Wednesday, November 30, 2016

What Trump means by Make America Great Again

“It may be worth noting that during the almost exact amount of time it took to win WW II, the current administration could not build an effective web site for its health care initiative.” – Burt Rutan


 

By Burt Rutan

About half  of our country is puzzled about MAGA (Make America Great Again).  The Left says we ARE great, so what is he talking about?  They think and talk without any regard for our past.


Space:

America, from 1961 to 1969 built and flew 7 different rocket systems that launched humans into space, including going to a place we cannot access today – the moon.  America then developed only two for the next 46 years, one of them done by a team of about 40 people in a tiny desert town of Mojave, California.


Defense:

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and ended with the surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. designed and produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks. The preponderance of the raw materials for these items came from within.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed a deliverable atomic bomb, and ultimately achieved an unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany, two of the three of our most effective allies today.  Fortress England filled out that trilogy.  Note:  Our most effective military ally in WW II was the Soviet Union whose ground forces single handedly pushed the Germans back from the Volga, Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg) all the way to Berlin. Note:  They did not disarm following their blood earned victory (Soviet losses, dead or missing ~ 27 million that includes ~ 9 million military).

By way of comparison, we then spent eight years fighting a war in Vietnam, three years in Korea that ended in an armistice, not a victory, and now 15 years in the Sand Box with inconclusive results. You may want to repeat that sentence to yourself two or three times and let it settle in.

It may be worth noting that during the almost exact amount of time it took to win WW II, the current administration could not build an effective web site for its health care initiative.  Balance that with the fact that we were equipped, and prepared to fight and win, a simultaneous two-front war with China and the Soviet Union from 1947 until 1991. One need not lose sleep pondering the intuitive and self evident reasons for choosing this road to perdition:

Either the “Times they are a changing”.

Or we are.

______________________________________

Thanks to Burt Rutan for this article.

Burt Rutan designed Voyager, the first aircraft to fly around the globe without stopping or refueling. He also designed SpaceShipOne financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, which won the $10 million Ansari X-Prize in 2004 for becoming the first privately-funded manned craft to enter the realm of space twice within a two-week period. Both, along with three other of his aircraft, are on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.  Burt’s recent projects include a flying car, and the Virgin GlobalFlyer which broke Voyager’s time for a non-stop solo flight around the world.

During his 46-year career, Rutan has designed 372 new types of aircraft, of which 45 have been built and taken through flight test. Right now he is designing a seaplane, just for himself.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Here are the 12 reasons I voted Democratic:

Roy Exum: James Anderson's Letter
chattanoogan.com ^ | November 17, 2012 | Roy Exum

Posted on ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2016‎ ‎10‎:‎35‎:‎52‎ ‎AM by UMCRevMom@aol.com

Roy Exum Roy Exum

James Anderson, a gentleman of the South from Talladega, Ala., has written a list of “The 12 Reasons I Voted Democratic” and, after it appeared in the Scottsboro (Ala.) Daily Sentinel last Saturday, it was sent to me by a dear friend who has the same leanings. It is with devilish delight I pass it along for your perusal.

Mr. Anderson could not be contacted for additional comments yesterday but I believe his comments alone will sufficiently entertain you as we await the kickoff of today’s college football games:

* * *

Dear Editor:

Here are the 12 reasons I voted Democratic:

1. I voted Democratic because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I now may marry my Labrador.

2. I voted Democratic because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the Government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

3. I voted Democratic because I believe the Government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

4. I voted Democratic because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as I agree with what is said and nobody else is offended by it.

5. I voted Democratic because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I voted Democratic because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democratic because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

8. I voted Democratic because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democratic because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

10. I voted Democratic because I believe liberal Judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democratic because I think that it’s better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, spotted owl, gopher or fish.

12. I voted Democratic because my head is so firmly misplaced toward the south end of my body; it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

No trees, Spotted Owls, or Red Cock-headed Woodpeckers were harmed in the sending of this message.

—James W. Anderson

Talladega, Alabama

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Manipulating climate data right before our eyes

Michael Sununu, Union Leader

THE RECENT ELECTIONS have caused the climate alarmists’ heads to spin. Without a liberal President to force green policies on America, there is little chance their agenda will move forward. Regardless of policy preferences, what elected officials need to focus on is what is actually going on in our climate and what steps need to be taken to address them. It’s the data that count. The real data.

On this point, let’s all agree that the world is warming. It has been since the 1800s when the world started to emerge from the Little Ice Age. We have had periods of warming, periods of cooling and periods when global temperatures didn’t do much of anything.

The bigger question is “Are we seeing recent temperature trends that are out of the ordinary of what we have seen in the past?” Alarmists tend to scream that temperatures are rising out of control, in an unprecedented manner, and that we are reaching a tipping point beyond which we are doomed.

That is all a lie, but I am sure they believe it.

Let’s look at the data, and just as importantly what alarmists have been doing to the data.

If you look at raw global surface temperatures, you see the rate of increase in the early part of the 20th century is the same as what occurred from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. No one has argued the first rate of change was anything but natural. So why must the more recent warming be manmade? In addition, we saw a flat/downward trend in global temperatures from the 1940s to the 1970s and we saw, at least up until recently, another almost 20 year flat temperature period to start this century.

So if what we are seeing are trends that are no different than in the past, why should we think it is anything but natural? We shouldn’t. In fact, any scientist should assume that nature is driving global temperatures and prove otherwise before arguing that mankind is driving our climate. One of the dirty little secrets of the alarmists is that they haven’t been able to prove that. They like to point to the correlation of rising carbon dioxide levels and temperatures as “proof”, but even a third grader knows that isn’t proof. Their climate models certainly make it look warmer, but the model forecasts are terrible, only proving that the models don’t work.

So what is a climate alarmist to do? Well if you don’t want to fix the models, you fix the temperatures. And that is exactly what has been going on.

Anyone who has closely followed the climate debate is familiar with the “adjustments” to the raw temperature data. What most Average Joes don’t realize is that the adjustments are almost entirely done to accomplish one thing - cool the past and warm the present.

How did they do this? Scientists have “smoothed” regional temperatures to get better agreement between urban and rural data. But instead of adjusting city temperatures lower (because of urban heat effects) they raised rural temperatures. More recently, in order to get rid of the “pause” in temperatures, they adjusted the sea surface temperatures higher when they decided that mid-20th century temperatures taken in ship engine intakes are more accurate than the modern ocean buoys. That’s right, the technology of the 1950s with the ship engine heat influencing the data was determined to be better than the network of modern electronics uninfluenced by external heat sources. And these are only a few examples of what has been going on.

On a more local level, between 2011 and 2013, the NOAA data set lowered annual Maine temperatures between three to five degrees in the early 1900s....and made almost no changes to recent temperatures. That “adjustment” is more than three times the actual warming we have seen.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

When you look at how temperatures have been manipulated you start to wonder if we have any idea what the global temperature is. Over the past decade or so, the keepers of the data have cooled temperatures in the pre-1910 period the equivalent of -0.52 degrees per century. They warmed temperatures from 1980 to the early part of this century by the equivalent of +0.11 degrees per century.

Those two changes represent half the warming since 1900! And this was before the “pause buster” sea surface temperature manipulation took place.

Keep this in mind when the alarmists start demanding more action. When every iteration of the global temperature data set incrementally warms the present and cools the past, it’s not science. It’s manipulation. Mother Nature is still driving the climate, no matter how much they fudge the data for their agenda.

Michael Sununu is a small businessman and selectman in Newfields.

Monday, November 21, 2016

The left's lies about Stephen Bannon

Sunday, November 20, 2016

 

Debunk

Stefan Molyneux thoroughly de-bunks leftist smears against Steve Bannon.  He discusses the left's smear tactics, the hypocrisy, anti-semitism, racism and cowardice in their rhetoric about "white" nationalism.  Molyneux also concludes that the left's claims to champion diversity are phony; the left is not pro-diversity, they are only "pro-all-groups-who-vote-for-the-left" - it's why, for example, they support open borders - for votes. If they thought that poor Mexican border jumpers would vote Republican instead of (overwhelmingly) Democrat, they'd be clamouring for a giant wall - diversity be damned.

Posted by JR at 4:45 PM

Labels: cowardice, hypocrisy, leftists, liars, racism, Stefan Molyneux, Steve Bannon

Sunday, November 20, 2016

The MSM Is Right: There Is a Racist Party in America (American Thinker)

 

By Tom Trinko

The mainstream media (MSM) are right.  There is a political party today that has racism as a core value and is working incessantly to keep blacks down.  It's the Democratic Party.  Of course, since Democrat politicians never say what they really believe, most Democrat voters aren't aware they're supporting racism.

Like their predecessors who fought a war to keep slavery legal, who founded the KKK, who passed the Jim Crow laws, who fought for school segregation, and who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, modern Democrat politicians are constantly working to ensure that blacks be poor, ignorant, and totally dependent on the government.

Slave-owning Democrats believed that blacks were not really smart enough to run their own lives.

Modern Democrat talking heads constantly declare that in a country where Japanese Americans could go from Democrat-mandated prison camps to having one of the highest per household incomes in America, without Democrat help, blacks somehow can't manage to do anything.  It's the same paternalistic attitude that earlier Democrats used to justify slavery.

Of course, the new slavery is different from the old: instead of picking cotton for hours in the blazing sun, modern blacks only have to vote Democrat, settle for unsafe neighborhoods, and be willing to live with the fact that their children will never get a decent education.

Charter schools and private schools have proven that they can educate black inner-city children.  Black parents go to extreme lengths to get their kids in those schools because blacks love their kids, too.  Yet Democrat politicians are constantly opposing those schools, and the idea of school choice, because they apparently care more about the millions the teacher unions pour into Democrat coffers than they do about black children getting a decent education.

What better recipe for securing the black vote than ensuring that blacks depend on government for life itself while using the compliant MSM to convince them that their problems are all due to Republicans – who, of course, have no power in the cities those blacks live in?  This is another reason why it's necessary to make sure blacks can't get a decent education.  Ignorant, uneducated people of any race are more likely to fall for propaganda, after all.

Democrat politicians have even figured out how to use taxpayer dollars to pay for keeping blacks around to vote.  Their slave-owning predecessors had to at least pay to feed and house their slaves.

If you're saying, "No, this can't be so," then ponder a few "inconvenient truths."

In America, thousands of blacks are shot each year in Democrat-run cities, yet Democrats who run those cities with an iron fist do nothing that works to fix the problem.  While one could believe that a non-racist might think for a few years that gun control actually protects law-abiding blacks, only someone who doesn't have black interests at heart could continue to believe so after decades of failure.

Note too that it's not thousands of whites who are getting shot in Chiraq (that is, Chicago), nor is it white neighborhoods where it's unsafe during the day.  If you're black, you're 12 times more likely to be shot than if you're white in Chiraq, where Democrats have ruled since dinosaurs roamed the Illinois plains.

Democrats got far more riled up about a police officer shooting a black criminal in self-defense, according to Obama's DOJ, than they did about a nine-year-old black boy being the targeted victim of a gang hit.  Why?  Could it be that white liberals hate the cops and don't really care about blacks?

Democrats are also big fans of Planned Parenthood even though PP's founder was an avowed racist who viewed blacks as inferior.  It's possible to be pro-choice but not a racist, of course.  But it makes one wonder why Democrats aren't upset about the fact that the leading cause of death for black Americans is abortion.  That Democrats continue to laud PP even though 79% of PP "clinics" are in or near minority neighborhoods is also strange if Democrats really care about blacks.The recent call by Democrats for taxpayer funding of abortions because that will "save money" is nothing less than saying that aborting the babies of people on welfare will save money.  Note that when rich liberal Democrats talk about people on welfare, it's really unlikely that they're thinking about whites.

If Democrat politicians really aren't racists, it's odd that there are no Democrats saying abortion should be legal but that we should do something about the fact that a black woman is five times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman.

Then there's welfare.  The entire supposed pivot of Democrats on racism is based on their support for welfare, which "rescued" blacks from poverty.

That hasn't worked too well, given that black poverty is still twice that of white poverty.

More importantly, welfare has contributed to the destruction of the black family and the resulting culture that makes it very hard for even very dedicated blacks to escape the ghetto.  With 70% of blacks born to single mothers and with being in a single-parent family being the strongest correlation with drug use, criminality, teen pregnancy, and poverty, people who care about blacks, like the Republicans who pushed for welfare reform, would demand change.

If Democrats cared about blacks, they'd have noticed the problem by the 1970s and tried to fix it.  Instead, they doubled down on the same failed approaches.  But if their objective is to keep blacks dependent and scared, maybe those policies weren't failures after all.

Finally, one has only to look at how Democrats treat blacks who wander off the Democrats' thought plantation to see that love of blacks is not at the core of the Democratic Party.  If any Republican had talked about Obama the way Democrats talk about Ben Carson, Justice Clarence Thomas, and any number of other black conservative intellectuals, he'd have been tarred and feathered by the MSM.

It's a crime that 52 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, blacks are still being oppressed by the same Democratic Party that fought so hard for slavery 153 years ago.

Stop letting Democrat politicians get away with claiming to care when their actions show that their only concern is about votes.  They helicopter into the black community every election cycle, explain how it's all the Republicans' fault, and then helicopter back to their tony neighborhoods, where their kids go to great schools and it's safe to walk at night.

Don't let Democrats get away with pretending to care about blacks while they fight tooth and nail against any policy that would give blacks a chance to earn their share of the American Dream.

It's time that America threw off the Democrat legacy of preventing blacks from reaching their true potential.  It's time to end the nearly 200-year-long Democrat war on blacks and bring down the last vestiges of racism in America.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

The mainstream media (MSM) are right.  There is a political party today that has racism as a core value and is working incessantly to keep blacks down.  It's the Democratic Party.  Of course, since Democrat politicians never say what they really believe, most Democrat voters aren't aware they're supporting racism.

Like their predecessors who fought a war to keep slavery legal, who founded the KKK, who passed the Jim Crow laws, who fought for school segregation, and who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, modern Democrat politicians are constantly working to ensure that blacks be poor, ignorant, and totally dependent on the government.

Slave-owning Democrats believed that blacks were not really smart enough to run their own lives.

Modern Democrat talking heads constantly declare that in a country where Japanese Americans could go from Democrat-mandated prison camps to having one of the highest per household incomes in America, without Democrat help, blacks somehow can't manage to do anything.  It's the same paternalistic attitude that earlier Democrats used to justify slavery.

Of course, the new slavery is different from the old: instead of picking cotton for hours in the blazing sun, modern blacks only have to vote Democrat, settle for unsafe neighborhoods, and be willing to live with the fact that their children will never get a decent education.

Charter schools and private schools have proven that they can educate black inner-city children.  Black parents go to extreme lengths to get their kids in those schools because blacks love their kids, too.  Yet Democrat politicians are constantly opposing those schools, and the idea of school choice, because they apparently care more about the millions the teacher unions pour into Democrat coffers than they do about black children getting a decent education.

What better recipe for securing the black vote than ensuring that blacks depend on government for life itself while using the compliant MSM to convince them that their problems are all due to Republicans – who, of course, have no power in the cities those blacks live in?  This is another reason why it's necessary to make sure blacks can't get a decent education.  Ignorant, uneducated people of any race are more likely to fall for propaganda, after all.

Democrat politicians have even figured out how to use taxpayer dollars to pay for keeping blacks around to vote.  Their slave-owning predecessors had to at least pay to feed and house their slaves.

If you're saying, "No, this can't be so," then ponder a few "inconvenient truths."

In America, thousands of blacks are shot each year in Democrat-run cities, yet Democrats who run those cities with an iron fist do nothing that works to fix the problem.  While one could believe that a non-racist might think for a few years that gun control actually protects law-abiding blacks, only someone who doesn't have black interests at heart could continue to believe so after decades of failure.

Note too that it's not thousands of whites who are getting shot in Chiraq (that is, Chicago), nor is it white neighborhoods where it's unsafe during the day.  If you're black, you're 12 times more likely to be shot than if you're white in Chiraq, where Democrats have ruled since dinosaurs roamed the Illinois plains.

Democrats got far more riled up about a police officer shooting a black criminal in self-defense, according to Obama's DOJ, than they did about a nine-year-old black boy being the targeted victim of a gang hit.  Why?  Could it be that white liberals hate the cops and don't really care about blacks?

Democrats are also big fans of Planned Parenthood even though PP's founder was an avowed racist who viewed blacks as inferior.  It's possible to be pro-choice but not a racist, of course.  But it makes one wonder why Democrats aren't upset about the fact that the leading cause of death for black Americans is abortion.  That Democrats continue to laud PP even though 79% of PP "clinics" are in or near minority neighborhoods is also strange if Democrats really care about blacks.The recent call by Democrats for taxpayer funding of abortions because that will "save money" is nothing less than saying that aborting the babies of people on welfare will save money.  Note that when rich liberal Democrats talk about people on welfare, it's really unlikely that they're thinking about whites.

If Democrat politicians really aren't racists, it's odd that there are no Democrats saying abortion should be legal but that we should do something about the fact that a black woman is five times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman.

Then there's welfare.  The entire supposed pivot of Democrats on racism is based on their support for welfare, which "rescued" blacks from poverty.

That hasn't worked too well, given that black poverty is still twice that of white poverty.

More importantly, welfare has contributed to the destruction of the black family and the resulting culture that makes it very hard for even very dedicated blacks to escape the ghetto.  With 70% of blacks born to single mothers and with being in a single-parent family being the strongest correlation with drug use, criminality, teen pregnancy, and poverty, people who care about blacks, like the Republicans who pushed for welfare reform, would demand change.

If Democrats cared about blacks, they'd have noticed the problem by the 1970s and tried to fix it.  Instead, they doubled down on the same failed approaches.  But if their objective is to keep blacks dependent and scared, maybe those policies weren't failures after all.

Finally, one has only to look at how Democrats treat blacks who wander off the Democrats' thought plantation to see that love of blacks is not at the core of the Democratic Party.  If any Republican had talked about Obama the way Democrats talk about Ben Carson, Justice Clarence Thomas, and any number of other black conservative intellectuals, he'd have been tarred and feathered by the MSM.

It's a crime that 52 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, blacks are still being oppressed by the same Democratic Party that fought so hard for slavery 153 years ago.

Stop letting Democrat politicians get away with claiming to care when their actions show that their only concern is about votes.  They helicopter into the black community every election cycle, explain how it's all the Republicans' fault, and then helicopter back to their tony neighborhoods, where their kids go to great schools and it's safe to walk at night.

Don't let Democrats get away with pretending to care about blacks while they fight tooth and nail against any policy that would give blacks a chance to earn their share of the American Dream.

It's time that America threw off the Democrat legacy of preventing blacks from reaching their true potential.  It's time to end the nearly 200-year-long Democrat war on blacks and bring down the last vestiges of racism in America.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

The True Historical View on What Obama has Done to The World

From the freerepulic.com
Candor7 ^ | 19th November 2016 | Candor7

Posted on ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2016‎ ‎4‎:‎39‎:‎31‎ ‎AM by Candor7

It has been widely published that Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with Trump in New York, where the incoming president is working on setting up an administration after his surprise election victory last week "that has injected new uncertainty into old U.S. alliances."

The spin now is that Trump himself has interjected uncertainties, the left attempting to whistle past its own graveyard of hastily buried corpses.

We need to understand exactly what is happening. This is big picture stuff. Very Important

It was Obama who introduced uncertainty into our traditional alliances, including Japan, not Trump.

In particular all of our allies watched in horror and disbelief when Obama abandoned US allies Libya and Egypt , using various ideological politically correct excuses of disagreement on the internal affairs of those nations.Libya was destroyed by NATO, a travesty.

Trump is repairing that damage and DE-emphasizing the Saudi role in Americas international affairs.The Sods have one last chore to do.Look after the refugees of the Levant.

This author of the Associated Press thread article is far from being up to speed on the issues yet.Lets help the AP and others out, as the attempt to obscure true history:

The EU bent over for Obama, the great Nobel Peace Prize recipient.Obama entered, drank their wine,ate their cheese, denigrated their anti-Muslim crackers,smelled their perfume,breached stuffy protocols, kissed male leaders on the lips, convinced the EU of his moral superiority as Americas first blackish president. They believed their own myth.Japan does not.Japan remembered the utopian fascism of Tojo while Europe all but forgot the utopian-ism of Hitler and Mussolini.

Obama then used Europe to create his Arab Spring, releasing millions of refugees from the Levant, Libya and Africa, all aimed at the heart of Russia,a US betrayal of its allies, Libya and Egypt, an exercise in modern demographic warfare via community organizing.Putin saw Obama coming and seized the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to prevent Muslim refugees from entering Russia, and aided Syria, and Iran...stopping Obama short for the embarrassing sophomore that he was.

The masses of refugees created by Obama and Clinton streamed into Western Europe, crossing the Mediterranean, sliding into Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and beyond. Brussels and the EU played their politically correct cards, accepting the demographic warfare fomented by Obama, who even now continues to hoodwink Europe and the EU, assuring them that their world will not fall apart as the Muslim hordes continue to descend on Germany. Europe is losing itself.

Trump is right, Brexit is right. Its a new world. And Shinzo Abe is right. Obama and his apologia to Islamic nations for Western civilization is now history; a gravidly obtuse and dirty history, obscene and unworthy of America. We will no longer tolerate it quietly.

And we all now see Obama defined as the Utopian liberal fascist that he is, who convinced Europe that he was not just another shuck and jive politician, once again Europe believed in a Utopia, just as they had accepted the Utopias of Hitler and Mussolini. Hoodwinked yet again by an American presidential psychopomp, whose similarities to his European predecessor utopians went completely unnoticed, even when they were complicit in the illegal destruction of Libya , and destroyed the 8th wonder of the world, The Great Man Made River, genocide caused by destroying the water supply of a whole people.You won’t read about that in any liberal progressive rag. The EU should be ashamed of itself.It certainly does not deserve to continue.

If the EU does not take the opportunity afforded by Trump to repudiate Obama, they will become Muslim nations, or become the conquered of Russia. The EU has only a short amount of time to realize its foolishness in the destruction of Libya at the hands of utopian liberal fascism, a whole nation destroyed by the very political correctness which now threatens the destruction of Europe as we know it.

Merkel must go. Lepin must win France. Its all about to begin: the battle for the heart and soul of Europe. Britain is safe,only for the moment.

Brussels is done, but Europe? We shall see.America will yet again attempt to rescue Europe from itself.But there is little enthusiasm for it after what Europe and Obama did to Libya, an act of infamy which will go down in history as one of the most heinous acts ever perpetrated on a third world nation of camel herders by the so called civilized nations of NATO. SHAME!

Obama is running around Europe like a one armed paper hanger as his international grift falls completely apart.Trump and his allies know perfectly well what to do next. The effects of Arab Spring on Europe must be stopped.No more demographic warfare will be allowed.The Saudis will pay for the relocation of the refugees created by Obama, or they will sit by and watch them die. This is the true Obama legacy.

Meanwhile Japan under Shinzo Abe gets it, Europe excluding Britain does not.

The Sheriff is back in town: The United States of America.

********************

A primer:

Barrack Obama: The Quintessential Fascist by Kyle Anne Shiver

Thursday, November 17, 2016

K-12: The Land of Bad Science

From America Thinker

By Bruce Deitrick Price

I love WIRED magazine. I read it cover-to-cover every month.

If you want to know about a complex digital phenomenon such as Stuxnet, for example, read the story in WIRED. That's where Israeli and American brainiacs planted viruses and other malware in the Iranian nuclear program, thereby crippling it for several years.  The complexity of this operation was almost beyond human grasp.  Most of Iran's centrifuges and gauges were controlled by foreign enemies.  Motors ran at destructively high speeds, but the gauges said everything was fine.

In one area, however, WIRED disappoints me greatly.  The editors don't seem to grasp that Stuxnet-like phenomena abound throughout American K-12.

As with Stuxnet, you have viruses and malware planted in every public school.  Genuine, efficient education is virtually impossible to achieve.  Every aspect of the school's operation is compromised.  Gauges don't give good readings; centrifuges run at the wrong speeds.  Hostile forces seem to control everything.  One is reminded of the famous A Nation At Risk report (1983), which declared: "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

It was.  It is.

Good pedagogical techniques are like an efficient machine or a well designed circuit.  You get the most results with the least energy.  That's what science is all about.

Well, here is some tragic news.  You won't find such fancy outcomes in our K-12.

What our schools are full of is bad science and egregious engineering.  That's where I tell you that to learn to read or do arithmetic, you have to hop on one foot, wear only denim, or whistle "Dixie."  In other words, the pedagogy includes unnecessary and destructive steps.

Bad science, intellectually speaking, is almost as fascinating as good science.  How exactly does it work?  Who sets out to design something blatantly inefficient?  Who funds and authorizes a clunker?  (It's not just bad science.  It's bad faith, and it should put people in jail.)

Throughout World War II, sabotage was a constant menace.  The Germans relied heavily on slave labor; slaves often figured out how to create failure by design.  Anything with a motor has ball bearings.  A grain of sand can cause early malfunction.  Or drop bearings on the floor and warp them a little; months later, a torpedo might veer off course instead of destroying an enemy freighter.  That inaccuracy is exactly equivalent to some of the misguided theories and methods used in our public schools.  These educational torpedoes, so to speak, are not intended to hit their announced targets.

Good educational practice requires not just sincere people, but lots of research and testing.  Education has a lot in common with cooking and chemistry – they are all empirical sciences.  You have to test and refine many recipes until you are sure you have found the best quiche, the ideal plastic, or the perfect way to teach arithmetic.

Any time a massive new educational scheme is imposed on the country more or less overnight, you know it's bad science and a fraud.  The people in charge can have no idea whether they have the optimal answers.  Whole Word was pushed into every school in 1931, as fast as resistance could be smashed.  New Math was imposed the same way circa 1962.  Reform Math was imposed the same way circa 1985.  And then we had the onslaught known as Common Core around 2009.  All of these things had the delicacy, and the helpfulness, of Hitler invading Russia in 1941.  All were failures from the point of view of better education.  But if your goal is to subvert the country, these initiatives were successful.  They are all bad science and, in varying degrees, still damaging the local kids.

By contrast, let's look at what serious educational research looks like.  Operation Follow-Through, from 1967 to 1977, pitted a half-dozen major educational theories against each other, using 200,000 students.  Siegfried Engelman's Direct Instruction won overwhelmingly.  The federal officials had promised Engelmann that the winning ideas would be put into practice throughout the country.  In fact, the treacherous feds reneged on their promises and went on supporting the worst theories – i.e., various varieties of bad science.

Operation Follow-Through shows you two things: what the best theories are and that our Education Establishment is staffed by phonies.  No similar testing has since been attempted, as the experts know that their ideas would lose.

WIRED and other educational publications should be interested in all facets of education.  They should be especially fascinated by the blatant breakdown of common sense and logic that we see throughout our school system.  Weirdly dysfunctional methods are preferred even though the proper methods are well known.  Why?  All these bad methods are like running centrifuges at excessive speeds.  You wouldn't do this if you had benevolent goals.

Bad science appears in endless manifestations, like ugly prison tattoos.  Let us consider a tiny example.  Several decades ago, schools started emphasizing a gimmick called self-esteem.  Anything that reduces a child's self-esteem is said to be bad; it must be eliminated.  If the goal is to count to 20, and a few children can't learn this, what is the remedy?  Should we give extra help to the kids who can't count?  No.  We stop expecting any kids to count to 20, so no one will feel bad.

All by itself, self-esteem can destroy a school system.  Multiply this tiny example by dozens of other gimmicks and millions of kids.  You will have a wasteland cleverly created by bad science.

The problem with our school system is that the lower-level people seem poorly trained to pursue excellence, and at the top there seems to be a cadre of dedicated subversives who deliberately sabotage our schools for ideological reasons.  Socialism prefers leveling.

K-12 is the land that smart, well intentioned people abandoned.  Education is a field where science is much more critical than is normally thought, and where science is routinely flouted more than anyone imagines.

Conversely, education well-crafted is a thing of beauty, and all students benefit.  Why isn't WIRED leading the charge to find the best theories and methods?

Donald Trump promised to eliminate Common Core and return schools to local control.  When this happens, the goal for all these newly liberated forces is simply stated: put good science back into the schools.

Bruce Deitrick Price explains theories and methods on his education site Improve-Education.org.  For info on his four new novels, see his literary site Lit4u.com.

I love WIRED magazine. I read it cover-to-cover every month.

If you want to know about a complex digital phenomenon such as Stuxnet, for example, read the story in WIRED. That's where Israeli and American brainiacs planted viruses and other malware in the Iranian nuclear program, thereby crippling it for several years.  The complexity of this operation was almost beyond human grasp.  Most of Iran's centrifuges and gauges were controlled by foreign enemies.  Motors ran at destructively high speeds, but the gauges said everything was fine.

In one area, however, WIRED disappoints me greatly.  The editors don't seem to grasp that Stuxnet-like phenomena abound throughout American K-12.

As with Stuxnet, you have viruses and malware planted in every public school.  Genuine, efficient education is virtually impossible to achieve.  Every aspect of the school's operation is compromised.  Gauges don't give good readings; centrifuges run at the wrong speeds.  Hostile forces seem to control everything.  One is reminded of the famous A Nation At Risk report (1983), which declared: "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

It was.  It is.

Good pedagogical techniques are like an efficient machine or a well designed circuit.  You get the most results with the least energy.  That's what science is all about.

Well, here is some tragic news.  You won't find such fancy outcomes in our K-12.

What our schools are full of is bad science and egregious engineering.  That's where I tell you that to learn to read or do arithmetic, you have to hop on one foot, wear only denim, or whistle "Dixie."  In other words, the pedagogy includes unnecessary and destructive steps.

Bad science, intellectually speaking, is almost as fascinating as good science.  How exactly does it work?  Who sets out to design something blatantly inefficient?  Who funds and authorizes a clunker?  (It's not just bad science.  It's bad faith, and it should put people in jail.)

Throughout World War II, sabotage was a constant menace.  The Germans relied heavily on slave labor; slaves often figured out how to create failure by design.  Anything with a motor has ball bearings.  A grain of sand can cause early malfunction.  Or drop bearings on the floor and warp them a little; months later, a torpedo might veer off course instead of destroying an enemy freighter.  That inaccuracy is exactly equivalent to some of the misguided theories and methods used in our public schools.  These educational torpedoes, so to speak, are not intended to hit their announced targets.

Good educational practice requires not just sincere people, but lots of research and testing.  Education has a lot in common with cooking and chemistry – they are all empirical sciences.  You have to test and refine many recipes until you are sure you have found the best quiche, the ideal plastic, or the perfect way to teach arithmetic.

Any time a massive new educational scheme is imposed on the country more or less overnight, you know it's bad science and a fraud.  The people in charge can have no idea whether they have the optimal answers.  Whole Word was pushed into every school in 1931, as fast as resistance could be smashed.  New Math was imposed the same way circa 1962.  Reform Math was imposed the same way circa 1985.  And then we had the onslaught known as Common Core around 2009.  All of these things had the delicacy, and the helpfulness, of Hitler invading Russia in 1941.  All were failures from the point of view of better education.  But if your goal is to subvert the country, these initiatives were successful.  They are all bad science and, in varying degrees, still damaging the local kids.

By contrast, let's look at what serious educational research looks like.  Operation Follow-Through, from 1967 to 1977, pitted a half-dozen major educational theories against each other, using 200,000 students.  Siegfried Engelman's Direct Instruction won overwhelmingly.  The federal officials had promised Engelmann that the winning ideas would be put into practice throughout the country.  In fact, the treacherous feds reneged on their promises and went on supporting the worst theories – i.e., various varieties of bad science.

Operation Follow-Through shows you two things: what the best theories are and that our Education Establishment is staffed by phonies.  No similar testing has since been attempted, as the experts know that their ideas would lose.

WIRED and other educational publications should be interested in all facets of education.  They should be especially fascinated by the blatant breakdown of common sense and logic that we see throughout our school system.  Weirdly dysfunctional methods are preferred even though the proper methods are well known.  Why?  All these bad methods are like running centrifuges at excessive speeds.  You wouldn't do this if you had benevolent goals.

Bad science appears in endless manifestations, like ugly prison tattoos.  Let us consider a tiny example.  Several decades ago, schools started emphasizing a gimmick called self-esteem.  Anything that reduces a child's self-esteem is said to be bad; it must be eliminated.  If the goal is to count to 20, and a few children can't learn this, what is the remedy?  Should we give extra help to the kids who can't count?  No.  We stop expecting any kids to count to 20, so no one will feel bad.

All by itself, self-esteem can destroy a school system.  Multiply this tiny example by dozens of other gimmicks and millions of kids.  You will have a wasteland cleverly created by bad science.

The problem with our school system is that the lower-level people seem poorly trained to pursue excellence, and at the top there seems to be a cadre of dedicated subversives who deliberately sabotage our schools for ideological reasons.  Socialism prefers leveling.

K-12 is the land that smart, well intentioned people abandoned.  Education is a field where science is much more critical than is normally thought, and where science is routinely flouted more than anyone imagines.

Conversely, education well-crafted is a thing of beauty, and all students benefit.  Why isn't WIRED leading the charge to find the best theories and methods?

Donald Trump promised to eliminate Common Core and return schools to local control.  When this happens, the goal for all these newly liberated forces is simply stated: put good science back into the schools.

Bruce Deitrick Price explains theories and methods on his education site Improve-Education.org.  For info on his four new novels, see his literary site Lit4u.com.

Monday, October 31, 2016

Sheriff David Clarke: Police Chief's Washington Post apology was meaningless


The Hill ^ | October 31, 2016 | Sheriff David Clarke

Posted on ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2016‎ ‎12‎:‎37‎:‎40‎ ‎PM by FreedomPoster

Not everyone can stomach the fight against the increasingly bold and disturbingly un-fact- checked progressive narrative about police racism. Truth doesn’t matter, but if your job does, and you’re in law-enforcement, you better tow the line and jump on board the apology train.

When Terrence Cunningham on behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police apologized for historic mistreatment of minorities by police, his comments first appearing in the Washington Post, he was just another victim who couldn’t stomach fighting the tide of lies that have consumed the media for the past year.

In fact, race began to play a factor in American policing when, I presume about two years ago when it was clear Occupy hadn’t achieved the long-lasting change they desired, the left decided it needed a narrative to distract from its dismal record in serving the African-American (and every other) community.

Sam Cabral, President of the International Union of Police Associations called Cunningham’s apology, “from the self-serving standpoint of ignorance and inexperience that compels him to lay blame at the feet of hundreds of thousands of police officer’s risking their lives dealing with problems he has never had to face.”

In its Tuesday editorial, the Washington Times provides some context for the current state of policing: “Putting on a blue uniform has seldom been this hard. Thugs and killers have always despised the men and women who keep the peace, but now their bosses often no longer have their backs. When the badge is bent out of shape to suit the times, civility slides toward the ragged edge of barbarism,” the Washington Times Editorial Board wrote.

All this at a time when cops fatally shot by assailants is increasing.

Historic mistreatment of minorities has been a human problem, and we Americans have done a much better job of righting our wrongs, when we’ve had them, than most societies.

Here is the problem I have with this act of self-flagellation from a police chief born, raised and now police chief in one of the wealthiest communities in America. First, Cunningham has no idea of what life is like for street level officers in America’s urban ghetto. Second, no officer today was a part of the ugly chapter in American history that was slavery or that of police practices a half-century ago, in fact most were not even born yet. Third, he fell for the oldest trick in the race hustler’s playbook.

American jurisprudence has always been predicated on identifying those directly involved in wrongdoing and punishing them directly, not their descendants 240 years later. These apologies made for the sins of the past are meaningless.

In 1998, then President Bill Clinton apologized for the slave trade. In 2009 Congress passed resolutions apologizing for slavery. These were hailed as great first-steps. What didn’t follow however is the requirement by black America to forgive America so we can put this behind us and start the healing process. I said forgive, not forget.

There is a reason why no forgiveness is forthcoming. Civil rights leader Booker T. Washington told us why. He said, “There is a class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardship of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

This is what Chief Cunningham fails to understand. That neither he, white America nor the American police officer will ever be forgiven. Booker T. Washington knew it, I know it and so does the racial grievance crowd.

An apology is never enough. In fact, the discredited NAACP, attaché to the Democrat Party, quickly stepped in to note that this is a “first step.” The ACLU legal director used the same first-step phrase. What comes next will be determined by the rulers of the left. Cunningham will find out he has much more subservience to the left expected of him. A statement of forgiveness from the NAACP is never coming.

This “apology” is more for having been so slow to bow to the progressive elites’ latest fairy tale than intended for an audience of black Americans, who are currently most terrorized by the progressive policies that demand servitude and dependency rather than promote self-regulation, independence, and advancement.

The apology-as-a-sign-of-obedience is part of a pantomime the left demands from its adherents. When you stray from their team, it’s your penance to get back in their good graces.

Enough first–steps. The next step is on African-Americans to forgive. Until then, no more apologies.

Rather than apologize, we in law-enforcement need to return to our jobs and stop enabling this hoax to continue to be perpetrated on the American people.

Clarke is the Milwaukee County sheriff and the author of “Cop Under Fire: Moving Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America.” Follow him @SheriffClarke

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Greenpeace co-founder – Carbon dioxide is a hero, not a villain – Video

 

Please share this must-watch video with your “warmist” friends. Seriously. Try to talk them into watching this. It could change their perceptions forever.

I have many friends (and probably relatives) who sincerely want to help the planet. They are not bad people. Nor are they part of some devious conspiracy aiming to de-populate the planet. They simply do not realize that they are being conned about the dangers of carbon dioxide (CO2).

This video by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, PhD., might begin to persuade them.

 

CO2, the real story!

 

Please share this must-watch video with your “warmist” friends. Seriously. Try to talk them into watching this. It could change their perceptions forever.

I have many friends (and probably relatives) who sincerely want to help the planet. They are not bad people. Nor are they part of some devious conspiracy aiming to de-populate the planet. They simply do not realize that they are being conned about the dangers of carbon dioxide (CO2).

This video by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, PhD., might begin to persuade them.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Political Science: A Reply to the 375 Concerned Members of the National Academy of Sciences BREITBART.COM

 

<> on January 21, 2016 in Washington, DC.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William M. Briggs, David R. Legates, Anthony Lupo, Istvan Marko, Dennis Mitchell, & Willie Soon25 Sep 2016452

25 Sep, 2016 25 Sep, 2016

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

True, we influence climate, by returning to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by taking carbon dioxide; storing the carbon in leaves, stems, and trunks; and returning the oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying nearly all the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by emitting hot rocks that warm the air and ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun and cause cooling. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature within a few degrees either side of the period mean for more than 800,000 years.

The activists say we are warming the oceans. But in the first 11 full years of the least ill-resolved dataset we have, the 3500+ Argo bathythermograph buoys, the upper mile and a quarter of the world’s oceans warmed at a rate equivalent to just 1 Celsius degree every 430 years, and the warming rate, negligible at the surface, rises faster the deeper the measurements are taken. The oceans are warming not from above, which they would if we were warming the air and the air was warming the oceans, but from below.

The activists say we are warming the lower atmosphere. Yet on all datasets, the atmosphere is warming at less than half the rate originally predicted by their fellow-activists at the error-prone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — who have a vested interest in overstating the supposed extent of our influence on climate. For, otherwise, the Panel would be – as it should now be – abolished. The Panel is political, but science is not science unless it is scientific, and unless it is free, in particular, from the political totalitarianism that sullenly insists that only one opinion – the Party Line – may be uttered.

The activists say the oceans are “acidifying.” The truth is that, aside from a few transects and a few local studies, science has no idea whether or at what rate the oceans are “acidifying.” What is known, however, is that the oceans are not acid (as rainwater is): they are pronouncedly alkaline. It is also known that, under anything like modern conditions, they are so powerfully buffered that alkaline they must remain.

The activists say our influence on climate is evident in “altered rainfall patterns,” but in this they are at odds with their fellow-activists at the ill-fated Intergovernmental Panel, whose special report on extreme weather (2012) and whose fifth and most recent (2013) Assessment Report on the climate question find little or no evidence of a link between our industries and enterprises on the one hand and global rainfall patterns on the other.

The activists say we are to blame for retreating Arctic sea ice. But Arctic sea ice variations, if objectively quantified with proper error estimates, are fully within the large natural range of changes that have no need of any unique explanation by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. In addition, Antarctic sea ice, which they somehow do not mention, has largely offset the loss of Arctic ice.

True scientists, like any other citizens, are entitled and even encouraged to take part in the political process, and to state their opinions. This applies to non-USA-citizens, which many of the 375 are. What true scientists must not do, however, is pretend, as the activists did, that their totalitarian point of view is unchallengeable. In all material respects, unfolding events have proven their extremist viewpoint prodigiously exaggerated at best, plain wrong at worst.

Specifically, the activists complain that, during the presidential primary campaign, “claims were made that the Earth is not warming.” Yet early in the primary campaign it was correct to say the Earth had not been warming for almost 19 years. More recently there has been a naturally-occurring El Niño event, which has raised the trend a little, but it remains true that the early predictions of medium-term warming were badly exaggerated.

The activists declare their faith in the doctrine “that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks” to everything from national security via health and agriculture to biodiversity. But this statement is based wholly on faith and is unsupported by reality. We know this because of the serially failed predictions made by alarmists.

The activists say, “We know that the climate system has tipping points.” Yet, revealingly, “Tipping point” is not a scientific but a political term. The activists say that “rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return,” but there is no evidence for rapid warming of the planet today. At the end of the Maunder Minimum, the Earth’s atmosphere warmed more rapidly in response to the naturally-occurring recovery of solar activity from 1695-1735 than it has warmed in any subsequent 40-year period. There is nothing unprecedented either about today’s global temperatures or about the rate at which those temperatures have been changing.

The activists say warmer weather will “possibly” set in motion “large-scale ocean circulation changes.” The scientific truth is that, while the wind blows, the Earth rotates and its land-masses are approximately where they are, the ocean circulation must remain much as it is now. To suggest otherwise is mere rodomontade.

The activists say warmer weather will cause “the loss of major ice sheets.” But if the great ice sheet that covered most of North America to a depth of two miles had not melted owing to naturally-occurring global warming 10,000 years ago, where would the United States be today? Antarctic snowfall accumulation has not exhibited a massive meltdown over the past 40 to 60 years, and there has been no change to speak of in northern-hemisphere snow cover. There is little evidence that the tiny global warming that has occurred is at all likely to have major effects, whether on the cryosphere or on anything else, and still less evidence that those effects would be deleterious, and still less that, even if they were deleterious, the proposed measures to prevent them would make any detectable difference, and still less that, even if proposed measures might work, the imagined benefits would exceed the extravagant cost of their implementation.

The activists are also wrong in their assertion that any appreciable human influence on the climate will be detectable for many thousands of years. Their fellow activists on the Panel say that very nearly all of the feedbacks from the small warming that may be caused by our enriching the atmosphere with plant food act over timescales of hours to – at most – decades.

The activists are wrong to state that “it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord.” On the scientific evidence to date, it is abundantly clear that the original predictions made by the totalitarians were extreme exaggerations; that, though the world may warm a little, it will not warm a lot; that adding CO2 to the air will be of benefit to plants in reducing their need for water, which is why the world’s desert regions are beginning to green; and that the cost of futilely playing Canute with the climate is 10-100 times greater than the cost of any realistically foreseeable net disbenefit from warmer weather.

It would, therefore, be entirely proper for a presidential candidate to argue that the United States should withdraw from the Paris climate treaty, except for one inconvenient truth. The United States has not ratified the treaty. Any such ratification requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and the collapse of the totalitarians’ scientific case for “climate action” now renders any such two-thirds majority impossible to achieve.

Though the activists have attempted – falsely and improperly – to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party’s candidate in the forthcoming presidential election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab-coats by collectively suggesting that “Science” demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.

Therefore, the signatories hereto repudiate the letter issued by the 375 activists as reflecting not scientific truth but quasi-religious dogma and totalitarian error; we urge the voters to disregard that regrettable and anti-scientific letter; and we invite every citizen to make up his or her own mind whom to elect to the nation’s highest office without fear of the multifarious bugaboos conjured into terrifying but scientifically unjustifiable existence by the totalitarian activists who have for decades so disrespected, disgraced and disfigured climate science.