November 06, 2015

Carson Calamity

Dana Mathewson

Damn, damn, damn! Why, oh why do people do things like this? Do they think nobody can find out? It's not as if he said Gen. Bullmoose said he'd get him in. (Remember Gen. Bullmoose?)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/06/paper-carson-campaign-admits-his-claims-about-west-point-acceptance-untrue/

"Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson has been forced to admit that part of central plank in his personal narrative -- that the top U.S. general in the Vietnam War had guaranteed him admission and a scholarship to West Point -- was fabricated."

UPDATE:

I hear Rush debunks this, says Politico totally misconstrued it. Let's hope so!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Obamaraid

A.J. Cameron


If you in your small hamlet and I, in tiny Roeland Park, KS, knew of these atrocities prior to the vote, most assuredly, every Representative and Senator knew about them prior to their vote. None of them can claim lack of knowledge about which they voted, backstabbing us, yet again.

I was thinking earlier today (no laughs, please), about what a fraud Paul Ryan is. I believe he will be even worse than the Fuhrer, Boehner, because he has a smoother delivery, with which he can ram that stiletoe ever deeper into our backs. Then I considered that our Reps voted for this fraud, so why should we vote for our Reps again? They certainly don't represent us!

I heard someone yesterday say that if the election is between Bush and Killary, he's not voting. As I've said, I'm done w/ the Gutless Opposition Party, because there is no opposition to the traitorous actions of the puppet president and the Democrats. Even at the state level, I'm stuck w/ Demoncrats for my Rep and Senator who ran w/in the Gutless Opposition Party.

It is time to get right with God, because Satan has taken over on Earth!

A. J.

 
 
This is the final nail in America's coffin.
I shutter to think how many I'm sharing this with won't even bother reading this much less lift a finger to share with others, OR pick up the phone, call your Representative in Congress & Senators (most of which are proven Traitors & misRepresentatives to their constituents back home), write a letter or even email them.
EVERY Freedom Loving American ought to raise holy sand about this Death Sentence to American sovereignty & hello to becoming nothing more than a Globally controlled (by Communist Elites) Enterprise: The New World Order.


What evil. What a disaster.
The 'most open administration in history'.
What a freakin lie

Left, right agree -- thumbs down on Obamatrade

http://americac2c.com/forum/topics/left-right-agree-thumbs-down-on-obamatrade?xg_source=msg_mes_network

 

Discussion Started by Robert M i

 

Written byJerome R. Corsi

 

tpp-workers

Obama addresses workers

 

UNITED NATIONS – The Obama administration’srelease Thursday of the more than 2,000 pages of the textof theTrans-Pacific Partnershipagreement, known more commonly as Obamatrade, has prompted a rash of criticism from both the political left and the right.

 

Critics charge the pactundermines U.S. sovereigntyby establishing a secret, unaccountable TransPacific Partnership Commission with sweeping regulatory powers over 40 percent of the world’s economy while sending jobs abroad.

 

"This trade agreement would allow foreign corporations to challenge our health, safety and environmental protections in a foreign tribunal outside our legal system, and it would weaken those bedrock safeguards in the United States,” said Jake Schmidt, international program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "While there are some positive conservation measures, the agreement’s substantial shortcomings should lead Congress to reject it.”

 

Chapter 28 ofthe TPP agreement, titled "Dispute Settlement,”specifies that trade disputes will be adjudicated by a three-person panel in accordance with international law, including any World Trade Organization obligations that have been written into the various sections of the TPP agreement.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, head of a union known for supporting Democratic Party political candidates and causes, said that from what he and his colleagues have reviewed so far, "we are deeply disappointed that our policy recommendations and those of our trade reform allies in the environmental, consumer, public health, global development and business sectors were largely ignored.”

 

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, said the TPP "will continue to outsource American jobs overseas, fail to do anything about currency manipulation, and once adopted, will create an international, unelected commission with broad authority to implement and interpret the agreement without any votes of Congress.”

 

Under the "fast track” authority Congress granted President Obama last summer, lawmakers can only vote "yes” or "no” on TPP. Filibusters are disallowed, and no amendments to the treaty can be introduced, with a simple majority required to vote the FPP trade treaty up or down.

 

Should Congress fail to act during a 90-day review period, President Obama, under the fast track authority, would be free to sign the pact under his own authority.

The 12 nations comprising the TPPare the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand.

China has responded by creating its own 16-nation compact,the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a free-trade area including India that is estimated as the world’s largest such bloc, encompassing some 3.4 billion people.

 

Expansive new powers to foreign businesses

Trumka said the trade deals’ investment rules "still provide expansive new legal rights and powers to foreign businesses to challenge legitimate government actions, the labor enforcement provisions are still inadequate to address the enormous challenges posed by this deal and the lack of enforceable currency rules subject to trade sanctions mean the promised new export markets may never materialize.”

 

Manning stressed that the regulatory and judicial powers of the commission, in Article 27.2.2 of the agreement, will be akin to rogue agencies and activist courts in the U.S. that regularly issue edicts contrary to the law passed by elected representatives.”

 

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said it appears that the TPP’s proponents "resorted to such extreme secrecy during negotiations because the text shows TPP would offshore more American jobs, lower our wages, flood us with unsafe imported food and expose our laws to attack in foreign tribunals.”

 

"When the administration says it used the TPP to renegotiate NAFTA, few expected that meant doubling down on the worst job-killing, wage-suppressing NAFTA terms, expanding limits on food safety and rolling back past reforms on environmental standards and access to affordable drugs,” Wallach said.

 

Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program, noted many in Congress "said they would support the TPP only if, at a minimum, it included past reforms made to trade pact intellectual property rules affecting access to affordable medicines.”

 

"But the TPP rolls back that past progress by requiring new marketing exclusivities and patent term extensions, and provides pharmaceutical firms with new monopoly rights for biotech drugs, including many new and forthcoming cancer treatments,” Maybarduk said.

 

"The terms in this final TPP text will contribute to preventable suffering and death abroad, and may constrain the reforms that Congress can consider to reduce Americans’ medicine prices at home.”

 

‘Wish list for special interests’

Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, said, "Now that we can read the final TPP text, it’s obvious why it was kept in total secrecy for so long,”

He called the agreement "a wish list for powerful special interests and multinational corporations.”

 

"The Intellectual Property chapter confirms our worst fear about the TPP’s impact on our basic right to express ourselves and access information on the Internet,” he said. "If U.S. Congress signs this agreement despite its blatant corruption, they’ll be signing a death warrant for the open Internet and putting the future of free speech in peril.”

 

Judit Rius Sanjuan, U.S. manager and legal policy adviser for the Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Access Campaign, said her non-profit "remains gravely concerned about the effects that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal will have on access to affordable medicines for millions of people, if it is enacted.”

 

"Today’s official release of the agreed TPP text confirms that the deal will further delay price-lowering generic competition by extending and strengthening monopoly market protections for pharmaceutical companies,” Sanjuan emphasized.

 

"At a time when the high price of life-saving medicines and vaccines is increasingly recognized as a barrier to effective medical care, it is very concerning to see that the U.S. government and pharmaceutical companies have succeeded in locking in rules that will keep medicine prices high for longer and limit the tools that governments and civil society have to try to increase generic competition.”

 

Dispute panel

The pact’s three-person dispute panel is to be composed of one panelist selected by the complaining party and one by the responding party. The third is chosen by mutual consent, or failing mutual consent, by the two initial panelists.

 

The TPP also incorporates many provisions ofthe Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure, ISDS, a common provision in bi-lateral and multi-lateral international investment agreements and treaties that allows investors to sue national governments over treaty violations.

 

The TPP agreement is estimated to double to 18,000 the number of foreign corporations that could be authorized by TPP to utilize ISDS procedures to challenge U.S. laws and regulations in favor of international trade rules and WTO regulations. It allows a demand of compensation for damages in a wide range of business areas affected by TPP rules and regulations, including disputes over intellectual property and patent rights, challenges over financial service regulations and protections such as safety inspections extended to food and medicine sold in the United States.

 

While ISDS provisions have existed in international trade agreements since the 1960s, just 50 known ISDS cases were launched through the 1990s. Case volume has increased dramatically in recent years, with 50 known ISDS cases being launched in each of the last three years. Recent ISDS cases have targeted tobacco, climate, financial stability, mining, medicine, education, pollution, water, labor, toxins and development policies,according to a trade group opposing the TPP.

 

ISDS tribunals have ordered more than $3.6 billion in taxpayer compensation to foreign firms to date. More than $34 billion in ISDS claims are pending under U.S. trade pacts, with disputes contesting U.S. policy in environmental regulation, energy, financial regulation, public health, land use and transportation policies.

 

Alan Morrison, the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest...article published in The Atlantic in June, proposed a scenario of the type of case the TPP is anticipated to allow by expanding ISDS procedures.

 

Morrison postulated that should the TPP become established U.S. law, a Vietnamese company that owns 15 restaurants in San Francisco could file a lawsuit charging that a minimum wage increase authorized by the mayor of San Francisco was a violation of the "investor protection” provisions of TPP. It would authorize the Vietnamese corporation to bring an ISDS case under TPP before a three-person arbitration tribunal, with the U.S. government the only defendant and the city of San Francisco participating only if the U.S. allows it.

 

Morrison further points out that under ISDS, the arbitrators are typically lawyers who specialize in international trade and investment, for whom serving as arbitrators is the only one source of income. They are paid by the hour and allowed to rotate between arbitrating cases and representing foreign investors and corporations suing governments in the United States.

Back door for ‘climate change’ regulations

 

While the TPP is not intended to be a "climate change” treaty imposing carbon surcharges, it introduces environmental regulations in Article 20.15, titled "Transition to a Low Emissions and Resilient Economy.”

 

The first paragraph states "transition to a low emissions economy requires collective action.”

 

The pact acknowledges "each Party’s actions to transition to a low emissions economy should reflect domestic circumstances and capabilities” but says the members "shall cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest.”

"Areas of cooperation may include, but are not limited to: energy efficiency; development of cost-effective, low-emissions technologies and alternative, clean and renewable energy sources; sustainable transport and sustainable urban infrastructure development; addressing deforestation and forest degradation; emissions monitoring; market and non-market mechanisms; low-emissions, resilient development and sharing of information and experiences in addressing this issue. Further, the Parties shall, as appropriate, engage in cooperative and capacity-building activities related to transitioning to a low emissions economy.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/obamatrade-condemned-by-both-left-right/...

 

 

 

 

Laura J Alcorn


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1918 words, total size 19 kb.

Claire the Lieaire

Brian Birdnow


Here is a message I sent to Claire McCaskill a bit ago. How much do you want to bet that I don't get a response!

Brian

To: Senator Claire McCaskill <senator@mccaskill.senate.gov>


Dear Senator McCaskill,
The Obamacare mess is the single biggest contributing factor to medical costs continuing to spiral out of control. I seem to remember you parroting the Obama line that this would reduce family medical costs by roughly $2,500. What do you say now?

With Kindest Regards,
Dr. Brian E. Birdnow

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Senator Claire McCaskill<senator@mccaskill.senate.gov>wrote:
logo

Dear Brian,

The recent, dramatic price increases of life-saving prescription drugs appear to have seemingly no relationship to research and development costs, but instead follow corporate takeovers - a move that looks like little more than price gouging.

It's unacceptable, especially because many of these price increases are coming at the expense of seniors who live on a fixed income and who rely on their medications.

We have to get to the bottom of this. That's why this week, I'm announcing a bipartisan Senate investigation into pharmaceutical drug pricing.



Together, with the Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, Republican Senator Susan Collins, we have requested documents and information from four pharmaceutical companies: Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Turing Pharmaceuticals, Retrophin Inc, and Rodelis Therapeutics.

You can read the letters HERE.

But the investigation doesn't stop there - we'll be holding our first hearing in December and follow-up hearings in the coming months.

I'm proud to lead this investigation, because not only do our nation's seniors depend on it, but YOU deserve answers.


All the best,
sig


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 4 kb.

Just More "Folks" Who are Angry

Dana Mathewson

Faisal Mohammad, eh? Just as I suspected. Another one of those Swedish Lutherans, out causing trouble as usual.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/05/construction-worker-stops-knife-attack-on-california-school-campus/

 

The student who stabbed four people on the campus of UC Merced was identified Thursday as 18-year-old Faisal Mohammad from Santa Clara, the university confirms to Fox News.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Did ISIS Bomber Take down Russian Airliner?

Jack Kemp forwards this:


http://nypost.com/2015/11/04/us-believes-bomb-took-down-russian-airliner/

US believes ISIS-affiliated bomb took down Russianairliner

ByJamie Schram,Danika Fearsand Post Wires
November 4, 2015|3:30pm
US and British authorities now ­believe a bomb was used to blow up a Russian passenger jet over Egypt — and they suspect it wasthe work of ISIS terrorists,law enforcement sources said Wednesday.
"There are strong suspicions that somebody could have put a bomb in a piece of luggage that was on the plane,” a source told The Post.
Investigators are looking into security personnel or maintenance crew members with the necessary access to plant a device on the plane.
"We need to know if there is any explosives material on the metal of the plane wreckage,” the source continued, adding that investigators have doubts that Russia will fully cooperate with US authorities in the probe.
The source said it would be a disturbing escalation for ISIS.
"This would be a real coup for ISIS if they were able to pull this off. This would raise the bar,” the source said.
The ISIS-affiliated group Sinai Province issued an audio statement Wednesday taking credit for the strike and taunting investigators, according to the Wall Street Journal.
"Take the crashed plane and search it, take the black box and analyze it,” the recording says. "Tell us what you found in your investigation, show us your expertise and prove, if you can, that it wasn’t us who took the plane down or how it fell.”
The speaker said that Sinai Province is "under no obligation to reveal the method by which we took [the plane] down.”
But he then takes ownership, saying, "Die of your rage. We were the ones, with God’s grace, who made the plane fall and we will reveal how we took it down when and how we see fit.”
The evidence of terrorism includes intercepted messages sent among members of the militant group, ­according to the source.
"This airport has lax security. It is known for that,”a US official told CNNof Sharm el-Sheik, where the doomed flight took off. "But there is intelligence suggesting an assist from someone at the airport.”
Metrojet Flight 9268, with 224 aboard,departed from the seaside city at 6 a.m. Saturday and dropped off radar about 23 minutes later, according to Egyptian officials.
The St. Petersburg-bound plane suddenly split apart 44 miles south of the city of el-Arish in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula, where militants have clashed with Egyptian security forces, officials have said.
On Wednesday, Britain suspended all flights from Sharm el-Sheik to the United Kingdom, citing growing concerns about the possibility that a bomb caused the crash.
"As more information has come to light, we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device,” Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said in a statement.
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond added, "We have concluded that there is a significant possibility that the crash was caused by an explosive device on board the aircraft.”
Russian and Egyptian investigators said the cockpit voice recorder of the Metrojet Airbus 321-200 had suffered substantial damage, but its data had been handed over to investigators.
Russia’s Interfax news service had said Tuesday that, according to a source involved in the investigation, the pilots were communicating normally with air traffic controllers until four minutes before an "emergency situation occurred on board.”
"In the recordings, sounds uncharacteristic of a standard flight precede the moment of the airliner’s disappearance from radar screens,” the news service said. "The pilots had no time to send out a distress signal.”
British aviation experts are traveling to Sharm el-Sheik, where some 20,000 Brits are stranded as they await flights, to investigate airport security.
Ireland is taking similar precautions and has suspended all flights to and from the Red Sea resort city.
Meanwhile, the head of the Sharm el-Sheik ­airport has been replaced by his assistant. Officials insist it had nothing to do with security concerns.
Rescue teams in Egypt are still combing the Sinai Desert for the remains of passengers and parts of the plane’s fuselage.
Only one body so far has been returned to Russia for burial.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 6 kb.

November 05, 2015

A God Worth Worshipping; Is Breaking Hymens Really the Ultimate Purpose of Man?

Timothy Birdnow

What is the point of religion? Religion is an ill-defined term, but clearly it is a powerful human impulse, powerful enough that we must accept that religion transcends human quirks, that there is something, some greater reality that we barely glimpse and try to describe as poorly as we are able. Everyone is religious in his or her own way. Even atheists are religious in their anti-theism, accepting the nihilistic view that God doesn't exist and that's a fact, jack; no doubt whatsoever. There are agnostics who say they don't know, and yet that camp rarely exists for any length of time. More often people accept some belief system as an article of faith.

So let us take religion as a given. Man senses there is something greater than himself, and a world that is above the mudpit in which he resides. There is a Creator, a being who made all of this, a primus mobilum, an ummoved mover.

The purpose of religion is to open the lines of communication between God and Man, to help us peer through the dark glass, to aid us in our quest for knowlege and our betterment as people, to help us move beyond the narrow confines of this worldly flesh.

Almost all religions are about growth.

Which leads us to this rather comical business about Islam. Islam is not about any of this. It does not encourage the pursuit of greater knowlege. It does not encourage us to be better people. It does not promote a closer relationship between God and Man, or between people. On the contrary, it seems to be about lust.

Take this as a prime example. Saudi Sheikh Yahya Al-Jana tells us of the joys of Allah's paradise;

"Allah said that the dwellers of Paradise are busy. What keeps them busy? They will be busy tearing hymens."

End excerpt.

He waxes poetic about women's breasts resembling pomegranates, and generally gets his camel running with dirty dreams more suited to a pubescent boy with the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Addition. This is the end game of his religion.

First, what if the women do not want their hymans torn? That HURTS, but seems of little consequence to the men who follow this horndog deity. Women are, in Islam, nothing but cattle, and unclean ones at that. But they are good for a quick hymen tear, and the Jihadist is promised 72 virgins and a mule to play with. Granted, having 72 women to nag and henpeck you, especially while being denied enough booze to make it tolerable, is more akin to Hell than Heaven, but it seems to be the picture of Islamic paradise, at least to the sheik.

Isn't there something wrong with the picture? What kind of religion is it that aspires to an orgy as the highest spiritual calling? Isn't Heaven supposed to be a place fundamentally different than the Earth? Isn't it a place transcending the slavery of the senses, a place where we can actually grow into something noble and admirable? Islam promises none of this, but instead offers to double down on the Earthly pleasures as though they are the ultimate goal of our sojourne here. What kind of religion is it that puts forward so mundane and ignoble a goal for our existence?

I guess a good Muslim will get to play video games in his mother's basement too.

Where is the growth? Where is the service to the betterment of the kingdom and of fellow people?

Islam is a sad, pointless faith. Is the Creator of all that is, all that was, all that will ever be, really so venial and unimaginative? Is this really the goal of His Will?

Islam rejects Christian beliefs in the Trinity, for instance, because they cannot understand how one God can have three persons. They reject the Christian ideal of forgiveness as weakness and foolishness, yet isn't the very fact that it goes against human nature a reason to embrace it? Islam reduces God to just a powerful man, in this case a fedora wearing guy in a pinstriped suit with gold teeth and a big cigar, ladies hidden in the back of his van.

A God worth worshipping should be greater than that. If Allah is really so Ahkbar than shouldn't He set our sights a little higher?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 737 words, total size 4 kb.

Republicans Make History in Kentucky Election

Dana Mathewson

Not all the news is bad for Republicans/Conservatives these days.

Republicans made history on two fronts in Kentucky Tuesday night – not only did Matt Bevin become the state’s second GOP governor in four decades, but running mate Jenean Hampton became the first African-American ever elected to Kentucky statewide office. [Emphasis mine]

Hampton’s historic accomplishment winning the lieutenant governor post was initially overshadowed by Bevin’s hard-fought gubernatorial race win over Democratic state Attorney General Jack Conway, an off-year election battle that drew national interest.

But Hampton’s story is sure to draw more attention.

A Tea Party-aligned politician who like Bevin has not held office before, Hampton is an Air Force veteran who served during Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia. She was born in Detroit, and after her service in the Air Force spent 19 years in the corrugated packaging business.

She and Bevin both entered politics for the first time in the last couple years. Hampton lost a state legislative race in 2014, while Bevin famously lost to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in last year’s primary.

Now, the two will lead Kentucky, expanding the GOP’s hold on power in a state once dominated by Democrats.

"This is the chance for a fresh start, it truly is, and we really need it," Bevin told a packed crowd at The Galt House in Louisville. "I believe this offers us an opportunity to change the tenor of what has become expected in the world of politics."

Now if they'll just retire Mitch McConnell when they have the chance! The entire article is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/04/republicans-make-history-in-kentucky-election/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 3 kb.

Houston Puts Stop to Bathroom Bullying, Refuses to Allow Crossdressing Men in Women's Restrooms

Dana Mathewson

Yay!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/04/religious-liberty-sanity-win-in-houston-there-will-be-no-man-parts-in-ladies-room.html

"Houston’s LGBT nondiscrimination HERO ordinance was crushed in a landslide defeat on Tuesday."

Jack Kemp adds:

"Yes, the libs wanted males in the women's bathroom. I don't know if this is more crazy or pagan - probably both. I suspect even a majority of liberal women - or a big majority of women in general - were against this insanity."

And Tim observes:

This makes me think of that female MMA champ who refuses to fight the #1 contender - a "transgendered" person. She rightly refuses to fight a dude because he may wear lipstick but he's still a man. The other top contenders who fought the he/she fighter said it wasn't like fighting a woman; they simply had no hope of stopping this much stronger individual. That may be the essence of fighting, but it is the purpose of weight categories and sexually explicit categories.

They say he has been on female harmones for a long time so he has the BMI of a woman, but that is hogwash. There is a simple test; put him up against a wall and have him touch his toes with his back and buttocks still pressed against the wall. Women can do this, men cannot. If he can do this he then has a claim to being female. But I'll bet he can't.

Maybe we should have a toe touching test for the bathrooms?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

The Drunkest NFL Fans

Timothy Birdnow

"Drunk and obnoxious" is a description often applied to sports fans of America's two favorite pasttimes, football and baseball. Americans love their sports, worship their sports teams, and prove it by drinking themselves half blind and behaving rowdy and abusvive. It's rather a part of the American character.

This is a fine old tradition going back to Colonial days. Many of the events leading up to the American Revolution were alcohol fueled hooliganism. The Massachussetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson's home was a classic example; a bunch of drunks got wound up and raided the poor Torry's home, tearing it up. The Boston Tea Party was a similar affair, with too much rum and porter fueling a raid on tea imports (with a likelihood that the raiders hoped to find some good Port wine or Scottish whiskey.)

Today we confine our drunken debauchery to sporting events, parties, and the floor of the U.S. Congress.

Which brings us to the point of this; a recent survey by BACtrack made a list of the drunkest NFL fans.

The survey was based on an apP that allowed fans to measure their blood alcohol level at game time. BelOW IS the list of top drunken Team fans:

Bills
Lions
Eagles
Browns
Cardinals
Texans
Giants
Saints
Titans
Bengals

While the accuracy of this is much in doubt, one wonders at this; most of these are not top-tier teams, but rather perennial losers. Some losers - like the St. Louis Rams, who stink on ice - are notably absent. I suspect that is a function of the price of going to a Rams game, which guarantees a higher class of drunken yahoo.

The point is, defeat makes for despair, which leads to drink.

In fact, the University of Minnesota, eager to squander American taxpayer dollars, conducted a study of football fans and determined that 8% were legally intoxicated upon leaving the stadium.

What does that tell us? Well, first that our government steals far too much of our money and gives it to people doing research that really is unnecessry, but it also tells us that the public likes to go to sporting events - a form of enterrtainment - and consume alcohol while doing it.

Gee, who woulda thunk it!

Whenever you see studies like this you have to wonder why it was funded. Interestingly enough, there has been a steady push against alcohol consumption for decades here in America, while at the same time there has been a steady push in favor of marijuana. The same people - liberals - support both. These kinds of studies are intended to promote some sort of restriction on the use of alcohol. This while the campaign is on to legalize pot across the country. Why attack alcohol, which is a part of America's culture and an ancient friend of Mankind, while promoting dope?

Is it just because alcohol is an accepted cultural accutrement? We certainly have much more experience dealing with drink. Why do we go Carrie Nation on beer but turn Timothy Leary on a narcotic that is inhaled like a cigarette, another cultural accutrement that has been demonized and nearly banned?

Is it because alcohol did in fact fuel the American Revolution while pot makes one passive?

Maybe that is the point.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

November 04, 2015

Battling Lucifer in Texas

A.J. Cameron

Did you ever think, while you were growing up, that we would see this in the good old USA?

Actually‎, I've been having some issues with my texts and emails. As I began to watch the video, I was kicked off of it. I don't know what is on it, but just the lead-in is enough to beg forgiveness and pray for protection.

This is all part of the Domestic Terrorist Profile, U. N. Agenda 21 and 2030, removing God from all of society.‎ I chose St. Michael as my Confirmation Saint, and I'm calling upon him more often and with more urgency with every passing day. May he protect all of us!

A. J.

TFP Student Action

Under Saint Michael's protection, Catholics oppose "Church of Lucifer"
Dear Mr. Cameron,

I hope you'll take a minute to watch this TFP video from Texas where the "Greater Church of Lucifer" opened its doors to the public.


The spiritual battle between Angels and demons is growing and you and I must rally on God's side to peacefully and legally oppose the public promotion of Lucifer in America.

We must prayerfully fight to keep our nation under God.

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Thank you for fighting the good fight,
 
John Ritchie
John Ritchie
Tradition Family Property, Student Action
www.tfpstudentaction.org

 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Political Pigs at the Trough

A.J. Cameron

Politics attracts the bottom feeders of society!

I still have not heard about the Office of Attending Physician from my Rep or Senators. This is a perk that is available to only those in Congress, the 9 members of the SCOTUS and, curiously, 5 muckety-mucks in Puerto Rico.

This is in addition to us paying for their ObamaCare. They pay approximately $506.00 per YEAR for this legislated largess. ‎The U. S. taxpayer is ripped off for about $4 million to offset what the pukes don't pay, or say anything about.

A. J.

Written By Kate Ackley at Rollcall Posted at 4:12 p.m. on Nov. 2
Boehner gets a standing ovation before his farewell address. (Al Drago/CQ Roll Call)

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/author/kateackleyrollcall-com/

Looking for John A. Boehner? Try the Longworth House Office Building.

The former House speaker, whose resignation from Congress became effective over the weekend, is taking advantage of little-known perks and privileges taxpayers provide by law to those vacating the chamber’s highest office. Boehner is setting up a government-funded office that may have as many as three aides with salaries of more than $100,000 each.

The Ohio Republican can maintain the outpost for up to five years, with taxpayers footing the bill for office operations, franked mail and personnel costs. Funding for former speakers has been in place since 1970, just before John W. McCormack became the first speaker to retire to private life.

Jennifer Hing, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee, said it was "too early to speculate” whether an upcoming omnibus spending bill will include a funding request for Boehner’s post-speakership office.

"No statutory restrictions exist on the cost, type, or location of a former Speaker’s office,” wrote Matthew E. Glassman in a Congressional Research Service report from May. Boehner could pay his three aides salaries of up to $158,000, $133,000 and $116,000 for 2015, Glassman noted.

Boehner will staff his ex-speaker’s office with Amy Lozupone, director of administrative operations in his speaker’s operation, according to a Boehner spokeswoman speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters. Lozupone has worked for Boehner since 2001. The spokeswoman also confirmed the Longworth location and said it wasn’t clear whether Boehner would make additional staff appointments.

The taxpayer-funded office cannot be used for political purposes. Instead, it is "to be used solely for the administration and conclusion of matters relating to service as a Representative and Speaker of the House,” Glassman’s CRS report said.
Former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., spent about $1.5 million running his post-speaker office between 2008 and 2012.

Boehner, like any other former speaker, must forfeit the office and its expenses should he take a federally appointed or elective office, such as a Cabinet post or ambassadorship.
He would not need to ditch the digs if he headed to the private sector.
"It certainly would be improper for him to lobby out of that office, but there’s nothing that says he couldn’t enjoy the benefits in [a] wind-down, even if he were to become a lobbyist,” said Kenneth Gross, a lobbying and ethics lawyer. "Whether it’s appropriate or not is a different issue.”

Hastert, who pleaded guilty last week to charges of evading federal bank rep..., resigned from Congress in 2007. He maintained his post-speaker office while also acting as a registered federal lobbyist for clients such as Lorillard Tobacco and Bridgepoint Education, lobbying records show, while also spending federal funds for his wind-down office from 2009 to 2012.

It’s notable because former lawmakers who become registered federal lobbyists must forfeit other privileges of Congress such as access to the House gym and the House floor during votes.

"I was unaware Hastert was receiving those types of official benefits while serving as a registered lobbyist,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. "I would’ve filed an ethics complaint. They should not be simultaneously enjoying special access and special privileges associated with their government services. There has to be a clear break.”

Boehner has not said what he will do next, including whether he will pursue a lobbying career. Should he decide, like many of his colleagues before him, to head to K Street, he would be subject to a one-year cooling-off period during which he could not lobby the legislative branch.

Though he could field lucrative, seven-figure offers from lobbying firms, Boehner isn’t likely to go broke in retirement. He has an estimated net worth of $1.82 million, according to Roll Call’s Wealth of Congress Index.

Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, also estimated that Boehner could qualify for an annual pension worth just more than $78,000 per year — depending on what he signed up for when he came to Congress in 1991. Sepp cautioned it is possible Boehner, who will turn 66 on Nov. 17, may have declined a pension out of principle.

Dave Schnittger, a former senior Boehner aide who is fielding media calls for Boehner, said the former speaker and his wife, Debbie, have not sorted through their many retirement decisions including whether to keep their Capitol Hill residence, whether the ex-speaker intends to enroll in Medicare and how much his pension may be worth.

"John and Debbie are just now beginning to contemplate some of the many questions and decisions they face as they begin their post-congressional lives,” Schnittger said by email.
Boehner made clear he is eager to embrace some aspects of life outside of the speaker bubble, saying on CNN’s "State of the Union” program Sunday he was looking forward to walking to and from Starbucks and Pete’s Diner "by myself” — sans security detail.

"I’ll miss the people around here most,” he told CNN. "We get to do important things. We get to put our fingerprints on the direction of the country, fingerprints on history. But at the end of the day it’s the people you meet that make this job so rewarding.”

Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

Laura J Alcorn

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 997 words, total size 7 kb.

November 03, 2015

You Can't Make Love When It's Warm Out

Dana Mathewson

To continue our stellar Climate Change series, here's one I just found on Power Line and just had to share. Power Line's proprietor (or one of the original proprietors) John Hinderaker shows his mettle here:

Climate alarmists are constantly trying to hector the rest of us into…something. Agreeing to be poor, I guess, just so they will leave us alone. Now the National Bureau of Economic Research has come up with the ultimate threat: global warming will cause a disastrous population decline in the developed world, because people don’t make love when it’s too warm. Specifically, the NBER study claims that for every day above 80 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a drop in the birth rate because it’s too hot for sex.

Well, that makes sense, if you think about it. It explains why the overheated Southern hemisphere is losing population, while teeming hordes of Northern immigrants cross the Mediterranean to get to underpopulated Africa. People in places like Brazil and India don’t have much of a sex life; it’s too hot. It explains, too, why beautiful women are referred to as "cold,” and why animals in the mood for sex are described as being "in cold.” And why couples looking for a romantic rendezvous schedule trips to Lapland and Siberia rather than the Caribbean.

Temperatures on Earth are always changing; it has been both warmer and colder than it is today many times. But one constant, since the dawn of the human race, is that people find the occasion for romance. Fifteen thousand years ago, the area where I live was covered with ice a mile or so thick. If anything might dampen the libido, it would be ice as far as the eye can see. Yet people not only survived, but reproduced.

No wonder fewer and fewer people are taking the alarmists seriously.

I've succumbed to temptation and included the whole text (hope it doesn't get us into trouble) but the link is here if you want it: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/you-cant-make-love-when-its-warm-out.php

Note: I often "poach" from Power Line. In case you've forgotten, they are one of two sites (the other one a shadow of its former self) who broke the bunko of Dan Rather and the "Texas Air National Guard Memo" fakery. These gentlemen on Power Line were able to explain how the supposed "memo" could not have been genuine.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

White Privilege Killing White People

Timothy Birdnow

Here is an example of White Privilege! It seems that middle aged white people are seeing increasing mortality, the only group in America dying younger these days.

It seems whites are dying younger because they just don't care to live that long. Alcohol abuse and other poor lifestyle choices are killing midlife whites. Now why do you suppose that is? Perhaps decades of relentless blame and the destruction of a culture valuing white people and the good things they have done has caused despair?

White privilege is a real honor.

]Here is the abstract:

Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century

1. Anne Case1 and
2. Angus Deaton1

1.
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544

1.

Contributed by Angus Deaton, September 17, 2015 (sent for review August 22, 2015; reviewed by David Cutler, Jon Skinner, and David Weir)

Significance

Midlife increases in suicides and drug poisonings have been previously noted. However, that these upward trends were persistent and large enough to drive up all-cause midlife mortality has, to our knowledge, been overlooked. If the white mortality rate for ages 45−54 had held at their 1998 value, 96,000 deaths would have been avoided from 1999–2013, 7,000 in 2013 alone. If it had continued to decline at its previous (1979‒1998) rate, half a million deaths would have been avoided in the period 1999‒2013, comparable to lives lost in the US AIDS epidemic through mid-2015. Concurrent declines in self-reported health, mental health, and ability to work, increased reports of pain, and deteriorating measures of liver function all point to increasing midlife distress.
Abstract

This paper documents a marked increase in the all-cause mortality of middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women in the United States between 1999 and 2013. This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other rich country saw a similar turnaround. The midlife mortality reversal was confined to white non-Hispanics; black non-Hispanics and Hispanics at midlife, and those aged 65 and above in every racial and ethnic group, continued to see mortality rates fall. This increase for whites was largely accounted for by increasing death rates from drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis. Although all education groups saw increases in mortality from suicide and poisonings, and an overall increase in external cause mortality, those with less education saw the most marked increases. Rising midlife mortality rates of white non-Hispanics were paralleled by increases in midlife morbidity. Self-reported declines in health, mental health, and ability to conduct activities of daily living, and increases in chronic pain and inability to work, as well as clinically measured deteriorations in liver function, all point to growing distress in this population. We comment on potential economic causes and consequences of this deterioration.

End abstract.

Get that last? Growing distress in a number of areas is the cause. That about sums up the plight of 21st century white people.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 4 kb.

Re-Sovieting Russia


Image result for soviet flag

Timothy Birdnow

Putin, good KGB man he is, is bringing back the Young Pioneers under government auspices.

According to Pravda:

"President Putin has signed the decree to create the organization called "The Russian Movement of School-Children", the purpose of which is to improve the state policy in the field of education of young people, as well as form citizen personality on the basis of Russian values ​​. The founder of the organization on behalf of the Russian Federation is the Federal Agency for Affairs of the Youth.

The movement will be coordinated with the executive branch and local government agencies with the mediation of the Russian Youth Center at the Federal Agency for Affairs of the Youth.

Noteworthy, on the 97th anniversary of the Komsomol party, Communists of Russia announced the revival of the youth organization with the historic name of the Russian Leninist Young Communist League, known for the Russian initials as VLKSM. According to party leader Maxim Suraikin, this name carries great positive energy.

The congress to bring the now-defunct organization back to life was held on October 29 in Moscow. Activists from more than 40 regions of Russia, as well as representatives of friendly organizations from the self-proclaimed People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, from Hungary, Sri Lanka and South Africa took part in the meeting. "

End excerpt.

One must ask why the national government of Russia has to create and fund such an organization. Why can't there be a voluntary group like the Boy Scouts?

Because Putin is trying to resurrect the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He is pushing into former Soviet territory, trying to bully former members back into Russia's bloated orb. Now he's building the child propaganda machine.

Meanwhile, Putin is preparing to annex South Ossetia, a precursor to absorbing South Georgia, a U.S. ally. Also, the Russian Air Force has been repeatedly violating Turkish airspace in the old Soviet fashion.

Does anyone doubt this guy is Leonid Brezhnev with a buff physique?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 3 kb.

One of the Pillars of Darwinism Falls

Timothy Birdnow

Here is an interesting article from Physorg. It turns out one of the fundamental pillars of Darwinism has just fallen.

From the article:

"The research, led by Dr Daniel Pincheira-Donoso from the University of Lincoln's School of Life Sciences, reveals that phenomena such as climate change could therefore play a significant role in the fertility of species around the world.

Dr Pincheira-Donoso said: "Evolutionary theory is all about reproductive success, or the number of 'successful' offspring an individual can produce. The more successful offspring, the more genes encoding successful traits are passed on to the next generation.

"However, advances in fecundity selection theory reveal that a higher number of successful descendants can actually result from the production of fewer offspring which can be looked after more efficiently. We therefore need to acknowledge that fertility should be more efficient, not necessarily higher, and that males can have a substantial role in influencing the production of efficient broods.

"Also, a stream of evidence shows that climate and food availability play very important roles in the evolution of fecundity among species. This opens up opportunities for the development of theories involving major natural phenomena, such as rapid changes in the climate. We must explore how these climatic changes can affect the reproductive strategies which evolution has been shaping for thousands or millions of years"

Based on previous studies of the life-history, physical and ecological aspects of fecundity, Dr Pincheira-Donoso's work also concludes that the theory should distinguish between fertility during an animal's lifetime and during one particular breeding season, rather than grouping all time periods together. This is because some animals may have one extremely large brood per breeding season, while others produce one offspring on a more regular basis, which can have enormous implications for the overall reproductive success, and hence evolutionary potential, of species."

End excerpt.

Soooo...

fecundity selection theory, which says an organism's best chances for survival are to have a large number of decendants, may be wrong. That means another pillar of Darwinian Theory bites the dust.

I must ask, when will we reach the point where we admit this is largely junk science, scrap the whole thing and go back to the drawing board? The more we learn about biological systems the more we realize how far off Darwin really was. Sadly, we cannot seem to get past this quaint 19th century hypothesis, largely because of the spiritual implications; the atheists would have nothing with which to bludgeon religious people. Their faith is predicated on the success of Darwin, and science be damned!

They are the new Inquisition.

Another point to ponder here is the post-modernism of this research.

First, it stands to reason the claims they are making. Too many mouths to feed can lead everyone to starve. Just as too few people means one disaster can wipe the whole group out, so too many can lead to starvation, or disease, or some other catastrophe becoming too great. But I wonder at this; in the current era where we have Environmentalists demanding population reduction, where the global elites promote the idea of population control to implement the "Club of Rome" studies of teh 1970's and Paul Ehrlich's Malthusian madness, is not such research a wee bit too helpful?

The goal has been to rein in population for decades now, and this goal has succeeded in the West where population is falling, to everyone's detriment. This study seems to give scientific ammunition to the population control people, to the eugenicists who are still quietly among us, to the world governance crowd.

Of course the Third World will continue to breed, and in so doing will wind up overwhelming the Western nations. Oh, wait, they're already doing so, with Middle Eastern men pouring into Europe by the millions...

That said, I should like to point out how Fecundity selection bombs out in many ways. Take domesticated grain; these plants were minor weeds, with little fecundity, until they allied themselves with humanity. Now they own great swaths of land by virtue of supplying another species with a benefit. We plant wheat, corn, oats, rice, etc. nearly everywhere, and had these species not been adopted by us they would have been nothing but some occasionally weak creatures, growing in places more aggressive species hadn't yet taken. Their lack of reproductive capacity gave them an evolutionary edge, because they devote more effort to producing edible seeds and whatnot than does the more prolific species.

Take the ragweed; native Americans once sought to cultivate it because it produced a lot of seeds and grew prolifically. They gave up because it never yielded enough while maize, an unproductive plant in the wild, yielded more actual food. In the end the ragweed remained a weed; it spent too much on reproduction.

So much of Darwinian theory is kaput. There is no smooth transition between species, for instance, and evidence of sudden evolution, leading to ideas such as "Punctuated Equilibrium". Lamarckian theory, which said there is something that mutates in an organism to fit the environment (as opposed to Darwinism which said a random mutation occurs and a species must go through a die-off for a new species to be born-a slow process) has come back in a number of forms, including epigenetics. Abiogenesis is still a problem in Darwinian theory. Now another leg of the Darwinian stool has come loose.

We need a theory of Evolution that is testable. Darwin gave us a vague hypothetical tautology. Medicine and biological science have advanced despite Darwinism, not because of it. We need to move on.

Sadly, as long as this theory is politicized and made the subject of a war between religious faiths (one of which claims a non-faith) then we will never find a real theory about how live has progressed on this Earth.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 977 words, total size 6 kb.

The Art of the Deal; American Thinker argues against Trump as Dealmaker

Timothy Birdnow

I'm tired of defending Donald Trump, I really am. I am not a Trumpette; I think Mr. Trump is a big mouth with much less to actually back it up, and I think he's a guy who has always been able to act like a big shot because he always had an "ace in the hole" in terms of a rich daddy. Trump made lots of money in his life, but he lost just as much, and he followed the government model of deficit spending, going so far into debt that his creditors saw him as "too big to fail" and thus the man has maintained a billionaire lifestyle without actually having made much real money.

That said, I happen to like some aspects of Trump, most notably his willingness to say what is not to be thought much less said, and his willingness to fight. These are classic American values, ones that have become passe' in recent years. I want them to come back.

At any rate, I really do not like defending Trump because I fear he will greatly disappoint. The Donald is a big personality, a man of grand ideas and huge vision (and the ego to go along with it). He is, in short, a shadowy image of Newt Gingrich. Both men are inspiring and great insurgents, but aren't so good at the actual nuts and bolts of things. The GOP rebelled against Gingrich largely because he was double-minded, changing his position at the drop of a hat. The thing about Gingrich was that he was so in love with ideas, with playing with concepts and challenging the orthodoxy that he never could formulate a solid position on anything. When he spoke on, say, education reform he meant every word of it - until he spoke on it again and argued against his own position. Much like James Odis, one of the fathers of the Revolution, he could take both sides of an issue and argue in favor of it with absolute certainty.

Donald Trump is much the same. When Trump supported amnesty for illegals years ago he meant it. Now he argues for deportation with equal enthusiasm, and means it. He means exactly what he says when he says it, but that doesn't mean he means exactly what he had said. Enthusiasm trump consistency.

That said, let me get on to his defense.

In a piece at American Thinker Jim Yardley - a good conservative with whom I have no quarrel - wrote a quite puzzling reprove of Mr. Trump.

He says:

"But I have one question that stands out above all others regarding Mr. Trump’s "deals.” Exactly who benefited from those deals? Did anyone, other than Donald Trump himself, benefit? Is "The Donald” capable of making a deal in which he has absolutely no personal stake?

For centuries, beginning during the Roman empire, criminal inquiries have invariably started with the question "cui bono?,” or "to whom the good?” In other words, who benefits? The very same question has to be asked about all these great "deals” that Mr. Trump brags about.

How much interest will Trump have in negotiating a deal with China when his own wealth is not at stake? For that matter, how much interest does Mr. Obama have in negotiating any deal when all he gets out of it is a certain level of ego satisfaction? Mr. Obama keeps telling us his recent administrative agreement with Iran is a great "deal.” Yet Obama has yet to answer the question "cui bono.” As nearly as most people can tell, Iran seems to be the only group involved in the negotiation, or "the deal,” who actually benefits.

With that kind of history of dealmaking in this nation, shouldn’t we be asking exactly what any participants in a negotiation can expect from Donald Trump? More specifically, American citizens, as participants in any negotiations with foreign powers, should be fully informed as to what the aim of any negotiation actually is, how much it will cost them, and what they will gain from it."

End excerpt.

This is a most puzzling critique.

First, almost every high level negotiator has some stake in the matter, and I am not sure how this is an appropriate complaint. Every President has come out of the White House rolling in cash, even when they went in with modest means. Why? Because they are positioned to take advantage of the deals that were made under their tenure, and to offer future access. That Trump will prosper under his own leadership is a given. It is a given for any President.

And to question how hard he will try is rather odd, because he will have a lot of money at stake in the outcome regardless. Self interest and national interest coincide here to a large degree.

And it should be pointed out that Trump actually has self-interest to deal with. Obama eschewed the worldly gifts in favor of the pleasures of quiet revolution; he was a "community organizer" aka a revolutionary in a suit and tie. His negotiations are predicated on "change we can believe in" or bringing America down. I would rather Obama seek his own wealth and aggrandizement because he would be less quick to sell us out. Donald Trump, seeking fame, fortune, and a full head of hair, will not, at least not purposefully.

Trump is the kind of guy who would dovetail his personal benefit with the nation's needs.

Now, it may be that Trump would be a crony capitalist, and in fact he has already been such. But how is that different from any President since Reagan? Or before Reagan, for that matter. We haven't had an advocate for free markets in this country for the better part of a century, except the few years Mr. Reagan sat in office.

I just don't see Jim's complaint here.

Let us continue with his piece:

"All negotiations start with the simple concept of give and take. Each person involved in a negotiation wants something and is willing to offer something in exchange. However, when you are negotiating with a foreign government, one of the great assets that those sitting across the negotiating table from you have is their honor, their pride, their delusions of grandeur. Dealing in affairs of state asking other nations to willingly give up some portion of their honor, their pride, and their delusions means that we, the United States, have to be willing to give up something that they value just as much.

Exactly what does Trump equate to the pride another country has? What is he willing to give up in a negotiation with the country that has enormous self-pride? Let’s just say, as a hypothetical example, Iran. What then do we have to give up? Would he be willing to give up America’s ability to defend itself from nuclear attacks? Would he be willing to give up any of the leverage that America now has in keeping Iran in check, in terms of nuclear power, supporting terrorism, or trying to create hegemony in the Middle East?"

End excerpt.

How does Donald Trump have less to gain by keeping nukes out of the hands of Iran than does anyone else? One nuclear bomb will cost Mr. Trump a fortune; he needs them nuclear free.

Also, it will not be Trump actually sitting across the table so much as his surrogates - professional diplomats acting on his behalf. He'll be the strategist but they will make the nips and tucks.

Jim is flat out wrong when he says we have to give up something in return. What do we give up? Not invading Iran, or not completely squashing them economically? This is like a negotiation with the mafia; the mobsters agree to give up the pleasure of beating you to a pulp in return for money. In the case of international diplomacy the powerful country (like the U.S.) doesn't necessarily have to give up anything tangible in a negotiation, just some face-saving things perhaps.

Take Libya; after we invaded Iraq we made a deal with Libya, who agreed to give up their nuclear program and help us in the War on Terror and we agreed not to invade and force Khadaffi into a spider hole. It really was that simple. Of course, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama broke that agreement, siding with the rebels against Khadaffi, making our negotiations on such a deal in the future problematic, but you get the point. Trump need not give much away in many of these types of negotiations. Obama - with no stake in it - was happy to trade the milk, the cow, the pasture, and the barn just to keep the gate.

Basically Jim is arguing against the possibility of ever making international agreements. This is odd because foreign policy is almost entirely negotiation. The most basic international acts require a deal of some sort. Often that deal is "gunboat diplomacy" couched in friendly terms, sometimes it is a true quid-pro-quo, sometimes it is our acquiescing to a huge favor as in our protection of countries from the old Soviets or the chicoms, as in Korea. But every single act requires a deal be made.

I understand Jim's points, but I just don't think these are grounds to go after Trump. If we want to find reasons to dislike the man there are plenty of good ones, such as his flip-flops.

Maybe Trump can be made Secretary General of the U.N.? That would be an ideal position for him.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1609 words, total size 9 kb.

An Open Letter to Australian MP's About the Paris Conference

Helen Dyer

For your interest, here is a copy of the letter I have sent to all liberal MP's

Best wishes.

John


1st November 2015

ian.goodenough.mp@aph.gov.au

Dear Mr Goodenough

A number of Australian politicians, including Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull will be attending the Paris Climate Conference in December 2015 and I would like to offer a few comments about the UN’s goals for COP21.

I trust you are fully aware that the socialist-oriented United Nations is attempting to use the non-problem of climate change as an excuse for bringing about both the de-industrialisation of the western world and the transfer of money from developed to developing nations.

UN officials, along with some willing activist scientists, various NGO’s, radical environmentalists and other vested interest groups, foolishly claim that they can actually stop the Earth’s climate from changing by regulating the pitifully small emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Note that the term "global warming” is rarely used nowadays since even the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concedes there has been no warming for at least 18 years.

The UN attempts to impose emissions guilt and extract money from taxpayers in Australia and other developed countries without offering any empirical evidence for their exaggerated claims. They attempt to demonise carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless, non-toxic gas that is essential for all life on Earth. Without carbon dioxide there is no photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis there is no oxygen and no life. Current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (0.03%) are amongst the lowest over the last 500 million years.

Our planet needs more life-sustaining carbon dioxide – not less.

Alarmists use the misleading concept of "per capita carbon dioxide emissions” (Australia produces a mere 1% of anthropogenic emissions) whilst ignoring the fact that China produces 29% of global emissions with no intention of reducing these. They also foolishly argue that one Australian produces 5 times more carbon dioxide than the average Chinese person and 16 times more than the average person from India. Our higher emissions are a result of our industrial success, which has led to the high standard of living Australians enjoy. The UN should thank us for our emissions contribution since the extra carbon dioxide is greening the planet and producing more food for everyone.

The UN attempts to make Australians feel guilty by producing a silly per capita figure which they hope will force developed wealthier countries like ours to pay compensation to the less developed. If implemented, this would be unethical, unjust, politically motivated and based on the now widely rejected pseudoscience of the IPCC.

Perhaps the UN should contemplate the equally silly measure of "emissions per square kilometre of country” which would place Australia towards the bottom of any emissions table.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas which has a logarithmic warming effect and has never driven global temperature at any time throughout geologic time. Much to the chagrin of warming alarmists, carbon dioxide levels continue to rise slowly, essentially via natural inputs, whilst global temperature refuses to rise in step.

Before any financial or carbon dioxide abatement commitments are made in Paris, our politicians must demand empirical evidence to show that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will lead to rising global temperature (there is no evidence for this); rising sea levels (there is no evidence for this); more extreme weather (there is no evidence for this); more droughts (there is no evidence for this) and more bushfires (there is no evidence for this).

Clearly the agenda for the conference in Paris, like those held in Lima, Copenhagen and Doha will have little to do with climate change. Rather they will be steeped in undemocratic, politically motivated ideology aimed squarely at income re-distribution and the lowering of living standards in countries such as Australia. This would be argued for the "noble cause” which is variously labelled "climate justice” "climate debt” or "sustainable development.”

Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, is widely regarded as the Father of international environmentalism and global warming alarmism. He famously opined:

"Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilisation to collapse.”

Strong is also regarded as the instigator of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its goal of "sustainable development”. This term was introduced by the UN’s World Commission on Environmental and Development in 1987 via Gro Brundtland of the World Socialist Party. It became official UN policy in 1992 as Agenda 21, with over 170 nations adopting it as official policy during the Earth Summit.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the non-scientist former chairman of the IPCC was also firmly committed to the noble cause, stating:
"I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it”

Professor Bjorn Lomborg has accused Connie Hedegaard, Europe’s Climate Commissioner of being "both callous and wrong". He stated:

"EU climate policies have directly increased energy costs and caused more energy poverty - 300,000 households in Germany lost their power last year (2013) because they couldn't pay the bills, and millions are energy poor in the UK. EU climate policies will cost £174 billion annually by 2020, the EU commissioner seems to suggest wasting £174 billion is no problem.”

And:

"To the extent the EU climate policies have affected the world, it has made energy more costly, reduced growth and consigned more people to poverty."

Agenda 21 masquerades as an environmental protection document. In reality it is a socialist ‘blueprint’ for how some think the world should be in the 21st Century. There would be real threats to the social and economic structures of any liberal, democratic society such as ours. Agenda 21 targets the abolition of private property rights, the promotion of global governance and the redistribution of wealth.

Many councils in Australia are already influenced by green and socialist councillors anxious to see Agenda 21 implemented across the nation

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord asked Annex 1 countries to provide initial finance approaching 30 billion dollars, increasing to 100 billion dollars by 2020. Payment of global warming compensation (now called climate change or climate extremism) will again be sought in Paris.

I urge all Australian politicians to resist pressure and not sign any legally-binding document for carbon dioxide reduction, carbon taxes or compensation for developing nations, based on the highly questionable "science” of the IPCC. It is now widely known that IPCC climate model predictions have proved to be totally wrong.

Climate scientist Dr Vincent Gray, long-standing member of the New Zealand Royal Society and expert reviewer of all four IPCC Assessment Reports succinctly described the IPCC's climate change statements as:
"An orchestrated litany of lies.”

I trust that our politicians will respond appropriately and in the best interests of the Australian public.

Sincerely.

Dr John Happs

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1160 words, total size 8 kb.

Global Governance the Purpose of Climate Change

Helen Dyer forwards this excerpt of a letter to Julie Bishop, Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs:

The UN Admits Their Intention to use Issues such as Climate Change & Sustainability in a Global Power Grab to Attack Sovereignty & Progressively Transfer Power & Control to the UN.

As Wu Hongbo, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs in the United Nations, noted in the Foreword to the Global governance and global rules for development in the post-2015 era:

"The Committee argues that strengthen­ing global governance and global rules is necessary in order to manage the increasing interdependence among countries more efficiently, to reduce ex­isting inequalities, and to guarantee the necessary policy space for countries to pursue their own priorities within the limits given by interdependence.”

As the Report emphasises, globalisation has accelerated the need for ‘global governance solutions’ due to increasing inequalities in the world:

"Increased interdependence between countries has been accompanied by persis­tently high and sometimes increasing inequality—both among and within coun­tries—in income, wealth, capabilities, voice and power”

According to the UN, the necessity of global governance solutions require that sovereign nations accept the principle of "responsible sovereignty” which dictates that national governments are answerable to the international community, not their domestic electorate:

"Responsible sovereignty: This principle should guide Governments to better exercise their policymaking sovereignty in an increasingly inter­dependent world. It implies the recognition that policy cooperation is the best way of achieving national interests in the global public domain. It also requires Governments and States to be fully respectful of the sover­eignty of other nations so as to fulfil agreed policy outcomes”

Part of this process of globalisation and responsible sovereignty is the inevitable increase in migration as national borders break down.

"Migration is a global phenomenon, and it requires global responses……

In order to overcome resistance to building a global regime, a two-track process might be put in place, combining the definition of a frame­work of minimum standards at the global level with a dynamic of more comprehensive bilateral and regional agreements. The framework should be based on the principles that previous conventions on labour migration have established. It should provide a balanced framework that: (i) recognizes the right that countries have to define the rules of access of non-nationals to their territories, while preserving the greatest possible freedom for people to choose where they want to live and work;…….

Taking into account these general principles, countries should reduce unnecessary obstacles to migration…….”

As the United Nations points out, the success of their post-2015 agenda is at stake. Countries must surrender sovereignty to the UN if the UN is to have the power to deal with global problems.

"For the United Nations to utilize its distinct advantages, it must strengthen its position in global governance……

Implementation of the post-2015 development agenda ulti­mately depends on the political will of Member States to carry it through. Therefore, success will depend on whether all countries contribute to the reform of global governance and use their policy space to implement poli­cies that promote the three dimensions of sustainable development in an integrated manner. However, national States have tended to commit them­selves to those solutions that are in their narrow national interest or do not interfere with what they perceive as their national sovereignty, and/ or those from which they are expecting to maximize their national inter­est at the expense of others, either by domination or by free-riding (Kaul, 2013). While global challenges continue to be viewed from this narrow perspective, the probability of failing to address them will remain high. The need for responsible sovereignty, one of the five principles presented in Section II above, is more than relevant in this context. In this regard, ECOSOC should take an initiative on how to operationalize this prin­ciple. Responsible sovereignty is, no doubt, a necessary condition for States to cooperate in creating the conditions for the realization of internation­ally recognized rights and freedoms and to act according to the other key principles of global governance put forward in this report: common but differentiated responsibilities, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability and coherence. Likewise, the relevance of the United Nations in global economic governance largely depends on how much Member States are willing to strengthen the Organization, so that it may become a more ef­fective factor in global economic governance for implementing a post-2015 development agenda for the benefit of all.”

Since the global aspirations of the UN are clearly opposed to the concept of independent nation states, the sovereignty, democracy, and constitution of countries like Australia are regarded as a frustrating nuisance, a fact that is made clear by the first, and second editions, of the "Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development Governance”, an official precursor document for Rio+20:

"The current governance of the global commons through the prism of national sovereignty remains one of the most fundamental obstacles to progress. Whilst global public goods that lie within national boundaries continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the nation state, it is likely that decisions will be made on the basis of national interests rather than global concerns. Nation states continue to be often ideologically opposed to governance arrangements that involve ceding sovereign authority over natural resources to a supranational institution making decisions in the global interest,5 especially when there is little short-term incentive to do so. This explains the absence of effective

compliance mechanisms and enforcement regimes for many global environmental agreements.”

As Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, emphasised recently, "in today’s world, the less sovereignty is viewed as a wall or a shield, the better our prospects will be for protecting people and solving our shared problems.” The shared problems he referred to of course, are those predominantly caused by deliberately making countries so weak they are no longer capable of fending for themselveThe destructive effects of globalisation, both economic and social, have created the ‘need’ for an international administrator. According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (GA/11290), countries are now, after decades of globalisation, under such "unprecedented stress from interconnected and complex transformations in human and physical geography”, that what is required is "the rule of law” which "is a core principle of governance that ensures justice and fairness.”

At the 66th Session of the United Nations (A/66/749), the Secretary-General tabled a report entitled Delivering justice: programme of action to strengthen the rule of law at the national and international levels. In the report the Secretary-General proposed "that Member States and the United Nations make a number of the commitments set out below, which are aimed at addressing the current challenges in strengthening the rule of law at the international and national levels”. The Secretary-General stresses that countries must take further steps to enforce UN treaties and abide by international laws.

As the United Nations points out, the success of their post-2015 agenda is at stake. Countries must surrender sovereignty to the UN if the UN is to have the power to deal with global problems.



"For the United Nations to utilize its distinct advantages, it must strengthen its position in global governance……

Implementation of the post-2015 development agenda ulti­mately depends on the political will of Member States to carry it through. Therefore, success will depend on whether all countries contribute to the reform of global governance and use their policy space to implement poli­cies that promote the three dimensions of sustainable development in an integrated manner. However, national States have tended to commit them­selves to those solutions that are in their narrow national interest or do not interfere with what they perceive as their national sovereignty, and/ or those from which they are expecting to maximize their national inter­est at the expense of others, either by domination or by free-riding (Kaul, 2013). While global challenges continue to be viewed from this narrow perspective, the probability of failing to address them will remain high. The need for responsible sovereignty, one of the five principles presented in Section II above, is more than relevant in this context. In this regard, ECOSOC should take an initiative on how to operationalize this prin­ciple. Responsible sovereignty is, no doubt, a necessary condition for States to cooperate in creating the conditions for the realization of internation­ally recognized rights and freedoms and to act according to the other key principles of global governance put forward in this report: common but differentiated responsibilities, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability and coherence. Likewise, the relevance of the United Nations in global economic governance largely depends on how much Member States are willing to strengthen the Organization, so that it may become a more ef­fective factor in global economic governance for implementing a post-2015 development agenda for the benefit of all.”



Since the global aspirations of the UN are clearly opposed to the concept of independent nation states, the sovereignty, democracy, and constitution of countries like Australia are regarded as a frustrating nuisance, a fact that is made clear by the first, and second editions, of the "Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development Governance”, an official precursor document for Rio+20:

"The current governance of the global commons through the prism of national sovereignty remains one of the most fundamental obstacles to progress. Whilst global public goods that lie within national boundaries continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the nation state, it is likely that decisions will be made on the basis of national interests rather than global concerns. Nation states continue to be often ideologically opposed to governance arrangements that involve ceding sovereign authority over natural resources to a supranational institution making decisions in the global interest,5 especially when there is little short-term incentive to do so. This explains the absence of effective

compliance mechanisms and enforcement regimes for many global environmental agreements.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1616 words, total size 11 kb.

Russian Passenger Plane a "Tail Strike" Incident?

Dana Mathewson

Assume you guys are following this thing. The "new point" in this article is the "tail strike" incident. That has to be significant, I'd think.

Russian Plane Broke Up in Flight
The Wall Street Journal

The Russia passenger jet that crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula with 224 people on board broke apart in flight, and debris from the tail section was found separate from the rest of the fuselage. Read the full story https://apple.news/AJZnQXZ-oRamuGePiUozg_A

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

November 02, 2015

Polar Ice Growing

Timothy Birdnow

Contrary to claims by the New York Times, ice in Greenland is expanding. There has been a gain of 200 billion tons of ice over the last year.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the planet, the Antarctic is gaining ice as well.

According to NASA, Icesat data shows:

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

"We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. "Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team "measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

End excerpt.

It is a strange kind of planetary warming that sees the formation of MORE ice, not less. For all of the "hottest year on record" announcements made this decade we sure have a lot of ice. If it keeps warming will have an ice age.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 68 of 626 >>
134kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.1502 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.1093 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.