heading


Covering Platte County, Missouri Weekly Since 1865

Legal Notices
The official Platte County Legal Newspaper! Platte
County Foreclosures

Between the Lines
by Ivan Foley

The Rambling Moron
by Chris Kamler

The Right Stuff
by James Thomas i

Straight from Stigall
by Chris Stigall

Parallax Look
by Brian Kubickis

KC Confidential
by Hearne Christopher

Off the Couch
by Greg Hall

Classifieds

Advertising

Subscriptions


Weekly publication dates are Thursdays

252 Main Street0
P
P.O. Box 410
Platte City, Missouri 64079
816-858-0363

Fax :816-858-2313

TO CONTACT US
by email
Click Here!
or
by phone
816.858.0363


Contact Lawmakers
by Congress
Click here to:
Find Federal Officials &
Find State Officials


 
Kubicki

Parallax logo

by Brian Kubicki
Landmark columnist

NEXT, ALARMISTS ARE COMING AFTER YOUR STEAK

Posted 12/31/13

•I am hitting the ground running in 2014 in my campaign to restore science to the realm of scientists and not politicians trying to use faux-science to scare people into allowing more government control over their lives. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

•They are coming for your porterhouse!

Bloomberg Businessweek had an article that claimed cows and their methane emissions are overlooked in the entire global-warming debate. They claim that cattle and other livestock are perhaps the biggest human-related (Take note of this part!) source of methane, a gas adding to global warming, and climate negotiators have paid too little attention to livestock.

Cows, sheep, goats and buffalo produce lots of methane in their digestive systems. One of the most effective ways to cut the gas would be to reduce the global population of livestock.

Ruminants, which cows and other grass-eating livestock are, ferment plants in a specialized stomach, are ESTIMATED to be the largest single human-related source of methane. I capitalized that word because nobody knows how much methane actually comes from natural sources because methane is emitted from every current and former organic life form on the planet. So unless someone develops the world's largest flowhood, scientists and global warming fanatics can only estimate man's relative contribution.

As a matter of record, methane is created near the Earth's surface primarily by microorganisms in a process called, “methanogenesis.” It is carried into the stratosphere by rising air in the tropics. Build-up of methane in the atmosphere is naturally checked by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor, which is the largest single non-anthropogenic global warming gas. Methane has a net lifetime of about 10 years, and is mostly removed from the atmosphere by conversion to carbon dioxide and water.

The article outlines that the number of livestock in the world has risen 50 percent in the past 50 years to about 3.6 billion animals, according to the report. About a quarter of the Earth's land area is used for grazing, mostly cattle, sheep and goats.

So, of course, their next move is to get us to sign-on to PETA and become vegans and save the world!

They can have my porterhouse when they pry it from my cold clenched jaws!

•Incandescent light bulbs are still available!

When the federal ban on producing or importing incandescent bulbs of varying watts was passed under the Bush administration, Larry Birnbaum, of New Jersey-based Light Bulb Store, saw an opportunity.

“100 [watts] are as rare as hen’s teeth, 75s are in the same direction and 60s, this time next year, most will be almost gone,” said Birnbaum, who added his great-grandfather was friends with the incandescent light bulb inventor Thomas Edison.

With millions of people still supporting the use of incandescent bulbs, Birnbaum found a loophole in the Energy Independence and Security Act. The ban applies to general service incandescent light bulbs but not rough service incandescent bulbs.

While frequently used in automobiles, subway systems and other applications that require heavy-duty, vibration-resistant bulbs, rough service bulbs can still be used in a general application.

The Newcandescent bulb lasts 12 times longer than the traditional bulb. “That's about 10,000 hours based on three hours of use per day,” Birnbaum added.

Newcandescent bulbs range from $2.88 to $7.50. LEDs start around $10 and head up into the teens, while CFLs can be a bit cheaper or just as expensive as an LED, depending on a variety of factors.

•And now Germans are warning us to bundle-up! From www.climatedepot.com.
Two German scientists, Horst-Joachin Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, say "two naturally occurring climate cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the next century."

They added, "by the year 2100, temperatures on this planet will plunge to levels seen at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' in 1870."

These researchers used historical data detailing temperatures as well as cave stalagmites to show a recurring 200-year solar cycle called the DeVries Cycle.

They also factored their predictions on a 65-year Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle of warming that has occurred regularly since 1870 and will soon shift to a much cooler cycle of sea-surface temperatures.

Already in this bitterly cold 2013-14 winter season, there have been massive blizzards and minus-40 degree Fahrenheit actual air temperatures with wind-chill factors of minus-55 degrees on Montana's Glacier National Park earlier this month.

Elsewhere around the globe, it was one of the coldest and snowiest winters in 200 years in parts of South America between June and August. Some weather stations in northern Argentina and Paraguay saw their first measurable snowfalls this past July in living memory. This July likewise saw the coldest temperature ever on earth in Antarctica, an incredible minus-135.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

In the past 10 days, Cairo, Egypt saw its first measurable snowfall in more than 100 years. The Pyramids and the Sphinx were covered in snow for the first time in photographic history!

Snows in Jerusalem were the heaviest in 60 years, more than three feet deep in places.
So decide for yourself…are we warming or cooling?

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


A&E HAD TO KNOW HOMOSEXUALITY WOULD COME UP

Posted 12/26/13

•This Phil Robertson-Duck Dynasty-A&E Network controversy was inevitable.
I doubt a single person that watched that show was unaware that the grizzled patriarch of the highest rated cable show in TV history adhered to the Bible's admonitions on homosexual activity.

I didn't catch wind of Duck Dynasty until earlier this year, which is the 5th year of the series, but as I learned about the characters, I couldn't help but wonder what A&E was thinking when they began airing the views of evangelical Christians within a platform of family, God, hunting and fishing, and cooking of squirrel brains. They knew the subject of homosexuality would come up eventually, so don't feel sorry for a minute as A&E loses oodles of money for their mismanagement of this issue.

Gay and lesbian extortion groups jumped upon Phil Robertson's GQ interview comments and demanded action by the soon-to-be-struggling cable TV network, which crumbled like gay marriage fidelity in a San Francisco bathhouse.

Much speculation abounds on where Duck Dynasty will land if they do not reconcile with A&E, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Robertson family to give-in on their religious convictions.

This should get interesting.

My vote would be for Fox News to sign them and put the show in Bill O'Reilly's 8pm Eastern timeslot. Wouldn't that be sweet! I'd pay good money to see the look on O'Reilly's face when he gets the news.

•Obama's on vacation again. I feel a great sense of calm when I know that Obama the Destroyer is on vacation and not at the helm of this great country.

•A new study from the Geosciences Center in Potsdam declared that there have been 18 flooding phases in upper Austria over the last 7000 years. The pattern in media today is that whenever a storm hits, a drought destroys crops, or an earthquake occurs, the blame is quickly laid at the feet of man in the form of the imagined influence of the fuel we use to do work. In their voice, “It has got to be man and his debaucherous CO2-spewing lifestyle that is bringing the climate into a state of catastrophic instability.”
Ages ago, witches and sorcerers were made responsible for meteorological extremes, and they were burned at the town square to avoid future bad weather. In a frightening similarity, no one really cared back then about scientific arguments.

But today, scientific literature clearly illustrates storms and weather have always occurred and things really aren't any different. Yet another study has just been released showing this, appearing in the November 2013 edition of the Quaternary Science Reviews, by a team of scientists in Potsdam. They examined sediment deposits taken from the Austrian Mondsee and they were able to identify the development of flooding phases of rivers in the region caused by heavy rainfalls in the spring and summers. The geological archive goes back more than 7000 years.

In total they found 271 flooding events that had occurred during 18 flood-rich phases, each having durations of 30 – 50 years. The most important of these phases took place during the Neolithic period, the late Bronze Age, the early Iron Age, the late Iron Age, throughout the Dark Ages Cold Period, and at the end of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The scientists found that summer flood episodes were generally more abundant during the last 1500 years, often coinciding with major advances of Alpine glaciers.

The study reveals that there were always heavy rain phases in pre-industrial times. Therefore, it is also doubtful that the flooding events of today can be connected to man-influenced climate change.

Those who allow themselves to be seduced by the hypothesis of man-made climate are seriously under-estimating the potential of the natural fluctuation range of extreme weather occurrences.

•On this nugget, I have been warning you all about buying anti-bacterial products for years! Now, proof.

The federal government said Monday it has no evidence that antibacterial chemicals used in liquid soaps and washes help prevent the spread of germs, and it is reviewing research suggesting they may pose health risks.

Regulators at the FDA said they are revisiting the safety of chemicals such as triclosan in light of recent studies suggesting the substances can interfere with hormone levels and spur the growth of drug-resistant bacteria.

Under a proposed rule released Monday, the agency will require manufacturers to prove that antibacterial soaps and body washes are safe and more effective than plain soap and water. Products that are not shown to be safe and effective by late 2016 would have to be reformulated, relabeled or removed from the market.

The FDA ruling does not apply to hand sanitizers, most of which use alcohol rather than antibacterial chemicals.

While the FDA ruling only applies to liquid hygiene cleaners, it has implications for a broader $1 billion industry that includes thousands of antibacterial products, including kitchen knives, toys, pacifiers and toothpaste. Over the last 20 years, companies have added triclosan and other cleaners to thousands of household products, touting their germ-killing benefits.

The FDA was tasked with confirming those benefits in 1972, as part of a law designed to set guidelines for dozens of common antibacterial cleaners. But the guidelines got bogged down in years of regulatory delays and missed deadlines. The agency published a preliminary draft of its findings in 1978, but never finalized the results until Monday.

So there.

(Find Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


BALD EAGLES BEWARE

Posted 12/21/13

•From philkerpen.com came this sweet nugget from memory lane.

Remember how the Democrats are always going on about raising the minimum wage? Well, this is what was said in the Dems Bible, the New York Times, back in 1987:

“The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00”

Published: January 14, 1987

The federal minimum wage has been frozen at $3.35 an hour for six years. In some states, it now compares unfavorably even with welfare benefits available without working. It's no wonder then that Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, is being pressed by organized labor to battle for an increase.

No wonder, but still a mistake. Anyone working in America surely deserves a better living standard than can be managed on $3.35 an hour. But there's a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or - better yet - help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.

An increase in the minimum wage to, say, $4.35 would restore the purchasing power of bottom-tier wages. It would also permit a minimum-wage breadwinner to earn almost enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty line. There are catches, however. It would increase employers' incentives to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.

If a higher minimum means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals? A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable. The argument isn't convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs. Indeed, President Reagan has proposed a lower minimum wage just to improve their chances of finding work.
The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable - and fundamentally flawed. It's time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.”

•MSNBC's Ed Schultz is being slammed by fellow liberals for his reticence to support the unionization of workers at GE-owned MSNBC.

The fight began when Salon.com reported Chris Hayes was the lone MSNBC host to meet with a group of workers seeking to unionize at the GE-owned network. A joint petition by the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org Civic Action had asked the cable network's hosts to "please meet with these workers and take a public stand to support their right to organize."

Hayes didn't comment on the meeting though, and several of the cable network's other hosts — Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton and Lawrence O'Donnell — declined comment as well.

The issue is a sticky one for the liberal TV hosts. On the one hand, they are all avowed liberals with major media platforms who supposedly support organized labor. On the other hand, their employer is opposing the unionization push, and beyond Hayes' tepid support, they evidently aren't that interested in sticking their necks out on the matter.
Shultz emailed Salon's Josh Eidelson saying, "Moveon.org has never been an ally of Ed Schultz, why should I help you with a story? Give me a reason."

Shultz defended his comments later that same day, saying on his radio talk show that, "If MoveOn.org has never been a fan of Ed Schultz, why should I put myself in jeopardy through an email? … I don't need some writer who's got an agenda or wants to pit somebody against somebody else. I've got plenty of platforms."

He later added, "I'm not going to lower myself to people who just have got employment envy, income envy, exposure envy, platform envy." Later in the show he said he was a target because he is "living good."

“Employment envy?” This is the same guy who wants the government to redistribute wealth from those that earned it to those that did not. Isn't that envy?

Speaking of hypocrisy, remember those Lexington, MO farmers that had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay out of federal prison for accidentally cutting down a tree that had an eagle's nest in it? Well, now the Obama administration is about to approve a rule that will ensure the death of golden and bald eagles for the next 30 more years.

Hundreds of thousands of birds die each year flying into the deadly turbine blades on the plague-of-the-plains wind farms. The rule will give wind farms 30-year permits for the “non purposeful take of eagles-that is where the take is associated with but not the purpose of, the activity.'' The “take” of eagles means their slaughter.

Obama now finds himself wedged between the ire of opposing green groups. In July, wildlife groups met with administration officials and lobbied against the granting of 30 year permits for energy companies that own the wind farms.

Wildlife groups are advocating shorter leases and insist that a 30-year free pass for eagle “taking” is too long. They argue that before we are stuck with three decades of the rule, there are still some unanswered questions about how to prevent the destroying of the birds.

Double WOW!

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


THE POOR NEED CHEAP
FOSSIL FUELS

Posted 12/12/13

•Does anyone care to ask Obama why he ordered federal buildings to lower flags to half-mast and attended the funeral for Nelson Mandela but ordered neither for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher? Racism?

•A new study points to a link between breast cancer and abortion.

The analysis by Chinese researchers, published in the peer-reviewed journal, Cancer Causes and Control, found a 44 percent increased breast cancer risk after an abortion. It also found that the risk grew significantly with subsequent abortions - a 76 percent increase after two abortions and an 89 percent increase after three.

From the study's Conclusion: “In summary, the most important implication of this study is that IA [induced abortion] was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases.” The authors come from the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital's epidemiology and biostatistics department.

Read more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/new-study-puts-abortion-breast-cancer-link-back-spotlight#sthash.GXC79mEt.dpuf There's also a link to the actual study there.

•Noted global warming believer-yet-crisis-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg penned an excellent article in the NY Times last week where he makes the point the poor of the world desperately need fossil fuels.

“…Billions of people face a more immediate problem: They are desperately poor, and many cook and heat their homes using open fires or leaky stoves that burn…fuels like wood, dung, crop waste and coal.

More than 1.2 billion people around the world have no access to electricity…Most of them live in sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia...In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, excluding South Africa, the entire electricity-generating capacity available is only 28 gigawatts — equivalent to Arizona's — for 860 million people. About 6.5 million people live in Arizona.”

Today, 81 percent of the planet's energy needs are met by fossil fuels. The Obama administration seems to ignore this reality, announcing recently that it would no longer contribute to the construction of coal-fired power plants financed by international development banks.

In South Africa in 2010, the Obama administration expressed concerns that such a project would “produce significant greenhouse gas emissions.” But as South Africa's finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, explained at the time, “To sustain the growth rates we need to create jobs, we have no choice but to build new generating capacity — relying on what, for now, remains our most abundant and affordable energy source: coal.”
US industry research – as usual - has been showing the way. Hydraulic fracturing (AKA fracking) has produced an abundance of inexpensive natural gas, leading to a shift away from coal in electricity production. Oil sands are another type of unconventional petroleum deposit.

•This one is definitely sad – I make light of nobody's death. But guys, who among us haven't felt even the slightest urge after hours upon hours of shopping with the ladies in our lives to finally end it in a dramatic way?

Tao Hsiao, 38, had been shopping with his girlfriend at the Golden Eagle International Shopping Center in Xuzhou, China, when she asked to go to one more shoe store, according to Gawker.

The pair had been shopping for five hours.

And, police say, he finally reached his limit.

"He told her she already had enough shoes, more shoes that she could wear in a lifetime and it was pointless buying any more," an eyewitness said, according to the Daily Mail. "She started shouting at him accusing him of being a skinflint and of spoiling Christmas, it was a really heated argument."

The fight ended when Tao threw the pair's shopping bags down and jumped over a balcony, smashing into Christmas decorations before hitting the floor below, CCTV reported.

Tao was pronounced dead at the scene. No one else was injured.

RIP Tao.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


BACKDOOR GUN CONTROL IS HERE

Posted 12/8/13

•What is Kumbaya in Yiddish?

Can you believe that Obama is planning a trip to Iran next year?

From The Right Scoop.com comes word via TheHill.com that Kuwait's Al-Jarida Arabic-language newspaper has reported that U.S. and Iranian officials are negotiating a presidential visit for the middle of next year. According to an unnamed U.S. diplomat, a key sticking point in the negotiations is whether Obama would meet with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The White House denied the report.

The unnamed diplomatic source claims Obama is waiting for a formal invitation to promote his administration's policy in the region of non-military involvement. Reportedly, Obama wishes to be the first U.S. president to visit Iran since the revolution in the Carter years that deposed The Shah.

So an American President wishes to visit a country that openly calls for the annihilation of an entire nation-state (Israel) that is a major American ally?

So…Jewish Americans…69% of you voted for Obama in 2012. You regret that vote now?

If so…what's different this time?

•Abortion is not contraception.

Did you see last week that the Supreme Court announced it would take-up the Hobby Lobby case in a dispute involving coverage for abortion-causing drugs vs. religious liberty?

I doubt you saw that because most of the liberal media reported the dispute as one over contraception and not abortion-causing drugs. You see, they want you to think that Hobby Lobby is against their employees receiving employer-paid contraception. That is not the case. Hobby Lobby, as well as the other named company, has no objection to their employees receiving money to purchase actual contraception products, such as condoms and diaphragms. What they object to is providing coverage for RU486, the Morning After Pill, and Ella because these drugs can prevent an embryo (which exists after conception has occurred) from implanting in the uterus and thus causes an abortion.

The word CONTRACEPTION literally means to stop conception or to act to prevent conception from occurring.

ABORTION is defined as “…the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus…”

Words mean things. People who are trying to get away with something devious will attempt to loosely alter definitions to conceal their true motivations. Don't let anyone tell you this case is about contraception.

Oral arguments in the case will likely be held in March with a ruling by late June 2014.

•Here comes Obama's EPA!

Federal agencies are currently working on rolling out hundreds of new environmental regulations, including major regulations that would limit emissions from power plants and expand the EPA's authority to include bodies of water on private property.

Seventy-six of the EPA's 134 pending regulations originate from the agency's air and radiation office, including carbon-dioxide-emission limits on power plants. The EPA will set emissions limits that would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they use carbon capture and sequestration technology. Next year, the agency will move to limit emissions from existing power plants which will put older coal plants out of commission.

Hundreds of coal plants have been closed thus far or are slated for early retirement due to EPA regulations. Already, 300 coal units in 33 states have been shut down.
This is nuts, people!

The EPA is also working on a rule that would expand the definition of “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act to include water on private property.

If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.

Back door gun control is here!

Allen West recently wrote a piece on his website that explains how the Obama administration, using the EPA, has forced the last remaining lead smelting plant to close down which means lead for ammunition will now have to be imported, causing ammunition prices to skyrocket.

Thanks to Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we can no longer smelt lead from ore in the United States. The last bastion of lead smelting in the United States was Doe Run Lead Smelting in Herculaneum, Missouri (south of St. Louis, population 2,800). The Obama EPA first went after them in 2008, but it took until 2010 for them to force Doe Run to plan a shut down. This plant has been in operation since 1892 but will finally close its doors this month. It was the last lead smelting plant in the US.

The closedown is due to new extremely tight air quality restrictions placed on this specific plant. President Obama and his EPA raised the regulations by 10 fold and it would have cost the plant $100 million to comply.

The EPA said in a statement in response to the announcement that the Doe Run Company “made a business decision” to shut down the smelter instead of installing pollution control technologies needed to reduce sulfur dioxide and lead emissions as required by the Clean Air Act.

After December 2013, any ammunition available to US citizens will have to be imported, which will increase the price and likely come under government control. Now we know why the US Military and Homeland Defense massively increased purchase of large quantities of ammunition.

The effect should chill the spine of every American. You can own all the guns you want, but if you can't get ammo, what's the point?

Not only will ammo be even harder to come by, the demand and the process of supply will cause the price to skyrocket even more. Then Obama will rig the market to where all ammo has to be purchased from the government instituting an ammo registration.

That's downright diabolical!

(Follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


FUZZY JOB NUMBERS ARE ANOTHER REASON TO AUDIT THE FED

Posted 11/28/13

•I am refraining from comment on the Chiefs. I may have jinxed them last week. But thank you, Tom Brady!

•Remember when the unemployment rate magically dropped below 8% the month before the November 2012 election?

The September 2012 jobs report showed a 0.3% decline in the U-3 jobless rate just five weeks before the presidential election. At the time, a number of people wondered if the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau cooked the books on the report, which pushed the official jobless rate below 8% for the first time in Obama's presidency. The New York Post's John Crudele wrote that an anonymous official at US Department of Census claims that they did cook the books, and wants to talk to Congress about it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy. A source says the deception involved more than that one employee, and it escalated when Obama was seeking reelection in 2012.

According to the Post, the Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon. Buckmon said this past weekend he was told to make up information by executives at the department.

The key was in the methodology used by the BLS to derive the jobless rate. They conduct two surveys, Household and Establishment. The jobless rate comes from the former, while the official jobs added figure comes from the latter. It was the Household survey that picked up the highly unlikely figure of 873,000 jobs added in September, which wasn't the official jobs added (about 100,000), but skewed the jobless rate significantly downward anyway.

Surveys consist of telephone and in-person interviews, and the Department of Labor requires Census to get a 90% success rate on its interviews. When Census couldn't reach 90%, Buckmon claims that surveyors simply started making up numbers.
Anybody still think we don't need to audit the Fed?

•Want a do-over on Obamacare?

On November 8, Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) and 39 other Republican members of the House of Representatives filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act based on the Origination Clause that will be heard by the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals in early 2014.

The case, Sissel vs. United States HHS, was filed in the Washington, D.C. District Federal Court by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Matt Sissel, an Iraq war veteran who lives in Iowa, on July 26, 2010.

The Origination Clause of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 states "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

This part is KEY: Not a word of the Affordable Care Act originated in the House of Representatives. Instead, using a legislative trick, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took an innocuous bill that had passed the House unanimously on October 8, 2009 by a 416-0 vote, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, removed every word of its text following the first sentence, and replaced it with the Affordable Care Act language.

On June 28, 2013, Judge Beryl Hoffman (an Obama appointee), ruled against Sissel, dismissing his complaint using reasoning that required a rejection of Chief Justice John Roberts' controversial majority opinion in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in the 2012 NFIB v Sebelius case. Roberts declared Obamacare constitutional based upon his opinion that the law's individual mandate was, in fact, a tax.

Judge Hoffman ruled that the type of revenue raised by the act that Justice John Roberts deemed to be a tax was not the type of revenue that constituted a tax under the Origination Clause.

Even though Justice Roberts declared that the individual mandate was a tax in NFIB vs. Sebelius, Judge Hoffman ruled that the revenue raised by Affordable Care Act was "incidental" to the law, and therefore was not covered by the Origination Clause.

Equally baffling, Judge Hoffman ruled that the tactic of "gutting and replacing" a bill, which Majority Leader Reid used to push the Affordable Care Act through, was in fact merely the issuing of an amendment, despite the fact that not a single word of the original bill was kept in the so-called "amendment."

On July 9, 2013, the Pacific Legal Foundation appealed Judge Hoffman's dismissal of Sissel vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services to the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals.

Regardless of the decision made by the Court of Appeals, it seems likely that the losing party will appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which might take the case for consideration in the fall of 2014. This would set up the announcement of a decision in June 2015, three years after the NFIB v Sebelius decision, but still a full year and five months before the 2016 Presidential election.

The potential Supreme Court decision in the Sissel v Department of Health and Human Services case could offer Justice Roberts an opportunity for the greatest legal “do-over” in history.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


ELECTRIC CARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT IN WASTE BIN

Posted 11/23/13

•Think it's about time to repeal ObamaCare now?

•A new paper published in a website entitled, Climate of the Past (www.clim-past.net) which is an interactive open access Journal of the European Geosciences Union, found that carbon dioxide levels actually lagged temperature changes in East Antarctic ice cores by 500-1500 years during the warming at the onset of the last interglacial period, and lagged temperatures by 5,000 years after the start of glaciation at end of the last interglacial about120,000 years ago. What that means is temperatures changed first, THEN carbon dioxide levels responded to the temperature change.

Climate experts have long maintained, despite Al Gore's attempted obfuscations, temperatures lead carbon dioxide levels on long, intermediate, and short-term timescales, both on the upside and downside. Carbon dioxide cannot be the controller of climate because the tail does not wag the dog, and the globe starts to warm and cool 500-5000 years in advance of CO2 changes.

•Is somebody going to apologize to Sen. Ted Cruz for the abuse he took from the Rinos in the Republican Party after his 21-hour filibuster to bring attention to the need to repeal the Affordable Care Act, A.K.A. ObamaCare?

•The Tesla electric car company has had a tough week.

Early last week it was reported that at least two people were taken from the Tesla electric automobile factory to Valley Medical Center burn unit for fire-related injuries. An update several days later indicated that there actually was no fire at the Tesla plant, but three employees were injured by hot metal.

The Tesla statement confirmed, “There was a failure in a low pressure aluminum casting press. Three employees were injured by hot metal from that press. We are making sure that they receive the best possible care.”

This news along with recent reports of Tesla cars catching fire after accidents caused Tesla stock to fall precipitously, but it seems to have since somewhat stabilized.

This episode just confirms that stocks in heavily government subsidized companies are about as stable as HealthCare.gov.

Electric cars are not new technology. They were tried 100 years ago by the greatest minds of the day and they lost out to the internal combustion engine. They should have been left in the waste bin of ever-advancing technology. But leave it to the Democrats to resurrect it and shove billions of our hard-earned dollars into it and try to convince us that it really will work this time around.

•The Idle No More movement gathered at the Calgary headquarters of Enbridge and TransCanada on Saturday as part of the nationwide Defend our Climate protest held in 130 communities across Canada.

The only problem is nobody told anyone. Dozens of anti-pipeline and oil sands activists gathered Saturday in downtown Calgary as part of a nation-wide protest focusing on climate change. Yes, dozens, as in multiples of 12's.

The gathering in Calgary was quite peaceful, held indoors to avoid the snow outside.
Chantal Chagnon with the Idle No More movement, said they're trying to get the attention of the energy industry and the Canadian Parliament to the growing global opposition to “pipelines, tar sands expansions and other polices that contribute to runaway climate change.”

“We're seeing the effects of global warming and we can't keep denying it because obviously something is happening,” Chagnon said.

Obviously.

“We have to take advantage of our knowledge at this point and really change our behavior, change our way of development. We can't keep developing infinitely on a finite world.”

Chagnon said it was important to hold a peaceful gathering in Calgary, because the city is home to the headquarters of several energy giants. The protest was held as world leaders in Poland for the United Nations Climate Change Conference were meeting to discuss plans for international co-operation on the issue. Protestors in Calgary said the conservative Harper government is refusing to take meaningful action when it comes to climate change.

Originally about 300 people were slated to participate in the Calgary protest, but due to the snow storm only about 50 showed up.

So there you go.

•And folks, stop with the criticism of the Chiefs. Despite everything that faced them, a less-efficient offense, lots of dropped passed, lots of underthrown and overthrown passes, an unruly enemy crowd on the road – they were within striking distance of a team that averaged 41 points a game.

Now, that Denver team has to face a New England Patriots team on the road that seems to be chugging on all cylinders, then must face a revenge-ready crowd at Arrowhead. If the Chiefs had a choice to be in the position they are now in vs. the one the Broncos are facing, take the Chiefs' scenario every time.

I'm starting to get a good feeling about the Chiefs.

(Follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


LENO'S QUESTION TO OBAMA SOFT, NOT SO TO CRUZ

Posted 11/15/13

In case you missed it, Sen. Ted Cruz was a guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last week. He was solid as usual in the face of yet another liberally-biased inquisition. PJ Media's Paula Bolyard did a fantastic side-by-side contrast of that interview compared to Leno's kid glove treatment of Obama in a Tonight Show appearance from last August. Some highlights follow:

Leno to Obama:
Happy Birthday! How did you celebrate? What did you do?
I've seen Michelle tease you about your gray hair — you've got a bit of silver in your hair — do you tease back?

Leno to Cruz:
I've been reading a lot about you lately and they describe you as aggressive, arrogant, and abrasive. Accurate?

Leno to Obama:
Everyone is concerned about these embassy closings. How significant is this?
This global travel warning…this is for Americans all around the world? Are we telling people don't take that European vacation just yet or what are we saying?
What do you say to those cynics who say, “Oh, this is an overreaction to Benghazi”? How do you respond to that?

Great question here by Bolyard: “This interview was right after American embassies were closed due to terror threats. Notice that Leno doesn't ask Obama why he closed the embassies or if he is telling people not to take a European vacation. He asks instead if we (collectively, the American people?) are telling people to stay home. And obviously, Leno makes a conscious effort to avoid any questions about the embassy attack in Benghazi.

Leno to Cruz
I don't think Ronald Reagan could get in the Tea Party today.

Congressional approval is … what? Twelve percent? Americans are sick of the brinkmanship, don't you think?

If all this effort is in jobs, why so much in social issues that have nothing to do with jobs?

If I was a strategist for your side and I didn't think Obamacare was going to work, I would have sat back and you know something? Let's not shut down the government. Let's see what happens. I think a lot of people do not like the government shutdown.

When Newt Gingrich was here, he said this is a game. Well, this is not a game. There are a lot of people who will lose their jobs. But if they had just not shut it down, what's happening with Obamacare would still have happened, and rather than having people vilified for shutting down the government it might have been seen in a different light. You looked like a big fan from where I was sitting, by golly, reading that Dr. Seuss thing? But here's my thing. You don't negotiate a compromise because a) John Roberts, Supreme Court justice, said this is the law. Obamacare is the law of the land, let's move on. Isn't that true?

Leno to Obama
Were you surprised that Russia granted Snowden asylum?

And Putin seems to me like one of these old-school KGB guys. He has that mentality. I mean, look at this picture here. Something that surprised me about Russia, and I'm surprised this is not a huge story — suddenly, homosexuality is against the law. I mean, this seems like Germany. Let's round up the Jews, let's round up the gays, let's round up the blacks. I mean, it starts with that. You round up people who you don't like. Why is not more of the world outraged by this?

Another great observation by Bolyard: “Yet again, Leno treats Obama not as the president, but as a passive observer of world events. Somebody should do something about the Russian problem (but not Obama).”

Leno to Cruz
You're a smart guy. Why do you think Republicans lost the last two elections?
I see something — when I started this job the Forbes 400 was millionaires, I think 660 millionaires and 40 billionaires. Now it's all billionaires.
25% of [Texas] doesn't have health care, so [Obamacare] would help them, wouldn't it?

Leno to Obama
Is it me or do we see kind of a bromance between you and John McCain? You two had that lovers' quarrel for a while and now you're best friends. What happened? What changed? Who saw the light?
You and Hillary had lunch. Who invited who to lunch? I'm curious? Did you notice her measuring the drapes or anything like that?

Leno to Cruz
You're a likely candidate. Let me ask you about social issues. To me, Republicans should be about defense and money. Everything else is “do whatever the hell you want,” pretty much. Why all this focus, for example, on gay marriage? You're against it?
Your dad's been in the news lately. He's been talking against gays. Is that fair game?

Definitely read the entire comparison at http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/11/09/compare-and-contrast-leno-interviewing-obama-and-cruz/

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


REAL CLEAR NONSENSE

Posted 11/10/13

•Twitter is a fun place to poke sticks in the sides of people that say things without totally thinking them through. For example…

I picked-up an article last week on a website called www.realclearscience.com. It mentions that in 1947, legendary American inventor Charles F. Kettering paid tribute to his friend and colleague, Thomas Midgley, who had recently passed away:

"Through experience, the layman will... testify his indebtedness to one who has contributed so greatly to more pleasant and efficient living. He has made science a liberator, and we rejoice with him in the satisfactions that must be his in seeing the fruits of his labor. Posterity will acknowledge their permanent value."

The author of the piece on www.realclearscience.com opined, “Decades later, Midgley's two foremost inventions, leaded gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons, would be globally banned after wreaking havoc on both public health and the world environment.”

He balanced that “objective” assessment with:

“Thomas Midgley, Jr. was born on May 18, 1889 in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, a quiet, comely river town 31 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. A curious, athletic, and affable lad, Midgley flourished under the tutelage of his inventor father. He would later attend Cornell University, where he received a degree in mechanical engineering.
In the late 1910's, now working as a chemist at Dayton Research Laboratories, Midgley tackled the issue of "engine knocking," a problem that plagued old automotives. Fuel would ignite too rapidly, and outside the areas of normal combustion in the engine. This would prompt a temporary loss of power, marked by a disconcerting 'pinging' sound.

Midgley discovered that adding a compound called tetraethyllead to fuel could greatly boost its octane rating, an indication of how much compression fuel can withstand before detonating. The additive effectively eliminated the problem of engine knocking, an accomplishment that garnered him the prestigious Nichols Medal from the American Chemical Society. But it simultaneously introduced a new problem: lead.

At the time, lead was known to be dangerous, as evidenced by worker deaths in the chemical plants manufacturing tetraethyllead, but its disastrous scope was not yet realized. Decades later, it would be.” (Shaking my head at this point!)

He continues:

“In the early 1930's, Midgley sought to create a new, innocuous refrigerant for air conditioners and refrigerators. At the time, those machines used toxic and flammable compounds like ammonia, chloromethane, propane, and sulfur dioxide. Consulting his trusty periodic table, Midgley identified a new compound, dichlorodifluoromethane -- more commonly known as freon -- in just a matter of days. It caught on in a similarly hasty fashion. Apparently safe, non-flammable, and non-toxic, the gas appeared in almost all refrigerators within only a few years. It also found its way into aerosol deodorants and pretty much any sort of consumer spray device.

For his accomplishments, all achieved before age forty, Midgley was awarded the Priestly Medal, the American Chemical Society's most distinguished honor, in 1941. Three years later, he would be elected the society's president, but died soon after assuming the position. Before passing, Midgley would tell his friends how glad he was that his inventions had created livelihoods for so many workers, and that everyday citizens could reap the life-improving benefits.”

At this point, the weblog author went off the deep end:

“Now, of course, we know that both of Midgley's key inventions were disastrous for the planet and human health. Lead is highly poisonous, and putting it in our motor vehicles' fuel basically weaponized it. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that as many as 5,000 Americans died each year from lead-related heart disease before leaded gasoline began to be phased out in the mid-1970s. And in the time that lead infected our cars, 68 million children received dangerous exposures.

What about freon? Well, it was the first chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) ever invented. Scientists were startled in 1985 to discover a large hole in Earth's protective ozone layer -- which shields us from damaging ultraviolet light -- over Antarctica. They quickly found out that CFCs like freon were the culprits. The discovery catalyzed a major international agreement in 1988, where over 180 countries agreed to substantially reduce or phase out entirely the production of CFCs.”

This just thoroughly torqued me. Here in Thomas Midgley we had one of the most brilliant inventors of the last 500 years. Because of his inventions, ambulances could make their way to remote areas, gas-powered generators could keep hospitals running during power outages, people can drive to work or drive to different towns when work moves from town to town. Food and products can be efficiently transported to small towns that don't have railway service. Remote areas can, through refrigeration, have food preserved over long terms. Medicine can be made and preserved in refrigerators and freezers all over the world, including in remote third world countries. And this is just a brief mention of what benefits leaded gasoline and Freon brought to the world.
But do they mention this at www.realclearscience.com? No. they conjure up junk science and unproven hypotheses and hang it on the neck of a genius decades after his death.

So I Tweeted the following response to the website:
[He started by titling the article with this nonsense:]

Well-Meaning Inventor Who Almost Destroyed the Planet: man whose discoveries were hailed but later banned.

[I replied:]
The thesis of the article, which presents superb historical facts about this genius of the century, is laughable.

[He came back with:]
Please elaborate.

[Which I replied to:]
Was there an ozone hole before CFC's?

[His answer:]
Ozone holes may have formed in the ancient past after volcano eruptions, however. They can emit chlorine.

[Which says nothing about whether we have even measured globally continuous Ozone without a hole. So I replied:]

Point is never has been solid evidence CFC's have any role on ozone layer. And demonizing a genius over false science is wrong.

[And his response to that was:]
Not my intent to demonize, just to tell an interesting story about how advancements don't always work out how we'd like them to.

[To which I concluded:]
But all your story did is show how genius can be stifled by government over-regulation. Yet you made the thesis the opposite tack.

He left the discussion at that point.

(Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


Can't keep your health plan? We warned you

Posted 11/1/13

•Last weekend, 60 Minutes aired a piece on what happened in Benghazi. The report graphically told the story of what happened to four Americans who thought they would be protected by their government at an American Embassy in a foreign country. What the CBS report was clearly missing was mention of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the parties who are most answerable for the allegations established in the report.
Well, CBS?

•I know you missed this Monday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe,” because you don't watch that nonsense network, but David Axelrod, Obama's former senior advisor admitted that only a "vast majority" (as he terms it) of Americans can keep their health insurance plan if they like it. This is the first admission (Jay Carney did the same later in the day – are these losers coordinated or what?) from a top administration official that Obama's relentlessly-repeated promise to the American people that "If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it," was and is not true. In fact, he was lying.

The transcript:
AXELROD: “Most people are going to keep their plan, Senator [Coburn], and you know that. The head of Blue Cross in Florida was on television yesterday and said there's a small number of people being transferred to plans that have a higher quality. Most of them will be subsidized and end up paying less for those plans.”

So the only way the plans become cheaper is if us taxpayers subsidize them and help them pay for the more expensive premiums?

Hundreds of thousands of Americans were perfectly happy with their health plans, and have now been booted off their existing insurance plans. Soon, the same thing will happen to millions of others, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

This is truly a transition from the Invisible Hand of the free market to the Iron Fist of totalitarian government.

Millions of freedom-loving Americans will be herded into government-approved one-size-fits-all health insurance plans that are more expensive, have higher deductibles, and might not allow them to keep their doctor.

Regardless of what the media and Obama are saying, you are not getting a "higher quality plan." You are being forced to buy a more expensive plan that includes all kinds of services a huge swath of Americans don't want or need: Vision and dental (which are affordable in the free market), maternity and newborn care, contraception, and coverage for drug, alcohol, and mental health issues.

We warned you people who voted for Obama. We warned you!

•The USA Today ran a ridiculous op-ed full of smears and false statements that disparaged Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Robert Carter, two of the three lead authors of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, the latest report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). A great response was written by the head of The Heartland Institute and published at www.WattsUpWithThat.com.

They quote Dr. Carter, a paleontologist and marine geologist and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University (Australia), as saying “Currently the planet is cooling.” “Wrong,” they say. “The last decade (2000-2009) was the hottest on record; 2010 was the hottest year recorded.” Satellite data show no warming trend for nearly 17 years and a cooling trend in the last decade. Proxy data show the planet has been cooling since 2,000 years ago and 8,000 years ago.

The op-ed authors quote Dr. Fred Singer, saying “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.” “Nope,” they say. “Acting under U.S. Supreme Court direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that CO2 is a pollutant because of the harm it causes.” Gee, who should we believe here, lawyers and bureaucrats or one of the world's most distinguished astrophysicists? It shouldn't be a close call.

Facts:

Some 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources and only about 3% from human activities. We exhale carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court and EPA can twist the meaning of “pollutant” to extend it to anything added to the air, including our breath, but that semantic trick has no scientific relevance. Dr. Singer is absolutely right: carbon dioxide is plant food, a net benefit to plant and animal life, and not a pollutant.

They then lean back on the fallacious 97% claim. Surveys that supposedly show a 97% consensus in favor of the hypothesis of man-made dangerous global warming invariably ask meaningless questions, such as “is climate change real?” that any skeptic would answer “yes” to. A close look at the latest “study” used by alarmists to back their claim actually found that barely 1% of published scientific articles support the claim of dangerous man-made global warming. (See D. Legates et al., “Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation,'” Science & Education, DOI 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.)

When asked about climate models, the source of most of the alarmists' claims and predictions, most scientists say they are too crude and unreliable to be useful for policymaking. The USA Today op-ed makes the tired argument that the media shouldn't allow global warming skeptics to air their views because doing so “equates serious climate science and evaluation of peer-reviewed reports with the declarations of individuals, most lacking academic degrees in climate research, who are often funded by those standing to profit if the United States fails to curb carbon dioxide emissions.”

I urge you to check out www.nipccreport.org.

(Check out Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


What you need to know about the debt deal

Posted 10/25/13

This is what you need to know about the debt deal last week.

On Oct. 16, the House and Senate voted to open the federal government. In doing so, they voted to fund Obamacare and completely surrender to the Democrats on holding the line on the debt ceiling. A mere 144 House Republicans and 18 Senators opposed the deal.

Of those 18 Republican Senators, two normally stalwart conservatives voted for cloture – which ended debate on the deal and guaranteed passage. They were Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Tim Scott (R-SC).

In the Senate, it is a common practice to end debate with a cloture vote, and then vote for final passage of a bill. However, the final vote is not the defining ballot. The cloture vote has a higher threshold, a 60 vote majority. Without a cloture vote, bills are vulnerable to filibuster.

Senators have long been criticized for supporting cloture votes while opposing final bill passage. This vote is no exception. Senators use final passage votes as show votes for constituents, while meaningful votes for cloture are cast on behalf of entrenched establishment in DC.

Neither Senator has spoken about voting against final passage, or giving scathing criticisms of Washington's unwillingness to control spending. Constituents deserve to know why their senators are not standing up for fiscally conservative principles.
Among our local US Senators, only Sen. Pat Roberts voted No on cloture to end debate on the measure and No on the debt deal. All the rest of our Senators, Jerry Moran in Kansas and McCaskill and Blunt in Missouri were Yes votes on cloture and passage.

Remember.

Follow www.teapartypatriots.org to ensure you are properly informed on these issues.

•And in the climate nonsense category for the week, we have this from none other than the NY Times:

Dr. John Holdren is Obama's science advisor. In a 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.

They weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, remember the infamous Time magazine cover, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age.

They wrote:

“The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

But that would just be the beginning. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich continued:

“If man survives the comparatively short-term threat of making the planet too cold, there is every indication he is quite capable of making it too warm not long thereafter. For the remaining major means of interference with the global heat balance is the release of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels. What are today scattered local effects of its disposition will in time, with the continued growth of population and energy consumption, give way to global warming. … Again, the exact form such consequences might take is unknown; the melting of the ice caps with a concomitant 150-foot increase in sea level might be one of them.”

One must wonder how nuclear fuels would contribute to their cooling estimations, but whatever, they're rolling. What sets these off are Holdren's tendency to foresee worst-case situations that magically require new public policies to address the threat.

Remember Ehrlich and Holdren were also warning us of overpopulation concerns to the extent that they saw a need for forced sterilization occurring at the government level.
Can someone explain the logic behind a movement that wants the government to control people's lives to the extent that massive taxation of the masses are necessary to fund the widespread social programs their government leviathan is dictating - at the same time that their system of control also reduces the number of humans?

•I'm not one to promote DVD's but this one deserves a mention. This is the 40th anniversary of the release of the most terrifying movie of my lifetime, director William Friedkin's perfectly realized filming of William Peter Blatty's screenplay (based on his own best-selling novel) about a 12-year-old girl possessed by a demon, "The Exorcist."
When I first saw this movie, I hadn't yet witnessed childbirth several times over, changed diapers, unclogged about 1,000 poop-jammed toilets, etc. so I'm not so scared by it anymore.

What's to be loved about the film is its story of a priest racked by guilt over the death of his mother while enduring a crisis of faith. The priest, Fr. Damian Karras, is a man of science who openly questions the existence of God. There's also Ellen Burstyn's fine Christine MacNeil, an atheist Hollywood actress.

What brings them together (and no, there is no sexual attraction between them, which REALLY makes the film real in my view) is Regan, an innocent little girl played by Linda Blair who has been psychologically and physically twisted into something her mother, Christine, no longer recognizes and none of the best Georgetown doctors can explain. Regan's last hope is an ancient ritual known as a Catholic exorcism. And to receive that, her disbelieving-but-desperate mother begs a wavering priest to perform it. Max von Sydow IS the aged exorcist hero. Kind of cool, too, since you can look at Sydow now after he has really aged and judge how well they did old man make-up back in the early 1970's.

"The Exorcist" is filled with a half-dozen repugnant moments, but it's one of the most Christian films ever made because those moments are done with reverence to the theology; not making a joke of it as it readily done today.

(Follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


About the Chiefs' crowd sound record

Posted 10/18/13

•Federal government Forced Vacation Week 2 is behind us and we are still here. I have no confidence that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are going to hold the line against the absolutely unified liberals in Washington. I am deeply afraid that they are going to fold like toilet paper Origami. What's the purpose of having a Republican Party if they're going to kowtow to the Democrats on every issue? This kind of negotiation is disgusting to people who believe the Republican Party is supposed to be about ideas and conservatism. If this is how the Republican Party is going to be run, $17 trillion in debt and soon growing to nearly $20 trillion likely, you RINO's might as well join the Democrat Party because you aren't going to keep your conservative base.

•It was fun this past weekend watching all the focus on the Chiefs going 6-0 and trying to break the crowd noise record. The latter was most interesting to me because noise is a subject right down my alley. You see, by day, I function as a mild-mannered acoustical engineer, also known as an acoustical consultant. People in my field study sound, design buildings for good acoustics, and generally find solutions to noise problems. At Arrowhead Stadium, you might recall mention that the previous crowd noise record that was broken by the Seattle Seahawks fans earlier this year was 116 dBA at Arrowhead Stadium in the mid-1990s. My former company measured those levels on the field when the Chiefs played the 49'ers back in the Joe Montana vs. Steve Young years.

Now that 116 dBA figure had me scratching my head with the new record being 138 dBA (nobody deals in tenths of a dB.). How could the 2013 crowd be so much louder than the crowds in the mid-90's? The people make noise the same way. Nobody is using artificial noise makers because those are against the rules. We haven't evolved to possess vuvuzelas as vocal chords. So what's the story?

Well, I can tell you. You see, this entire issue is an almost identical parallel to the tale woven by the liberal left around the subject of global warming. You're just dealing with sound instead of temperature.

If you have seen one of the photos of the display of the sound level meter used to record the 137.5 dBA level you will note a few things of interest. First is the numerical level. Right above that level is the text, “LApeak dB.” What that means is the sound level meter is noting the absolute peak levels that occurred over the measurement time period. The highest level stays frozen on the display until a higher level is encountered.
Note also the “A” designation. We'll come back to that later.

When we measured those levels back in the 1990's, we noted not the peak levels but the maximum levels. Maximum levels are generally considered by the sound and acoustics industry as more realistic of the noise environment being described because the sound measured occurs over a longer time period – believe it or not as “long” as one-eighth of a second. Peak levels record sounds that occur over as short a time period as 100 micro-seconds which is 1,250 times shorter than one-eighth of a second.

So you can imagine that a peak noise measurement is going to be higher in level than a maximum measurement because the peak records EVERYTHING in very tiny increments. Many of those sounds aren't even processed by our hearing mechanism because they are just too short in duration. But a peak measurement “sees” those noises.

As I recall, the peak measurement we made back in the 1990's occurred when Derrick Thomas sacked Steve Young in the end zone. Naturally, the crowd went nuts. This was well before their nuts would get stomped on by a combination of place-kickers, 13-3 one-and-done playoff appearances, and a revolving door at the head coach's office. The peak measurement we recorded was in the neighborhood of 126 dBA, which is more comparable to what they were measuring last Sunday. The difference between 126 and 138 dBA would subjectively appear to us as sounding “about twice as loud.” Every 10 dB increase in level sounds to humans like it is twice as loud. 2 dB is a barely perceptible change in loudness. So a 10 dB increase is not unachievable. More vocal effort, synchronization among many people, location of the microphone can all affect the level achieved.

Now about that “A” designation, you may be surprised to learn that technically, the 138 number should actually be more like 145 to 150. The reason for this is the “A” designation indicates that the noise was massaged mathematically to result in one number. Sounds in the lower frequencies were ignored and sounds in the mid to high frequencies were given greater importance in arriving at the single number, called A-weighted sound level or dBA. That is done because at moderate sound levels, our ear-brain mechanism is less sensitive to low frequencies than it is to higher frequencies. However, at higher sound levels, our hearing is much flatter – we are equally sensitive to low as well as to high frequencies. Peak measurements are usually C-Weighted rather than A-Weighted, and C-weighted levels are usually 8-15 dB higher than A-weighted levels because the low frequencies are included in the calculations.

The LCpeak is used for occupational noise measurement where loud bangs are present. The peak is not usually used for environmental noise measurement and is useless when any wind is present. A gust of wind will easily give very high LCPeak readings and that's not noise.

But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the record because the sound technicians making the measurements measure crowd noise the same way in every city, presumably. Only if even slight wind was present at the time of measurement could a recording be possibly invalidated and photos of both the Seattle and KC measurements do not indicate the use of a windscreen over the microphones. One must assume that the technician made the judgment that even slight wind was not a factor. I'm sure there was no wind at all around the microphone down on the field with people waving their arms around and screaming at the microphone.

Maybe I've started something?

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


Only 17% of the government is 'shut down'

Posted 10/11/13

•I don't know about most of you, but I am enjoying this government shutdown. My business remains unchanged, which makes me proud that I am not dependent on government in any way, shape, or form.

Pardon the “I told you so,” President Obama, but I guess we in the private sector DID BUILD THAT!

•Most of you probably already know this, but thank weaselzippers.net for this update on the nonsense the Obama Administration is enacting on the American people by closing public monuments and museums in an effort to craft public opinion in his favor and away from government controlling spending and stopping Obamacare.

The National World War II Memorial which was blockaded by Obama's Office of Management and Budget last week, forcing a storming of the barricades by groups of 80-90 year old World War vets, was funded for design and construction almost entirely by private contributions, as specified in Public Law 103-32. The campaign received more than $197 million in cash and pledges. Support came from hundreds of thousands of individual Americans, hundreds of corporations and foundations, veterans groups, dozens of civic, fraternal and professional organizations, states and one territory, and students in 1,200 schools across the country.

Donated and pledged funds were used to cover the total project costs of approximately $182 million. These costs include site selection and design, construction and sculpture, a National Park Service maintenance fee required by the Commemorative Works Act, groundbreaking and dedication ceremonies, fund raising, and the 11-year administrative costs of the project from its inception in 1993 through completion in 2004.

Remaining funds are held on deposit with the U.S. Treasury in a National WWII Memorial Trust Fund. The funds will be used by the American Battle Monuments Commission solely to benefit the World War II Memorial.

This despicable president has gall the scent of yak puke steaming in a hyena's intestines stewing in the desert for three days!

•Byron York of the Washington Examiner had an excellent piece last week presenting some facts about this supposedly crippling government shutdown.

Everyone knows the phrase "government shutdown" doesn't mean the entire U.S. government is shut down. So in a partial government shutdown, like the one underway at the moment, how much of the government is actually shut down, and how much is not?

One way to measure that is in how much money the government spends. A military pay act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama at the beginning of the shutdown actually covers a huge percentage of the government's discretionary spending in any given year. That money is still flowing.

So if you took that money, added it to all the entitlement spending (welfare, social security, Medicaid and Medicare, etc.) unaffected by the shutdown, plus all the areas of spending that are exempted from a shutdown, and add all of it up, 83 percent of government operations continue and are completely funded. This figure includes interest costs when due ($237 billion), and totals about 83 percent of projected 2014 spending of $3.6 trillion.

So actually, all the fretting and weeping and gnashing of teeth by the Democrats are only over a 17 percent government shutdown. Top that off with the bill the House passed unanimously last week guaranteeing that furloughed employees will receive all back pay. Nice forced vacation!

•From the Anchorage Daily News, via Slate, comes this little piece which gives some history behind all the pink trim we are seeing on our NFL players starting last week.
October is the month when America is painted pink to raise awareness for breast cancer, and the NFL is no rube in that regard, perhaps laying the color on thickest. Some question whether the effort is more effective saving women's lives, or at "raising awareness" about just how charitable and woman-friendly the NFL is, or would like to be perceived.

The NFL and its corporate partners may be more concerned with enhancement of public images among women, and the associated revenues, than they are with addressing breast cancer as they seek to manipulate NFL fandom in the name of public awareness of a long-known human disease.

Football fields are adorned with breast cancer ribbons, star athletes wear pink in commercials supporting the effort - selling fans on pink-hued NFL-team-branded gear. Some of the sales proceeds are donated to the American Cancer Society, but the NFL will not say how much they are actually paying. Besides, the apparel also conveniently promotes the NFL team logo, specifically encouraging female investment in the brands.
How's this for a grim statistic: Ticketmaster capped its 2012 donation for the breast cancer cause at $40,000. That's only $1 for every woman who died of breast cancer in 2012. I'll bet the NFL makes more than $1 on the jersey sold.then he'll close it.”

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


Shutdown is just a forced paid vacation for federal workers

Posted 10/6/13

•Were you aware that every federal government shutdown that has occurred in this country has ended up with the furloughed federal workers getting paid all back pay retroactively once the dispute is settled? So all this wailing by the media over the government shutdown is nothing more than requiring federal workers to take a forced paid vacation. Cry me a river!

•Remember when President Obama promised everyone in earshot when he was busy selling a wary public on Obamacare, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

He even doubled-down, saying in greater detail: “If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

But as the Obamacare rollout continues, we find that's not entirely accurate. In fact, it was a lie. Here are a few examples of the states where consumers won't be able to keep their health insurance plans.

·58,000 Californians will lose their insurance plans under Obamacare. Aetna, the country's largest insurer, left the state in July and was closely followed by UnitedHealth. Anthem Blue Cross pulled out of California's Obamacare exchange for small businesses as well. 54% of Californians expect to lose their coverage, according to an August poll.

·Missouri: Patients of the state's largest hospital system, 13 hospitals including the St. Louis Children's Hospital, will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield. Anthem covers 79,000 patients in Missouri who may seek subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, but won't be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

·New Jersey: 1.1 million Aetna customers are at risk in New Jersey, where the leading insurer also won't be a part of the exchange. Just 2,600 patients purchase individual plans with the company, but any looking to take advantage of subsidies on the exchange for unaffordable employer-based insurance won't be able to do with Aetna.

Can we impeach a president for lying?

•From the “I Can't Believe What I Just Saw” file, a group of Catholic nuns is suing the federal government. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' contraception mandate, which requires that employers provide their employees coverage for contraception including abortion services, ignores the fact that groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor are religious organizations, according to the lawsuit filed to protect them against fines for refusing to comply with the Obamacare mandate.

"We cannot violate our vows by participating in the government's program to provide access to abortion-inducing drugs,” Sister Loraine Marie said of a class-action lawsuit filed against the mandate on behalf of multiple religious organizations that provide health benefits.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. A 10th Circuit panel ruled earlier this year that the owners of Hobby Lobby did not have to comply with the HHS mandate (that lawsuit was also filed by the Becket Fund). President Obama's attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 10th Circuit's ruling.

“The Sisters should obviously be exempted as 'religious employers,' but the government has refused to expand its definition,” Becket Fund senior counsel Mark Rienzi said.

“These women just want to take care of the elderly poor without being forced to violate the faith that animates their work. The money they collect should be used to care for the poor like it always has -- and not to pay the IRS,” he said.

Has anyone ever thought to explain to Obama and Sebelius the fact that Catholic nuns take a vow to be celibate and they do not marry? Maybe they legitimately don't know that the Little Sisters of the Poor are nuns that adhere to a policy that abortion is one of the greatest sins and is to be stopped? I realize that Sebelius is supposedly Catholic, but seriously.

Where are the Republicans screaming this nonsense from the top of a mountain?

•The IPCC's new report on climate change was released this week. Despite the fact that global temperatures haven't increased over the last 15 years, as global warming models predicted they would, the new report states that they are “95% certain” that man causes global warming...even though there has been no warming over the last 15 years.

The pause (which is what the report calls no change in temperature in the last 15 years) signals a major failure in the climate modeling system. But don't hold your breath (and all that does for the climate) waiting for the Warmists to admit that.

Warmists have been saying for years the science is settled, which you all know is nonsense, because science is, and has always been, a series of theories that can be tested by observations. When Einstein presented his theory of relativity he showed how it could be tested during astronomical events – in his case, upcoming solar eclipses -- in the next decade. The theory passed that testing.

Saying the science is settled is demanding the same adherence to dogma that religions demand. Religions require faith.

Global warming alarmism is seen in public pushes for recycling. I was tailgating at Arrowhead last week and a young woman came up to me to ask if I wanted a blue recycling bag for my recyclable waste. I smiled and said, “No thank you. I am philosophically opposed to recycling.” She rolled her eyes and said, “ooooo.kkkkkkk….” moving along to the next car.

I haven't been dismissed like that since I told the Jehovah's Witnesses at my fdoor that I was interested in a church that performs human sacrifice.

(Follow @bkparallax on Twitter)

 


When government gets shut down, don't reactive the EPA

Posted 9/27/13

•On the subject of a possible federal government shutdown looming next week, if Congress is successful in keeping Obamacare funding out of the next congressional resolution, I have yet to encounter anyone with a solid reason why every American shouldn't want the federal government shut down.

Fund the military. Keep the absolutely essential functions of government moving. But all the other crap gets stopped until Obamacare is halted in its tracks.
I'm on-board with it. Let's do it!

•EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy submitted new draft rules last week which require new coal power plants built in the future emit less than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. This figure is considerably less than coal plants emit today (about 1,800 pounds average).

There's basically only one way a new coal plant would be able to meet the standard: by incorporating a carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS – bury it underground nonsense) system to keep some carbon dioxide emissions from going into the atmosphere. One coal plant with CCS is now under construction in Mississippi and it's already a billion dollars over budget.

Utility and coal companies and their congressional allies are complaining about the rules for new plants, but what they're really worried about is the future crackdown on old plants. Industry groups are sure to sue over the rules, both the new-plant limits and the existing-plant ones that will be released next year.

40-50% of America's electrical power comes from cheap and safe coal-fired power plants. The United States holds the world's largest estimated recoverable reserves of coal and exports 110 million short tons of coal to other countries. In 2012, U.S. coal mines produced more than a billion short tons of coal, (a short ton is 2000 lbs. for those of you with calculators) and more than 81% of this coal was used by U.S. power plants to generate electricity.

You need any more evidence that the U.S. government is working against this country’s best interests?

When the government gets shut down, let's not reactivate the EPA. We will be better off for it.

•And from the, “You Can't Make-Up Nonsense as Nonsensical as Liberal Nonsense” file: although millions of birds are killed by wind turbines each year, the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds wants to install a wind turbine on its headquarters to reduce the group's carbon footprint.

“A wind turbine at our UK headquarters is the single biggest step we can take to reduce our carbon emissions, and will make a significant contribution to the RSPB's carbon reduction targets,” Paul Forecast, RSPB's director in the East, told North American Windpower.

Wind farms kill millions of birds worldwide every year, according to the bird enthusiast group SEO/Birdlife. Each windmill in the world kills between 110 and 330 birds per year — meaning 22 million birds are killed worldwide annually.

Numerous reports have come out detailing how windmills kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year, including rare and endangered birds, in the U.S.

“I estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity in the United States in 2012,” writes K. Shawn Smallwood, author of a study that was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Earlier this summer, bird enthusiasts watched in horror as the rare white-throated needletail flew into a wind turbine and died on the Outer Hebrides.

“This wasn't even a turbine on a huge wind farm. It was a solitary turbine to provide power to a small community,” said a 38-year old who witnessed the bird hit the turbine. “There is huge concern in Scotland about plans for big wind farms and the danger they would pose to big birds of prey like golden eagles and sea eagles.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/19/bird-charity-to-install-wind-turbine-despite-millions-of-bird-deaths/#ixzz2fRrdKEu4

And here is more evidence (from www.ClimateDepot.com via The London Daily Mail) of the bogusness of Obama's 97% consensus claim about global warming – specifically the part where they only used 70 of 10,000 papers – just to show you that I'm not making this stuff up.

“Contrary to reports, global warming studies don't show 97% of scientists fear global warming

Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That's the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.

However, although the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals. What was not reported in the paper or in any of the ensuing publicity was that many participants were appalled by the survey and recorded their feelings at the time, calling it simplistic and biased, and suggesting that it was an attempt to provide support for a predetermined view.

It is not surprising that some of the methodology was profoundly disturbing. The authors reviewed the abstracts of published climate papers to assess how much these could be said to be supportive of manmade climate change. However, Cook and his colleagues adopted a deliberately vague formulation of climate change, namely 'humans are causing global warming.' This completely avoided the key question of the climate debate, namely 'how much warming?'

Wouldn't logic dictate that you ask how much humans are responsible for compared to other sources of carbon dioxide?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


Computers got effects of greenhouses gases wrong

Posted 9/20/13

•Mark Levin nailed it tonight on his radio show when he ripped Sen. Diane Feinstein for political ambulance chasing in using the shooting tragedy at the Naval Yard in Washington D.C. to try to leverage for more gun control. Feinstein didn't even allow the families to get through 24-hours of shock that they are no doubt going through before she opened her yapper.

“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Democrats are truly beneath contempt.

•Then there's this…Staffers at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. held their own private ceremony last week to commemorate the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The staff did this on their own after finding out the State Department would not be organizing a formal and official memorial service.
The Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack left four people dead, including the American Ambassador to Libya.

The event was held in the lobby of State Department headquarters at a memorial plaque bearing the names of the victims in the terrorist attack.

“It was very meaningful — we hugged, told stories, laughed, cried. Someone put flowers by the wall, we stood awkwardly, then we went back to work,” a staffer said of the event.

When asked why the State Department did not have a formal ceremony marking the anniversary of the Benghazi attack, a spokesman pointed to congressional investigations he said have politicized the discussion.

What's next - it's the Republicans' fault that the Obama Administration blamed the Benghazi Attack on an obscure internet video?

•Thanks to the Daily Mail in London, we know that the world's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong. A leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 2007. The report also indicates that scientists accept that their computers “may have exaggerated” claims of doom.

The IPCC changed its story after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years.
The Daily Mail Sunday documented their review of the final draft of a report to be published later this month. These reports are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify carbon taxes and taxpayer funded subsidies for 'renewable' energy. Yet the report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 degrees Centigrade every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models. But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.1 degrees Centigrade per decade – far below even the lowest computer prediction.
They recognize in the report that the global warming “pause” seen in the last 15 years is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and Carbon Dioxide levels were both much lower.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.

Last weekend Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux.”

This is a HUGE story. Definitely go here to read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2ezpXkdFa

(Follow him at @bkparallax on Twitter or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


WE NEED TO SIT SYRIA OUT

Posted 9/12/13

•I'd never thought of Obama as a uniter. He seems more intent on dividing the country into economic classes. But, for the first time in my memory, an American president has united the conservatives with the liberals on a topic, which so happens to be the subject of attacking Syria.

RINO leader John McCain seems to believe that the Islamic phrase, “Allahu Akbar” is the same as "Thank God." I'm not sure the meaning is quite the same when a service member returns safely from Afghanistan and their loved one declares, “Thank God!” as Nidal Hassan intended when he yelled, “Allahu Akbar” as he mowed-down dozens of innocent people at Ft. Hood.

Doesn't this sound remarkably close to what happened in Egypt several years ago? How did that one work out?

We need to sit Syria out, folks.

•The New York Post exclusively reported Sunday on the intimate pages of whacko-environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s diary, which was purportedly released by a close friend of Kennedy's now-deceased former wife.

The diary mentions that Kennedy grappled with what he called his “lust demons” and kept a scorecard of more than two dozen conquests in the diary.

Kennedy responded on Sunday to the revelation of his journal.

“The New York Post has chosen to print excerpts from a 13-year-old diary illegally stolen from me,” he said in an e-mail. “The diary served as a tool for self-examination and for dealing with my spiritual struggles at the time. It also contains unedited, unfiltered stream-of-consciousness musings about current events and people.''

“Nothing in that diary was ever meant for publication…”

In the seamier side of the diary, Kennedy grappled with what he called his biggest defect “my lust demons,” while keeping a scorecard of more than two dozen conquests. The journal was found in their home by his wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy, who, distraught over their impending divorce and Kennedy's serial philandering, committed suicide in 2012.

The 398 page journal details Kennedy's daily activities, speeches, and political activism in 2001. But they also record the names of women with numbers from 1?to 10 next to each entry. The codes corresponded to sexual acts, with 10 meaning intercourse, his wife told a confidant. There are 37 women named in the ledger, 16 of whom get 10's.

On Nov. 13, 2001, Kennedy records three separate encounters coded 10, 3 and 2 on the same day he attended a black-tie fund-raiser at the Waldorf-Astoria for Christopher Reeve's charity, where he sat next to the paralyzed “Superman” star, magician David Blaine and comic Richard Belzer.

It was a hectic month for Kennedy, who traveled to Toronto, Louisiana and Washington, D.C. and listed at least one woman's name on 22 different dates, including 13 consecutive days.

Most women are identified only by first name in the ledger. They include a lawyer, an environmental activist, a doctor and at least one woman married to a famous actor.

A NY Post reporter initially questioned Kennedy last Friday about the diary and was met with six seconds of stunned silence. Kennedy then said, “I don't think there is any way you could have a diary or journal of mine from 2001. I don't have any comment on it. I have no diary from 2001.”

On days without a woman's name, Kennedy would often write “victory.” This meant he'd triumphantly resisted sexual temptation, according to a source close to Richardson.

What a trooper!

“Despite the terrible things happening in the world, my life is . . . great,” he wrote on Nov. 5, 2001. “So I've been looking for ways to screw it up. I'm like Adam and live in Eden, and I can have everything but the fruit. But the fruit is all I want.”

Nine years later, Kennedy and his wife separated when he filed for divorce. And on May 16, 2012, Richardson, 52, tragically committed suicide by hanging herself in an outbuilding on the couple's Bedford estate.

Kennedy's cheating had become a huge issue in the marriage. Richardson told a friend that her husband noted the names of his romantic conquests on pages in the back of his journal under the preprinted heading “cash accounts.” The journal begins with word that Richardson is pregnant with the couple's fourth child.

Her husband described her at her funeral as “fighting demons.” The couple was not yet divorced when she died and was bitterly arguing over issues involving custody and finances. Kennedy had temporary custody of the four children and was dating actress Cheryl Hines (the wife from that Larry David HBO show.)

A sealed document in which Kennedy portrayed his wife as an abusive alcoholic who beat him up and threatened suicide in front of the children was leaked to the press. Kennedy said in the affidavit that by 2001 he had “lost hope” in his marriage and was “committing numerous infidelities to keep my sanity,” according to a published report.

But his journal paints a different picture. He barely mentions his wife's emotional problems, making just a passing reference to her struggles with depression. I guess his wife's battle with a depression he was contributing to was not part of his “spiritual struggles.”

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 

 


RECYCLING FEELS GOOD, SO HOW CAN IT BE WRONG?

Posted 9/7/13

Michael Munger, a professor of Economics and Political Science at Duke University, recently published an account of a talk he gave to a bunch of recycling vendors in Australia. The paper is very detailed and revealing about the ruse at work regarding recycling A very telling part is printed below.

“Almost everything that's said about recycling is wrong. At the very least, none of the conventional wisdom is completely true. Let me start with two of the most common claims, each quite false:

1. Everything that can be recycled should be recycled. So that should be the goal of regulation: zero waste.

2. If recycling made economic sense, the market system would take care of it. So no regulation is necessary, and in fact state action is harmful.

If either of those two claims were true, then the debate would be over. The truth is more complicated than almost anyone admits.

There are two general kinds of arguments in favor of recycling. The first is that “this stuff is too valuable to throw away!” In almost all cases, this argument is false, and when it is correct recycling will be voluntary; very little state action is necessary. The second is that recycling is cheaper than landfilling the waste. This argument may well be correct, but it is difficult to judge because officials need keep landfill prices artificially low to discourage illegal dumping and burning. Empirically, recycling is almost always substantially more expensive than disposing in the landfill.

Since we can't use the price system, authorities resort to moralistic claims, trying to persuade people that recycling is just something that good citizens do. But if recycling is a moral imperative, and the goal is zero waste, not optimal waste, the result can be a net waste of the very resources that recycling was implemented to conserve. In what follows, I will illustrate the problems with each of the two central fallacies of mandatory and pure-market recycling, and then will turn to the problem of moral imperatives.

My first experience with the recycling debate was in 2008, when I was asked to keynote a conference in Freemantle, Australia. The conference, called 'Australia Recycles!' was a gathering of recycling professionals and equipment vendors from around the Pacific rim. And I was clearly the tethered goat left out for the tyrannosaur to gobble up.

The core argument was that market prices, not emotional choices or regulatory mandates, were the best guide to whether a community should try to recycle a particular material. No one has to tell us to do those things, because price is a good guide. We scrap cars because they are valuable metal. The leftover rice and chicken go into the fridge, for tomorrow's casserole. And toilet paper…well, we throw it away, after using it.

I focused on glass, especially the kind of green glass used for wine bottles. Glass is heavy and inert. That means it's expensive to cart around and handle, in addition to the problems of breaking and cutting workers. Glass is harmless in a landfill and breaks down into something very like the sand it came from.

The commodity that glass can be ground into, called 'cullet,' just isn't very valuable. Mixed cullet, even from glass that looks similar, turns a dull black; sorting to avoid mixing takes time. Recyclists seem to believe that everything should be conserved, except time, the one resource we can't make more of.

The alternative to recycling green glass is to use virgin materials—sand—and add the chemical compounds and color required. A cubic yard of mixed cullet can actually be much more expensive to convert into usable glass than a cubic yard of sand, depending on conditions. That means that 'recycling,' when you add on the fuel costs and pollution impact of collecting small quantities of the stuff from neighborhoods, actually uses more energy, and wastes more resources, than using virgin materials.

There are exceptions. If disposal costs are high and there is actual demand for the cullet, then green glass is highly recyclable. The best example is northern California, with valuable land, a large population, and lots of manufacturers eager to put new wine in recycled bottles.

Still, given the costs and lack of demand in most areas, opportunities for environmentally responsible recycling of green glass are rare. As a result, hundreds of municipalities across the United States have tried to suspend their glass recycling programs. Interestingly, in some of these (including my home town of Raleigh, North Carolina) there were legal or political barriers that forced the resumption of curbside glass collection. Citizens voted to force the city to pick up the glass in those plastic bins, because they don't like to throw the glass away. The glass is picked up, trucked to the recycling facility, and either bagged or boxed and then shipped, in a different truck, to the landfill. In effect, citizens are paying the city extra to throw away the glass, so that they can pretend it's being recycled.

As I was going through my presentation, I was surprised at the reaction of the audience of the conference. They weren't angry; they were bored. When I finished, a man stood up and gave what seemed to be the response of the entire audience, given their nods and smiles: 'Look, professor, we all know this. Everyone knows that there are problems with green glass. We all understand that there is no market for cullet. But it doesn't matter. The main thing is to get people in the habit of recycling, because it's the right thing to do.'

No one thought this was fraud the way I did. Recycling gives people a chance to express their concern about the environment. Sure, sometimes the actual effect on the environment is harmful, as in the case of green glass, but that's a small price to pay for developing the right habits of mind. I wasn't wrong, I just didn't understand their objectives.”

(Follow @bkparallax)

 


WE SHOULD
CALL IT
‘BOEHNERCARE’

Posted 9/1/13

•Now THIS is an action I can get behind!

Tea Party activists are planning a rally outside U.S. House Speaker John Boehner's Ohio office on Tuesday, vowing they will rebrand President Obama's healthcare reform law into “BoehnerCare" if he does not get behind the growing effort to defund the legislation in the upcoming Continuing Resolution.

The Tea Partiers are operating under the quite logical premise that if a politician votes to fund the law, then that politician owns the law. Boehner, along with congressional GOP leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has yet to voice support for the effort.

A group of conservative representatives and senators vowed before the August recess to block any spending bills that would also fund the law. This coalition of lawmakers will agree to fully fund the essential operations of government, but pull-out any funding tagged for the massive government take-over law which was passed by a Congress that has long been dismissed from Congress by angry voters.

Republicans have routinely labeled the law “ObamaCare.” Even Obama and most of the public have embraced the term. Radio host and NY Times Best-Selling author Mark Levin used the term “BoehnerCare” on his nationally syndicated radio program last week.

“Rather than calling it ObamaCare, we should call it BoehnerCare” if the Speaker follows through with the current plan to fund the law in the upcoming continuing resolution that funds the government, Levin said.

“So I think I'm going to call it BoehnerCare if I can remember from time to time, certainly more often, because Boehner won't even fight. Boehner, he's just – is the word 'pathetic' appropriate?”

I really hope this happens, because if Boehner sees it, he will have a REASON to start blubbering again.

•If you want to keep on top of the real facts of the climate debate, make climatedepot.com one of your go-to sites. I came across the following last week that adds fuel to those “warmists” that believe the “science is settled” on the question of anthropogenic global warming. They link the article to the USA Today and NPR which places it outside my normal review (because I don't savor wasting my time), but you have to take notice when even the slanted sites indicate we have been right all along that man-made climate change is a hoax.

While the Obama administration presses forward with plans to deal with climate change, Congress remains steadfast against taking action. It's not easy to find a scientist who will agree with that point of view. But Republicans have found an ally in a climate scientist by the name of Judith Curry.

Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she's soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, “We just don't know.”

Curry certainly has the credentials. She is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She also runs a side business as a private weather forecaster. But she doesn't deny the basic principles of climate change.

“If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet,” she told a House committee recently.

But, she went on, not all things are equal. She says there's so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn't know what's going to happen. She says a catastrophe is possible, but warming could also turn out to be not such a big deal.

“I've been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus, given these uncertainties,” she told the committee.

Her message that day on Capitol Hill was, in essence, that while humans may be contributing to climate change, we simply don't know how the climate will behave in the coming decades, so there may be no point in trying to reduce emissions.

That played well to Republican committee members including Dana Rohrabacher (one of my Twitter buds by the way!) of California, who sees climate change as a liberal plot.

“We've gone through warming and cooling trends, but how much of this has anything to do with human activity?” he asked rhetorically. Concern about climate change “gives an excuse by government to control human activity, meaning our lives and our freedom.”

Curry worries about that as well.

•This last item just has me steamed and should be enough to stop you from watching ABC's comedy Modern Family.

Sarah Palin posts a wonderful picture of happy parents (her and husband Todd) to Facebook sending their child (Trig, who has Down 's syndrome) off to school for the first time.

Sarah Palin? @SarahPalinUSA “First day of school! http://fb.me/1uPRR0A6o”
Follow that link to see the picture.

Soon after that appeared, Danny Zuker, the writer/producer of ABC's Modern Family posts the following in a ReTweet:

Danny Zuker? @DannyZuker Good for you! Now pay attention this time. RT @SarahPalinUSA First day of school!

So the Left says Obama's family is out-of-bounds for commentary and as a basis for ridicule, but it's fine and dandy to demean a happy moment for a special needs child simply because you disagree with his mother?

Nice work Mr Zuker. Your mother must be very proud.

(Brian is on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


 

THE LEFT ALREADY IN ATTACK MODE ON SEN. TED CRUZ

Posted 8/24/13

•Ben Shapiro from Breitbart.com had a fantastic piece recently highlighting the attacks now coming forward on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), my current favorite 2016 potential presidential candidate.

Shapiro writes:

“Fearful of Cruz as a prospective Republican presidential nominee in 2016, the media is now digging into his past, all the way back to birth. The Daily Beast (That's Lib Tina Brown's hit-site.) ran a profile on Monday with this headline: 'Ted Cruz at Princeton: Creepy, Sometimes Well Liked, and Exactly the Same.' The hit piece questions whether 'master debater who wore a paisley bathrobe to creepily stroll by the women's wing of the dorm [can] be the next president.'

The piece quotes one of Cruz's former classmates, Craig Mazin, stating, 'I remember very specifically that he had a book in Spanish and the title was Was Karl Marx a Satanist? And I thought, who is this person? Even in 1988, he was politically extreme in a way that was surprising to me.'

Here's where Shapiro nails the column:

“The piece makes no mention of Mazin's background – Mazin is a leftist Hollywood screenwriter responsible for American classics Scary Movie 3, Scary Movie 4, and Identity Thief. The piece goes on to quote classmate Erik Leitch, stating, 'It was my distinct impression that Ted had nothing to learn from anyone else. The only point of Ted talking to you was to convince you of the rightness of his views.'”

The unidentified Liberals continue:

“He was a conservative, so he was just stubborn…In addition to Mazin and Leitch, several fellow classmates who asked that their names not be used described the young Cruz with words like 'abrasive,' 'intense,' 'strident,' 'crank,' and 'arrogant.'”

If the Leftist Tina Brown hates Cruz so much that she slings a hit-piece well before he even announces anything resembling a presidential run, you've got to know that he's a solid candidate.

•Now to pick a running mate for him – NOTE TO SELF: WORK TO CONVINCE CRUZ HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM REAGAN NAMING A BUSH AS VP HARMED CONSERVATISM AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

•I have to admit that I resisted watching the wildly successful A&E show, Duck Dynasty, and I'm not sure why. But the moment I did force myself to give the show a chance I was hooked. I think the attraction might be because the show is kind of a melding of reality TV and comedy-drama.

At any rate, I caught recently that Duck Dynasty star and CEO of Duck Commander (the uber-successful company at the center of the show) Willie Robertson is being considered as a candidate for Congress in Louisiana.

Current seat holder Rodney Alexander is retiring to take a job in Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's administration leaving his Congressional seat open and prompting a special election set for Oct. 19. With such a tight timeframe, both parties might turn to candidates who can self-finance, which leads to Robertson.

Robertson is worth millions, which could quickly fund a campaign. But could GOP party leaders convince America's favorite “Redneck Millionaire” to give up his lucrative business and run for Congress? Robertson has said he's “kinda busy right now.”

I think he would be a fantastic addition to the U.S. Congress. Plus, think of the potential show material!

•Did you catch the pictures being published of the volcanic eruption in Japan? Ash wafted as high as three miles above the Sakurajima volcano in the southern city of Kagoshima on Sunday afternoon, forming its highest plume since the Japan Meteorological Agency started keeping records in 2006. Lava flowed about 0.6 miles from the fissure, and several huge volcanic rocks rolled down the mountainside.

Though the eruption was more massive than usual, residents of the city of about 600,000 are used to hearing from their 3,664 foot tall neighbor. Kagoshima officials said in a statement that this was Sakurajima's 500th eruption this year alone.

Residents wore masks and raincoats and used umbrellas to shield themselves from the falling ash. Drivers turned on their headlights in the dull evening gloom, and railway service in the city was halted temporarily so ash could be removed from the tracks.

By Monday morning, the air was clearer as masked residents sprinkled water and swept up the ash. The city was mobilizing garbage trucks and water sprinklers to clean up.

"The smoke was a bit dramatic, but we are kind of used to it," said a city official who requested anonymity because he was not allowed to speak to the media.
JMA says there are no signs of a larger eruption but similar activity may continue. It was maintaining an earlier warning that people not venture near the volcano itself.
This volcano has had 500 eruptions in 2013 alone. That prompts an inquiring mind to wonder what effect overall volcanoes have on the planet and climate.

The exact number of volcanos is unknown. It also depends on the definition of a "volcano:" for instance, there are "volcanic fields" that comprise hundreds of individual eruption centers (such as cinder cones, maars, shield volcanos) that are all related to the same magma chamber and that may or not be counted as a single "volcano."

There are probably millions of volcanos that have been active during the whole lifespan of the Earth. During the past 10,000 years, there are about 1500 volcanos on land that are known to have been active, while the even larger number of submarine volcanos is unknown. At present, there are about 600 volcanos that have had known eruptions during recorded history, while about 50-70 volcanos are erupting each year. At any given time, there is an average of about 20 volcanos erupting.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow @bkparallax on Twitter)

 


LIB NOISE WAS QUIET WHEN BUSH WAS TARGET OF JOKES

Posted 8/16/13

•The Liberal PC crowd is at it again, this time focusing their ire on a poor shlub that spends his days protecting bull riders from being killed by 1800 lbs. of charging steak ore. In a story that went viral in the liberal media this week, a clown wearing an Obama rubber Halloween mask ran around the rodeo ring and had some fun on Saturday night.

But the ever-humorless Senator Claire McCaskill called the actions “shameful.”
“If what's being reported is true, then it's shameful and it's unacceptable. The State Fair is funded by taxpayer dollars, and is supposed to be a place where we can all bring our families and celebrate the state that we love. But the young Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse, that somehow it's ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt, and joke about harming the President of our great nation. Missouri is better than this, and I expect someone to be held accountable.”

Dana Loesch at Redstate.com was front-and-center on the issue calling out the Democrats for their lack of outrage when similar to exact actions were carried out against Republican Presidents.

For example, at a rodeo in Pennsylvania in the mid-1990's, crowds cheered when a bull charged a George H.W. Bush dummy, tearing into it and sending the rubber mask flying halfway across the sand.

Remember all the Bush-Hitler comparisons?

Remember when Air America (the financial failure Liberal talk radio network) referred to George W. Bush as Fredo (from The Godfather movies) intimating that he should be “taken fishing” and he should start “praying Hail Marys?” I don't recall hearing any Libs wailing about that.

And just this afternoon, news surfaced that the fellow that played the rodeo clown that donned the Obama Halloween mask has been banned from ever appearing at the Missouri State Fair ever again.

Are you kidding me? Liberals are just a mean, nasty, vindictive bunch of smelly losers.
So what are we going to do to the kids that wear those Obama rubber masks at Halloween this year?

•Pay attention to this next one. From Breitbart.com:

“Radio host Mark Levin does not follow the news cycle. He often opens his shows by warning listeners that he will not talk about the day's headlines, or play clips from cable TV programs. Instead, he focuses on agendas: those of the 'Statists,' i.e. the progressive left; and those of the constitutional conservatives to whom, and for whom, he speaks.

Those conservatives have struggled to find a way forward, until now.

Levin's new book, 'The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,' released Aug. 12, is an ambitious plan to save the American political experiment from the encroachments of big government in Washington, D.C.

Yet his solution is not a political one that looks for new ways of winning elections, or a policy formula to enact conservative ideas. Levin proposes to amend the Constitution itself--not once, but eleven times.

His ultimate goal is to motivate and mobilize fellow conservatives to push for a national convention to propose new amendments, under a never-before-used provision of Article V of the Constitution. Before meeting, the convention will require the assent of two-thirds of the states; afterwards, its proposals will require the approval of three-fourths.”

The Breitbart review summarizes:

“More generally, the book has three main strengths.

The first is that it identifies the key challenge facing the conservative movement as a constitutional one--not a 'demographic problem'…

The second strength…is that it provides readers with a forward-looking agenda, a series of pro-active steps that the conservative movement as a whole can take, and in which individuals may become involved themselves.

Third, and perhaps most important, The Liberty Amendments finds inspiration for its proposals in the Constitution itself, not in philosophical abstractions or international inspirations.”

I'll have a more personal and detailed review soon, but I do REALLY like the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the election of U.S. Senators to the state legislatures.

•An 81 year old gentleman last weekend lucked out and was able to buy two boxes of ammo. He placed the boxes on the dash in front of his truck and headed back home, but stopped at a gas station where he came upon a drop-dead gorgeous blonde woman wearing a VERY short skirt with an extremely low-cut top who was filling up her little red sports car at the next pump.

She glanced at the two boxes of ammo, seductively approached the elderly gentleman's driver's side window, leaned into the window resting her arms on the door, winked at the octogenarian and said in a sexy voice:

"I'm a BIG believer in barter, old fella. Would you be interested in trading sex for ammo?”

The old man thought for a few seconds and asked:

“What kind of ammo 'ya got?”

•Have you contacted your U.S. Representative about defunding ObamaCare in the coming budget negotiations?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


MAJOR HOLES IN THE CASES FOR GLOBAL WARMING

Posted 8/9/13

If you are going to follow a weather forecaster, you will not do much better than Joe Bastardi.

He wrote an excellent piece that summarizes the major holes in the cases for anthropogenic global warming being foisted upon us by Obama and his EPA. I'm posting a few snippets below but you should read the entire article at: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19138

“The systematic assault on economical energy sources and the economy by the EPA was given de facto approval, if not encouragement by President Obama in his speech two weeks ago on the environment. As his words sunk in it became apparent that he seeks to isolate and demonize those who wish to confront him on this matter with facts, and by doing so, destroy opposition to a policy that his EPA has enacted based on easily disproven assumptions. Given the fact that poverty rates continue to rise in our nation under his watch and that the true workforce continues to drop, he seems dangerously out of touch with the facts. Yet he accuses others of such behavior either out of ignorance, arrogance, or both. His EPA has been ruling by decree based on ideas that ignore facts and disregard the harm they are doing to the nation.

There are three lines of evidence the EPA uses to back their environmental policies.
1. Greenhouse Gas Trapping Hot Spot Theory.
2. The so-called unusual rise in GAST (Globally Averaged Surface Temperatures).
3. Assumed validity of climate models, used for policy analysis purposes.

One at a time, let's show why they don't have a leg to stand on.

Greenhouse Gas Trapping Hot Spot

There is none. In fact, temperature trends in the middle and upper troposphere are flat. For example… (go on-line to see the graphics)

There is simply no evidence of EPA's assumed Tropical Hot Spot.

Unusual rise in GAST

Their second line of evidence of a catastrophic rise in Globally Averaged Surface Temperatures (GAST) in the last 50 years due to CO2 concentrations is easily debunked when one looks at reality.

First of all, there has been a lot of fudging of data since the satellite era started -- not with the objective satellite data, but the pre-satellite era where researches have adjusted temperatures down. What is most egregious is the estimation of Arctic temperatures which could not be reliably measured in a widespread fashion without the use of satellites prior to 1978. So right off the bat, there are questions about the 'fox guarding the henhouse' with data manipulation. But even taking that into account, the fact is that the link between CO2 and temperatures disappeared once the cyclical warming of the oceans -- a natural occurrence -- was accounted for in the atmosphere. A temperature leveling and turnaround has begun (the leveling has been occurring over the last 17 years).

The 1930s still stick out far and away as the decade with the most current high temperature records.

There is simply no justification for the idea that CO2 is driving a catastrophic warm-up. Quite the contrary, man has never been more prosperous on a whole, or produced so much as during the current age we are living in.

Assumed validity of climate models

This is almost laughable. Anyone who works in the field every day -- as we do in the private sector -- knows how bad models can be. In fact, in spite of the heat wave in the Northeast and Midwest this week, the coming cool -- combined with the coolness of the summer overall which was not predicted in many circles before the summer -- is saving this country billions of dollars in energy and agriculture costs (a record corn crop is likely). This was not the pre-summer missive from the modeling (my company Weatherbell.com predicted a cooler summer than the previous three, saying that the Midwest could turn into the Garden of Eden agriculture-wise this year rather than a drought driven heat wave as was opined by some). But the point is that the models are a mathematical representation of a chaotic field and I cannot even fathom that this could be one of their reasons. It shows the ignorance as to the nature of the climate. It also shows the willingness of those that truly don't understand weather and climate to place trust in a model. It's flabbergasting.

Why anyone would think they could justify EPA's regulatory plans or suggest a carbon tax as an alternative given the facts presented above is beyond me.

The facts clearly reveal that the EPA and the president do not have a leg to stand on as their policies assault the very energy lifeline of our economy at this critical time in our nation's history. The EPA's decisions are based on erroneous ideas. Quite sinister is the fact that the foundational core values of this country -- the encouragement of liberal free thinking, competition and tolerance -- are all opposite of what the EPA and this president are doing in regards to climate change. Their policy is to shut down exposure to the facts, destroy the chance to compete in a free and vibrant market, and not tolerate any dissent.

There is more than just a cat fight among scientists involved here, and in fact I would argue that it is a side show to the main agenda despite the fact that each of the EPA's lines of "evidence" are invalid as shown above. People are already getting hurt. Close to 150 coal plants have been shutdown, throwing people out of work and driving up costs. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Given the immense problems facing our nation today…America could be energy independent and more prosperous by exploiting the resources we have here -- why are people pushing these policies? They are either frightfully out of touch with the situation, or worse, they may have an agenda that is weakening the fiber of the nation.
You see the evidence. What is your verdict?”

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.

 


OBAMA'S GAFFE ABOUT VIETNAM

Posted 8/2/13

I was going to go into some detail (as Rush Limbaugh first detailed) about how Trayvon Martin was the only person profiling on that fateful night, last year that resulted in George Zimmerman being acquitted of all trumped-up charges, but this Obama Administration exhibits so much stupidity on a weekly basis, I cannot let it pass.

Last week the president of Vietnam, Truong Tan Sang, visited Obama. In what should, in a world with an unbiased media, go down as yet another of many ignorant Obama-gaffes, and after receiving from Sang a letter from Vietnam's most famous despot, Ho Chi Minh which was written to President Truman, Obama said,
“…we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”
Yes ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama actually said, while standing next to the current Communist leader of Vietnam, of the Communist founder of the People's Republic of Vietnam, that he was inspired to create that Communist country by our nation's founding documents and one of our founding fathers.

That it was Thomas Jefferson that he linked to Minh should be enough to cause Jefferson's corpse to rise from the earth and drag Obama back down with him.
On September 2, 1945 Ho Chi Minh did, in fact, quote Jefferson and the Declaration and use the format of the US Declaration of Independence for his declaration of Vietnamese independence from the French.

That's pretty much where any meaningful link ends.

Sterling Beard at National Review Online references a 2011 article by Susan Dunn which purports to show Obama's statement might be “factually true.” (Hat-Tip to Joe Wurzelbacher's blog)

Ho Chi Minh had lived, worked and studied in the U.S. off-and-on from 1911 to 1918 and had reason to have come in contact with the Declaration. “Contact” is not the same as “inspiration,” either. According to Dunn, an American OSS advisor, James Patti, was present for some of the planning sessions wherein Ho's use of the Declaration were discussed. Dunn's recounting of those meetings don't quite measure up to the level of “inspiration” if words continue to mean things. She wrote,

“Ho Chi Minh struggled to recall Jefferson's exact words…Days earlier, Ho Chi Minh and his advisers had been laboring to recall as much of Jefferson's language as they could. Ho had memorized the opening lines of the Declaration when he visited the United States as a menial laborer on a tramp steamer before World War I, but his memory had faded …Ho explained to Patti that his draft of the Vietnamese declaration of independence needed polishing. Someone translated Ho's words as Patti listened carefully. Patti immediately realized that the translator was reading very familiar words. After the translator read a few sentences, Patti turned to Ho in amazement and asked if he really intended to use this text as his declaration of independence … Ho sat back in his chair, his palms together with fingertips touching his lips ever so lightly, as though meditating. “Should I not use it?” he asked.”

Inspiration? More like piracy.

Dunn does use the phrase “Ho Chi Minh too turned to the United States for inspiration.” But she later also allows that perhaps, “He might have felt that his use of Jefferson's Declaration would impart some legitimacy to his struggle…”

A clearer answer of whether inspiration or cheap imitation was done rests in history.
Ho Chi Minh is generally recognized for murdering at least a half million of his own countrymen, imprisoning untold tens of thousands more in re-education camps while appropriating their property for the use of the state.

And that's not to mention – but surely never forget – the 58,209 Americans killed and 153,303 wounded in that war.

The real question then is, how did President Obama not know? Unbelievable!
And for the media's part in this – you think a Republican President would walk away from comparing a brutal mass murderer with a founding father of the last bastion of freedom on the planet? Haven't heard a word about this have you?

The U.S. media has been going absolutely bonkers over Pope Francis' comments in an interview on homosexuality.

When asked about gay priests in the Church, the Pope said

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

That's all they print. You don't see anything about how the homosexual priest must seek forgiveness and if forgiven, the sin is forgotten.

Anybody ask what sin the Holy Father is referring to? Of course, it is the sin of homosexual interaction. But they never print that little tidbit.

The Pope's comment on gays is not only part of the basic philosophy of the Church, it is also something Christians and conservatives frequently go out of their way to reaffirm when publicly debating issues like gay marriage.

It's no secret that the Church employs gay priests, who have always been welcome as long as the practice of sexual abstinence isn't violated. These are the same rules heterosexual priests live under.

It should be a matter of hours before Obama opens his yapper and inserts foot on this issue.

Hat-tip to John Nolte (Breitbart.com) and on Twitter @NolteNC

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 

 


MR. OBAMA, YOU STAND CORRECTED

Posted 7/26/13

•This was a notable summary comment on the Zimmerman trial's aftermath:
David Burge?@iowahawkblog3h

“If Zimmerman wanted Obama to leave him alone, he should have just killed a US ambassador.”

Sadly accurate.

•Did you catch Obama's speech last Friday on the Zimmerman verdict? He actually asked the question rhetorically,

“…if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?”

In essence, Obama was suggesting that if Travon was the shooter, he would be in jail.

Well, we saw that scenario a couple of years ago in Greece, NY (near Rochester), when Roderick Scott, a 42-year-old black man shot and killed 17-year-old Christopher Cervini, who was white.

Scott in April 2009, was asleep on the couch in his home. At 3:00A.M., he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car. Shoving his gun into his waistband, he went outside to see what was going on.

He caught Cervini in the driveway across the street. With Cervini were his cousin, James, and their friend Brian Hopkins. They were busily rifling through the neighbor's car when Roderick Scott confronted them. These teenagers were working their way through all the cars in the neighborhood in order to find things to steal.

Scott told police he looked outside the front door to see what was going on and identified three individuals walking out of his driveway. He intended to go out and stop the criminal act or detain them. He chambered a round in his weapon.

“I wanted to stop them before they could get away,” he admitted. “We live so far away, they would have been gone before police got there.” (Kind of sounds like what Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher.) When Scott told the three teenagers that he had called the police, Christopher Cervini broke from the group and ran at him, shouting either, “I'll get you” to Scott or “I'll get him” to his fellow thieves. Scott fired two shots in response.

Scott was charged with manslaughter and the trial got tons of LOCAL coverage in the media – but it never went national.

After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted Scott in the shooting.

Deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, much like the Zimmerman case.

So Mr. Obama, you stand corrected.

•An excellent column appeared on a blog by a couple of learned scientists called, The Resilient Earth. It is worth your time… http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/requiem-electric-vehicle Requiem for the Electric Vehicle (parentheticals are mine, and edited for needed brevity)

“This must be the season to bash electric automobiles. Even the staid IEEE (Electrical Engineering group) Spectrum featured an article questioning the ecological soundness of electric vehicles on its cover. But aren't electrics and hybrids supposed to be the way to a green future? Think again. Environmentalists' love affair with electric vehicles (EVs) seems to be over. 'If you are thinking of buying an electric car for the sake of the environment, you may want to think longer.,' says Bill Sweet of IEEE's EnergyWise.

'You're not doing the planet as much of a favor as you might think.'

How awkward, to decry the auto electric just as Obama is planning to shower more public monies on green industries, including those who make electric cars. How are Hollywood stars and entertainers supposed to prove their green cred while driving to the airport to board their private jets? This must not have been an easy position to take for a dedicated green, but then there are a number of other individuals and organizations who have come to question the greenness of electric vehicles.

The reasoning behind the EV's fall from grace is simple—though the vehicle emits no pollution on its own, the energy that its battery was charged with did. The most often heard assertion is that an EV charged with power from a coal plant is a worse net emitter than a regular petrol burning one. (That is, IF you worry about such things, as I do not.) But the fix for that is easy, build more clean energy plants, plants that run on natural gas or nuclear.

There are other strategic considerations as well. All of those large, expensive batteries and powerful electric motors require considerable amounts of substances called rare earths. Last year, a group of MIT researchers released a study in which they projected the increase need for two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium. They calculated that mining would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with EV manufacturing plans.

Complicating matters is the fact that China is the world's leading producer of rare earths. The Chinese government has recently made moves to restrict its exports.
Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars begins to look more and more like shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another…should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars?”

Let technology be your guide, not government.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


MAINSTREAM MEDIA WANTS TO FOMENT A RACE WAR

Posted 7/19/13

•This was a notable summary comment on the Zimmerman trial's aftermath:
David Burge?@iowahawkblog3h
“If Zimmerman wanted Obama to leave him alone, he should have just killed a US ambassador.”
Sadly accurate.

•Did you catch Obama's speech last Friday on the Zimmerman verdict? He actually asked the question rhetorically,
“…if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?”
In essence, Obama was suggesting that if Travon was the shooter, he would be in jail.
Well, we saw that scenario a couple of years ago in Greece, NY (near Rochester), when Roderick Scott, a 42-year-old black man shot and killed 17-year-old Christopher Cervini, who was white.
Scott in April 2009, was asleep on the couch in his home. At 3:00A.M., he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car. Shoving his gun into his waistband, he went outside to see what was going on.
He caught Cervini in the driveway across the street. With Cervini were his cousin, James, and their friend Brian Hopkins. They were busily rifling through the neighbor's car when Roderick Scott confronted them. These teenagers were working their way through all the cars in the neighborhood in order to find things to steal.
Scott told police he looked outside the front door to see what was going on and identified three individuals walking out of his driveway. He intended to go out and stop the criminal act or detain them. He chambered a round in his weapon.
“I wanted to stop them before they could get away,” he admitted. “We live so far away, they would have been gone before police got there.” (Kind of sounds like what Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher.) When Scott told the three teenagers that he had called the police, Christopher Cervini broke from the group and ran at him, shouting either, “I'll get you” to Scott or “I'll get him” to his fellow thieves. Scott fired two shots in response.
Scott was charged with manslaughter and the trial got tons of LOCAL coverage in the media – but it never went national.
After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted Scott in the shooting.
Deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, much like the Zimmerman case.
So Mr. Obama, you stand corrected.

•An excellent column appeared on a blog by a couple of learned scientists called, The Resilient Earth. It is worth your time… http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/requiem-electric-vehicle
Requiem for the Electric Vehicle (parentheticals are mine, and edited for needed brevity)
“This must be the season to bash electric automobiles. Even the staid IEEE (Electrical Engineering group) Spectrum featured an article questioning the ecological soundness of electric vehicles on its cover. But aren't electrics and hybrids supposed to be the way to a green future? Think again. Environmentalists' love affair with electric vehicles (EVs) seems to be over. 'If you are thinking of buying an electric car for the sake of the environment, you may want to think longer.,' says Bill Sweet of IEEE's EnergyWise. 'You're not doing the planet as much of a favor as you might think.'
How awkward, to decry the auto electric just as Obama is planning to shower more public monies on green industries, including those who make electric cars. How are Hollywood stars and entertainers supposed to prove their green cred while driving to the airport to board their private jets? This must not have been an easy position to take for a dedicated green, but then there are a number of other individuals and organizations who have come to question the greenness of electric vehicles.
The reasoning behind the EV's fall from grace is simple—though the vehicle emits no pollution on its own, the energy that its battery was charged with did. The most often heard assertion is that an EV charged with power from a coal plant is a worse net emitter than a regular petrol burning one. (That is, IF you worry about such things, as I do not.) But the fix for that is easy, build more clean energy plants, plants that run on natural gas or nuclear.
There are other strategic considerations as well. All of those large, expensive batteries and powerful electric motors require considerable amounts of substances called rare earths. Last year, a group of MIT researchers released a study in which they projected the increase need for two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium. They calculated that mining would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with EV manufacturing plans. Complicating matters is the fact that China is the world's leading producer of rare earths. The Chinese government has recently made moves to restrict its exports.
Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars begins to look more and more like shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another…should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars?”
Let technology be your guide, not government.

 


 

MAINSTREAM MEDIA WANTS TO FOMENT A RACE WAR

Posted 7/19/13

•Well, as you can probably predict, the George Zimmerman acquittal on second degree murder and manslaughter charges, is the biggest story of the past week, though only because of the way the mainstream media built the case into a catalyst for the race war they so dearly want to foment.

Several salient points were made in the aftermath of the court case, none of them by me, but all worthy of proper attribution.

Mark Levin noted that Trayvon Martin did not have the right to physically attack George Zimmerman as a response to Zimmerman following him. Those who wanted Zimmerman convicted will answer that Trayvon didn't deserve to lose his life for that act of assault, but none of the evidence presented in the case indicated that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin.

Ben Shapiro (Twitter handle: @benshapiro4m) of Breitbart.com noted the following on Twitter, “49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care.”

Mark O'Meara, Zimmerman's attorney noted something in his closing arguments that made perfect sense. He said that Trayvon Martin was armed with deadly weapons during the attack on George Zimmerman – the concrete sidewalk, as well as his fists.

•This is one that the media never mentioned. On July 1, Cobb County (Georgia) police arrested four gang members after they reportedly attacked a man walking along the parkway, eventually forcing him into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

The attack occurred on June 30, around 1 a.m., just as 36-year-old Joshua Chellew entered the parking lot of a Chevron gas station.

The victim was beaten mercilessly by the assailants, and in an attempt to escape, he began backing up onto the road, according to a police report.

That's when his attackers knocked him to the pavement, where he was almost immediately run over.

Chellew was transported to Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Is this not a hate crime? Where is Eric Holder? Where is Barack Obama saying if he had a white half-brother he would have looked like Chellew?

•O.K. moving along. I'm sure some of you saw that Los Angeles Lakers star Dwight Howard signed with the Houston Rockets, spurning the Lakers after two seasons. Well, at first everyone paying attention in California was ripping Howard for signing for less with Houston, however, it turns out he will wind up $2.1 million richer after accepting a $31 million lower contract offer from the Rockets.

His maximum contract with the Lakers would have been $119 million over five years, while the contract with Houston offers only $88 million over four years, according to estimates compiled by Americans for Tax Reform.

They attribute the difference in Howard's actual earnings to state income taxes. Texas has no state income tax, while California's rate is now 13.3% after last year's approval of Proposition 30.

“This analysis shows that athletes can and do take state tax burdens into consideration when they're deciding on free agency choices,” stated Ryan Ellis, the agency's tax policy director.

•Sopranos star James Gandolfini's death last month came as a huge shock to fans and no doubt among the actor's family.

The federal government is about to “pay” their respects.

The tax bill on his $70 million estate could total $30 million, and while that's bad news for his family, conservatives in Washington who have been trying to repeal the death tax for years are smelling opportunity to gain toward their goal.

As the law stands now, 40 percent of inheritance must be paid to the federal government, if the estate is worth more than $5 million. His family is going to have to start selling off assets to pay the tax load because he probably didn't keep $30 million in cash laying around.

Earlier this month, the “Death Tax Repeal Act of 2013? was introduced in both houses, spearheaded by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas. While the legislation is more heavily supported by Republicans, some Democrats–like Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.–have jumped on board. Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., noted that it was this issue that compelled her to run for Congress, after her father died in a farming accident, and her family was forced to take out a loan to hold on to their land.

•Texas police last week confirmed they confiscated numerous jars of paint, feces and urine that pro-abortion activists allegedly planned to throw at legislators during their special session last week where they passed a new series of restrictions on abortion.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) earlier received information that individuals planned to use a variety of items or props to disrupt legislative proceedings at the Texas Capitol.

Therefore for safety purposes, DPS recommended to the State Preservation Board that all bags be inspected prior to allowing individuals to enter the Senate gallery, which the State Preservation Board authorized.

During these inspections, DPS officers have thus far discovered one jar suspected to contain urine, 18 jars suspected to contain feces, and three bottles suspected to contain paint. All of these items – as well as significant quantities of feminine hygiene products, glitter and confetti possessed by individuals – were required to be discarded; otherwise those individuals were denied entry into the gallery.

Not that those downright gross measures would have been effective, and they weren't because the bill passed both houses of Texas' Congress, but it shows with crystal clarity the mindset of the left and those that want full-term babies treated in the same way that Kermit Gosnell practiced.

(Contact Brian Kubicki by email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


CARBON DIOXIDE OFTEN GETS A BAD RAP

Posted 7/12/13

I particularly enjoyed the following piece, which appeared in The Wall Street Journal, written by Harrison Schmitt an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin and former Apollo 17 astronaut, and William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy. This is so good, I am printing it verbatim.

“Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a “pollutant” in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.

At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.

Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.

That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.

The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.

So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.

Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.

Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.

We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”

It's not just me saying this!

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 

 


WHO CHECKS THE POWER OF THE COURTS?

Posted 7/5/13

•The gay marriage issue was atop the media-created world last week when a narrow 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court stepped in to nullify the wishes of a voter mandate in California by deferring to the lower federal district court on Proposition 8 which defined marriage as occurring between only one man and one woman.

The decisions were inconsistent logically. The court ruled that they had no say in the California case and let the lower court decision to strike down Proposition 8 stand, but the lower court was a federal court. If the federal government had no say, shouldn't the Supreme Court have vacated the lower federal court's ruling and stood for the results of the vote among Californians?

Who checks the power of the courts in our system of checks and balances?

•Did you catch what has happened in Texas recently? State Senator Wendy Davis held an 11-hour filibuster of an abortion bill that is sure to pass into law.

Davis, 50, reportedly wore a catheter to ensure that she wouldn't need to go to the restroom during her marathon blab session. Her efforts were aided by an angry shouting mob that allowed the Democrats to temporarily defeat the abortion bill SB5, on the last day of the legislative special session June 25, 2013 in Austin, Texas.

As for the catheter, rules don't allow those who are filibustering to eat or drink on the floor and Davis faced even stricter rules, as she reportedly wasn't allowed to have hard candy or ice chips.

So, thanks to the catheter, Davis was able to be sustained throughout the escapade. Late Friday, Gov. Rick Perry announced that he was calling another special session of the Texas legislature for Monday July 1 when they would take up the abortion bill again.

•John Nolte at Breitbart.com listed 5 pertinent things that the national media ignored pertaining to the Texas Abortion Control bill:

1. The Texas Bill will Make Abortion Safer - The new rules would have increased abortion facility safety standards to the level of ambulatory surgical centers to shut down Gosnell-like abortion providers in Texas. They will require the 18,000 RU-486 abortions performed each year be done according to FDA safety standards. The bill also requires physicians who perform abortions to be qualified to treat life-threatening complications after botched abortions and have privileges at a local hospital.

2. The American People Back the Ban - Davis obstructed the will of the American people who, by 48% to 44%, favor what's in the Texas bill: a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. A full 80% want abortion banned after the second trimester.

3. A Majority of American Women Back the Ban - Davis also obstructed the will of American women, who support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks at a higher percentage than men, 50% to 44%.

4. A Huge Majority of Texans Back the Ban - Davis obstructed the will of Texans; almost two-thirds (62%) of which favor this ban on abortion after 20 weeks.

5. Late-term Abortion Ban Is More Popular with Women than ObamaCare, which probably isn't saying much given the horrid state of popularity of ObamaCare.

•A recent study in Singapore indicates that scientists may be able to predict climate change with more accuracy after discovering plants consume carbon dioxide 25 percent faster than previously thought.

Lisa Welp-Smith of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California, and her team came up with a new method for measuring how much CO2 is absorbed and released by plants. The team used oxygen isotope markers in CO2 and more than 30 years of data from a global network that measure changes in greenhouse gases, pollution and other factors.

Plants are a major player of the global carbon cycle in which carbon is continuously recycled and reused by plants and animals, the oceans, and land. Carbon burning virtually anything and burning forests adds to the CO2 in the air.
The research team learned that plants absorb an estimated 16 to 19 times mankind's total CO2 emissions, proving that man is indeed a minor player in the entire climate cycle.

•From a great blog entitled, “Minnesotans for .Global Warming” we have this…
Dozens of birdwatchers who traveled to the Scottish Isles of Harris to see an extremely rare bird, a “swift” were left shocked after it was killed by a wind turbine.

Around 40 people were watching the White-throated Needletail, the world's fastest flying bird (but apparently not fast enough for sustainable energy) on the Isles of Harris when the tragedy happened.

Sightings of the bird have only been recorded eight times in the UK in nearly 170 years, most recently in 1991, prompting around 80 ornithologists to visit the island in the hope of catching a glimpse.

David Campbell, from Surrey, told BBC Scotland the incident took place late on Wednesday afternoon. Speaking as he made his way home, he said: “We just watched the whole thing with dismay.”

Josh Jones, of Bird Guides, a specialist website for ornithologists, said he had spoken to witnesses, who had seen the bird fly straight into one the turbine's blades.

He said: “It is ironic that after waiting so long for this bird to turn up in the UK it was killed by a wind turbine and not a natural predator.

“More than 80 people had already arrived on the island and others were coming from all over the country. But it just flew into the turbine. It was killed instantly. The corpse will be sent to a museum but obviously this is just terrible.”

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


THE IMMIGRATION FIASCO

Posted 6/27/13

The U.S. Senate on Monday voted to advance the nightmare known as the Gang of 8's Immigration “Reform” Bill past the filibuster by opponents and toward a final vote to approve the bill. Nobody has read the bill and the only reason they rushed it through was because the Democrats behind this bill feared the opportunity for you and I to reach our Senators over the Fourth of July holiday and turn them away from granting amnesty. Our Senators in Kansas and the Republican in Missouri voted no, so good for them. As for the Republicans that voted in favor of the bill, take note – we're aware when your next election is.

Passage is not guaranteed – call your U.S. senator. Tell them to kill this bill!
Some of the nastier parts of this bill:

-Janet Napolitano, Obama's DHS Czar, can arbitrarily choose to refuse to implement any part of the border security measures called for in the bill.

-Illegal immigrants that have overstayed their visas are allowed to stay in the country and on a path to citizenship.

-Americans are forced to pay for the legal defense of illegal immigrants.

-Rules for seeking asylum are severely weakened. Sec. 3401 removes the one-year deadline for applying for asylum. The Boston bombers' family sought asylum when they first came to America as did a Pakistani asylum seeker, Ramzi Yousef in 1993, who bombed the World Trade Center.

But this one might be the worst of all: Sec. 2106 of the immigration bill outsources the job of guiding aliens through amnesty from the Department of Homeland Security to community organizations. These organizations get federal grants to screen aliens for eligibility, assist them in documenting their residence, tax status, employment, and tax history, coordinate applications for family members, and apply for waivers where needed. Outsourcing these functions allows them to be politicized by - you guessed it - the Democrats.

•Also, in a recent television ad, Sen. Marco Rubio said immigrants with provisional status will “have to be able to support themselves so they will never become a public charge.” But the bill actually waives that requirement for anyone who is attending high school, getting a high school equivalency degree, attending college, in job training, taking care of a child, over 60, or unemployed through no fault of their own. That covers everybody!

•Rubio has effectively killed his chance at winning the nomination for President in 2016. You cannot stab your base in the back and expect to win. (See John McCain in 2008. Goodness, aren't we sick and tired of seeing this loser on TV every day and night? C'mon Arizona, get John McCain out of office.)

•Kudos to Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York for jumping into this bill and finding these details on very short notice. You can read more at: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/19/senate-immigration-bill-full-of-bad-so-far-ignored-provisions/#ixzz2WzHpdvmH

•Here's another amendment that a Democrat is trying to get into the bill: Sen. Brian Schatz's (D-HI) filed an amendment Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change. Yes, you read that right, climate change displacement.

Noting that climate change is not some “abstract challenge,” but is already displacing people across the world, Schatz explained:

“The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as stateless persons…this amendment…simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world, and like with states torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states desolate.”

Last year alone, more than 32 million people fled their homes around the world because of climate-related disasters. Africa and Asia saw the worst impacts, and the highest number of people displaced last year.

I feel like Charlton Heston (Taylor) in the old Planet of the Apes movie, “I'm in a madhouse…A MADHOUSE!!!”

Though this last item isn't about immigration, it deserves at least a brief mention simply because it illustrates the idiocy of Democrats in crystal clarity.

The Weekly Standard's John McCormack tripped up Dem. Rep. Nancy Pelosi on Thursday with a question regarding condemned murderer Kermit Gosnell and her disapproval of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill that would prohibit abortions during the final four months of pregnancy, which was passed last week by the House.

McCormack asked Pelosi how she reconciles her professed disgust for Gosnell with her condemnation of a bill that would prohibit abortionists from terminating the life of a child moments before birth.

We learned from Gosnell that what is going on inside abortion clinics is basic human rights abuse, for women and babies. The only difference between the Gosnell “after-birth” abortions and legal late-term abortions is the location of the baby at the time of death.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


EXPLAINING THE '97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS'

Posted 6/21/13

•How do we know there's a scientific consensus on climate change? “Warmist” pundits and the ABC/NBC/CBS-driven media like to tell us so. And how do they know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 - that's the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Those 2500, “they” believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

The truth is, most of the media were mistaken - those 2500 scientists hadn't endorsed the IPCC's conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC's mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC's conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

Now that they can no longer lay claim to the 2500 in IPCC, the Warmist Cabal looked for and recently found an alternative number to tout - “97% of the world's climate scientists” accept the consensus, as recently put forth by Pres. Obama himself in recent speeches. So where did this 97% number come from?

If you read up on it a little bit you will learn that they originally contacted 10,257 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded, less than a 31% response rate. Of that 3,146, only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors then reduced that by half by only counting those who they classed as “specialists.”

The following was their justification for that exclusion:

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
So they sent out 10,257 surveys; got 3,146 back and tossed out all but 79 from people whose very livelihood depends on there being a human-caused global warming problem to study – THAT'S SCIENCE?!?!

Truth is they excluded from the survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth. They eliminated from consideration the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers that answered the survey.

To encourage high participation among these remaining narrowly-focused disciplines, they decided on a brief two-minute survey that would be completed online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. These are the questions in the survey:

“1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

The questions were actually quite deceptive. (Isn't that always the case in politically-driven polling?) I doubt there are any scientists that claim that the planet hasn't warmed since the 1700s, we have been warming out of the Little Ice Age for centuries now.

Also, even I will admit that humans have contributed in some way to the recent warming. But the evidence I (and many) have reviewed is that human contributions are minimal compared to those of nature – especially when considering carbon dioxide. I have yet to find a scientist who will bet their life – or even a significant amount of money – that man is the major cause of global climate warming.

I realize if you don't swim around among these numbers every day it can all get very confusing. But just remember when you hear someone try to tell you that “97% of climate scientists agree” that man is causing global warming, ask them if they are aware that the 97% figure is based upon the responses of only 79 out of more than 10,000 scientists?

They won't know that – I guarantee it.

•Did you hear about this?

A company in northern Idaho has come up with a culturally sensitive approach to dispatching our enemies in the War on Terror. Jihawg Ammo has developed a proprietary system for infusing ballistic paint with pork. The special pork-infused paint is then applied to the bullets of loaded ammunition. The inclusion of pork in the paint makes the bullets haraam, or unclean. Under Islamic law, anyone who comes in contact with any haraam item is then unclean and must engage in a cleansing ritual. No unclean person can be admitted into Paradise, and thus cannot lay claim to their 72 virgins.
I can get behind a company like that!

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email him at bkubick@kc.rr.com)

 

 


OBAMA FAILS TO COMMEORATE D-DAY INVASION

Posted 6/14/13

•Did you notice something odd last week when we commemorated the 69th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion and the American President failed to say anything about it?

One of the finest young conservative bloggers out there, Katie Pavlich, noted this last week on Twitter. There was no released statement on WhiteHouse.gov and nothing on the White House or Barack Obama Twitter feeds about the anniversary. President Obama did not make any public remarks about the anniversary, either.

However, Obama did take time to release a statement about Rep. John Dingell becoming the longest serving member of Congress in U.S. history.

"I want to congratulate Congressman John Dingell on becoming the longest-serving member of Congress in our country's history. First elected in 1955 to the seat formerly held by his father, John Dingell Sr., John has always worked tirelessly for people of his beloved Michigan and for working families across America. He has helped pass some of the most important laws of the last half-century, from Medicare to the Civil Rights Act to the Clean Air Act to the Affordable Care Act, and he continues to fight for workers' rights, access to affordable healthcare, and the preservation of our environment for future generations to enjoy. Michelle and I send our warmest wishes to John and his family, and I look forward to congratulating him in person at the White House next week."

Obama has failed to commemorate D-Day since 2010.

•In the SMH Section of our review of the week, (for the uninitiated, SMH is Twitter slang for “shake-my-head” as in, “this is so idiotic I am shaking my head in disbelief!) the U.S. Army's "Net Zero" energy initiative is to have an installation produce as much energy as it consumes. That results in a net usage of zero energy for the installation. The Net Zero program also focuses on water and waste, with similar goals.

Seventeen installations are now taking part in pilot programs as part of the Army's Net Zero initiative. The installations participating in the Net Zero pilot programs are diverse, including huge installations such as Fort Hood and Fort Bliss -- both in Texas -- as well as much smaller installations like Fort Buchanan, in Puerto Rico. One unique participating installation highlighted was Kwajalein Atoll, in the Marshall Islands. That remote installation gets all its energy from diesel-powered generators.

Justifiers for this nonsense program used the example of how a remote base that guards a mountain pass in Afghanistan worked with a Net Zero team and reduced the need for aerial resupply missions from one every three days to one every 10 days.

Soldiers had to leave their secure location to receive those airdropped supplies. That put them in danger and took them away from the mission.

"By having one aerial resupply every 10 days, those Soldiers can focus on the mission, versus on the resources required to support the mission," she said.

So depriving our troops of needed supplies makes them more sustainable!?!

This nonsense just chaps my hide! The purpose of the U.S. Army is to kill people and break things. In order to execute that primary function, our troops need to be well-fed, well-equipped, and focusing on the task at hand and not whether they properly disposed of their trash in the correct receptacle!

•From Eric Roston of Bloomberg.com, a key question was posed to Mark Tersek, president of the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and a former Goldman Sachs investment banker who has embraced "natural capital." That's kind of like a group that wants to oppose radical environmentalism without outright denouncing it as the nonsense it is. It's the concept in environmental economics that natural systems, such as storm-blocking coastal wetlands or water collection, are critical but largely unaccounted for in the industrial economic sector.

Tersek was asked, “Why do you think Americans don't like environmentalists?”
Tercek's answer: “I don't think people like to be told what to do or to be criticized. I know I don't like it. And environmentalists, we kind of preach. Our choir likes it, or they agree with us. And it's not like we're wrong. We're probably often right. But that preachy tone...I came from Cleveland, Ohio. Most people in Cleveland, Ohio, don't like environmentalists. Why? Because it does look like we're troublemakers, or against stuff. We're not realistic. We're insensitive to the need for economic growth and jobs. We lecture. We criticize. Those are not qualities that people like. It's not that obvious that we're helping anyone.”

I cannot say that I disagree with any of that.

(Follow Twitter.com/bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


AMBULANCE ENGINE SHUTS DOWN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS

Posted 6/7/13

•Back to enviro-nonsense. I realize that this subject has been kind of a one-note-song for me, but this one is important:

In Washington, D.C., the fire department is trying to determine why one of its newer diesel ambulances broke down just as crews were transporting a patient in cardiac arrest.

It happened on I-295 Wednesday afternoon last week as Ambulance 19 was taking a shooting victim to the hospital. The ambulance suddenly shut down and had to be parked on the side of the road for the several minutes it took for a second ambulance to arrive and take the patient on to the hospital.

The driver of the disabled ambulance told investigators the indicator lights on the emission control system suddenly and unexpectedly jumped from a warning to shut down in a matter of seconds, and as the engine died, she was able to pull the rig to the side of the road.

The question now is why? And can these newer rigs be trusted to be there in an emergency?

When the D.C. fire department began buying these diesel engine ambulances a few years ago, officials knew they would have to manage them with a new emission control system that would automatically shut the engine down if it wasn't allowed to what's called "regenerate.”

This regeneration process was a mandate from the Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently, when diesel engine exhaust (A.K.A. soot) reaches a certain threshold of particulate concentration, a regeneration process is engaged that processes the soot by “burning it off.” When the soot content collects to a certain threshold and cannot be “burned off” fast enough, an ignition override occurs and the engine is shut down to stop it from producing more soot.

You have to be kidding me! The ambulance engines aren't shut down to save the engine or to avoid a fire hazard. The engines transporting an emergency patient to a hospital shut down to address an unconfirmed environmental hazard that likely is not a threat to anybody outside of the gurney inside the ambulance.

That, my friends, is environmentalism run amok.

•From the U.K. Telegraph, current Member of Parliament (MP), and former firm believer in the dire predictions of human-driven climate change, Timothy Yeo has finally admitted that humans may not be to blame for climate change.

Here's what Yeo said in 2009:

"The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years' time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”

And here, less than five years on, is what he is saying now:

“Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”

The telegraph articles' author predicts that we're going to see a lot of this hand-wringing in the coming months, especially in the form of the non-apologetic retractions from all the former chicken-little's in public research groups who are now trying to run from the collapsing edifice of the great AGW scam (picture the falling walls of the 1867 church in Platte City we watched on Monday) while trying to salvage any shred of professional dignity.

•Incidentally, if you are interested in seeing how so-called Warmists react when their beliefs are subjected to a fact-assault, follow me on Twitter (@bkParallax) and go back to last weekend. You will come across a fairly voluminous exchange whereby you will learn (through articles that my opponents themselves posted) that humans actually contribute comparatively very little carbon dioxide to the atmosphere compared to natural sources. (Yes, all their research articles point that out.) The <3ppm human contribution on the 400ppm total is verified.

They go on to claim that the miniscule human contribution of carbon dioxide is relevant because without human's contribution, the atmosphere and environment is “in balance.” They claim that the tiny human contribution tips the scales to cause global warming.

Yes, you heard it here first a long time ago right here…The Tipping Point Argument. I use the analogy of the straw that broke the camel's back because we've all heard that one. Well, the person that placed that final straw that broke the poor camel down is not at fault for the breaking of the camel's back. As a matter of fact, the last straw is no more or to blame than the guy that put the first straw there.

I prefer to take the tack that coal and oil are fossil fuels that are made by plant matter being squashed beneath miles and miles of rock beneath the layers of the Earth's crust. The higher the temperatures warm, the more plant growth that occurs, and the more fossil fuels for my descendants.

Also, if you want to stay with the Twitter argument, you will see once again how liberals devolve into spitting profanity when they run out of facts.

•Have we had enough of the IRS yet? Charles Ramsey, the guy that stepped away from his Big Mac to free the young ladies held captive for a decade in Ohio, became an instant internet celebrity. In the days that followed, there were calls to recognize Ramsey in some way. McDonald's heard suggestions for free burgers and offered a deal to Ramsey for free merchandise. McDonald's indicated that the local owner-operators of the McDonald's restaurants in Ramsey's neighborhood have offered him free McDonald's food for the next year. They also made a $10,000 donation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the names of the young women.
So apparently some are now asking if Ramsay will be on the hook for taxes on all the free hamburgers. Really?

I'm ready to dismantle the IRS now. Who's with me?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


BOXER RINGS THE BELL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Posted 5/31/13

•By the way, amid all the hullabaloo being blathered by the Libs about the atmosphere supposedly exceeding 400ppm in carbon dioxide a couple of weeks ago, I neglected to point out that the United States only contributes less than 3ppm out of that 400ppm.

You want to know how I verified that fact - I went to the U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA. At epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html we learn that our carbon dioxide emissions have actually fallen to about 5.50 billion metric tons. Now, remember that 1ppm equals 2.13 billion metric tons, so divide 5.50 by 2.13 and you get 2.6ppm.

The key part of all this is this information is available from these government agencies themselves, but they ignore this very important evidence in favor of a political ideology that supports the narrative of the political left.

•Did you know that homosexual men in the United States still cannot donate blood?
Canada is currently lifting a lifetime ban that prevented homosexual men from donating blood, though some restrictions will still be enforced. Canadian Blood Services, which manages the country's blood supply, announced Wednesday that the policy banning homosexual men from ever donating blood will end by summer 2013. The organization released a statement saying Health Canada, the national public health department, gave approval for the lifetime ban to be lifted and replaced with a five-year deferral period.

The deferral period means homosexual men can donate blood provided they haven't had sex with another man within the last five years.

Now how in the heck are they going to validate that statistic?

Multiple countries already permit homosexual men to donate blood, and some even have a shorter deferral period than Canada. In Britain and Australia the deferral period is one year, while in South Africa it is six months.

In the U.S., however, gay men remain prohibited universally from donating blood.
As of 1983, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has barred any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from donating blood. The FDA considers 1977 the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the U.S., and this donation policy was enacted during a time when doctors were still unsure how AIDS spread. At that time, there were no legitimate tests to check for HIV in the blood, and infected blood was finding its way into the nation's supply.

So, think about how the issue of same-gender marriage might impact this…if two men were allowed to marry, wouldn't there be a public health threat in existence if the government “blessed” the union, thus giving tacit approval to the union and sexual activity therein? To donate blood, they would have to renounce sexual activity within their marital union, wouldn't they?

•Sen. Barbara Boxer took to the Senate floor and invoked the Oklahoma tornadoes in her speech on global warming.

“This is climate change,” she said. “This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather. Not just hot weather. But extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago…the scientists all agreed that what we'd start to see was extreme weather. And people looked at one another and said 'what do you mean? It's gonna get hot?' Yeah, it's gonna get hot. But you're also going to see snow in the summer in some places. You're gonna have terrible storms. You're going to have tornadoes and all the rest. We need to protect our people. That's our number one obligation and we have to deal with this threat that is upon us and that is gonna get worse and worse though the years.”

She also plugged her own bill, cosponsored with Sen. Bernie Sanders that would put a tax on carbon. “Carbon could cost us the planet,” she said. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”

The depth of stupidity in politics at these high levels is utterly staggering.

•On the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, President Obama was asked during a press conference a few days ago to "assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the IRS' actions before the Counsel's Office found out on April 22nd. The President responded by saying:

"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press."

What did that answer have to do with the question?

The New York Times reported the Obama administration was aware of the fact that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups as far back as June of 2012. The Treasury Department's Inspector General confirmed that he told senior Treasury officials in June of 2012, a full five months before Election Day.

The Treasury Department's inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service's screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

And don't believe for a minute that President Obama didn't know that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


 

USING SCIENCE TO CONTROL PEOPLE

Posted 5/24/13

•First, my thoughts and prayers go out to those devastated by the tornadoes in Oklahoma.

Pres. Obama said the following at a commencement address last week:

“…And there's still a lot more work to be done to make our economy more energy-efficient, to make sure that we're dealing with serious issues like climate change…I want to make sure that 30 years from now, 40 years from now, when (my children) they're with their kids and their grandkids, that they've got a planet that isn't in chaos because of decisions that we made or decisions that we failed to make. We've got a lot more work to do there.”

O.K.

Let's recall the words from a much better mind, that of Prof. Walter Williams, taken from a 2008 column:

Some environmentalist predictions that Liberals would prefer we forget:

In 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report warned the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."

That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

And, it's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong. Doomsday predictors have always been wrong.

In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.

In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

In 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

The moral – liberals like to use science to control people. They have been doing it as long as they have been in political power and they will continue to try as long as we allow them to.

•Did you know the ozone hole above the Antarctic has reached its maximum extent for the year?

Spanning about 9.7 million square miles the ozone hole over the South Pole reached its maximum annual size on Sept. 14, 2011. The largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded occurred in 2006, at a size of 10.6 million square miles.

The Antarctic ozone hole was first discovered in the late 1970s by the first satellite mission that could measure ozone, a spacecraft called POES and run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The hole has continued to grow steadily during the 1980's and 90s, though since early 2000 the growth leveled off. Scientists have seen large variability in its size from year to year since measurements began in 1970.

On the Earth's surface, ozone is a pollutant, but up high it forms a protective layer that reflects ultraviolet radiation back out into space, protecting us from the damaging UV rays. Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside.

There is a lot of year to year variability, in 2007; the ozone hole shrunk 30% from the record setting 2006 winter. Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total amount of ozone disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole. In spring, temperatures begin to rise, ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover. Sulfate aerosols from volcanism and the recent high latitude volcanoes in Alaska, Iceland and Chile may have contributed to the warming.

The data shows much variability and no real trends after the Montreal Protocol banned CFC's (refrigerants that make our air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers cool things down). Computer models predicted a partial recovery by now. Now, scientists say the recovery will take decades - may be just another failed alarmist prediction.
Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). The “hole” is very likely to have been there forever, varying year-to-year and decade-to-decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength.

We have never measured ozone without there being a “hole” of some size…NEVER.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


SCANDALS ARE MULTIPLYING FOR OBAMA

Posted 5/17/13

•Wow, what a day this has been! Gosnell guilty, Benghazi is tightening, IRS is targeting Obama's political opponents, and now we learn that the Obama Justice Department has been tapping phone records for a number of AP reporters – and they have been doing so for quite some time! What shoe drops next?

The Obama White House has now been hit with its third major scandal in just about as many days. Last week it was discovered that the Obama Administration was much more involved than they initially admitted with the editing of the CIA/Benghazi talking points. We also learned that the IRS was targeting conservative groups and the problem was apparently not limited to some low level staffer in the Cincinnati office, but was also known about in Washington.

On the latest wiretapping scandal, Monday afternoon it was reported that the Obama Justice Department obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press. Eric Holder's department obtained information on 20 different telephone lines assigned to AP reporters that:

…listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.
Apparently spying on their opponents via their IRS records is not enough for this administration, they also go after their allies.

•By the way, if you've heard some environuts squealing this past week about carbon dioxide (CO2) levels passing some kind of watermark (ironic word usage, I know), pay it no heed.

Daily measurements of CO2 at the authoritative "Keeling lab" on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time. The measurements are made at a station on the Mauna Loa volcano.

Yes, you heard that right – they are measuring CO2 on top of a volcano! That's kind of like measuring methane levels while standing on a landfill.

The last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was about 3-5 million years ago - before modern humans existed, which of course, begs the question, how did CO2 levels get to 400ppm back then when there were no humans doing any kind of organized industrial activity? Apparently, the earth can do that all by itself without man's contribution.

Now last week, the House of Representatives' Oversight Committee hearings about the September 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya concluded. Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the September 11, 2012 attack.

Pres. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the hearings, led by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), were nothing more than a partisan attempt to smear the current administration.

Agree or disagree with that contention, Reason Magazine's Nick Gillespie summarized Benghazi very well:

1. We still don't know what really happened.

The Benghazi attack marked the first time in “more than three decades” that a U.S ambassador was killed in the field. Yet after these hearings and the State Department's own “accountability review,” we still don't know why the consulate was so poorly protected and why the military didn't or couldn't respond in a timely fashion. Pleading incompetence or “the fog of war” isn't an answer.

2. U.S. officials keep attacking free speech as the cause of the attack.

Even after it became clear that the YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims” had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton invoked it as the cause of the attack at a memorial service for the slain Americans. And President Obama told the United Nations that everyone should condemn “those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

3. We still don't have a foreign policy in the Middle East - or anywhere else.
How does the murder of an ambassador to a country we helped liberate reflect on the way in which we got involved in Libya: President Obama dispatched forces without consulting Congress? As U.S. involvement in Syria and elsewhere heats up, the absolute lack of a coherent – much less constitutional - foreign policy will only lead to more tragedies both in the Middle East and throughout the world.

Remember what I told you about Benghazi after Obama won re-election?

•And now, 56 days after the grisly trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell began, ABC decided to suddenly cover the story. World News anchor Diane Sawyer this afternoon told viewers that Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first degree murder against newborn babies, and on hundreds of other charges.

As Brent Bozell's Media Research Center has well documented, ABC went from March 18, 2013 (the trial's start) through Monday afternoon with absolutely no coverage of the trial. During the same time, they devoted a 187 minutes (70 segments) to other shocking criminal cases, such as Jodi Arias and Amanda Knox.

•So, now that Gosnell has been convicted, I need someone to explain something to me…as I understand this case, standing back a bit to see everything more clearly, Dr. Kermit Gosnell is facing the death penalty for murdering three babies, which was a crime that occurred during a medical procedure he was being paid to perform on the subject mothers. The medical procedure was an abortion whose goal is to kill the involved baby.

We're potentially going to kill him for killing babies that he was paid to kill. Is that how it works?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


KANSAS, OTHERS, KEEPING PRESSURE ON AGAINST GUN CONTROL

Posted 5/10/13

•If you haven't noticed, the State of Kansas has been making some national news lately regarding a recent law they passed that declares the federal government has no power to regulate guns manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas. The legislation signed Tuesday by Gov. Sam Brownback also applies to ammunition made, sold and kept in the state. The new law makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty regulating such items.

The text of the law states, “Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Gov. Brownback threatening a lawsuit to stop enforcement of the law. In that letter, AG Holder claimed that the Kansas law was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and was thus unconstitutional. Fortunately, the Attorney General is not the final authority on constitutionality.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who assisted in drafting the Kansas law, told the US Attorney General to “bring it!” referring to legal action. Kobach's take is that the federal government cannot enforce laws that are unconstitutional, so the Supremacy Clause would not apply and Kansas law would stand.

Hard to figure where this all will go, but it appears that such laws enacted at the state level will keep attention on Congress and what, if any, gun control measures are attempted in the future. With the last one failing miserably (I was pleased to see!) another gun control measure being successful in Congress is not likely.
But Kobach is correct, let's get these other states on-board enacting similar laws.

•You always hear the media say our carbon dioxide emissions are increasing. You ever wonder how they actually measure it? You know that they can measure the percentage of the atmosphere which is carbon dioxide, and that's always been a pretty small number overall (38 thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide).
Gregg Marland at the Environmental Sciences division of Oakridge National Laboratory noted in a recent interview that they don't actually directly measure it. What they try to do is measure how much fuel is burned and if you know in advance how much carbon is in the fuel, you can calculate how much CO2 must be produced. Some large power plants actually place measurement devices in the smoke stack and measure the amount of CO2 that comes out, but that's unusual. Of course, such a method has quite an error potential. The error margin depends on the country and on the greenhouse gas. It really depends on how much a country invests in collecting energy statistics. For countries like those in Europe or the US or Japan, the error margin is something in the order of plus or minus 5%. For those discharging smaller quantities of CO2, the error bars can be as high as 20 to 25%.

Also, they do nothing to measure or quantify the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by other sources not related to man. For example, volcanoes put out tons of carbon dioxide, and nobody knows exactly how much because nobody makes a flow hood that large! We don't even know how many active volcanoes there actually are all over the Earth. The latest estimates place the number somewhere between 1500 and 3000 – and that's the active ones! Imagine the number if we included a count of the dormant ones too! Also, carbon dioxide emanates from every square foot of earth, as plants and animals decay. Geysers, fissures in the earth, and all living animals exhale carbon dioxide.

The point is, none of those sources are included when they talk about carbon dioxide levels because all they are going is measuring the amount of fuel we are putting into our machines.

Kind of places things in perspective doesn't it.

So, further to my theory that controlling carbon dioxide is really nothing more than another cockamamie scheme to attack capitalism and push global socialism, consider that the fuel we burn is how we work, play, do commerce of all kinds. It is how we operate our computers. It is how we drive to and from work.It is how we operate machinery. If we heed warnings to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we put out, we're really reducing the amount of work we do. The work we do is capitalism. Reducing capitalism reduces human productivity – reduces profit. And guess who is going to be standing there ready to step-in to fill the gap? Government.
Keep growing those carbon footprints folks!

•And how 'bout them Royals! It is fun watching baseball again in KC, isn't it!

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


THE POLITICALLY CORRECT POLICE ARE NOT CONSISTENT

Posted 5/3/13

Barack Obama is Kermit Gosnell. Or perhaps more apropos, if Barack Obama had a mentor he relied on to help formulate his positions on the subject of abortion; like he had a mentor for his politics in the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, that person would look like Kermit Gosnell.

You think that's too harsh?

Then please, by all means, ask Obama to separate himself from Gosnell.
When asked about the trial last week and the on-going national discussion on late term abortion, Obama punted with the excuse that he couldn't comment on an on-going legal matter.

Strange that such limitations haven't stopped him before.

In the Travon Martin case, where a young man was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer in an apparent case of either mistaken identity or self-defense, he was very eloquent in pre-judging George Zimmerman guilty of murder in a verbal statement, going as far as to say, “If I had a son, he would look like Travon Martin.”

Another example - Obama showed no such restraint in commenting after the arrest of Prof. Henry Gates by a Cambridge policeman for trespassing, which WAS a case of mistaken identity that Gates himself should have been grateful for given that it showed police were attentive to illegal activities near his home. If you will recall, President Obama commented soon after the arrest that the policeman, “acted stupidly.”

Unless Obama specifically condemns Gosnell's activities, specifically his late-term abortions, we have no choice but to come to the conclusion that Obama believes, like Gosnell does - babies can be delivered alive then killed in whatever method is convenient to the abortionist.

Then, in a true act of bravado, Obama slunk in to an address in D.C. to abortion provider Planned Parenthood on the day that the Gosnell trial in Philadephia was seeing Gosnell's defense rest, and failed to mention the trial in any way. He didn't even say the word, “abortion,” as though the 330,000 abortions performed last year by Planned Parenthood were just a sidelight activity, nothing important enough to consider.

Stephen Hayes with The Weekly Standard summed that particular deliberate omission quite well:

“The fact that the President would go and address Planned Parenthood in the context of this national discussion about the Gosnell trial and fail to mention it is a profound act of moral cowardice.”

I couldn't have expressed more accurate thoughts on truth serum.

•And to add injury to insult, we have this…

According to a new report by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), President Obama has spent more than twice as many hours on vacation and golf (976 hours) as he has in economic meetings of any kind (474.4 hours).

The report, “Presidential Calendar: A Time-Based Analysis,” used Politico's (that's a website sympathetic to Democrats and President Obama) comprehensive presidential calendar, and media reports to calculate its results.

Comforting that the President feels our pain, isn't it?

•And on the Global Warming nonsense front….Steam engineer and amateur scientist Guy Stewart Callendar, who first theorized a link between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions 75 years ago, actually believed global warming would be a good thing for mankind.

“Callendar, who died in 1964, aged 66, thought global warming was actually beneficial because it would stop 'deadly glaciers' from returning and could boost the growth of crops at high latitude.”

To that claim, Reuters reported recently that Greenland residents are able to grow crops they previously couldn't because of longer, warmer summers. Thawing ice sheets have also spurred increased mining and oil exploration.

Global warming could also allow more shipping through once impassable areas of the Arctic. Fortune magazine reported recently that geographers are predicting sea ice melt will open up new Arctic shipping routes by the mid-century which would “shave off costly travel time in the late summer and reduce Russia's control over trans-Arctic shipping.”

•The P.C. police are out in-force this week after a journeyman NBA player on the verge of retirement declared that he preferred to express his sexuality in a homosexual manner (What that has to do with basketball or the NBA I'll NEVER know!). The PC Cops came after ESPN Analyst Chris Broussard who declared in response to the NBA player's statement that he believed homosexual sexual expression is a sin. Broussard may get fired by the time you read this; ESPN never has showed much courage.

Very telling about the real intentions and goals of the liberal PC media when they jump to declare that a professional athlete with an alternative lifestyle is to be honored for his “heroism” but an opposing opinion delivered respectfully is derided with calls for the firing of the analyst. That's not very consistent guys.

(You can get consistency from Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


SOME INFO ON A TRIAL THE MEDIA HAS IGNORED

Posted 4/26/13

If you are typically a purveyor of the Mainstream Media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) you are not likely familiar with the name Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

The reason for that has been under considerable speculation over the past few weeks in the non-traditional media, namely Fox News, Twitter, Twitchy, and several conservative and Pro-Life blogs. Fox News contributor and Democrat Kirsten Powers swam upstream against the tide of liberal bias to decry, in a USA Today column, why the New York Times and the big networks weren't covering the trial of likely the most prolific mass murderer in history.

Who is Dr. Kermit Gosnell?

He's an abortionist that has been operating out of a clinic in a poor section of Philadelphia for more than 40 years. He has come to particularly be known as one of the few doctors, like George Tiller was in Wichita, Kansas, who would perform late term abortions, also known as abortions on viable fetuses, or infanticide.
Gosnell was arrested in 2010 after a raid on his clinic then under suspicion for illegal drug distribution when investigators found:

-Extreme unsanitary conditions, including STDs, septic (unsterile) conditions, blood and animal feces and urine and other noxious fluids and waste, and months-old fetal remains stored in "jars, bags and jugs."

-Surgical malpractice including perforation of bodily organs and "on at least two occasions" death.

-Improper equipment and usage, including repeated reuse of disposable supplies.

-Fraudulent recording of gestational age and training of staff to manipulate ultrasound in a way that would match the stated number of weeks.

-Patients given labor and delivery inducing drugs during the day, then left waiting until late evening for Gosnell to attend or for surgery. Many gave birth during the day as a result, and employees testified "it was standard procedure for women to deliver fetuses – and viable babies – into toilets" while waiting for his arrival.

-Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them. As part of this, fetuses and babies had their demise "ensured" post operatively by severing of the spinal cord with scissors, known by staff as "snipping." Among the "few cases" where tangible evidence existed, the jury noted a boy aged 30 weeks at 6 pounds, a frozen body in a water container of "at least" 28 weeks, remains of at least one abortion of over 32 weeks for which an extra $1000 had been demanded, and testimony of a baby heard to make noise, and a baby left "moving and breathing for at least 20 minutes" prior to "snipping."

Where induced labor failed, Dr. Gosnell allegedly would attempt to abort surgically, "often calamitously" for the woman involved. A notable example:

-Death of Karnamaya Mongar, who allegedly received "repeated unmonitored, unrecorded intravenous injections of Demerol" which the practice staff used, causing her to cease breathing. Staff were unable to revive her (emergency medications were not used and the defibrillator was not working), and paramedics were unable to revive her after gaining access, in part because they were deceived by staff as to what had happened and the drugs and dosages responsible.

You might wonder what charges are being pursued against Gosnell – license revocation due to the unsanitary conditions perhaps?

No. Gosnell is charged with 8 counts of murder: Monger and 7 viable babies that he killed after they were born. There would be more charges but Gosnell failed to keep records.

Some ask how do we stop the Kermit Gosnells of the world?

Abortion is one of the least regulated surgical procedures in America. Just 29 states regulate abortion centers at all, and but a few have anything approaching comprehensive regulation. Only four states hold abortion facilities to the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. Eight states don't even require that surgical abortions be performed by licensed physicians.

I think a better question is what separates a Kermit Gosnell from a George Tiller?
Tiller was known for performing late term abortions. Apparently, he kept his practice fairly clean, at least outside the womb. Phill Kline as Kansas' Attorney General and later Johnson County's District Attorney filed similar charges against Tiller a few years ago – performing illegal late term abortions, but Kline was not as successful as the Philadelphia folks appear to be because Kline had a pro-abortion governor (Kathleen Sebelius) and a pro-abortion DA in Wichita (Nola Foulston) opposing his every move, not to forget later AG Paul Morrison (the dude with the Linda tattoo).

If you will recall, Tiller was murdered by a mentally deranged person in 2009 because, as the killer claimed, he was one of the most prominent providers of late-term abortions. Though Gosnell's patients would have gotten better care from Tiller, the reality is that the fetuses would have been killed under the “care” of either doctor.
Jonah Goldberg rightly asked a profound question in a column last week: What is the moral difference between killing a living baby that is outside the mother for a few seconds and killing one that's still inside the mother's womb?

A sane and logical person should have no problem with that question. Apparently, many in our society, politics, and media are having a particularly rough time with it.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


THE UNFILTERED ASPECT OF TWITTER IS A BLESSING

Posted 4/19/13

•So much of what I was going to write about this week needs to be set aside in the face of the horrible tragedy which occurred in Boston Monday during the Boston Marathon. By the time you read this, much more will be known about the particulars, but what appears to be known now is three confirmed dead, one of whom was an 8-year old child, and some more than 150 people injured.

There is word of a person of interest being questioned and numerous mentions of possible areas being investigated.

As this story occurred, I first learned about it reading Twitter (follow me @bkParallax) about 20 minutes after the explosions occurred. I then turned on the TV and began to follow the newly breaking story. I stayed with both mediums – Twitter and TV - throughout the day, as well as the radio (980 KMBZ until Dana Wright came on the air at 2 p.m. and the requisite nausea recurred causing me to switch to 810 WHB). I learned that there is simply no comparison between Twitter and TV in terms of getting information out quickly. Videos appeared on Twitter at least a half an hour before they appeared on TV.

980 KMBZ, the self-described “news station” in Kansas City, was still carrying on about Wright soiling herself in the presence of Jon Bon Jovi. I think it took at least an hour for them to pick up on the tragedy. 810 WHB, the sports talk station was on the story even before the “news station.”

But Twitter is where you need to follow stories if you want to get all the information in an unfiltered manner. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick and tired of having information filtered by news weasels, especially in the face of the mainstream media's absolute indifference to the Gosnell murder trial in Philadelphia (more on this next week!).

Twitter is where I first heard the NY Post report on 20+ deaths in the blasts, which appear to be erroneous at this point in time. I also heard a large number of sources report that there are two confirmed deaths. Those folks that want to make a big deal about sources on Twitter being wrong need to look at recent history. CBS is still picking the egg out of its eyebrows over the Dan Rather/George Bush Texas National Guard story, and they were supposed to be the source for news at the time.

You also see massive idiocy on display at Twitter and though the sources can take it back by deleting the messages, screen shots allow their nonsense to be on display forever. Examples on this terror attack include:

Chris Matthews (MSNBC): “Let me ask you about domestic terrorism as a category. Normally, domestic terrorists, people tend to be on the far right, well that's not a good category, just extremists, let's call them that. Do they advertise after they do something like this? Do they try to get credit as a group or do they just hate America so much or its politics or its government that they just want to do the damage, they don't care if they get public credit, if you will?” - Has Matthews ever heard of Obama best-friend-forever and terrorist Bill Ayers? Unbelievable!

Cynthia McKinney @cynthiamckinney, a former U.S. House member, said, “The pattern is becoming too, too familiar. So, Boston cops were having a "bomb squad drill" on the same day as...” http://fb.me/1JHrFKCc9 -- Pattern? Familiar? Moron.
Nick Kristof (NY Times) on Twitter just after the blast, “explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment.”

Esquire magazine columnist Charles Pierce: “Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.”

•To preview what I'm going to be getting into next week, I have a question…can someone explain to me the difference between Dr. George Tiller and Dr. Kermit Gosnell?

•Prayers for the victims of Boston.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


THE COUNTY SHOULD ALREADY HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH

Posted 4/12/13

•Please pardon me for veering from our normal path this week. I need to stretch my legs.

•What's the matter with you people in Platte County? When I used to live among you – for 17 years!, I could count on you all to remember the proper role of government in our lives. Government is for roads and streets and keeping marauders out of neighboring states. That's about it.

Now I see that you have voted in a tax increase to apparently repair and maintain roads and bridges in the county.

I have one question…

Aren't roads and bridges the original reason that we started paying taxes to government? Why do we need an increase to pay for something that the county should already have more than enough money for?

I'm not a resident of Platte County anymore, but if I were still among you, I would be looking for opportunities to tar-and-feather those folks that thought they would be sly in foisting a tax increase based on the polling of 15% of the county's population.

And for those of you that did not vote…I get it. You are weary of the political process when you are steamrolled by RINOs as we Conservatives were in 2012. But we need to answer when these tactics are used against us and our founding principles.

If not us, who will bear the standard?

•A new study says that walking is just as good for your heart as running.

“A brisk walk proved to lower the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes slightly more than the same amount of energy expended on vigorous activities.”
Really? So running around the block is just as good for my heart as walking 5 miles? Eating 100 calories of McDonald's food is just as bad for you as 100 calories of carrots.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification guys.

•As I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this week, I was intrigued to hear him giving an iPad to a 13-year-old who said he found evidence that human-induced global warming is a hoax by reading books from a local library.

“It was really easy for me to find this evidence, really easy,” said Alex, who called in to Rush's show from Wilmington, Ind. “I believe the reason that the liberals do not have the evidence is because they do not want the evidence, they do not want to hear that it is wrong.”

After Alex told Limbaugh that he went to the local library, Rush replied: “I am surprised you find evidence of this at a library. That is heartening.” Limbaugh told Alex that if his parents agreed, he would send him an iPad.

This story was reported on The Hill's website. After six paragraphs of information, the website closed with this,

“The scientific consensus is that the planet is warming and human activities are a major driver, but a very small minority of scientists hold other views.”

Really? 17,000 scientists are a “small minority?” Exactly how does that work?

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/291957-rush-limbaugh-gives-ipad-to-13-year-old-climate-skeptic#ixzz2PbCdeW31

•Someone please explain this one…

Remember Trayvon Martin, Obama's “would-be son?” Well, his parents are apparently trying to cash in on their son's death.

Trayvon Martin's parents have settled a wrongful death claim for an amount believed to be more than $1 million against a Florida homeowners association where their teen son was killed.

Trayvon was shot and killed by Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder, but he says he fired in self defense after the 17-year-old attacked him.
In paperwork made public, both parties to the settlement specified that they would keep the involved amount confidential, The Orlando Sentinel reported. “It is understood and agreed that the payment made herein is not to be construed as an admission of any liability by or on behalf of the releasing parties; but instead the monies being paid hereunder is consideration for avoiding litigation, the uncertainties stemming from litigation as well as to protect and secure the good name and good will of the released parties,” the settlement said.

Lawyers!

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


LEFT WANTS ILLEGALS TO BE INSTANT VOTERS

Posted 4/5/13

An article appeared in The Economist magazine last week about the movement formerly known as global warming that had a considerable number of tongues wagging in response.

The article noted that over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat (not changing at all) while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. What the article was not clear about was that they were referring only to manmade greenhouse gases “soaring.” The world (meaning mankind) added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. They claim that is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750, though I don't know how they measured mankind's CO₂ output in 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Now as I mentioned, the key part of the above paragraph is that the greenhouse gas emissions that have been soaring are those caused by mankind. What the article conveniently omits, though, is the fact that man only produces 3% of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The magazine notes, “The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.” In other words, “We might be wrong, but there has to be some other explanation.” Love the arrogance on display there!

•By the way, at the oral argument last week pertaining to the Left's attempt to gain constitutional recognition of same-sex marriage, Justice Scalia repeatedly questioned pro-same-sex-marriage attorney Ted Olson on when prohibiting same-sex marriage became unconstitutional, which is a good question in the face of a claim that same-sex marriage should be made constitutional.

From the transcript:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I'm curious, when - when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That's absolutely true. But don't give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that –

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.
Now, if I were in Scalia's position, I'd have followed-up with, “if 'sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control' how does one logically explain bisexual people, or people who switch back-and-forth in their forms of sexual expression during their lives.” You hear the gay lobby “explain” that those folks are just confused.

•The Economist magazine then twists itself into a veritable pretzel trying to explain why the earth is not warming and why such a fact isn't evidence that the whole global warming myth is not a construct of a political movement to knee-cap capitalism.

“The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990's, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.”

But they do give some lip-service to the notion that man doesn't control any of it, though minimally…

“Lastly, there is some evidence that the natural (i.e: non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought…'the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.' It is possible, therefore, that both the rise in temperatures in the 1990's and the flattening in the 2000's have been caused in part by natural variability.”

Wow! Amazing that they even gave that much credence to nature!

•On the immigration issue, the Left is bound-determined to allow the illegal immigrants currently in this country to instantly become legal voting residents. The right is firm (at least for now) on sealing the border, then setting-up some form of plan for illegals to become American citizens.

Of course, the spineless RINOs like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are going to try to strike some form of grand compromise which will give up too much and take too little away from the other side, but unless there is some form of crack-down on the rampant flow of illegal immigration now occurring, why would the illegals come out of the shadows? They have everything they want now. They're here, working, consuming taxpayer resources without paying for them beyond some minimal sales taxes. That's a gravy train. Why would they change that?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


 

TEN REASONS CLIMATE-CHANGE HYSTERICS CONTINUE

Posted 3/29/13

•As we, hopefully (prayerfully!!), finally emerge from this hellacious winter season, I thought it would be appropriate to highlight this most excellent column that appeared in American Thinker. My observations are inserted in parentheses.

10 Reasons Climate-Change Hysterics Continue (with their baseless and nonsensical claims that man is causing the planet to warm to any practically measurable degree…)
Here are 10 winning reasons for continued climate-change hysterics:

1. Indoctrination from grade school through graduate school has inculcated the "incontrovertible conclusion" that people are destroying the planet. By acting to save the earth, precious self-esteem is elevated, while guilt is assuaged.

(Remember all the liberally-biased garbage we were fed in school at all levels about how we needed to be “sensitive to Mother Earth?” I went to elementary school in the 70's and I remember it. Well it has been ramped-up since then like Jeff Gordon test driving a sports car. There is a price to be paid for indoctrination.)

2. Lack of depth of understanding about science and scientific practice, not only because of being uninitiated, but partially because inadequate science education has left the public either clueless about, intimidated by, or apathetic to science in general and climate change in particular.

(Want to have your own Jaywalking episode? When Jay Leno does it, he usually asks about some element of government or history or politics and he always happens upon someone that knows what they are talking about. Try it on the subject of environmental science and I dare you to find ONE person that can identify the largest single greenhouse gas – water vapor; or the percentage of man's contribution to water vapor on the planet – 3%; or the percentages of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere and man's part of that – 0.038% and 0.00114% respectively. I am nowhere near a climatologist and I can find this information in a matter of a minute or so.)

3. Man-made climate-change hype acculturation has infused acceptance of human culpability into the psyche of everyone, from industrialists and businesspersons to the "man on the street."

(Just look at all the “green” marketing going on with all the products we consume. It's nonsense and people actually buy something marketed as “green” without even slightly questioning it.)

4. Billions of dollars are up for grabs with consultants making beaucoup bucks advising on carbon credits, technocrats raking in the cash with carbon dioxide control and sequestration contraptions, and researchers securing grant money to tie every wind of change to human excesses.

(Which is why corporations slap evergreen trees on their product labels.)

5. Those who sincerely believe they know the long-term future of the global climate are committed to the cause. Commitment can be admirable, but nobody, no matter how smart, can predict the future climate decades ahead with any serious degree of accuracy. That has already been demonstrated with the leveled temperature trend that belies predictions. Could it be that if humans are responsible for a significant portion of the global warming in recent years, that we could be witnessing the maximum effect people have on the planet's temperature?

(Arrogance. We, as the major sentient species on the planet are deeply afraid of death. We dread, secretly, that there is nothing after we die. We try to assuage that fear with the belief that we are actually powerful enough to do actual permanent harm to this massive sphere that we live on.)

6. Politicians and bureaucrats can increase their power over the proletariat. Control of energy is near ultimate control.

(BINGO. Remember when I told you that climate taxes were an effort for government to tax EVERYTHING? Have you found anything we live, eat, use, build, consume, breathe, drink, sleep in, or smell that doesn't use carbon?)

7. Journalists and bloggers have found a juicy, fruitful topic to squeeze.
(Nice pun. That's about all I have on that.)

8. Environmental and social activists have discovered a new "higher-calling" cause to champion and cash in on.

(“Higher-calling” of course being the notion that we will, in pushing against the imaginary demon of anthropogenic climate change, at least somewhat sate our fear over being as insignificant as we really are in the big picture.)

9. Sales of T-shirts and bumper-stickers advertising imminent world environmental cataclysm and its simple solutions--"Go Green," "Hug a Tree," "Love your Mother (Earth),"…would dry up like the Aral Sea. Without such capitalistic merchandizing where would socialism be?

(Maybe capitalism needs to have a moral underpinning, so private individuals pursuing profit in the free market are doing so without actively trying to cheat science in the process…)

And last, but certainly not least:

10. People get to defend their deeply held religious beliefs and can feel they're doing something good for Jesus, God, the Buddha, Vishnu, Gaia, the Universe, children or grandchildren, pets, polar bears, plankton.

(Religion and science have their separations after all, don't they?)

So, everybody wins...everybody that matters, that is, but not the middle-class who ultimately end up footing the bill, and definitely not the poor who are simply used as a sanctimonious diversion, yet end up as impoverished as ever.

These reasons come from Anthony Sadar, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic's Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2012)

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


CPAC: WHY DOES GOP GIVE US A BUNCH OF LOSERS?

Posted 3/25/13

•The CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) conference last weekend was not as compelling as the one a few years ago when Rush Limbaugh spoke without notes or a teleprompter for more than 40 minutes, but it did include the words of the most senior member of the Conservative movement.

Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, told the CPAC assembly the Republican establishment had given America a series of losers as presidential candidates over the last two decades, and the last time they picked a winner, George W. Bush, he was a bigger spender than the Democrats.

“Why is it that the establishment has given us this bunch of losers?” Schlafly said. “The establishment has given us a whole series of losers: Bob Dole and John McCain and Mitt Romney. And even when they picked a winner--George W. Bush--they picked somebody who spent more than the Democrats.”

Schlafly continued, “First of all, they only want candidates who will vote the way they're told to vote, and we like to have ones who will go down there and stir up a little trouble and make sure they vote no,” she said. “You know they're blaming (U.S. Senator from Texas) Ted Cruz for voting no on everything that's come up. Well good for him!”

Schlafly said the establishment wants candidates that “will only talk about economic issues” and not social or moral issues or even national security issues.

“And that's such a terrible mistake, because those social issues are the cause of the fiscal issue, and they are the issues that get to the heart of people--issues like life and marriage,” Schlafly said.

The establishment also tells their candidates to call themselves moderates and move to the center, she said.

Schlafly challenged political consultants like Karl Rove, who founded the super PAC American Crossroads, over their losing record.

Now posit this in your mind:

Karl Rove spent almost $400 million on the election last year, and he ran TV ads for 31 candidates and only elected seven of them. That's a rotten record, by any standard.

•The United Kingdom Daily Mail ran an article that declared the world isn't getting warmer. The paper on Sunday presented irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed. In response to global warming scares, Britain has reshaped its entire economy, spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added hundreds of dollars a year to household energy bills.

In reality, the data shows in incontrovertible detail how global warming has been massively overestimated. But the forecasts have had an unbelievable impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid via taxation to reduce carbon emissions.

•This little bit is all you need to know about House Speaker John Boehner
Last week, Boehner said, “We'll keep funding Obamacare because we don't want to shut down the government.”

Hat-tip to The Right Scoop.

Boehner was asked if, like Ted Cruz, he would put language into the latest budget bill to defund Obamacare, but Boehner said no because he doesn't want to shut down the government.

Didn't he just telegraph to the Democrats exactly what they want to hear, that he would always be a willing partner in funding Obamacare because he doesn't want to shut down the government? This is why the Democrats always railroad him because he is afraid to do anything controversial for fear of bad press.

This is why John Boehner needs to be removed as House Speaker.

I'm not kidding either.

•Briefly, Breitbart.com brought us the knowledge that Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords' former-astronaut-turned-anti-2nd-Amendment nut, husband got caught buying an AR-15 rifle. The purchase was not a crime, but certainly was a strange purchase for a gun-control advocate looking to ban the weapon.

He claimed he was buying it to demonstrate how easy it is to buy an AR-15.

A couple of problems:

He didn't actually buy it. The gun he intended to buy was on consignment, and there's a 20-day federal delay to check to see if the weapon was used in a crime. On the other hand, had he bought a new AR-15, he could have walked right out of the store with it-- thus demonstrating the point he claims he wanted to make.

Looks like he just wanted to save a buck on a gun, which is not really the sort of thing someone crusading to make a point usually cares about.

Further what would his point have been, had he actually gone through the federal check (which he didn't, despite his claims)? That a law-abiding Naval officer astronaut married to a Congresswoman can pass a federal gun purchase check?

Of course he could. On what grounds would there be a delay for someone who not only has a clean criminal record, but in fact almost certainly has a US intelligence clearance of much better than Top Secret?

It makes no sense.

What makes sense is that he just wanted to buy the AR-15 and is now making up stories to explain away hypocrisy.

Thanks – I feel much better.

 


 

REPORTS ON THE DEATH OF COAL ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

Posted 3/17/13

•The Washington Times last week featured a story that actually offers a person with an understanding of the need for abundant and cheap energy in the world a ray of hope in the future of mankind.

President Obama and the Democrats have for years been singularly focused on driving the coal industry out of business. Fortunately, coal is operating in a worldwide market.
As Obama passes restrictive regulations on coal-fired power plants in the U.S. at a breakneck pace, hundreds of plants are closing. However, countries in Europe and Asia are starving for coal, and their hunger is not dissipating.

By 2030, coal will be the most widely used fuel in the entire world due mostly to the fact that developing countries are powering growing cities at a furious rate. For every burgeoning society on the planet, coal is the main, cheapest, and most reliable source of energy.

In a direct quote from the article, Frank Clemente a retired Penn State University professor observed, “For a vast multitude of the human race, the world is a dark place. Over 1.2 billion people lack any electricity and another 2 billion or more have inadequate access to power. A key goal of the Copenhagen accord of 2010 is to provide energy to these impoverished populations. Coal is the only fuel that can sustainably meet growing global demand at such a scale.”

Unfortunately, Obama is closing the door on many older coal-fired power plants in the U.S., but to the contrary, coal is booming in Europe and roaring in Africa, Asia and the rest of the developing world as it remains the cheapest and most reliable source of power. Coal now provides 41 percent of the world's power and that will grow massively as half of the world attempts to join the grid.

Not to be forgotten, China fuels 80 percent of its electricity with coal, and the country has added more coal plants to its grid than the entire fleet of U.S. power generators. China's coal appetite is so insatiable it soon will be consuming more coal each year than the rest of the world combined.

That represents opportunity for U.S. coal companies, who are in possession of the world's largest coal reserves. “South Africa is bringing millions out of poverty with a coal-based economy,” said Prof. Clemente, and the world has never experienced such an appetite for coal as seen in Asia's rising powers.

Elliott Gue, an energy investment adviser, noted in the article that reports about the death of coal have been greatly exaggerated.

“King Coal still sits on the world's power throne,” he said. “Coal-fired plants in both the U.S. and global markets will continue to provide the bulk of base load power generation for years to come.”

He sees plentiful opportunities for U.S. coal exports, including $1.3 billion a year in exports to China alone if West Coast ports are built to accommodate the traffic.

All of this is good news for the battered U.S. industry. However, with the EPA attacking mercury, other toxic emissions and greenhouse gases, U.S. mining companies face daunting challenges to maintain their markets at home, even as the door is opening wide for exports to nearly every other corner of the world.

As the Obama Administration is hoisting new regulations that are aimed at reducing domestic coal usage, many utilities are burning natural gas as a base load fuel instead of coal simply because natural gas is now dirt-cheap in the U.S. The reality is that as fewer coal plants are left running, the ones left in operation will become more important than ever as a steady source of reliable power.

There is nothing wrong with coal.

•Now that the sequestration government spending growth reductions are enacted, Congressman Tim Griffin (from Arkansas) issued the following statement in response to the Obama Administration's effort to intentionally undermine government operations in order to score political points:

“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama Administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the Sequester cuts for political gain. Instead of cutting waste, the Administration Obama is hurting workers. President Obama should stop protecting wasteful government spending.”

According to an internal email, Charles Brown, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) eastern regional director, asked his superiors about how much flexibility he had in trimming his program's budget in light of the sequester. The response from the Obama Administration was clear:

“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that 'APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.' So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

“…make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be?” Seriously?!?!

I'd like to hear a defense from any Obama supporter on this. Any takers?
Hat-tip to Dan Reihl as www.reihlworldview.com

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


 

DEFUND OBAMACARE; AND JUST LEAD, PLEASE

Posted 3/8/13

•From Breitbart News, you probably don't know this because you never hear the drive-by media say anything about the base of the Republican Party that isn't spun into a negative, but Conservative House Republicans have circulated a letter calling on House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to defund Obamacare in the upcoming continuing resolution that funds the government. Oklahoma Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a freshman, and Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp are leading the charge. (Where are the Republicans from the Missouri side of the line?)

“'ObamaCare' remains hugely unpopular across America,” the letter to Boehner and Cantor reads. “More and more Americans are now feeling its impact--from job losses and part-time downgrades, to insurance policy changes and violations of religious liberties, to state budget strains from Medicaid expansions. And Americans don't like these impacts. Most Americans still believe that healthcare should be controlled by patients and doctors, not by the government.”

House Republicans have the power, should they choose to use it, to shut down Obamacare through the appropriations process--the power of the purse laid out in the United States Constitution. Why haven't they done anything in that regard since Republicans assumed control of the House in 2010?

It's unclear if Boehner and Cantor will defund Obamacare this time around. Since 2010, they've passed continuing resolutions that actually fund Obamacare. The Breitbart News folks have asked for comment from Boehner and Cantor and received no response.

For the record, Cantor and Boehner both promised to use the appropriations process to defund Obamacare in press statements in early 2011 after the Tea Party movement swept the GOP into control of the House of Representatives. At a February 2011 press conference, CNS News asked Cantor: "On the CR [continuing resolution], when that bill comes to the floor, will there be any funding for the health care reform law in it?"

Cantor responded that there would not. “I expect to see, one way or the other, the product coming out of the House to speak to that [ObamaCare funding] and to preclude any funding to be used for that,” Cantor said.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel added: “Make no mistake, House Republicans are committed to repealing ObamaCare (which we have already voted to do) and--if the Senate fails to act on repeal--we will use every means at our disposal to stop this job-destroying law.”

In the two years that have passed since, Boehner and Cantor have not followed through.

Now you know why so many of us wanted Boehner ousted as House Speaker.

•This one chapped my hide the most…

Last week, the Republican-controlled House passed the Senate version of the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The Senate bill expands “coverage” to illegal aliens, men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners. It also expands the law's reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women. Some of the alleged offenses can be as innocuous as “harsh speech.” Under this ridiculous law, a Washington Redskins fan can be prosecuted for simply wearing his team gear!

Get a load of this backhanded work on the part of “our” Republicans leading the House: the final bill passed with the support of 87 Republicans. Before voting on this bill, the House considered a substitute amendment that removed some of the ridiculous new anomalies. It was defeated by a coalition of Democrats and 60 Republicans. It is important to note that about half of the GOP no votes were opposing the bill precisely because it did not contain the new social engineering provisions. So even if all the conservatives had supported the House version, there were enough liberal Republicans to block it. Moreover, even had the GOP version passed the House, the conferees would have inserted the extra provisions in conference anyway.

The following House members should be recognized (and remembered in the 2014 elections, and the 87 and 60 should also be red-marked!!) who understood that the entire premise of the bill is flawed, superfluous, and an unconstitutional federal power grab.

Jim Bridenstine, Paul Broun, Tom Cotton, John Culberson, Ron DeSantis, Jeff Duncan, John Duncan, Stephen Fincher, Scott Garrett, Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Doc Hastings, Tim Huelskamp, Walter Jones, Doug Lamborn, Tom McClintock, Mark Meadows, Markwayne Mullin, Kristi Noem, Pete Olson, Thomas Petri, Mike Pompeo, Trey Radal, David Schweikert, James Sensenbrenner, Steve Stockman, and Ted Yoho.

There is absolutely no excuse for a GOP-controlled House to bring this bill before Congress – NONE. Why have a Republican controlled House if all you do is pass Democrat legislation?

Stop being concerned about political optics and just LEAD PLEASE!

(Follow Twitter.com/bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


ELECTRIC CARS ARE TAXPAYER-SUBSIDIZED $100,000 GOLF CARTS

Posted 3/1/13

If you didn't catch the recent Liberal pantie-bunching over the New York Times' review of the new Tesla Motors electric car, you missed an entertaining exhibition of a very spoiled child in the form of the Liberal Left.

The review was titled, “Stalled Out on Tesla's Electric Highway,” by John Broder of The New York Times published Feb. 8, 2013.

Broder attempted to navigate the trip from Washington, D.C. to Connecticut in Tesla's new Model S and after a nightmare of efforts to keep the car moving, he ended up stranded with a battery-consumed electric car and had to be towed to an electrical charging station along the way. The actual account is much more entertaining to read first-hand, so go to the Times' website and check it out yourself.

Tesla Motors blasted the New York Times, going so far as to say the car review was “fake.”

Business Insider magazine had a great run-down of the brouhaha and accurately summarized the state of the electric car, “Regardless of who's right, the whole experience reveals why today's all-electric cars are, for all intents and purposes, dead on arrival…”

“…New York Times John Broder's account of trying to drive from Washington to New York and then to Connecticut reveals how even a routine trip can be transformed into a stressful, uncomfortable, time-consuming hassle while driving an all-electric car.

Despite having direct, real-time help from Tesla, Broder's car forced him to start worrying and conserving energy (turning down the heat, traveling slowly, "conditioning the battery," etc.) long before he reached his destination. And, in the end, he didn't reach it, because the car ran out of power and shut down...”

This has been the reason electric cars have been out of mass production for more than 100 years in this country. You cannot ignore logic.

Gas-powered cars do at times run out of gas, but gas is plentiful, despite Obama's efforts, and filling a car's gas tank doesn't require hours of recharging time.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-problem-electric-cars-2013-2#ixzz2LSFFp6Hl

•But perhaps the most telling part of the story, Tesla Motors reported a wider-than-anticipated net loss for the fourth-quarter of 2012 due to higher production costs offsetting better-than-anticipated revenues.

The Times' experience won't help those numbers. Electric cars are what they are – taxpayer subsidized $100,000 golf carts.

•What are the facts on coal combustion?

When we burn any carbon fuel such as coal, oil, wood, gas, grass, candle sticks, cardboard or cow manure, it produces several gases. Burning typical thermal coal in air produces mainly nitrogen (68%), carbon dioxide (21%), water vapor (7%), oxygen (1%), argon (1%) and ash (2%).

So 98% by weight of coal combustion products are natural gases merely being recycled to the atmosphere. None are toxic. All are invisible except for water vapor.

To describe carbon dioxide as a “lethal air pollutant” is a lie, plain and simple.

Carbon dioxide is the most important and essential atmospheric plant food, without which there would be no plants, no herbivores (which live on plants), and no carnivores (which live on herbivores).

Our coal is simply another form of trees and plants that grew in soils in a previous era. Ash is unburned mineral matter that comes naturally from the soil and will eventually go back there. Almost all of the ash is now captured in modern coal fired power stations, but is released freely in bush fires, barbeques, wood stoves, cow manure cookers and open air cremations.

Soot is a product of incomplete combustion and is not produced in modern, well-designed power stations. It is no more dangerous than burnt toast.

It is true that some coals can produce some SOX (oxides of sulphur) and NOX (oxides of nitrogen) but these are caught in modern filters and cleaners. Only small traces enter the air. They could be annoying, and would be dangerous if concentrated in city air, but EVERY normal component of coal is an essential plant nutrient, and far from being invariably toxic, is often in short supply in the broader environment.

Anyone who raises crops or animals often needs to supplement soils, pastures or animal feeds with nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, copper, zinc and selenium, just to name a few.

The few coal combustion products that are genuinely toxic, such as mercury, occur rarely and in tiny quantities. If present, special filters are used to ensure they are not released. American coals are generally very low in mercury, indeed lower than in the average earth environment.

In Earth's long history, today's level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is very low and the green world will benefit greatly from any additional carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere.

That is why nurseries add carbon dioxide to their greenhouses. So fire up those grills as the weather warms with a clear conscience.

(Fire up Twitter to follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


EXPERT: GLOBAL WARMING TO BE OVER IN A DECADE OR SO

Posted 2/22/13

The Daily Bell (via www.ClimateDepot.com) had a great interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer, (Siegfried Fred Singer) who is an American atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, which he founded in 1990. Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Dr. Singer is author, coauthor or editor of more than a dozen books and has given hundreds of lectures and seminars on global warming, including to the science faculties at Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley and many others. He is elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, and American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.

How's that for qualifications? I am condensing the interview for brevity, but I encourage you to visit ClimateDepot.com for the full transcript.

Daily Bell: Where did you grow up and go to school?
Dr. Singer: I grew up in Vienna, Austria, left school at the age of 13 and apprenticed at an optical machine shop until 1939, crossing the border into Holland the same day Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia, on March 15, 1939. I joined my parents in Ohio in 1940. In 1941, I studied electrical engineering at Ohio State University; finishing in 1943 and attended Princeton as a graduate student of physics. My Ph.D. came after service in the US Navy in World War 2 and dealt with cosmic rays, essentially high-energy physics.

Daily Bell: You've questioned the link between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss.
Dr. Singer: I have never questioned the connection between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss; my only concern was whether enough CFCs entered the stratosphere to deplete ozone.

Daily Bell: Explain your view on global warming and climate change.
Dr. Singer: Climate change includes both global warming and global cooling, as well as regional changes. It is not known to what extent human activities are responsible for climate change or global warming.

Daily Bell: How did you become such a global warming skeptic? Your critics say you are irresponsible for advocating your positions. Are you?
Dr. Singer: My skepticism about global warming is purely based on the observed evidence - which shows no appreciable warming while there had been large increases in greenhouse gases. I feel that scientific criticism is the most responsible sort of thing - both from the point of view of science and from the point of view of national policy.

Daily Bell: In 2006 you were named by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as one of a minority of scientists said to be creating a standoff on a consensus on climate change. Was this an unfair charge?
Dr. Singer: The CBC forgot to mention that thousands of scientists hold the position that I hold and therefore not a "minority" of scientists, at least not a small minority.

Daily Bell: You argue there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.
Dr. Singer: As far as we can tell, the increase of CO2 has not been producing corresponding warming. For example, there has been no warming in the 21st century - despite the large increase of greenhouse gases.

Daily Bell: You are an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol and have said of the climate models that scientists use to project future trends that "models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence."
Dr. Singer: I am one of many who oppose the Kyoto Protocol, both for scientific reasons and for economic reasons. It is basically a political document; a treaty based on climate models rather than observed evidence.

Daily Bell: You have been accused of pushing "climate-denier" and "junk science" lines on behalf of large corporate interest groups.
Dr. Singer: I have never been supported by any corporation and have therefore developed my work on climate science without any such support.

Daily Bell: You don't believe a hole in the ozone layer is a danger.
Dr. Singer: The so-called hole in the ozone layer is a temporary thinning in the month of October in the Antarctic; I do not believe it is dangerous.

Daily Bell: You recently concluded that unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is "unequivocally good news."
Dr. Singer: Agricultural experts pretty much agree that a higher level of CO2 promotes plant growth and makes plants more resistant to droughts and pests.

Daily Bell: Are islands drowning?
Dr. Singer: As far as I am aware, islands are not drowning.

Daily Bell: Why have you fought this fight? You've been smeared, derided and even slandered. Has it been worth it?
Dr. Singer: I think it is worth fighting for sound science even if one is smeared and slandered. My belief is the global warming scare will be over in the matter of a decade or so.

Daily Bell: Will we continue to bury carbon in the ground? Shouldn't this money be spent elsewhere?
Dr. Singer: The idea of burying carbon dioxide in the ground is a bad one, and I hope we do not carry out such projects. There are much better ways of spending the money; the world is full of places that need support.

 

 


INCONSISTENCIES IN ABORTION, RACIAL ISSUES

Posted 2/14/13

•Don't know about any of you, but I am definitely ready for Spring 2013!

•I caught this tidbit from www.hotair.com that illustrates an inconsistency in abortion law that I have spoken about before.

CNN's Erin Burnett covered a story about an unborn child recently killed by a drunk driver in Colorado. As Colorado state law does not consider unborn human babies due the legal protection assigned to babies that are born, the impaired driver faces no charges for ending the child's life who was due to be born within days. Burnett clearly expressed her indignation over the injustice as follows:

“That baby was 8 pounds, 2 ounces. He was going to be born in a couple of days. How could you not define that as a person? That is a viable life.”

This legal incongruity makes absolutely no sense. Pro-choice advocates argue this case is different from an abortion because the mother wanted the baby. What should that have to do with the question of right to life for humans? Shouldn't ethical standards be logical and consistent?

There are those who will argue that the baby was in the third trimester of pregnancy and was largely considered to be viable outside the womb, so it's an unfair comparison because most abortions occur earlier in the gestational cycle. These points suggest that there is some stage of development when an unborn child's right to life outweighs the right of the mother to control her own body. When?

The two obvious lines are conception and birth. ”Viability” has always been a shifting standard that technology moves ever closer to conception. The child has no say in these matters, and cannot speak in her own defense if female.

Abortion is a moral question. I believe abortion at any stage of pregnancy for virtually any reason is repugnant and should be illegal if one claims to be pro-life. But to argue the other side, if we were to define when a fetus becomes a baby based on viability, and we settle on the date of five months, how do you justify denying a right to life for another living human who happens to be at four months and 30 days gestation? As technology evolves, we are going to eventually see viability for fetuses beginning at conception. What will we think of our actions now when that occurs? Contrary to the position of the Obama Regime, this has nothing to do with a “war on women.” Actually, millions more females have been aborted than males due to gender selection abortions. Now THAT'S a war on women.

•How about this for racial inconsistency? From Jay Leno's show last week:

“Well, as you know, there is a, oh my God, just a huge snowstorm going on back east. I hope everybody is doing okay. I know some folks have lost power back east. So, good luck to them. You know, I spoke to my buddy in Boston. They've already gotten a ton of snow in Boston. He said Massachusetts is now whiter than a Romney family reunion. That's how much snow.”

www.Newsbusters.org‘s Noel Sheppard had a great summation of the issue.
Imagine if during his opening monologue Monday Leno said of the power blackout at the Super Bowl, "The Superdome was suddenly darker than Harlem."

Leno, and any other comedian would have been fired by the end of the broadcast had that occurred. What about that idiotic notion that Obama was going to improve race relations in America? Boy was that a dumb prediction.

•And from Brent Baker at www.Newsbusters.org, CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asked last Saturday if the approaching asteroid, which will pass by Earth on February 15, “is an example of, perhaps, global warming?”

Moments earlier, before a commercial break, she moved from discussing the Northeast blizzard to a segment with Bill Nye “the science guy,” by pointing to global warming: “Every time we see a storm like this lately, the first question to pop into a lot of people's minds is whether or not global warming is to blame? I'll talk to Bill Nye, 'the science guy,' about devastating storms and climate change.”

“Talk about something else that's falling from the sky (she was talking about the Northeast blizzard) and that is an asteroid. What's coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming or is this just some meteoric occasion?”

Nye resisted confirming her hypothesis, though I suspect he agreed with her. By the way, Bill Nye is a moron and a buffoon. If you want reasoned analysis from a TV weather and science guy, listen to Joe Bastardi. Bastardi is currently the Chief Forecaster at WeatherBell Analytics, L.L.C.

For the record, Bastardi maintains humans are too insignificant on a global scale to cause climate change for the entire planet. He asserts that the world was likely warmer in the 1930s than today, human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans. In other words, he makes common sense.

(Get a Parallax Look at Twitter.com/bkparallax or bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

 


 

THE NATIONAL PERCEPTION OF THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY

Posted 2/8/13

•Did you know that the first slave owner in the US was black?

The first slave owner in America was a black tobacco farmer? Further, thousands of free blacks in the South were themselves slave owners?

National perception of the history of slavery depends largely on Hollywood activists and academic revisionists. Add those in the mainstream media who belch out everything Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say and you have a lot of ignorance out there.
A recent article at www.DailyKenn.com came up to set the record straight.

Verbatim from the article:

“Anthony Johnson came to the American colonies in August 1619 as an indentured servant. In 1623 Johnson had completed his indenture and was recognized as a free Negro. In 1651 he acquired 250 acres of land in Virginia, later adding another 250 acres; a sizable holding at the time.

John Casor, a black indentured servant employed by Johnson, became America's first slave after a legal dispute with Robert Parker. Parker was a white colonist who employed Casor while Casor was still indentured to Johnson. Johnson sued Parker in Northampton Court in 1654. The court upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave on March 8, 1655. The court found:

'The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master ... It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.'

Five years later, in 1670, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting blacks and Indians the right to own slaves of their own race, but prohibiting them from owning White slaves.”

•Another fact nobody at the NAACP talks about:

Free blacks commonly owned black slaves in the antebellum South. In fact, there were thousands of black slave owners in the South.

"In 1830 there were 3,775 such slaveholders in the South who owned 12,740 black slaves, with 80% of them located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. There were economic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most in New Orleans and Charleston."

•A full accounting of blacks who owned slaves in the antebellum South necessitates a library's volume of books. The book, Black slave-owners: free Black slave masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 by Larry Koger is one.

Koger tells of Richard Holloway, Sr., a black carpenter who purchased his African cousins as slave labor. Cato was the name of one of his slaves. Cato remained in Holloway's possession throughout the 1830s and '40s, according to Koger, until he was sold to his son, Richard Holloway, Jr., in 1845. Cato died in 1851 and the younger Holloway replaced him with the purchase of a 16-year-old black male.

In 1860 the largest slave owner in South Carolina was William Ellison, a black plantation owner.

Blacks owning black slaves were even common in the pre-war North. Black-on-black slavery was not unique to Southern states.

Koger states that records in 1830 New York City noted eight black slave holders who owned a total of 17 black slaves. The total number of slaves owned by blacks in 1830 was more than 10,000 according to the federal census of 1830; and that includes only four states: Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia. In addition there were "black master(s) in every state where slavery existed," Koger says.

All black slaves from Africa were delivered to ports in the North and transported to the South. Actually, without black African slave owners, there would have been no slavery in America.

•How many of you know that Henry Louis Gates, he of “White House 'Beer Summit'” fame, absolutely enraged his base of supporters in 2010 by strongly opposing reparations to blacks, which had been a cause-celeb at the time. According to Gates, the slave trade was almost totally attributable to black slave owners selling their human wares to Europeans.

He wrote:
"While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today's Congo, among several others."

The notion of white European raiding parties descending on unsuspecting African villages is a gross distortion of reality. Not only does the historical record argue against White raiding parties, but such parties would have been costly and inefficient compared to purchasing Africans already held in slavery. White slave traders would not endure the risk related to such incursions. Furthermore, Africans already held as slaves would be less willing to resist, particularly among those whose African owners were brutal enemies.

[Source: Ending the Slavery Blame-Game, Henry Louis Gates, The New York Times April 22, 2010]

•So you see, not everything (I may argue very little) that you hear or read in the big media is accurate and true.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

 


PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOUNDER DID NOT SUPPORT ABORTION

Posted 2/2/13

•For two straight weeks a topic more compelling than Piers Morgan nonsense has bumped him from my column. Must be why nobody watches his show.

•You didn't hear this on any of the ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN media cabal, but 600,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C. last Friday to stand for the basic right to life we humans possess and often voluntarily forget.

Jan. 22nd, 2013, is the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States.

As most everyone knows, Planned Parenthood is the organization that is most known for conducting abortions. In 2009, 332,000 babies were murdered at a Planned Parenthood Clinic which is nearly half of all abortions done in that year. Margaret Sanger, the nation's first birth control advocate, is Planned Parenthood's founder. Few know, however, that Planned Parenthood did not perform abortions prior to Sanger's death in the early 1960's. Even fewer know that she was vehemently opposed to the practice of abortion.

Sanger is infamously known more for her racist and eugenicist opinions, but her words on the practice of abortion may surprise many people.

From Chapter II of her 1920 book Woman and the New Race, she states: “So, too, with woman's struggle for emancipation. Women in all lands and all ages have instinctively desired family limitation. Usually this desire has been laid to economic pressure. Frequently the pressure has existed, but the driving force behind woman's aspiration toward freedom has lain deeper. It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion.”

From Chapter X of the same book: “While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”

In a speech to the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, she said: “Human society must protect its children–yes, but prenatal care is most essential! The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative.”

In 1930, Pope Pius XII wrote his encyclical Castii Connubii, which reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's prohibition of abortion. In 1931, Sanger wrote this in her response to the encyclical: “Birth Control Does Not Mean Abortion – 'The real alternative to birth control is abortion,' wrote Dean Inge, in his article already quoted. It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life.”

There's more - in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger says the following on page 217:

“To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun.”

Dave Tell at the Weekly Standard offers a great assessment of Sanger's beliefs (find it at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/139rdqpe.asp?page=3 ), with the most emphatic point:

“One final misconception about Mrs. Sanger must also be addressed, it seems, and in this case the truth will terribly inconvenience the propaganda efforts all around. It is not right, pace Planned Parenthood, that Margaret Sanger declined to advocate abortion on grounds that it was then a dangerous and illegal surgery. 'There are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician,' she wrote in 1920, and 'we know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient.' On the evidence in 'The Woman Rebel,' the real reason Sanger declined to advocate abortion, notwithstanding the law's flexibility and what she took to be the procedure's safety, is that abortion appalled her.

She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: 'I do not approve of abortion.' She called it 'sordid,' 'abhorrent,' 'terrible,' 'barbaric,' a 'horror.' She called abortionists 'blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.' She called the results of abortion 'an outrageous slaughter,' 'infanticide, 'foeticide,' and 'the killing of babies.' And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control 'has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.' Birth control stands alone: 'It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.'”

I don't know about you, but if an organization I founded was twisted by people after my death to advocate in favor of a practice as horrid as abortion when I was so outspoken against it in my writings, I would move heaven and earth to come back from the dead and exact some revenge.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE CHOICE IS IN OUR HANDS RIGHT NOW

Posted 1/28/13

I was going to focus this week's column on Piers Morgan's rampant stupidity, but I came across this superb piece by Mark Levin published at Breitbart.com. It is worthy of your time.

Mark Levin's message for the second term of Barack Obama: (I edited it for brevity, bolding the key points.)

“I don't think Obama knows exactly what he's going to go for in his second term, as he will look for opportunities to exploit as events unfold. I am sure they've drawn up a partial list, not limited to, gun control; attacks on the First Amendment such as religious liberty; amnesty for illegal aliens; union expansion; institutionalizing Obamacare and voter corruption; de-industrialization via the EPA; destroying the capitalist-based economy via tax increases, smothering regulations, massive spending, and endless borrowing; and hollowing out our military; etc.

Obama sees himself as correcting historic wrongs in this country; delivering the fruits of the labor of other people to people he believes have historically been put upon. He was indoctrinated with Marx and Alinksy propaganda. You see it in his words -- class warfare; degrading successful people, causes, and organizations; pretending to speak for the so-called middle class when, in fact, he is destroying their jobs and future.

The Republican Party, its so-called leadership, the parasitic consultants, represent an institution that is tired, old, almost decrepit, full of cowardice and vision-less. It has abandoned the Declaration of Independence and any serious defense of constitutional republicanism.

The Democrat Party is now a radical 1960s party; it's the anti-Constitution, anti-capitalism, anti-individual party. It largely controls the federal government, including the massive bureaucracy and much of the judiciary -- the permanent branches of the federal government. The Democrat Party represents the federal government, and the federal government expands the power of the Democrat Party.

Republicans may speak of the Constitution, limited government, low taxes, etc., but what have they done about them? Even when Bush 43 was president and the Republicans controlled Congress, they expanded Medicare, the federal role in local education, drove up the debt, etc.

Meanwhile, we are lectured by putative Republicans like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Ridge, and a conga line of others trashing often viciously NOT Obama and what the Democrats are doing to our nation, but conservatives, constitutionalists, and tea party activists who are the only people left standing for liberty against tyranny in this country.

I think the answer at this moment is for conservatives to retake the Republican Party. Reagan did it, and Reagan was opposed by the Republican establishment every step of the way, including the Bush family…After the Reagan presidency, Bush 41 and Bush 43, who'd opposed the Reagan Revolution, immediately dragged the nation back into the Republican mush. In fact, they sought to distance themselves from Reagan and his achievements, using such silly phrases as "a kinder and gentler" conservatism or "compassionate conservatism," as if all the opportunities, wealth, jobs, and enterprises Reagan's policies launched were neither kind nor compassionate.

There is an intransigence in the Republican Party that sabotages and obstructs those who have answers for this nation based on our founding principles. And so we had a brief eight-year period where Reagan showed us the way and created a foundation on which future Republican presidents could build, and they haven't. They invoke Reagan because he is beloved by the American people, but they reject his principles and policies. Keep in mind, George W. Bush was the most profligate spender in world history until Obama came along; the Tea Party grew out of the last months of Bush 43 and the early months of the Obama presidency. Yet Bush administration staffers are everywhere today: the media, advising candidates, leading fundraisers, etc. And they arrogantly and condescendingly lecture conservatives about responsible, moderate governance.

The so-called mainstream media promotes big government and those who advance it. Obama, for example, is their champion. When you look at the audience numbers for the networks, and you see the newspaper subscriptions dropping, that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. The years of near-monopoly control over what is said to be news by self-serving liberal propagandists needs to end, as the recent outrageous comments by Bob Schieffer and Tom Brokaw make clear. In the end, though, the consumer needs to be discerning.

Right now we have a government with so much power…I cannot conceal my great fear for the future of this country…We need to roll back the size of the federal Leviathan or it will surely be our undoing….We need to roll back the debt, even though the last Republican administration contributed mightily to it. The way to start is by cleaning out the old guard in the GOP and installing fresh, bold, articulate, knowledgeable, confident, courageous conservatives. We also must find ways to devolve political and economic power back to the states and the individual.

The one positive aspect I see today, there are more people in America now who have at least a general concept of how the Constitution is supposed to work, including the Bill of Rights, and a general concept of what the Declaration of Independence means, including the emphasis on the value of every individual…But I think, in part, that's why you see so many millions of people frustrated, because they know our government shouldn't be operating this way…so many people keep talking about the Constitution. I view this as a very positive thing. Are there more of us than there are the others -- that is, those who reject our heritage and are conquered by or have surrendered to the Leviathan? History will tell us one day.

The choice is in our hands right now.”

 


GUN CONTROL DEBATE: SOME EVENTS TO THINK ABOUT

Posted 1/19/13

I came across the following historical account on Facebook in the past week and thought it particularly relevant to the recent gun control debate.

•“A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine ...Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms 'for their own safety and protection.' The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

“Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

“The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

“The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for 'safety.' Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of 'our safety.’”

“Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families."

Very pointed and relevant to today, wouldn't you say?

•And for those dismissing the Wounded Knee Massacre as just a part of the old Indian Wars, consider the following:

Ruby Ridge: (This account came from an article written in 2002 by Timothy Lynch of the CATO Institute.)

“On August 21, 1992 a paramilitary unit of the U.S. Marshals Service ventured onto the 20-acre property known as Ruby Ridge. A man named Randy Weaver owned the land and he lived there with his wife, children, and a family friend, Kevin Harris. There was an outstanding warrant for Weaver's arrest for a firearms offense and the marshals were surveilling the premises. When the family dog noticed the marshals sneaking around in the woods, it began to bark wildly. Weaver's 14-year-old boy, Sammy, and Kevin Harris proceeded to grab their rifles because they thought the dog had come upon a wild animal.

A firefight erupted when a marshal shot and killed the dog. Enraged that the family pet had been cut down for no good reason, Sammy shot into the woods at the unidentified trespasser. Within a few minutes, two human beings were shot dead: Sammy Weaver and a marshal. Harris and the Weaver family retreated to their cabin and the marshals retreated from the mountain and called the FBI for assistance.

During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal “shoot to kill” orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.

After an 11-day standoff, Weaver agreed to surrender. The FBI told the world that it had apprehended a band of dangerous racists. The New York Times was duped into describing a family (two parents, three children) and one adult friend as 'an armed separatist brigade.' The Department of Justice proceeded to take over the case, charging Weaver and Harris with conspiracy to commit “murder.” Federal prosecutors asked an Idaho jury to impose the death penalty. Instead, the jury acquitted Weaver and Harris of all of the serious criminal charges.

When Weaver sued the federal government for the wrongful death of his wife and son, the government that had tried to kill him twice now sought an out-of-court settlement. In August 1995 the U.S. government paid the Weaver family $3.1 million. A Department of Justice official told the Washington Post that if Weaver's suit had gone to trial in Idaho, he probably would have been awarded $200 million.”

Also, we should all still have a memory of the U.S. government siege on the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

(Get a Parallax Look from Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


YOU DID KNOW HE WAS GONNA RAISE TAXES, RIGHT?

Posted 1/11/13

•Welcome to 2013 my loyal readers - time to resume the fight to keep American from being “fundamentally transformed.”

•If you weren't paying attention, the RINO's at the head of Congress gave-in to Obama's demands that we allow him to raise taxes. It all happened in the early morning hours of January 1.

Remember the saying that nothing good happens at 2am in the morning? Well that goes triple for government activities at those hours.

Of course, Obama maintained all along that he was only raising taxes on the evil rich. But as those of us who know, and aren't afraid to admit, that he was lying, that wasn't the case.

“What happened that my Social Security withholdings in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com.

“My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don't feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna' hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?” opined another.

SURPRISE! Democrats who supported Obama's re-election just refused to believe that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes on the rich wouldn't end up raising THEIR TAXES.

“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote a poster ironically named “RomneyLies.”

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn't help,” wrote another named “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn't realize it, either. Our payroll department didn't do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

So let's explain this. In 2009, Obama trimmed the payroll tax deduction from employees' paychecks, dropping the Social Security rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But the drop ended on Dec. 31, 2012, and all working taxpayers woke up Jan. 1 with less money for their work.

“My paycheck just went down. So did my wife's. This hurts us. But everybody says it's a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a 'premium.' Nope. It's a tax, and it just went up.” Posted Bake.

There are still many that still don't know their taxes went up. They'll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you're kicking it at work around grumbling co-workers on the 16th, ask them, “Who'd you vote for in November?”

When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”

We warned you. (The real work for this story was done by Joseph Curl for The Washington Times.)

•Recall NBC's David Gregory breaking D.C. gun laws on-air a couple of weeks ago? Haven't heard of his prosecution have we?

•Former Army Specialist Adam Meckler, a multi-tour veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, was arrested in D.C. in 2011 for possessing ordinary self-defense ammunition; no gun.

Meckler was in D.C. for paperwork to leave the military after 9 years. On Sept. 19, 2011, Meckler was arrested when building security found 14 loose 9mm rounds in his backpack. Federal police put him in handcuffs and drove him to police headquarters, where he was put in jail, with no phone call.

Meckler spent about two hours alone in the cell. He kept thinking, “I can't believe this is happening.”

Police charged Meckler with possessing “unregistered ammunition” They gave him back his bag and released him with a court date.

The maximum penalty for having unregistered ammunition is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. There were 594 arrests for unregistered ammunition in 2011 in D.C. To date in 2012, there have been 292 arrests. Meckler was one of only nine nonresidents arrested just for unregistered ammunition in 2011.

He didn't fight the charges because he didn't have the time or money. He accepted a deal from the city to plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge and got 30 days unsupervised probation, pay a $100 fine and make $100 "donation" to the Victims of Violent Crimes fund. Meckler was then placed on the District's Gun Offender Registry.
Emily Miller with The Washington Times followed up on the story in the wake of the Gregory incident.

“It's been more than a week since police in Washington, D.C., opened an investigation into NBC's David Gregory's possession of a 'high-capacity magazine' that's prohibited in the District. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier's spokesman refused Monday to respond to whether Mr. Gregory had even been interviewed yet. This is a rather curious departure for a city that has been ruthless in enforcing this particular firearms statute against law-abiding citizens who made an honest mistake.”

“In Gregory's case, NBC asked the police in advance for permission to bring the contraband into Washington for an interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, but it was not granted.”

“'I unknowingly broke the law,' Mr. Meckler told The Washington Times. 'Mr. Gregory knowingly broke the law.”

These laws don't apply just to “regular” people but also to the rich and powerful. D.C. should either repeal its over-the-top restrictions or send a squad car to take David Gregory into custody.

What do you think?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


A FORMULA FOR OUTRIGHT DISASTER

Posted 1/4/13

As all this fiscal cliff nonsense gets bantered about in the media, it becomes apparent that the drive-by media doesn't understand the issues at hand well enough to accurately communicate them. The Heritage Foundation did a great job compiling 10 of the most important elements of the fiscal cliff issue for your consideration.

1. 2012 concluded with a $1.1 trillion deficit, marking the fourth year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Too much spending is the root cause of the federal government's deep and sustained deficits. At 23 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2012 and on track to rise further, federal spending is growing at a dangerous pace.

2. On September 4, the U.S. national debt hit the $16 trillion mark. We owe more on the national debt than the entire U.S. economy produced in goods and services in all of 2012. Sixteen trillion dollar bills stacked one on top of the other would measure more than 1 million miles high, which would reach to the moon and back more than twice.

3. On January 30, the federal government raised its debt limit from a staggering $15.2 trillion to an even bigger $16.4 trillion.

4. Much of 2012 was spent arguing over tax rates in the fiscal cliff debate while lawmakers ignored the much more dangerous looming fiscal crisis. As large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they stand in the shadow of $48 trillion in long-term unfunded obligations in Social Security and Medicare. Even with President Obama's originally proposed tax hikes in his budget, the federal debt would still rise by more than $7.7 trillion in the next 10 years.

5. According to the 2012 trustees report, Social Security spent $45 billion more in benefits in 2011 than it took in from its payroll tax. This deficit is in addition to a $49 billion gap in 2010 and an expected average annual gap of about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018. Social Security's deficits will balloon yet further. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $95 billion in 2020 and $318.7 billion in 2030 before the trust fund runs out in 2033 and a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut occurs.

6. The last time both chambers of Congress agreed on a budget was on April 29, 2009. Since then, Congress has operated on a spend-as-you-go basis, characterized by incoherent, ad hoc budget procedures. The House passed budget resolutions each of the past two years, but the Senate failed to do its part.

7. The average American household's share of federal spending in 2012 was $29,691, or roughly two-thirds of median household income. The government collected $20,293 per household in taxes in 2012, resulting in a budget deficit of $9,398 per household in 2012.

8. After the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office did an update of its scoring of the law. The result: Obamacare will spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years on its coverage expansion provisions alone, including a massive expansion of Medicaid and federal subsidies for the new health insurance exchanges. This means that Obamacare will increase federal health spending by 15 percent.

9. In 1993, Social Security surpassed national defense as the largest federal spending category, and it remains first today. The top five biggest spending programs, in order, are 1) Social Security; 2) national defense; 3) Medicare; 4) Medicaid, CHIP, and other government health care; and 5) interest on the debt.

10. According to Census Bureau data and Heritage Foundation calculations, 129 million people in America depend on a government program for basic (or not so basic) needs, such as rent, prescription drugs, and higher education.

That is a formula for outright disaster. Something has to change.

•This little item was particularly interesting.

Matt Damon was blathering on about his latest anti-movie – I believe this one was against fracking, which is a method of extracting petroleum and natural gas actually called “hydraulic fracturing.” I think Damon and his band of lunatics are afraid that the process is somehow going to destroy the earth and then we'll all die, but the important part of this interview occurs below:

Damon also was asked for his thoughts on Clint Eastwood's performance at the Republican National Convention (the two worked together on 2010's “Hereafter”).

“I heard the backlash, but I never saw the whole thing because I just didn't want to see my friend … you know. Look, his knowledge of filmmaking is so vast and deep that he can wing it beautifully on the set. What he did at the RNC was an unrehearsed bit he decided to do at the last minute. You can't go onstage and do 12 minutes of stand-up completely unrehearsed. But I agree with what Bill Maher said — Clint killed it at the convention for 12 minutes, and the audience loved him. I wouldn't do that unless I spent a month rehearsing.”

You know that Damon would love to have ripped into Eastwood for making fun of Obama during the Republican National Convention last summer. But Matt's convictions go only so far. He knows how powerful Eastwood is in the industry. Careful how you phrase your veiled criticism there Matt.

•I have a sinking feeling that Chiefs GM Scott Pioli is going to survive this season and return for 2013. I think that Clark Hunt secretly extended Pioli's contract before this season completely went down the drain and now he's stuck financially. He can't dump him without eating a ton of GM contract.

I hope I'm wrong.

Have a superb 2013 my loyal readers and thank you all for your support.

(Get your Parallax Look from Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

For earlier columns, click here