September 03, 2024
Enlightenment
David Sterkin
ENLIGHTENMENT
Kammie is heartbroken over the price of everyday goods. Awwww. She’s gonna fix it. Here’s what’s REALLY going on.
Day 1 of the Harris/ Biden regime 2 major pipelines were shut down. When you raise the price of energy while also making it more scarce, EVERYTHING dependent on energy goes up in price. Try to think of everyday products that are NOT dependent on energy. ( Crickets )
When you print TRILLIONS of dollars to ‘stimulate’ the economy — which Harris/ Biden did — you DEVALUE existing dollars. Why? Because now there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods (or less). That ALWAYS causes higher prices. It’s a hidden tax that affects lower & fixed income households the most.
Now… Harris is VP NOW. She can start to remedy the above problems NOW. She won’t — or can’t. But she doesn’t tell you that. She pretends she’ll change the existing policy which she also claims to have helped shape.
This woman is a zero. Her handlers are intent on making your lives worse to make you more dependent on THEM.
ENLIGHTENMENT
Kammie is heartbroken over the price of everyday goods. Awwww. She’s gonna fix it. Here’s what’s REALLY going on.
Day 1 of the Harris/ Biden regime 2 major pipelines were shut down. When you raise the price of energy while also making it more scarce, EVERYTHING dependent on energy goes up in price. Try to think of everyday products that are NOT dependent on energy. ( Crickets )
When you print TRILLIONS of dollars to ‘stimulate’ the economy — which Harris/ Biden did — you DEVALUE existing dollars. Why? Because now there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods (or less). That ALWAYS causes higher prices. It’s a hidden tax that affects lower & fixed income households the most.
Now… Harris is VP NOW. She can start to remedy the above problems NOW. She won’t — or can’t. But she doesn’t tell you that. She pretends she’ll change the existing policy which she also claims to have helped shape.
This woman is a zero. Her handlers are intent on making your lives worse to make you more dependent on THEM.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:24 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
The Long Road to Renewable
Jim Church
Repost Oscar L. Martin, LinkedIn
Deploying the (American) grid required by 2050 by solar and wind would take 140 years to build. But that is not the only problem. The wet dreams of solar and wind advocates are nothing less than delusional hallucination. The diagram below by Mother Jones (https://lnkd.in/gFVFSK_D) shows visually how the roadmap to net zero using intermittent renewables is a fantasy.
The problem of the massive land requirements, or the need for a backup grid to keep the lights on are still unsolved problems. But even without those issues, in the best scenario, it would take solar and wind 140 years to clean the American power grid.
A group of Princeton University academics released a report that estimated that, to reach net zero targets, the U.S. will need to increase its transmission capacity by 3.2 times its existing infrastructure by 2050. A more optimistic analysis by the pro-renewables National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) suggested that the U.S. could reach 90% renewable electricity with 'only' a twofold increase in its existing 240,000 miles of high-voltage power lines. Based on data from The C Three Group | Yes Energy, which tracks the growth of energy infrastructure, the U.S. high-voltage transmission system grew by about 1,700 miles per year between 2008 and 2021.
At this rate, it would take about 44 years to achieve the 2035 goals and about 140 years to reach the National Renewable Energy Laboratory requirements for 2050. And this is under the optimistic scenario.
Note that the additional land taken only by the new power lines required by solar and wind would be larger than the state of Pennsylvania, add the land required by new solar fields and wind blades imported from China.
Wind and solar have already exploited the easy opportunities where they did not need new power lines. The renewables industry is now facing the reality that future deployments will not be as fast and economical as before.
This challenges the assumption that wind and solar can reduce emissions faster than other clean technologies such as nuclear that do not depend on the slow, costly, and environmentally disruptive construction of long new power lines. Just replace coal plants with plug-in nuclear reactors, no need for additional power lines.
Repost Oscar L. Martin, LinkedIn
Deploying the (American) grid required by 2050 by solar and wind would take 140 years to build. But that is not the only problem. The wet dreams of solar and wind advocates are nothing less than delusional hallucination. The diagram below by Mother Jones (https://lnkd.in/gFVFSK_D) shows visually how the roadmap to net zero using intermittent renewables is a fantasy.
The problem of the massive land requirements, or the need for a backup grid to keep the lights on are still unsolved problems. But even without those issues, in the best scenario, it would take solar and wind 140 years to clean the American power grid.
A group of Princeton University academics released a report that estimated that, to reach net zero targets, the U.S. will need to increase its transmission capacity by 3.2 times its existing infrastructure by 2050. A more optimistic analysis by the pro-renewables National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) suggested that the U.S. could reach 90% renewable electricity with 'only' a twofold increase in its existing 240,000 miles of high-voltage power lines. Based on data from The C Three Group | Yes Energy, which tracks the growth of energy infrastructure, the U.S. high-voltage transmission system grew by about 1,700 miles per year between 2008 and 2021.
At this rate, it would take about 44 years to achieve the 2035 goals and about 140 years to reach the National Renewable Energy Laboratory requirements for 2050. And this is under the optimistic scenario.
Note that the additional land taken only by the new power lines required by solar and wind would be larger than the state of Pennsylvania, add the land required by new solar fields and wind blades imported from China.
Wind and solar have already exploited the easy opportunities where they did not need new power lines. The renewables industry is now facing the reality that future deployments will not be as fast and economical as before.
This challenges the assumption that wind and solar can reduce emissions faster than other clean technologies such as nuclear that do not depend on the slow, costly, and environmentally disruptive construction of long new power lines. Just replace coal plants with plug-in nuclear reactors, no need for additional power lines.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:38 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.
Contracts on America
A Greg Delany
So when I go to a car dealership to buy a car. They write a contract for me to sign. The contract is for my car and not anything outside of my car. I am not obligated to pay for the raises of all car dealers, or pay for their country club memberships or the cost of their children's private schools.
Why then do "We the People", put up with contracts that are put up for vote by our Congress that throw everything and the kitchen sink into a budget, or stimulus bill???? Where did this practice come from??? Why is there no line by line vote for things in our budget? Why don't we have a balanced budget clause in our Constitution? Why don't we see a full print out of each Bill before it is voted on and who voted for it?Why do we allow Political payoffs to be added to our contract with America? After all these Entitled Elitists in Congress are supposed to be working for us, not for their own private interests!!!! Term limits and Budget reform are in our future or there will be no future for America!!!
2021 Congressional Pig Book
cagw.org
So when I go to a car dealership to buy a car. They write a contract for me to sign. The contract is for my car and not anything outside of my car. I am not obligated to pay for the raises of all car dealers, or pay for their country club memberships or the cost of their children's private schools.
Why then do "We the People", put up with contracts that are put up for vote by our Congress that throw everything and the kitchen sink into a budget, or stimulus bill???? Where did this practice come from??? Why is there no line by line vote for things in our budget? Why don't we have a balanced budget clause in our Constitution? Why don't we see a full print out of each Bill before it is voted on and who voted for it?Why do we allow Political payoffs to be added to our contract with America? After all these Entitled Elitists in Congress are supposed to be working for us, not for their own private interests!!!! Term limits and Budget reform are in our future or there will be no future for America!!!
2021 Congressional Pig Book
cagw.org
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:27 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
September 02, 2024
Arguing with Idiots; Atheism Edition
Timothy Birdnow
On Facebook an atheist sneers at God. I sneer right back.
Hilton Wayne Holder says: more...
On Facebook an atheist sneers at God. I sneer right back.
Hilton Wayne Holder says: more...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:48 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2316 words, total size 14 kb.
Trump and Abortion
Warner Todd Huston
I am seeing WAY too many Republicans all of a sudden attacking Trump over abortion and marijuana. Folks, if you are really surprised by any of this, you just haven't been paying attention.
On abortion he always said he wants it to be a state issue and without federal control. He has never been an anti-abortion absolutist. Never.
As to pot, he has never been super worried about pot, either. He is against cartels, certainly, but has never been overly active against pot.
Obviously, his recent statements on these two issues has been aimed at moderate voters.
But the point is, he has never been an absolutist on either pot or abortion. And if it is surprising you, you just haven't been paying attention.
Here, though, is the FACT... if you are suddenly all worried about voting for the one candidate who will give you most of what you want, you are allowing someone who won't give you ANY of what you want. to win
Opposing Trump is acting against your own supposed "principles."
Would I want pot wholly outlawed? Yes. Would I want abortion wholly outlawed? Yes. But we don't have a candidate who wants that. We have one that is mostly for restrictions of some sort and one who is 100% in favor of taking all the restrictions off -- not to mention destroying the country otherwise.
THAT is your choice.
Tim responds:
Cerulean thinking from you as always Warner!
There is none more pro-life than I but to go for the whole enchilada now is beyond stupid.
In point of fact the SCOTUS decision made it quite plain it's a states rights issue and any federal ban on abortion would likely be struck down as unconstitutional (and rightly so; the whole reason SCOTUS vacated Roe v. Wade was because ANY federal law on abortion cannot be constitutionally justified.)
Trump GAVE US the chance to defeat abortion at the state level in the first place. Had he not appointed Constitutionalist justices we would still be crushed under the heel of Roe.
We won a major victory; now is not the time to overreach. The American People aren't there yet.
I heard some moron say he wouldn't vote in the next election because Trump won't promise an abortion ban. That is beyond stupid. I would love to take a bullwhip to such idiocy.
The reality is the Left has won for a hundred years on multiple fronts because they will settle for half a loaf and then go for the rest later. We act as though not getting the whole loaf is somehow a defeat, and we attack those who took back that half loaf. Foolish.
I'm all for purity and taking a bold stand but not for fool-heartiness.
To win in politics one first must win elections. These dimwits seem to believe that is immaterial.
Trump is doing the right thing. Too bad so many on our side are falling for the trick of the Left/Democrats and eating him over it.
Selwyn Duke adds:
Correct, Warner. Look, I'm adamantly pro-life, and were I king, abortion would be illegal. But I'm not king. And as Otto von Bismarck put it, politics is "the art of the possible." It's not the art of "I get exactly what I want, right now, 100 percent, no questions asked." In politics, you take what you can. That means if the choice is half a loaf or no loaf, you accept the half a loaf. People need to put the emotion aside.
I am seeing WAY too many Republicans all of a sudden attacking Trump over abortion and marijuana. Folks, if you are really surprised by any of this, you just haven't been paying attention.
On abortion he always said he wants it to be a state issue and without federal control. He has never been an anti-abortion absolutist. Never.
As to pot, he has never been super worried about pot, either. He is against cartels, certainly, but has never been overly active against pot.
Obviously, his recent statements on these two issues has been aimed at moderate voters.
But the point is, he has never been an absolutist on either pot or abortion. And if it is surprising you, you just haven't been paying attention.
Here, though, is the FACT... if you are suddenly all worried about voting for the one candidate who will give you most of what you want, you are allowing someone who won't give you ANY of what you want. to win
Opposing Trump is acting against your own supposed "principles."
Would I want pot wholly outlawed? Yes. Would I want abortion wholly outlawed? Yes. But we don't have a candidate who wants that. We have one that is mostly for restrictions of some sort and one who is 100% in favor of taking all the restrictions off -- not to mention destroying the country otherwise.
THAT is your choice.
Tim responds:
Cerulean thinking from you as always Warner!
There is none more pro-life than I but to go for the whole enchilada now is beyond stupid.
In point of fact the SCOTUS decision made it quite plain it's a states rights issue and any federal ban on abortion would likely be struck down as unconstitutional (and rightly so; the whole reason SCOTUS vacated Roe v. Wade was because ANY federal law on abortion cannot be constitutionally justified.)
Trump GAVE US the chance to defeat abortion at the state level in the first place. Had he not appointed Constitutionalist justices we would still be crushed under the heel of Roe.
We won a major victory; now is not the time to overreach. The American People aren't there yet.
I heard some moron say he wouldn't vote in the next election because Trump won't promise an abortion ban. That is beyond stupid. I would love to take a bullwhip to such idiocy.
The reality is the Left has won for a hundred years on multiple fronts because they will settle for half a loaf and then go for the rest later. We act as though not getting the whole loaf is somehow a defeat, and we attack those who took back that half loaf. Foolish.
I'm all for purity and taking a bold stand but not for fool-heartiness.
To win in politics one first must win elections. These dimwits seem to believe that is immaterial.
Trump is doing the right thing. Too bad so many on our side are falling for the trick of the Left/Democrats and eating him over it.
Selwyn Duke adds:
Correct, Warner. Look, I'm adamantly pro-life, and were I king, abortion would be illegal. But I'm not king. And as Otto von Bismarck put it, politics is "the art of the possible." It's not the art of "I get exactly what I want, right now, 100 percent, no questions asked." In politics, you take what you can. That means if the choice is half a loaf or no loaf, you accept the half a loaf. People need to put the emotion aside.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:47 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.
One Man's Charity is Another Man's Theft
A Greg Delany
The President and our Congress act with injustice when they spend other peoples tax dollars to satisfy their desire to contribute to charity.
It is not the responsibility of government to keep Americans safe, educated and cared for. The government is responsible for the defense of our nation and upholding the Constitution!
The President and members of Congress can dig deep into their own pockets to dole out charity.
Let God’ s children carry the mantle to rescue the widows and orphans!
Tim adds:
Amen Greg!
A number of years ago Amity Shlaes wrote "the Forgotten Man" and restored the original meaning to that phrase. Roosevelt co-opted it to mean "the poor" but in fact it always had meant "those unwilling but forced to underwrite the poor."
I myself wrote about this concept years ago at American Thinker.
The reality is government "charity" is anything but, and it actually steals from those who seek to fulfill the mandate of God by forcibly removing money from the unwilling to give to those who may or may not deserve it.
To quote George Washington:
" Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force.” Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master". How can government "charity" be a good thing when a crime must be committed to perform said act in the first place? It's very presupposition is evil, that the State may forcibly take money from one man to give to another deemed more worthy by said State. And if the forgotten man says no they will kill him.
That is not charity. It is armed robbery.
The President and our Congress act with injustice when they spend other peoples tax dollars to satisfy their desire to contribute to charity.
It is not the responsibility of government to keep Americans safe, educated and cared for. The government is responsible for the defense of our nation and upholding the Constitution!
The President and members of Congress can dig deep into their own pockets to dole out charity.
Let God’ s children carry the mantle to rescue the widows and orphans!
Tim adds:
Amen Greg!
A number of years ago Amity Shlaes wrote "the Forgotten Man" and restored the original meaning to that phrase. Roosevelt co-opted it to mean "the poor" but in fact it always had meant "those unwilling but forced to underwrite the poor."
I myself wrote about this concept years ago at American Thinker.
The reality is government "charity" is anything but, and it actually steals from those who seek to fulfill the mandate of God by forcibly removing money from the unwilling to give to those who may or may not deserve it.
To quote George Washington:
" Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force.” Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master". How can government "charity" be a good thing when a crime must be committed to perform said act in the first place? It's very presupposition is evil, that the State may forcibly take money from one man to give to another deemed more worthy by said State. And if the forgotten man says no they will kill him.
That is not charity. It is armed robbery.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
46kb generated in CPU 0.0386, elapsed 0.213 seconds.
39 queries taking 0.1943 seconds, 220 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
39 queries taking 0.1943 seconds, 220 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
