka's CT prep school past & current sex scandal
Jack Kemp
On Wikipedia it says that Ivanka Trump graduated this prep school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump#Early_life_and_education
Choate merged with the girls prep school Rosemary Hall in 1971, a decade before Ivanka's birth. Needless to say, if any of this decades old - and current - scandal has a personal link to Ivanka, it would be a national (enquirer) story. And I bet there are a number of liberal "jounalist" scandalmongers - and a few conservative ones - looking into that angle as you read this.
Jack
http://nypost.com/2017/04/14/report-reveals-decades-of-sexual-abuse-at-elite-boarding-school/
Report reveals decades of sexual abuse at elite boarding school
On Wikipedia it says that Ivanka Trump graduated this prep school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump#Early_life_and_education
Choate merged with the girls prep school Rosemary Hall in 1971, a decade before Ivanka's birth. Needless to say, if any of this decades old - and current - scandal has a personal link to Ivanka, it would be a national (enquirer) story. And I bet there are a number of liberal "jounalist" scandalmongers - and a few conservative ones - looking into that angle as you read this.
Jack
http://nypost.com/2017/04/14/report-reveals-decades-of-sexual-abuse-at-elite-boarding-school/
Report reveals decades of sexual abuse at elite boarding school
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:38 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
108kb generated in CPU 0.0225, elapsed 0.4724 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.4616 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.4616 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
