January 31, 2020
Here is "Medicare for all" at work. When socialists control healthcare, people die.
Girl with Cancer Dies Waiting for Hospital Bed Despite Having a Donor
A WORD FROM TIM:
In Britain someone with Macular Degeneration has to go blind in one eye before they will give him or her an Avastin shot to save sight in the other. That's how it works.
This is surprising; seems more Americans went to the library last year than went to the movies.
From the article:
Yes, according to a recent Gallup poll(the first such survey since 2001),visiting the local library remains by far the most common cultural activity Americans engage in. As reported earlier today by Justin McCarthy:
"Visiting the library remains the most common cultural activity Americans engage in, by far. The average 10.5 trips to the library U.S. adults report taking in 2019 exceeds their participation in eight other common leisure activities. Americans attend live music or theatrical events and visit national or historic parks roughly four times a year on average and visit museums and gambling casinos 2.5 times annually. Trips to amusement or theme parks (1.5) and zoos (.9) are the least common activities among this list.â€
The results of the Gallup poll have been broken down in a range of different ways, all of which you can peruse at your leisure, but two of the more interesting (though unsurprising) findings are that women report visiting the library nearly twice as frequently as men do, and that libraries are visited most by adults in low-income households and least by adults in high-income households.I'm surprised; people have computers for that. But it IS free and you can get a novel or magazine or whatnot. Much better than the movies, which keeps getting more and more expensive and now features commercials as well.
And where else do you find a hot librarian with glasses and a wild streak under her mild exterior? Come on guys, admit it; we've all fantasized about a librarian at some point. Never did that about a popcorn girl.
This is guaranteed to creep anyone out!
I find all arachnids distasteful, but a combo spider and scorpion? That's just evil.
From the article:
Arachnids are a group of eight-legged invertebrates that includes scorpions, ticks, and spiders. Spiders, which crawled into existence some 300 million years ago, are known for their spinneretsâ€”modified "legsâ€ that produce silk and control its extrusion from tiny pores called spigots.
Male spiders have also evolved another modified "legâ€ between their fangs and the back four pairs of legs that inserts sperm into the female. All but the most primitive spiders have smooth backs, unlike the segmented abdomens of scorpions, which are believed to have diverged from an ancestral arachnid more than 430 million years ago.
But in 1989, researchers discovered a suspicious, spigot-bearing fossil that was 100 million years older than the earliest known spider. By 2008, paleobiologists realized that this ancient silk producer was just a spider relative, perhaps a stepping stone to true spiders. Researchers put it into the group Uraraneida, which was thought to have thrived between 400 million and 250 million years ago. That left unanswered many questions about when spinnerets and other spider traits first evolved.
Then, several years ago, amber fossil dealers independently approached two paleobiologists at the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology in China with what looked like 5-millimeter-long Uraraneida encased in amber. One of them, Wang Bo, pulled together a team to look at his two specimens, which they eventually named Chimerachne yingi ("chimera spiderâ€ in Latin).
That's about all I can take!
Recently I wrote about how liberals hold human life in little regard and consider us animals. I linked to a story about American military people working in Africa, bragging about killing elephant and rino poachers. My point was that the Left sees no superior value in the lives of the poachers over the animals.
I received a number of raspberries when I posted this to Facebook, mostly in the form of emoticons, but Willis Eschenbach was annoyed enough to trash me on my own page. He said:
... dude, do you realize how unhinged you sound?
And for the record, I'm as un-progressive and un-PC as a man can be.
The vitriol here is puzzling; Willis is very conservative. I replied:
You know, a while back there was a question posed to liberals and conservatives about what they would do if there was a fire in an art gallery, say, the Louvre, and a famous work of art - say, the Mona Lisa - were in peril, but so too was a person. Would you save the painting or the man? Liberals generally said the painting was more important than the man while conservatives said they would save the man first. Why? Because conservatives value life to a far greater degree than liberals. Liberals see people as animals, perhaps complex and wonderful animals, but animals nonetheless and place no greater emphasis on their lives. In fact, in many ways they place a greater emphasis on animals since they see humans as a kind of invasive species, destroying the environment. They think there are too many of us.
So they would save the work of art first, because it has enduring value while a person is just a burden on society as they see it.
I fear this attitude is permeating conservative thought as well these days. The reaction to this certainly suggests that is the case.
Here is a discussion between myself, Bill H., and Dana Mathewson about Global Warming and why it's at best a misunderstood subject. It's a worthwhile read:
One fundamental flaw in the reasoning which never seems to arise is the assumption that all processes continue indefinitely in a linear fashion. If, for instance, adding CO2 at a certain rate for five years will have X effect, then adding it for that same rate for twenty years will have 4 times X effect. That is demonstrably false.
Put a pot of water on your stove and turn the heat on. Do not touch the heat control and watch what happens. The temperature of the water in the pot rises until it reaches 212 degrees. Then, no matter how much heat you add, it never goes above 212 degrees. Other things happen, but the temperature of the water never increases.
That clearly illustrates that not all processes continue indefinitely at the same rate or in the same manner, and any prophecy which relies on that assumption is bogus.
Ya got it right, Bill. But that's what happens when people learn their science from "Bill The Science Guy" on TV instead of from real science teachers in school. That dude on TV knows no more of science than my dog.
Sorry -- that's "Bill Nye, the Science Guy." Gotta get these things right even if they don't.
Absolutely Bill! It's a component of the argument against global warming theory, too; as scientists put it, there is a logarithmic relationship between co2 and temperature. The more co2 added to the system the less the temperature rises until the whole thing craps out (at around 2* C.) After that you can add all the carbon dioxide you like, but there will be no temperature increase.
The argument made by serious people (not the media or the idiots who argue online) is that this will lead to positive feedback, meaning water will evaporate. Water is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. This will lead to more warming, which will lead to more outgasing of co2, which will lead to more water vapor which will eventually lead to outgasing of methane from the Earth's permafrost - which will raise the planet's temperature by ten degrees, perhaps.
This is what is referred to as the "climate sensitivity". How much co2 can you add, and how strong are the feedbacks?
The idiots all say "the science is simple" but they don't know the science.
The reality is there are also negative feedbacks, things that tamp all this down. When you evaporate water you create clouds - something we don't really understand BUT we do know they reflect solar radiation back into space. That is called planetary albedo, and the Earth's albedo did in fact increase during the end of the nineties and early two thousands. It was at this point the "pause" began in planetary temperature rise.
I always point to Mars; Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% carbon dioxide but it is bitterly cold, colder than it should be at that distance from the Sun. Much of Mars' atmosphere is frozen in the ground and at the poles as dry ice. When the planet warms this melts, doubling the thin surface air pressure, which increases the strength of Martian winds, which kick up dust, which blot out the Sun, which drops temperatures back down and refreezes the atmosphere. It's a cycle that has gone on for millions of years. The planet is stuck in a permanent ice age despite all that carbon dioxide. Why? Negative feedback loops.
But the IPCC estimated a very low climate sensitivity, and disregarded negative feedback.
Of course, the useful idiots all talk about the "established, basic science" completely oblivious to the actual argument here.
Oh, so why do people like me say "climate change is a hoax"? Because the catastrophic version, the one that predicts doomsday, was designed to stampede America and the rest of the world into a New World Order scheme that would make the United Nations into a true world government and would restructure the economic system, de-industrializing the great powers (like the U.S.) and transferring wealth to the poor nations. They have as much as admitted it.
In fact, they discussed it at something called the Endangered Atmospheres Conference back in the '70's where they kicked around ideas about how to backdoor their Utopian vision. They settled on Global Cooling, but kept Global Warming as their backup if the planet warmed (which they knew it would as these are normally 40 or so year cycles and they were nearing the end of the cooling phase). This conference was a who's who of left wing scientists, including Obama's "Science Czar" John Holdren.
Subsequent comments by people at the U.N. and others show this is still there goal. See here for a partial list of comments by our Gang Greenous friends.
Whether Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Flatulence was a hoax to begin with or not, it is one now. We know this because of the Climategate e-mails, which show there was a systematic effort by top people at the Climate Research Unit of the U. of East Anglia (which produces the much- used HADCRUT data) and with Penn State and others to squash disagreement, to control peer review, to bully editors, to manipulate data, etc. Michael Mann, one member of the "hockey team" as they have been dubbed by "deniers" (itself a libelous term) is forever suing people who point out he fudged data results (his hockey stick used "Mike's Nature trick" which was to splice two contradictory data sets together without telling anyone.)
Almost invariably, these big sensational discoveries wind up being just computer simulations or of dubious data quality.
So it IS a hoax, one based on a rather esoteric science with data that is at best statistically marginal.
January 30, 2020
Frankly, one of my fondest wishes is that PETA would retire as a group, and that each member find something actually constructive to do. In the article https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/groundhog-day-star-punxsutawney-phil-may-retire-and-be-replaced-with-a-robot-after-peta-campaign you'll learn that P. Phil lives better than many people in the area, and apparently the mid-winter excursion doesn't cause him that much of a problem.
Punxsutawney Phil undergoes "great stress" every year on Groundhog Day and should be replaced by a robot, the leader of PETA says.
Ingrid Newkirk writes in a letter to the furry celebrity's Groundhog Club that Phil deserves a break and should be allowed to retire.
The request, posted on PETA's website, comes ahead of Sunday's annual ceremony which will determine whether spring arrives early this year.
If Phil sees his shadow this weekend in the small Pennsylvania town, he will retreat and winter will continue for six weeks. If Phil does not see his shadow, spring will be here soon.
It is a burden that Phil should be spared, according to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
A smattering of media figures attacked former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg on Wednesday, suggesting that he used racist language when he called for a president who had their roots in the "American Heartland."
"It is a dog whistle," former CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien tweeted. "And maybe Mayor Pete isnâ€™t aware of that. There is nothing more virtuous about a vision honed in the Heartland. Againâ€”he should sit with his staffers of color and have them explain this to him." [Hint: read the article to see if he did]
The controversy came as Buttigieg's campaign reportedly disseminated a questionnaire for staff members of color, asking them whether they experienced "microaggressions" in the workplace. The survey was the latest indication that Buttigieg might be encountering issues with his ability to connect with minorities.
Buttigieg had originally tweeted that his roots in the "heartland" were an antidote to the ineffective politics of Washington, D.C.
"Heartland is code. And I'm over it," tweeted Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund."It erases the legitimacy of the experiences and reality of Black mid-Westerners and cloaks white mid-Western communities in a gauzy innocence and authenticity."
Comedian Andy Richter similarly tweeted: "Iâ€™m from the supposed Heartland, and in a political context 'the Heartland' does not mean not-Washington. It means the place where white people run things."
Oh, gag, for cryin' out loud! Do any of these people ever have an original thought? Go here and read the article to find out: https://www.foxnews.com/media/pete-buttigieg-backlash-american-heartland And if you have a dog, give him/her a hug instead of using a dog whistle!
Michael Bloomberg pays the Gang Green to promote Special Assistant Attorney Generals to push their anti-human agenda.
From the article:
Since environmentalist mega-donor and now-Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg provided an inaugural $6 million grant for New York University School of Law to launch the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center (SEEIC) in August 2017, the program has been a point of controversy. Now its critics include several state attorneys general, who have spoken out publicly about the gross legal and ethical problems with the program which has seated 18 special assistant attorneys general (SAAGs) in the offices of 11 Democratic state attorneys general.
In a recently published article, Republican attorneys general told the Daily Caller News Foundationâ€™s Chris White that the arrangement is akin to paying for government access and likening them to political mercenaries. As Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill (R) pointed out:
"Whatâ€™s problematic is the arrangement through which a private organization or individual can promote an overtly political agenda by paying the salaries of government employees.â€
Hill believes that Bloombergâ€™s program pushes the envelope of ethical acceptability:
"[A]ll of the government employees being compensated in this manner are lawyers working for Democratic attorneys general, according to NYUâ€™s website. This whole scenario raises obvious ethical and legal concerns.â€ (emphasis added).
Hill isnâ€™t the only attorney general speaking out about his concerns. A spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr told the Daily Caller that Carr had "serious concernsâ€ about the SAAGsâ€™ ability to represent the state "in an unbiased manner.â€Ya think?
Bloomberg is essentially bribing D.A.s to harass legal businesses (like oil companies) with lawsuits and legal machinations.
The article continues:
To some observers, this looks like Bloomberg is buying influence, not with bribes, but through something more subtleâ€“the gift of manpower. In a piece quoting Whiteâ€™s article for the American Thinker, a conservative news and commentary site, Deputy Editor Monica Showalter aptly summed up the situation:
"[Bloomberg]â€™s doing something quite a bit sneakier: Heâ€™s buying a government. Seriously, in the manner of privateers of old, heâ€™s offering â€˜giftsâ€™of â€˜freeâ€™ left-wing lawyers to state attorney generalsâ€™ offices with the express purpose ofundercutting President Trump on greenie regulations.â€
Showalter argues that Bloomberg financed the NYU program to place handpicked SAAGs in state offices around the country where they work behind the scenes to enact a radical environmentalist agenda. Instead of elected congressional representatives enacting policies their constituents support, she argues, Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and other billionaire donors are using secretive funding mechanisms to craft state regulation and policy without any accountability to voters.
Likening the SAAGs to "an army of mercenaries,â€ she described the scheme as a threat to representative government:
Isn't it odd that the Democrats and liberals like Bloomberg have raged against the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court which said money is a form of free speech, then they use money to manipulate politics and law to stifle their opponents and attack those with whom they disagree.
"The whole thing strikes at the heart of representative government and replaces it with a government of billionaire minions, mercenaries loyal only to the billionaire paying their salaries andcalling the shots.â€
This brings to mind the "Prosecuting Attorney Project" of George Soros in which he bought up DA positions around the country. Much of the chaos in the cities is a result of Soros' project. For example, violent crime has skyrocketed in St. Louis since his handpicked DA - Kim Gardner - assumed office and stopped prosecuting criminals in the interest of "racial fairness". Or Kim Foxx in Cook County. Or Baltimore's Marilyn Mosby.
This is more of the same; an attempt to manipulate the legal system to destroy opposition.
It's a disgrace. And it's happening in America.
This from Michelle Stirling:
We were not impressed with Prof. Katharine Hayhoe's presentation in Calgary during the IPCC Cities conference in our province. You can read why, here. https:// wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/13/dr-katharine-hay hoe-tries-to-scare-canadians-with-threats-of-warmer-temperatures/
I'm the Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society. We appreciate the fact that the editor took the time to ask us for a statement in response to Dr. Weaver's characterization of our organization. There is no consensus as described by Dr. Weaver in the article. Here is our deconstruction of several of the most cited 'consensus' reports. It's just a social proof, intended to stop you from asking questions.
Fighting Climate Crisis Denial in Class
There are over ten thousand Illinois public employees who make over $200,00 a year in pensions.
Here is one:
Donna Joy, Flossmor School District 161
Paid $299,000 into the system during her career
Receives $229,000 a year in payouts
Will get 5.4 mill lifetime payout
So she contributed 5.4% of her pension when she was working.
This woman worked in education. Educators claim they are smart. So, how did these scumbags think this math would work?
Well Warner, Educators ARE smart! That woman and her accomplices figured out a way to cheat everyone out of 5.4 million bucks! Pretty clever! Granted, it won't last long, but the architects of this rotten system surely got THEIRS!
Here is proof that liberals are morally and ethically unmoored.
Meet the American Woman who Tracks Down and Kills Elephant Poachers
From the article:
Johnson, A U.S. Army veteran who served four years in Afghanistan, joined VETPAWas an anti-poaching advisor where her team provides training in marksmanship, field medicine and counterintelligence, while also patrolling with them to provide support. Apparently they were in desperate need of help as they lost 187 rangers last year alone attempting to guard the rhinos and elephants.
"Weâ€™re going over there to do some anti-poaching, kill some bad guys, and do some good.â€ Johnson says.KILL PEOPLE for poaching? Yes, the animals may be endangered, but the life of a single person is worth more than any elephant or rino.
This is illustrative of how the Left does not value human life, and in fact disdains people. They do not see human beings as precious but as a kind of plague. Where the life of a single person is worth more than any number of elephants the Liberals see human life as cheap and something that should be forfeit if it acts in opposition to their will.
(Strangely, when a predator invades a home and gets shot by someone defending their own life the progressives howl because that did not "deserve a death sentence" but poaching does! That's because they want society to be in a state of disarray so the public supports their "solutions", but I digress.)
I wrote about this thinking at American Thinker in 2005. Conservatives were puzzled by the animus shown by liberals toward poor Terri Schiavo, whose husband wanted to turn off her life support. The Left was savage in their desire to kill Schiavo and our side couldn't understand why. I pointed out it was a matter of hubris on the part of the liberals; they don't believe in God, or hold Deistic beliefs towards Him, and seek to elevate themselves to the position of Most High. They may not consciously think that, but it is the de-facto position. That's why they want strong government; to exercise the collective Will. It's why they love abortion. And it's why they are willing to kill poachers. In all cases it is about the absolute power of the State over life and death. God creates life; Man has the equal power (as they see it) to create death.
It is Yin and Yang. Brahma and Shiva. They see themselves as seated on the godhead.
Oddly enough, these same people would be the kind who would go to protests about police shootings. See, they don't mind killing as long as it is on their own terms.
I find this particular article fascinating in that it shows the ease with which the Left kills those who disobey their will.
Reason enough to not vote for him. Does this signal that Biden is desperate and thinks he must have help from the Obamas? I think it might.
Joe Biden Says Heâ€™d Make Michelle Obama Vice President, and Barack a Supreme Court Justice
Bear in mind that Obama's political support is largely the kiss of death on any candidate. And Biden has said in the past he didn't want Obama's active support. Looks to me the Gruesome Groper is starting to realize he's in dutch.
This from Tim McNabb
LOL...When Democrats do it, it is a time-honored tradition. When the GOP does it...pearls are clutched.
Hello "Walking Around Money"
From the Politico article:
The organizers say the events are run by the book and intended to promote economic development in inner cities. But the group behind the cash giveaways is registered as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. One leading legal expert on nonprofit law said the arrangement raises questions about the groupâ€™s tax-exempt status, because it does not appear to be vetting the recipients of its money for legitimate charitable need.
"Charities are required to spend their money on charitable and educational activities,â€ said Marcus Owens, a former director of the Exempt Organizations Division at the Internal Revenue Service who is now in private practice at the law firm Loeb & Loeb. "It's not immediately clear to me how simply giving money away to people at an event is a charitable act.â€The charity - The Urban Revitalization Coalition - has been handing out door prizes at campaign events featuring $300 and $500 prizes.
After the article lambasts the organization for being tax exempt, it then admits deep into the article:
Funny how the liberals at Politico found a "scandal" which even they had to admit was perfectly legal - and something the Democrats have done repeatedly over the years.
What is the purpose of this money? At this early stage it doesn't buy votes. Perhaps some good will, but not votes. But it DOES move money to people who can contribute it back. That was the old Democratic trick, to hand out cash as "charity" and have it given back as campaign contributions. Launders it from Federal campaign finance law. The Clinton Foundation is a massive example of this simple trick.
I don't really think this is what is happening here; there is money going out to people who need it.
I should like to point out that in the early days of the Republic it was common to pay people ON ELECTION DAY for their votes. Candidates had to throw lavish election parties with food and liquor. Even George Washington, a man of fabled sobriety and prudence, had to throw such parties when he was running for President.
But it really is a distasteful practice.
I suspect the influx of former Democrats is at the root of this; they have always done things this way. That Politico would find fault with the practice now is beyond hypocrisy.
Elizabeth Warren Proposes Law to Criminalize Free Speech on the Internet
Elizabeth Warren wants to jail fellow Democrats who spread the Russia collusion hoax and, more recently, the Ukraine impeachment fraud. That, at least, is how I read her latest proposal: "Elizabeth Warren proposes criminal penalties for spreading voting disinformation online.â€
January 29, 2020
Here is pure chutzpah!
E.U. Demand It's Judges Keep Control After Brexit
What kind of Brexit would it be if the E.U. retains control of the judiciary?
Roger Bell sent this to his Prime Minister:
Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP,
10 Downing St.
Dear Prime Minister,
Will you ensure that the European Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in UK after BREXIT please?
A friend of mine was talking about who should run for President in 2024. His recommendation?:
-Sheâ€™s part Indian. Mom & Dad both immigrats from India.
-Former UN Ambassador/
-The world leaders know her & know how tough she will be.
-Dems will have a tough time defeating her!
I don't like it. Haley has a bad tendency to go whichever way the wind is blowing, and right now she is a MAGA gal, but she wasn't always. And there is a lot we have forgotten about her. In Washington, someone who is not solidly with us ends up against us. Just look at the "extreme conservative" Mitt Romney, or John McCain.
Bear in mind Haley was a big supporter of RINO Mitt Romney and later supported Marco Rubio, a rather swampy fellow.
She supported removing the Confederate flag from South Carolina and removing statues of Civil War heroes.
Now, none of these are deal breakers, but they do suggest a woman who is eager to join the swamp.
I fear she may turn on us once in office.
Generally if someone shows any sort of signs of joining the other side they will betray us.
But the worst is she is largely an open borders supporter. That I find intolerable.
And if you are known by the company you keep, she has a problem. For instance, she spoke at a fundraiser for a very liberal Republican Progressive.
Or take John Boehner. People forget that Boehner was to the right of Newt Gingrich (himself a guy who wound up moving leftward when in power) but by the time he left office he was essentially a light beer version of a Democrat. Boehner used to rail against liberals; by the time he left office he railed against Conservatives. He supported amnesty for illegal aliens. He is now working as a lobbyist for the marijuana industry (I knew he was on something.)
The list goes on and on. John McCain was solidly conservative until he wasn't. So was Lindsay Graham.
When in doubt, don't. It's true in many things, but especially in politics these days. Money and influence corrupt. I fear Nikki Haley. She has already shown a willingness to compromise with the Swamp Rats. Once she is safely in office how much more will she compromise?
January 28, 2020
Since a number of American citizens have been shown to have been injured by Iranian missile attacks last month, the need to retaliate in some fashion is obvious.
I think I've found the perfect target.
Looks like our buddies in Iran are planning to try to launch a satellite. We know where the launch site is. Perhaps we should take some sort of action here?
Seems like a logical target to me.
What the Democrats didn't tell the American People during the impeachment opening arguments.
From Conservative HQ:
Naturally, the establishment media skipped most of this and few Americans saw it because, as President Trump put it, Saturday was "Death Valleyâ€ for TV viewership. As the President tweeted:
After having been treated unbelievably unfairly in the House, and then having to endure hour after hour of lies, fraud & deception by Shifty Schiff, Cryinâ€™ Chuck Schumer & their crew, looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on Saturday, which is called Death Valley in T.V.
Given that few Americans, even stalwart conservative CHQ readers, entered "Death Valleyâ€ to watch the Trump defense teamâ€™s opening presentation, we think pulling out the nine key points made by White House deputy counsel Michael Purpura will help readers understand exactly where President Trumpâ€™s defense team is headed:Read the rest.
CNN's Chris Cuomo rips Trumpers" for Attacking "Kid" Greta Thurnberg; Critics Remind Him of Sandmann Settlement
And what of Baron Trump? Democrats and liberals mock the poor kid all the time. He has never said two words in public, unlike Greta who is shooting her mouth off with regularity and scolding adults when she has no knowlege.
There is no climate crisis - Roger Pielke, Jr. explains where that faulty notion came from. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/26/its-time-to-get-real-about-the-extreme-scenario-used-to-generate-climate-porn/#54c65e4c4af0
53 queries taking 0.278 seconds, 329 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.