Timothy Birdnow

I was at Church this morning and the Priest gave a eulogy, er, homily about a "world without borders". I, as a captive member of the congregation, was forced into mere scowls and headshakes as this man of the cloth defiled the meaning of Christianity with a simpleton's eye view of a humanistic version of faith that is being promoted these days. Let me explain:

First, for those who do not know, I am a catholic, and a decently devout one. Unlike my friend 7lb. Dave - who gave up on the English mass long ago, what he and his Latin compadres call the Novus Ordo - I have hung in grimly with the modern variant of Catholicism despite it having largely dissolved into a thin sticky mess of feel-good euphemisms and brainless polemics that have more to do with liberal ideas of virtue than of anything to actually do with Christ. Most sermons revolve around how we need to be nicer to each other, a sort of Barney the Dinosaur vision of Faith. And most of this insipid swill is couched in a moralizing tone that dares anyone to disagree. I am forever astonished at how the modern Catholic Church can take the most majestic and exciting story in history and make it so mundane and pedestrian. And just plain wrong; Jesus was not always the shrinking wallflower the liberals running the Church portray him, and in fact he was quite harsh with his critics on occasion, calling the Pharisees vipers and hypocrites and even trashing their property on one occasion. There was nothing passive about Jesus. He stirred the pot at exactly the right time, thumbing His nose at them when He made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (and guaranteeing that He would be arrested and enter into His Passion.) And while Jesus never condemned penitent sinners He DID have some very choice words for the proud unrepentant ones.

There was nothing milquetoast about Him.

Furthermore, there was nothing Universalist about Jesus. He gave a simple order to His followers "Make disciples of all the nations" but he did not say coax them, cajole them, woo them. On the contrary, He sent the disciples out with the instructions:

"And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."

This was a practice of Jews when leaving a gentile city, to show their separation. Jesus made an even sterner warning:

"...it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city"

Hardly sounds like Jesus was a promoter of Universalism; He wanted everyone to have the chance but would force no one. As He said "Many are called few are chosen". There is absolutely no point arguing with people who do not wish to listen.

Yes, the disciples were to convert all Nations, but no there were not out to create a New World Order. That was the brainchild of a man named Nimrod who sought to establish world government and a world without borders.

The Bible says of Nimrod:

"of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. 9He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, ind Shinar.e 11From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir,f Calah 12and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city."

[...]

"Had one language and a common speech. 2As people moved eastward,a they found a plain in Shinarb and settled there.

3They said to each other, "Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it was called Babelc —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth."

End excerpt.

Now what does this tell us? The Lord Himself was not happy with this Universalism, with this "world without borders" that Nimrod was trying to create. In short, it was God Himself who created the many nations of the Earth, and He never intended for Man to seek an international order that would override the Nations.

What the Apostle Paul left unsaid when he gave his famous "body of Christ" soliloquy was that the individual bodies composed nations, which were very much a part of the larger plan. If we as individuals are part of the Body of Christ, so too is our clan, our community, our state, and out entire country. We are cells in the body, cells which compose organs which make the body live. Nations are the organs.

By the way, Nimrod is primarily thought of as a great fool; his name is a pejorative for colossal arrogance and stupidity. He was the early day Progressive.

Notice too that he sought to use force to compel his vision of one world. And also notice he sought to "bake bricks" using an artificial material rather than the stone provided by God. In other words, Nimrod wanted to do things HIS way and not God's way. His way was to create a New World Order.

But none of this seems to have penetrated the mind of my local parish priest, who started his homily off well enough. He began by talking about a trip to Nazareth he had made, and how the people prayed the Rosary in multiple languages. Very interesting, and it was no doubt a beautiful thing to observe. But he drew from this a general principle, that Man is meant to live as one People even though there is no evidence to support that. If God had truly wanted us as one People he would have made it so. The fact is we are supposed to be one people in Christ, and our allegiance is supposed to be there first and foremost, but it is not supposed to override who we are.

In his homily the priest spoke of America as a "nation of immigrants" and discussed how mean we have always been to immigrants. Well, everyone comes from an immigrant background as the Book of Genesis makes quite plain here. So what? Does that mean we are duty bound to allow anyone who wants to wander in to do so?

As it has been traditionally observed "good walls make good neighbors". Why? Borders define what belongs to you and what belongs to me. Borders define where your culture ends and mine begins. Borders allow us to establish rules and laws and customs; without a good wall we wind up with chaos, everyone taking that which is not theirs and pushing to grab more than their fair share.

Anyone who has ever played a board game knows that one must have rules for a game to make any sense. A wall is a rule, and a border is a rule. If people respect it there is peace, and we are good neighbors. What the Left wants to do with their Nimrodian dreams is to erase all that and thus unleash the worst impulses in the human heart. The Borderless world is not Christian, not even remotely. It is rather a fantasy of the Humanist who even now seek to emulate Nimrod. Unrestrained immigration is one of the tools that promote anarchy. Fantasies of world government and no borders sound wonderful, a sort of peaceful Kingdom of Man, but the reality is this will promote rather division, hatred, and ultimately destruction. Humanity does very poorly with enforced conviviality. If you want to create bitter enemies try forcing different people to live together. Just look at any country where different cultures are forced into the same space; the Balkans, for example, have seen endless war because there are so many different peoples in the same area. Ditto the Holy Land. Sub-Saharan Africa is plagued by war and poverty and disease, and that is largely because there are so many different tribes in too close a proximity. They fight. In fact, empires generally only last as long as the ruling nation in them keeps the martial spirit alive; they must hold the empire together by force of arms. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, for instance, was actually quite enlightened, but it eventually collapsed under the weight of too many nations in too limited an area. Rome's fall was no different.

Does that mean we should have a feudal order? Are we better off with everyone divided eight ways from Sunday? Not necessarily (although sometimes I wonder if, in a more secure world, a type of feudal order wouldn't make some sense at least some places) and the Nation-State was created to better the situation of related cultures. There can indeed be strength in unity (especially in war time) but there is strength in individuality too and the small may be better than the large. The nation-state was a compromise, a political entity that united peoples with common backgrounds under one government. Not too small and not too large. Yes, the states of Europe fought constant wars, but is that the fault of the nation-state or of the dark heart of Man? The Europeans could fight because they had developed the tools to fight. They developed those tools because of the Medieval decentralization, which was a misuses of a good thing. Ships, guns, and other technological developments gave the Europeans the power to build empires, another expression of the hegemonious Nimrodism.

What difference is there between a colonial empire and a "world without borders"? The colonials at least were straightforward about plundering the rest of the world. Now these "one world" types seek to do it through treaties, through education, and through misguided religious types like the good father.

And what of the Book of Revelation? Surely the good father must know that there is an international order that gives it's authority for one hour to the Beast. This is the same old sin repeated, and the punishment will be utter destruction and the return of Christ, not to bless the world but to physically save it as the beneficiaries of "a world without borders" are on the verge of making themselves extinct. no walls make terrible neighbors, and the fondest dream of Nimrod and his spiritual children will ultimately lead to a potential end of the world.

But none of this seems to have penetrated the Progressive armor of so many in the Catholic Church, who have adopted a doctrine not taught by Jesus but rather by heterodox men. There really is no excuse; priests are supposed to know the Bible and should understand that geopolitics and religion are far more complicated than the Barney the Dinosaur philosophy they so often espouse. A hug does not always make it better.

True Christianity sees us working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. It was never supposed to be an hegemonic political opinion, and it was never about bringing peace "I have come not to bring peace but the sword" Jesus stated, and by that He meant that He was bringing a most unpopular viewpoint, one that would not comport with the desires and dreams of men. There would be anger, resentment, hatred for the person who followed Christ as surely as there was for Him. So much easier to follow the world, which is on a merry path to Hell. Sadly, the shepherds of the Church are leading the way.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2057 words, total size 12 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Greenlandic ice is at an all time high, while Arctic ice is at normal levels.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/23/reports-of-arctic-ice-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated-greenland-ice-mass-near-record/#sthash.4nHAAkWk.SBTLs3gV.dpbs

If the Gang Green wants us to transfer massive amounts of wealth for no reason they have to do better than this.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A couple of quick thoughts on Trump pulling the U.S. out of the non-treaty Paris Accord:

First, had he failed to do that he would have sealed his fate as a one term President. Mr. Trump has reneged on a number of campaign promises, and a failure to follow through on this one would have lost him the northern tier states. I don't like the way Trump did it, because he spoke of "renegotiating the deal" and made some conciliatory noises. That isn't the man we elected; we elected a bull whose purpose was to smash china into little shards, and there is no climate deal that will ever be good for the U.S. The whole point of Paris and these other international deals is to reach into the pocket of the U.S., and to restrain us. WE are the mark in this game and any deal is a case of our falling for the three card monty game.

But, but, but we are now only the third U.N. member not in the Accord! Liberal heads are exploding over that point. Well, so what? The whole deal exists because of the U.S., and it will crumble without us. Like the old League of Nations which faded away after the U.S. Senate would not ratify it, so too the Paris accord will fade away as none of the participants intended to do anything anyway. They knew the U.S. would honor the agreement, and send money, money, money! Like NATO members not paying their share, so too the Paris members would simply ignore it knowing that we would be the patsy.

And, as your mother probably asked you when you were young, if everyone jumped off a cliff would you do it too? If Europe wants to committ suicide it is their business, but we don't have to follow them.

These types of international deals were the whole purpose of the Global Warming scare from the beginning; create a powerful international order capable of overriding and eventually supplanting the nation states.

Doubt that? well don't. In a Brussels press conference Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change spilled the beans:

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"

Now, this was not a wild statement by some radical NGO, but from the U.N. brass. THEY clearly see this as a money and power grab, a way to fundamentally transform human civilization. Ecological protection is clearly unimportant - if it matters at all here.

And Figueres is not alone in such drivel:

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres - "The problem is that many of our societies have an addicted –an addiction to cheap energy"

Former head of Greenpeace Gerd Leipold - "We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,”

Former French President Jaques Chirac - "the first component of an authentic global governance. For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance.”

Former Vice President Al Gore - "I bring you good news from the U.S., ...Climate bill will help bring about global governance....But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.

Get the picture?

And they are also about redistributing wealth. The documentfor the Copenhagen summit and that eventually defined Paris clearly spelled out a massive sucking sound as trillions of dollars would be pulled out of the wealthy nations - mainly the U.S. - and given to the less wealthy. According to a Fox News report from 2009 discussing the U.N. working group's recommendations for the Copenhagen meeting:

"Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered "environmentally sound."

Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including "energy policy reform," which the report indicates could affect "large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports." When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have "positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels."

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries." Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as "border carbon adjustment"— which, the note says, can impose "a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically" under more strict environmental regimes.

Another form of "adjustment" would require exporters to "buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically."

The impact of both schemes, the note says, "would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers." (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is "foreign.") The note adds that "If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged." Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved."

End excerpt.

Naturally the Plutocrats in the Trump Administration were pushing to remain in Paris because it meant money to their respective organizations. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was a vocal champion of remaining (he was the guy who had Exxon Mobile switch sides in the global warming war when he was CEO) and so was Trump's darling daughter and son-in-law, who fancy themselves cosmopolitan citizens of the world. But Trump's base hated the deal and largely understood what it was about. Had Trump caved on this it would have been his end.

Now hopefully he'll regrow his stones and tackle some of his other campaign promises (amazing how so many men who tangle with Hillary wind up emasculated, their family jewels being deposited in Hil's testicle lock box.)

But as of right now, we must give The Donald a big attaboy.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1164 words, total size 8 kb.

Jack Kemp

There was a rumor that HIllary Clinton is going into the shipping business, supplying intra-city quick delivery services to Amazon.com. She's already trained her flying monkeys to carry boxes..

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

It's gotten this bad! How can we fight it?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/31/city-cant-sell-blueberries-unless-affirm-gay-marriage.html

City: You can't sell blueberries unless you affirm gay marriage.
The Tennes family has been farming in Michigan for generations.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Illinois purges social workers who don't promote transvestism. From the Federalist:

"The department’s new "enhanced” policies promoting the "well-being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) children and youth in the Department’s care” ratchet in one direction only: encouraging children towards LGBTQ identities. DCFS has drawn a rainbow-colored line in the sand, announcing it "will not tolerate exposing LGBTQ children and youth to staff/providers who are not supportive of children and youths’ right to self-determination of sexual/gender identity.”

Let’s repeat that: the state of Illinois will not tolerate "exposing” the vulnerable children in its care to people who believe human beings are either male or female and cannot "become” the other. No matter that sexual difference is a scientific fact, or that billions of sane people across the world acknowledge it."

So now allowing someone to claim he's Josephine Bonapart is o.k.; just don't say you are Napoleon!

In the ultimate act of science denial, the left is now promoting open rebellion against reality. This is the road to utter ruin, for one can think what one likes but in the end you really can't fly by flapping your arms and wishing.

And in the process the great state of Illinois is openly abusing children by not telling them there is a reality they must conform to. It's child abuse on steroid.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A group of 35 Middle Eastern convenience store owners in st. Louis and elsewhere have been arrested for selling contraband cigarettes as well as dealing designer drugs.

According to KMOV St. Louis:

"A federal grand jury has indicted 35 store owners on federal conspiracy charges for trafficking contraband cigarettes, distributing controlled substances and money laundering.

According to reports, the suspects conspired for more than 2 years to buy contraband cigarettes in St. Louis, a low tax market, while transporting and distributing them in Chicago, Illinois, and New Jersey, which are high tax markets.

The store owners are accused of using several convenience stores that they operated to create the appearance of legal cigarette purchases.

Illegal profits form the contraband cigarette sales were laundered through accounts associated with the stores.

Synethetic drugs, K-2, was sold every day from a handful of the convenience stores. Authorities said the store owners manufactured synthetic drugs themselves by importing chemicals from China."

End excerpt.

A couple of interesting points to ponder:

First, Michael Brown, whose death triggered the Ferguson riots, had been caught on tape robbing a convenience store shortly before his encounter with Officer Darren Wilson. But Brown had been in that same convenience store prior to his cigar heist and apparently attempted to make a drug deal with a store clerk. The filmmaker who produced the poorly edited film showing the attempted deal argues that the store is infamous for dealing pot.

Well, even if it is true it hardly changes what happened; Brown died not because of the robbery (and he clearly manhandled the store clerk in the surveillance video) but because he assaulted a police officer and tried to wrestle his gun away. But Brown may have been in that store because he knew it was doing something shady, perhaps. Who better to rob than a shady enterprise?

Without knowing the name of the owner and clerks we cannot tell if this was part of the sting operation. What is clear is that it included a large number of Middle Easterners.

St. Louis is the home of the Albanian Mafia, the ethnic group that took actually kicked the Sicilians out of the mob. That we have criminal activity on such a large scale, particularly among immigrants, most particularly among Islamic immigrants should come as no surprise. This is just more proof that we are letting WAY too many people into this country.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Writing at American Thinker, Jon N. Hall makes a persuasive case for reform of "universal healthcare". And while I appreciate what Jon is trying to do, his article underscores what is wrong with the Conservative movement and why we keep losing.

From the article:

"On multiple occasions recently, Charles Krauthammer has observed that since the passing of Obamacare, a consensus has emerged in America that government should guarantee that all Americans be covered by health insurance. Obamacare, however, doesn't cover all Americans; the ACA itself even grants exemptions to its mandates. And then there are those who would rather pay the tax/penalty than pay insurance premiums. Also, many Americans are too just busy ruining their health to be bothered with procuring health insurance. In all, Americans who have neither public nor private health insurance number more than 28 million.

Dr. Krauthammer predicts that within a few years, America will end up with a universal health care system, perhaps even the dread "socialized medicine," i.e. "single-payer," where the government runs the whole shebang."

[...]

"If Dr. Krauthammer is correct, and we are indeed headed toward a universal health care system, then Republicans need to beat the Dems to the finish line so they can put their own imprint on that new system, and maybe even beat the Democrats in the "compassion sweepstakes" of the 2018 elections. It's not health insurance that people need; it's health care. By guaranteeing that the medical bills of the uninsured will be paid, Republicans would be instituting a de facto universal system. And unlike Obamacare it would not omit 28 million Americans."

End excerpts.

First, this is exactly why I have never had much respect for Charles Krauthammer. Old Kraut has always been, in my opinion, a slavish follower of conventional wisdom, and that convention is set inside the beltway. Contrary to his reputation, he is solidly bound in the bubble and his views are only original as corollaries to the fundamental presumptions of the Establishment. Consider that Dr. Krauthammer actually believed Obama was a moderate until well into his first term; how can one be considered an intellectual powerhouse and not see that Obama was a radical from the beginning? Krauthammer had the wool pulled over his eyes there, and many other times.

And it is, sadly, people like Krauthammer who accept the conventional wisdom and wind up getting our side to surrender. There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and to predict we will have universal healthcare aka socialized medicine (and a guy like Krauthammer should understand the importance of using the propoer terminology and not just accepting liberal appropriation of language) helps to make it so. Thus, when we accept his argument we accept the battle has been lost - as we always have for the last quarter century or more. The argument is never about the thing being pushed by the Left, but about how long we can hold out before our side waves the white flag.

And while I greatly respect Jon Hall, I feel he has done a disservice here by telling our side the battle is lost before it is fully engaged.

We have GOT to stop doing that! It is the reason the GOP now does not want to repeal Obamacare, despite being elected on that very promise; they think it is political suicide because the country has moved that way, and some polls are trotted out that show this is so. But these are the same polls that showed Hillary trouncing Donald Trump. Polls can say what one wishes, and the media has used them to panic the Beltway Republicans on more than one occasion.

We need leaders who will attack and not simply fight a rear-guard action. Sadly, we have few, and people like Krauthammer are certainly not among them. The people who win BELIEVE they are going to win. Victory rarely goes to those who figure the battle is lost. Confidence is most of any sort of battle, and poor morale is definitely a predicter of success or defeat. The Left has always understood this, and they always foster a sense of triumph. It is why they manage to win at least some concession out of our side in every battle, so they can show their foot soldiers that they are making headway. Our side, on the other hand, always gives ground. We feel like losers, they feel like winners.

And this is so established that a guy like Krauthammer cannot fathom turning this around. So, despite the despair on the Left these days, he still confidently predicts the Left will get their hearts' desire with healthcare.

If he thinks this he should keep his mouth shut, or at least predicate it with lots of qualifiers.

Our side will never even hold ground if we don't come to understand the importance of thinking like winners.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 819 words, total size 5 kb.

Helen Dyer forwards this:

Today is an extraordinarily momentous day for the US. Hopefully President Trump will formally withdraw from the Paris "agreement” sometime later today. (As this article says, my council has been to have the US Senate ratify this matter.)

US citizens (and non-citizens) should contact the Whitehouse immediately, as anti-science forces are aggressively trying to dissuade the President from doing the right thing.

The Whitehouse phone is 202-456-1111. If this is busy, then please send an email.


If you have any question why this unscientific, uneconomic, imbalanced "agreement” makes no sense, please carefully read the following:

Peer-Reviewed: Paris climate promises will reduce temps in 2100 by 0.05°C
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

The case for nixing the Paris Agreement
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/paris-agreement-should-be-nixed/

The ‘Business Case’ for Paris Is Bunk
https://www.thegwpf.com/the-business-case-for-paris-is-bunk/

The Absurdity that is the Paris Agreement
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-absurdity-that-is-the-paris-climate-agreement/

The Paris Agreement and the America First Energy Plan
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/31/fred-palmer-paris-climate-agreement-and-the-america-first-energy-plan/

Ted Cruz: Trump should withdraw from Paris climate pact
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/29/opinions/withdraw-paris-accord-opinion-cruz/index.html

22 Senators Sign Letter to get out of Paris Agreement
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov.

President Trump Should Keep His Word about the Paris Agreement
https://stream.org/trump-should-keep-his-promise-paris-climate/

Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris
https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/05/29/dear-mr-president-please-exit-paris-n2332730

Eastern European Countries Mount Revolt Against Paris Agreement
https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/05/29/dear-mr-president-please-exit-paris-n2332730

Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2017/05/18/paris-climate/101815198/

Short video: The Paris Agreement Won't Change the Climate
https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate


Thank you for your support of science-based energy and environmental policies.

regards,

john droz, jr.
physicist

p.s. Here is a poll asking if the U.S. should withdraw from the Paris Accords. Scroll down & get your vote in. We're currently well ahead on points & share widely!!

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/trump-reportedly-decides-to-pull-us-out-of-historic-paris-climate-agreement/70001809

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 4 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Writing in The Hill, Rick Manning argues for a continuing role for coal. In the piece he points out that certain members of the Trump Administration are wildcatting on this issue.{/link]

From the article:

"President Donald Trump needs to remind those who work for his administration who is in charge. The repeated on and off the record comments that contradict his policies by those who surround him are undermining his ability to not only accomplish his promises but even to credibly set his Administration's agenda.

The latest distraction was offered by former Goldman Sachs CEO Gary Cohn, who the President allows to serve as his Director of the National Economic Council.

Cohn met with reporters on the flight to the G-7 meeting which includes the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and the European Union, where the issue of the Paris Climate Treaty was a hot topic.

Trump's assistant denigrated the President's position with respect to energy development with his attack on coal as a viable energy source saying, "Coal doesn't even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock."

[...]

The national security implications of natural gas supply disruptions without having a large amount of our nation's electricity grid fueled by reliable and available coal or nuclear power are frightening given its interconnectivity and stretched capacity.

As a globalist traveling in Europe, Cohn must have noticed the vulnerability of what was once known as Western Europe to disruptions of natural gas pipelines from Russia. As Ukraine remains a hot spot between Russia and NATO countries, many in Europe worry that their dependency on Russian natural gas makes them vulnerable to energy blackmail.

Yet, Europe itself ignores the energy beneath its own feet in a willful blindness. Germany is rich with coal and the economic certainty it provides. Yet, Germany would rather import most of the limited coal they use, and is in the process of ending its nuclear power generation capability by 2022 increasing their dependency on Russian natural gas, even as they intellectualize the potentially devastating effects of that dependency.

In the United States, President Trump made it clear on the campaign trail last year that the war on coal was over in his administration, and many of his actions have demonstrated his commitment to coal and nuclear as a large and expanded part of our national energy security plan. "

End excerpts.

From a strategic perspective the U.S. should be hot on coal; we hold the world's largest coal reserve and as such we can not only fuel our own industry but can sell it to other nations at a dandy profit. The essence of business is to provide a good that others want and don't have, and that's where we stand. The only reason anyone can possibly offer for restricting coal is Global Warming, a fake news item if there ever was one.

Now, it is believed there are 3.9 TRILLION short tons of coal in the U.S. reserve. That is a staggering amount of coal, and a valuable resource that should not simply be ignored. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

What are international coal reserves?

As of December 31, 2014, estimates of total world proved recoverable reserves of coal were about 1,237 billion short tons, (or 1.2 trillion short tons).

Five countries had about 75% of the world's coal reserves:

China—23%
United States—21%
Russia—14%
Australia—9%
India—8%

End excerpt.

Why is China showing more coal than the U.S.? Because this calculates only the "recoverable" coal; our easily obtained coal has been depleted and now we are working on new ways to get the harder to reach coal. But does that make it not worth reaching? Certainly, had we followed the prescription of the "Limits to Growth" report back in the "70's we would have simply written off oil as a bad bet and fracking would not have turned the U.S. into one of the world's largest oil producers. In fact, most leftists and environmentalists wanted just that. The U.S. was swimming in oil but political forces wanted us out of it. They almost succeeded, too. Had the warming trend of the '80's and '90's not ended we would have seen the imposition of draconian treaties that would have suppressed oil and coal forever. It was not only unnecessary (as the warming was a natural occurrence) but it would have been very harmful to the poor and middle classes, not just in America. When the world's economic landscape is poor the poorest countries suffer terribly. They can't make the things they need for themselves but have to purchase them from wealthier countries, and when the economy is ailing the prices go up. Climate change amelioration was guaranteed to starve the Third World poor.

But what of natural gas? According to the government link=https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8]we have a 93 year reserve based on current rates of consumption.

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that as of January 1, 2014, there were about 2,474 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable resources of dry natural gas in the United States. At the rate of U.S. dry natural gas consumption in 2014 of about 26.6 Tcf per year, the United States has enough natural gas to last about 93 years. The actual number of years will depend on the amount of natural gas consumed each year, natural gas imports and exports, and additions to natural gas reserves.

Technically recoverable reserves consist of proved reserves and unproved resources. Proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas are the estimated volumes expected to be produced, with reasonable certainty, under existing economic and operating conditions. Unproved resources of crude oil and natural gas are additional volumes estimated to be technically recoverable without consideration of economics or operating conditions, based on the application of current technology."

End excerpt.

But energy usage is not going to remain stable, especially as the U.S. population climbs (and it has climbed considerably thanks to unrestrained immigration; there are 60 million immigrants in the U.S., a number that would make a respectable country in it's own right, and all of these immigrants use energy at the rate of other Americans.) even assuming zero population growth (which would quickly lead to labor shortages and thus higher prices) we must assume increased energy usage as the high tech revolution continues to suck up power with ever-increasing complexity in our tools and gadgets. That power has to come from somewhere, and the Gang Green has done everything in it's power to kill nuclear, one of the better options for clean energy. They also resist building new hydroelectric plants as that requires damming rivers and thus upsetting ecological systems. They also resist fracking as an earthquake hazard. That leaves us with just natural gas and coal. We have lots and lots of coal.

So why, in the name of all things Holy, should we restrict its usage? Global Warming is a crock, and if one does not accept it (as China and Russia and India largely do not) one uses whatever resources one has. And given the climate of the times the coal companies, if left to their own resources rather than pushed into public displays of penitence as the Obi Bam Bologna Administration forced on them, will develop cleaner burning systems and find new ways to get the coal out of the ground. Necessity is the mother of invention, and that is precisely why we have an oil boom in the U.S. It WILL happen for coal if the idiot bureaucrats get out of the way.

Which is why people like Cohn should get their heads out of their shorts.

In point of fact Trump should fire Cohn for undermining his policies. Here is the problem; too many of the people who are supposed to be working for the Administration are actually wild cards, freelancing their own policies. Cohn is one such, and a bad egg to boot. Oh, and he's the ultimate insider, a Goldman Sachs guy to the core. I don't know why Trump even considered him when putting together a team that was supposed to be outsiders.

Furthermore, one must ask about the wisdom of an economics adviser telling the President (and everyone else) to simply ignore a vast natural resource because of advances in another area. Should we have ignored heavier than air flight in favor of Zeppelins, since the Germans made huge advances in that technology while the poor airplane was struggling? A lot of things didn't "make sense anymore" and yet finally prevailed; electric lights were invented by Sir Humphrey Davies in 1802 and made practical by Davies in 1806, and yet they wouldn't catch on until Edison; the coming of coal oil (which replaced whale blubber) made electric lights "not make sense' even though the electric lights would eventually prove far superior. Even today, one must ask if it makes sense to use trains or seagoing vessels? We move massive amounts of cargo with both, even though both were once proclaimed dead.

The fact is, we never know which direction will prove ultimately beneficial, so we should never turn our backs on any one thing completely (unless it is truly obsolete, like stone tools.) Today's energy source may be a loser tomorrow, and today’s loser may be the future. Certainly natural gas was considered quaint as we developed nuclear and solar power. Not anymore.

So Cohn should be sacked if for no other reason than a monumental failure of vision.

Yes, there is a future, and a bright one, for coal if the government will just get out of the way.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1612 words, total size 10 kb.

Jack Kemp

Many of us have already heard and read much about Kathy Griffin's vile photo of her with a simulated Donald Trump severed head, how it even scared the President's young son Barron. Her phony apology to herself and her booking agent (it was not directed to the Trump family) was as shallow as Griffin herself.

But then I read more at an American Thinker blog piece about Griffin which stated this interesting fact:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/kathy_griffin_apologies_for_a_joke_that_didnt_work.html
BEGIN QUOTE

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 4 kb.