Saturday, January 30, 2016
Clinton’s scandals do not get as much attention as they deserve. There are over 100 FBI agents working the case. She violated several federal statutes that make it illegal to store classified information on personal email accounts. By a current count, over 1000 classified emails have showed up on her personal and unprotected email server. There is no doubt that Clinton not only mishandled government documents it was a pattern of negligence. One may be able to call a few instances a mistake, but over a thousand instances is a pattern of negligence. She also violated the 2009 Federals Records Act by failing to maintain duplicate copies of email correspondence on State Department data servers. And she violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – Hundreds of requests into her records have been delayed or ignored. Recent reports indicate that the FBI has been able to recover erased work related emails from the server. This alone violates all three laws indicated above. If all of this is not bad enough, Clinton used her job at the State Department for quid pro quo or “pay for play” purposes. For instance, many companies who won contracts to rebuild Haiti after the 2009 earthquake also gave to the Clinton foundation. Once again, there is a pattern of negligence here. One or two accounts may be seen as a coincidence or circumstantial evidence, but dozens of cases is seen as a pattern of fraud. If the FBI decides there is enough information to indict Clinton, and Obama’s DOJ declines to follow through with the complaints – It could end up being a sticky situation for both Obama and Clinton. There will be leaks from the FBI containing damning evidence. This would certainly reveal that Obama’s decision not to pursue an indictment on Clinton would be a political one. This would be followed by Congressional hearings putting DOJ Attorney Journal Loretta Lynch in the middle of a political fight. FBI chief Comey may even resign his post (as a sign of protest) and of course there would be talk about impeachment for failing to carry out the law. This impeachment talk will follow Hilary all the way to the White House if she wins the presidency. Of course, even if the DOJ decides to move forward and prosecute Clinton, she will not go away easy from the 2016 election. She will stay in the race and continue to claim that she is an innocent victim. She will likely try to find a scapegoat to throw under the bus (a former aide) and take the fall for her negligence to U.S. national security. This may be the worst case scenario for Democrats because even those liberal media outlets could not cover up this story. And Clinton is trying to avoid this scenario by guaranteeing to carry out the Obama legacy. It may work, but either way (pursue conviction or look the other way) there is going to be a firestorm around Clinton’s campaign.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
The 2016 election cycle has been a weird one, an anomaly to say the least. On the Republican side, the anti-establishment candidates are doing the best (receiving over 60% of the vote). On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders, is moving further Left than Obama by offering “free” everything. Sanders makes Obama’s “Life of Julia” caricature (how governance helps people from birth to death) look like a life a hardship. Clinton, on the other hand, says she will bring four more years of Obama. In a year when candidates cannot run far enough away from the establishment, Clinton is happy to campaign on the status quo (four more years of an unpopular president). This struck me as odd. In 2008, McCain could not avoid being called four more years of Bush and lost by a landslide. Yet, Clinton is happy to declare four more years of Obama. Why? First, Clinton knows she is already tied to the Obama administration by serving four years as his Secretary of State. Clinton carried out the failed Obama foreign policy for four years and it is impossible for her to side step this feat in futility, especially when being tied to events such as the Russian reset, a failed Libyan coup, and the Benghazi massacre. Secondly, Clinton, like Obama, polls better among minority groups. Bernie Sanders is doing well in states like New Hampshire and Iowa because they have small minority populations. One would think that Sanders’s socialistic policies would fare better among minorities and the impoverished. However, that is not the case, socialism is a philosophy that is mostly popular amongst white elitist individuals and groups especially amongst the youth. “Free” stuff appeals to the youth who expect and feel they deserve more entitlements for doing less. With no prospect of work coming out of college, skating through life with no accountability and living off the wealth of others sounds grand. That being said, Sanders socialism has not really caught on with minority groups. Therefore, Clinton understands she needs to turn out the minority vote to beat both Sanders and the Republican nominee. Hence, she hopes to ride Obama’s coattails to bring out the minority vote. Remember, Obama brought out minority voters in record droves in 2008 and 2012. Thirdly, the Clinton campaign relates to the Obama campaign in terms of demographic history (race and gender). Obama was the first black President and Clinton hopes to be the first female President. Unfortunately, a large electorate in the United States will vote merely on the demographics of the candidate over substance. Clinton hopes to turn out those same Obama voters who sympathized over having the first black president because she assumes they would also sympathize over having the first female president. And she is probably correct. Fourthly, and most importantly, Clinton does not want to go to jail. Obama does not like Clinton after their bloodbath primary in 2008. Obama only selected Clinton to be Secretary of State to keep his enemies close. Ironically, the two could not agree on anything in the 2008 campaign, but today, Clinton seems to agree with everything that is Obama. With several scandals hanging over the head of Clinton, it could come down to Obama’s DOJ on whether or not to prosecute. Meanwhile, Obama’s legacy could hang in the balance over the decisions made by the next president. Remember, many important Obama policies are executive orders, and can be cancelled by the next president on day one when they are in office. Therefore, if Clinton agrees to continue the Obama policies, Obama may decide to give Clinton a pass on her email and Clinton foundation issues. Ironically, both Obama and Clinton need each other for political purposes.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
When Trump and others brought to light Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president into question, I scoffed. Just as I thought there was no legal standing to deny Obama from being president, I felt there is no legal standing to stop Cruz from becoming President. However, after a bit of research, it is not as clear cut as I had previously thought. Article II, Section I of the Constitution reads: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ….” Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that the Presidents of the United States did not have a conflict of interest while being Commander in Chief by having multiple citizenships and or allegiances. It is apparent that the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” is therefore, a person born on U.S. soil to the parents of two U.S. citizens. Many will contest this definition, but it is the definition of an originalist view of the Constitution. However, both Obama and Cruz have multiple citizenships making their role as Commander in Chief conflicted. Obama is a prime example of how a conflict of interest can be a national security risk. Obama’s favoritism towards Muslim persons has left us more unsafe in the fight on terror. Think about it; Obama cannot even utter the words “Muslim extremism” in the same sentence. His administration called the Fort Hood terrorist attack – work place violence. If you cannot call out those you are war with, then how can you be objective and not biased in any way, shape or form? Obama’s father was not only Kenyan, he was Muslim. Obama may also have an Indonesia (predominately Muslim state) citizenship he earned by living there as a youth. Obama, never denounced his foreign citizenships to properly give his allegiance solely to the United States. On the other hand, Cruz has rightly denounced his Canadian citizenship (born in Canada), but his father was Cuban. Hence, Cruz must also have a Cuban citizenship that he has not yet denounced. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. This clears up citizenship questions for Obama, who was born in Hawaii - clearly making him a citizen of the United States. Cruz, on the other hand, was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen (mother) and foreign national (father). The Constitution is not entirely clear about how blood lines affect citizenship. There have been several federal statutes over the centuries trying to further explain U.S. citizenship per blood lines. It was not until 1961, in Montana v. Kennedy, did the Supreme Court rule on any of these statutes. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court held that persons born on foreign soil with a foreign national father and U.S. citizen mother were not U.S. citizens. However, if the reverse was true (mother was a foreign national and father was a U.S. citizen) the child would be a U.S. citizen. Interestingly, in the majority decision there was no mention of the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. And the lone dissenter, Chief Justice Warren, wrote no opinion. So, 55 years ago, it was clear that Cruz was not eligible to be President. Obviously, Obama has set the precedent (even though the court did not rule on it) that a person could be president if they were born to one parent being a foreign national. Hence, Obama was not a true naturalized citizen (originalist view). So it is not a stretch to think that a child born on U.S. soil to two foreign nationals, even if the foreign nationals were illegal aliens, would be eligible for the presidency. But Cruz was not born on U.S. soil. The current originalists reading of the Constitution would say that both Obama and Cruz should be ineligible to be president. And they would agree that Cruz’s case is worse than Obama’s since Obama was at least born on U.S. soil and is a citizen per the Constitution. All this being said, it would be hard to believe that the present day Supreme Court would not overrule the 1961 decision on citizenship. It is hard to fathom the logic where U.S. citizen women have the right to abort a child, but that same child would not be considered a U.S. citizen if born to a foreign national father overseas? It would be easy for the Justices to apply the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to overrule the 1961 decision. In by doing so, it would officially rule that Cruz is a citizen of the United States. Although Cruz is not a “true” naturalized citizen he would be eligible to become president because Obama has already set that precedent: Citizenship and not naturalized citizenship are a present day requirement to be president.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
26. Intelligence – Because Obama kills and never captures any terrorists, intelligence garnered from enemy combatants is severely lacking to fight terrorism. 27. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques – Obama ended this practice and with it, it essentially ended the practice of intelligence gathering to fight terrorists - even though the bin Laden killing was a result of information garnered from this practice. 28. Boston Bombings – This terrorist attack could have been prevented, but the intelligence agencies botched it. To date no corrective action to prevent another event like this from happening has been implemented. 29. NSA – Obama has expanded the Bush program to collect data on American citizens (spy). 30. Spying – Obama was caught spying on our allied leaders. 31. Enemy Combatants – The Obama / Holder DOJ has given terrorists rights equal to American citizens. Unfortunately, these rights are better than those rights given to military personnel accused of wrong doing (they get a military tribunal). 32. Civil Rights – Obama routinely called out the Bush administration for civil rights violations for its enhanced interrogation technique program. But Obama routinely kills terrorists, including the first to kill an American, without any due process. Domestic Policy 33. Stimulus – Obama’s stimulus failed to create jobs and in fact, created more waste as companies such as Solyndra went belly up. The stimulus was about picking winners and losers in the green energy market based on a quid pro quo system. Companies that contributed to the Obama campaign got stimulus funding, and those that did not conform, did not get funding. 34. ObamaCare – The law has been a failure on so many levels: people have lost their insurance; insurance costs are rising faster than ever; people have lost their doctors; state coops are failing at high rates; people without insurance is still a high percentage of the population; the program expense has already gone over forecast; and the law levies hidden taxes on Americans. 35. Economy – The workforce is smaller than it has been in decades; a high percentage of the employed are working part-time and are underemployed; the median household income is still lower than it was over a decade ago; the poverty rate has increased and the disparity between rich and poor is greater than ever; and economic growth has been below average. 36. Workfare – Obama removed the requirement to include work for people receiving welfare (decided under Clinton). Obama’s vision of America is clear: to reward irresponsibility and unaccountability and punish accountable and responsible citizens. 37. Disability – Disability is the fastest growing profession in the United States under Obama. Disability payrolls have more than doubled in his tenure. Unfortunately, there is a very high rate of fraud that is responsible for the dramatic increase. 38. Welfare – The number of Americans receiving some form of welfare in the form of a government subsidy has more than doubled under Obama’s watch. 39. Czars – The administration employed dozens of czars who have control of budgets but have no Congressional oversight. What’s worse, a plurality of the czars are socialists and or communists with extreme views. 40. School Vouchers – Obama killed the DC school voucher plan and then the hypocrite sent his daughters to private school in DC. 41. Dodd / Frank – The massive legislation to reform the financial community fails to fix government entities responsible for the financial collapse (Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae). It also fails to fix the “to big to fail” component of the industry leading to massive bailouts at the taxpayers expense. 42. Lobbying – Lobbying has grown in Washington to record levels under Obama. Also, Obama immediately broke his campaign promise of not allowing any lobbyists into his administration. 43. Executive Action – Obama has moved unilaterally and bypassed congress on many important issues such as immigration. 44. Humanitarian Crisis – Obama’s executive order immigration policy created a crisis as hundreds of thousands of illegal alien children crossed the southern border. 45. Debt – Obama has added more debt to the US economy than the previous 43 Presidents. 46. Deficits – Obama likes to talk about how deficits are decreasing, but they are still at historic highs. 47. GDP – Gross Domestic Product gains under the Obama recovery have been anemic. 48. Auto Bailouts – The auto bailouts failed to prevent the auto companies from entering into bankruptcy. And it was the restructuring that occurred during bankruptcy which is what eventually saved the companies (not the auto bailouts). 49. Taxes – Obama has added more taxes on every American. He increased federal taxes and his ObamaCare taxes are legendary (the mandate to purchase insurance was deemed as a tax by the Supreme Court to save the law). 50. Keystone Pipeline – Obama has refused to pursue energy independence and create thousands of jobs when he vetoed this project. 51. EPA – The EPA has been the most intrusive branch of the government levying hundreds of regulations against companies. In fact, a great number of Obama’s Supreme Court loses are due to the EPA overreaching its powers.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Listed below are over 100 failures of the Obama administration: Foreign Policy 1. Hillary Clinton – The worst Secretary of State in the history of the U.S. She did more harm and did not have one tangible success. 2. Libya – Obama moved unilaterally to go to war in Libya (without congressional approval) to support the opposition movement using an air strategy outlined by Sid Blumenthal (a Clinton advisor not on the State Department payroll). Although the opposition movement won, Libya is now more unstable than when it was control by Qaddafi. In fact, Libya is now a safe haven for terrorists. 3. Benghazi – Four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, were killed when our embassy in Libya was attacked. Clinton and Obama lied about the attack to protect Obama’s reelection effort. Worse, Obama never sent any help and left Americans to die. And if that is not bad enough, no one has been held accountable for failing to provide Stevens the security he requested over 600 times. 4. Russia – Putin has moved into Crimea, Ukraine, and now Syria. Obama and Clinton did nothing about this Russian aggression. In fact, this is the most aggressive the Russians have been since the end of the cold war. It is obvious that Putin senses weakness in Obama. 5. Syria – Assad used chemical weapons in the civil war and crossed the Obama red line and he did nothing about it. Assad remains in power even though Obama has gone to war unilaterally again (without congressional approval) to oust Assad and fight ISIS. Obama missed an opportunity to arm the Syrian opposition movement early on before ISIS got involved. 6. North Korea – They are moving closer to a nuclear bomb. Obama has done very little to stop their effort. 7. Iraq – Obama inherited a stable and democratic Iraq. He withdrew troops too fast and now most of Iraq is now controlled by ISIS. This may have been Obama’s biggest foreign policy mistake. 8. Afghanistan – Obama did a troop surge and quit the strategy before it had a chance to work. Now Afghanistan is more unstable than it was when the war started. The Taliban is as strong as ever. 9. Somalia – Obama claimed that Somalia was a success story in the fight on terror. Now it is so unstable that the US withdrew its Embassy. Somalia is also a safe haven for terrorists. 10. Iran – A US treaty with Iran has essentially given them a fast path to a nuclear bomb plus billions of dollars that they can use to sponsor more terrorism around the globe. Iran is already the biggest state sponsor of terror in the world. Obama also missed an opportunity during the Arab Spring to help the opposition force oust the Iranian government. 11. Israel – US – Israeli (the only true Democracy in the Middle East) relations are the worst they have been in decades. Obama has turned his back on Israel time and time again while catering to Islamic states. 12. Egypt – The once moderate country is now controlled by the terrorist group – the Muslim Brotherhood. 13. The Arab Spring – This was a complete and utter failure because Obama had no presence on the ground to influence the government outcome from these revolutions. Obama wrongly assumed that the new governments would be better than the old governments. A big mistake. 14. Cuba – Obama has improved US / Cuba relations – that is the good news. The bad news is that Cuba is still one of the biggest civil rights violators in the world. 15. Military Strategy – After years of pondering, Obama still has not voiced a clear decision on how to win against ISIS, the Taliban, or any terrorist group for that matter. 16. Nobel Peace Prize – Obama won the award in his first year of office. He came into office managing two wars with the Iraq War nearing a conclusion. He will leave office with three wars raging and both Iraq and Afghanistan are in worse shape than when he entered office. National Security / Terrorism 17. Fort Hood – Obama denies the attack at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. 18. Failing to Secure the Southern Border – Drugs, illegal immigrants (and probably terrorists), criminals, and guns are flowing from Mexico to the US with virtually little resistance. 19. ISIS – Obama’s dismissal of ISIS as being a JV team was wrong and now they are the biggest terrorist threat to the U.S. and they are growing at an alarming pace using internet propaganda. In fact, it is believed that as many as 1000 Americans have joined ISIS and there is no real plan to stop them from reentering the US. 20. Al Qaida and Taliban – Obama proclaimed that both Al Qaida and the Taliban were dead or on the run during his 2012 campaign. We know that this narrative is not only false, Obama intentionally knowing lied about it. 21. Cyber-attacks – Chinese cyber-attacks have routinely infiltrated our government networks providing the Chinese government with important documents including the private information of millions of government workers. 22. Hillary Clinton – The Secretary of State used an unprotected server to conduct business – sending hundreds of emails with national security information over the network. 23. Guantanamo – Obama lied that he would close the base. In the meantime, he is freeing as many terrorists as possible, with little regard to national security, in an attempt to close the prison. 24. Drones – Obama expanded the Bush administration drone program. This strategy has led to a high number of collateral damage killings (killing of innocent civilians). 25. Bowe Bergdahl – The Obama administration negotiated with terrorists and then traded five al-Qaida leaders for one army deserter. This one is a real head scratcher. First, America should not negotiate with terrorists and secondly, the lopsided outcome of the deal shows Obama should not negotiate with anyone!
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
It may be 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years, but at some point liberal policies will lead to the collapse of the U.S. economic system. The most troubling aspect of liberal policies is that they conflict, are hypocritical, and can be considered an oxymoron in some cases. Basic liberal philosophy is to have a large government that supports the needs of the poor, elderly, illegal aliens, and disabled. Our government sponsors thousands of anti-poverty programs as well as thousands of other funded programs to help people in need. All of this sounds great and looks better on paper, but the implementation and operation of these programs has some major flaws that are not sustainable. Over half of all Americans today receive some form of government welfare such as food stamps, housing subsidies, healthcare subsidies, or some other form of government help. The elderly have no choice and live on government sponsored programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Although people pay into the Medicare and Social Security systems, the money to pay those currently enrolled in these programs has already been borrowed from future generations. What’s worse, the number of Americans paying taxes to support Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security is not enough to sustain the programs. As the tax base decreases, the need to increase the tax burden on the wealthy becomes evident. The government can only confiscate so much wealth through taxes before it has a negative effect on tax revenues. In essence, the government is running a big Ponzi-Scheme and it is a matter of time before the bottom of the pyramid becomes too small to support the upper portion of the pyramid. All Ponzi-Schemes will ultimately fail. It is just a matter of time. That is why it is crime for individuals and companies to run a Ponzi-Scheme investment concept. This is the big picture, but it is the small policies supported by liberals that have an ill effect on the health of our economic system. Under Obama, the number of people collecting welfare has skyrocketed. Food stamp payrolls have doubled, disability payrolls have doubled, and healthcare costs have doubled. This is not only unsustainable, but all this money and a massive sized government leads to excessive waste and fraud compounding the problem. Liberal policy to include illegal aliens into the U.S. populace will increase welfare payouts and further decrease the percentage of people in the tax base. Increasing the U.S. population by 3 to 4% will further compound the Ponzi-Scheme problem by placing more people at the top of the pyramid. And the liberal policy to support lax borders and sanctuary cities will further complicate the problem. Liberal policy to support abortion works to decrease the U.S. tax base to support massive welfare programs. Some may argue that aborting unwanted babies would decrease the number of potential people collecting welfare. They may be right, but that is only because the liberal belief in “victimization” is brainwashing people into being takers. After all, it is the liberal policy that victims are owed something for doing nothing. Liberal policy to support refugees works further to push the Ponzi-Scheme closer to failure by adding more people at the top of pyramid and fewer people at the bottom of the pyramid to pay for their welfare. Liberal policy to decrease the U.S. use of fossil fuels also works to decrease the government tax base. Oil and gas are two of the most heavily taxed commodities in the U.S. What is going to replace this revenue stream? Probably the legalization of marijuana which will further work to define an even more lethargic population – expecting more for doing less. Liberal policies such as ObamaCare have put more stress on our economy and healthcare system and it is no surprise that the law is failing and in a death spiral. It should also come as no surprise that ObamaCare costs have already surpassed CBO projections. Liberal policies promoting causes such as climate change are troublesome because they generate regulations to subdue the tax base and they generate expensive laws siphoning tax revenues. Climate change is a huge hit to tax revenues making the Ponzi-Scheme harder to support. There is a much higher probability that national security will be effected more by economic instability than by climate change. Liberal policies to release prisoners and provide lenient sentences to criminal offenders costs the federal system billions to deal with constant reoffenders. It is cheaper to keep them incarcerated. Liberal policies to ignore and to procrastinate when dealing with terrorism will cost the nation billions more in military costs and property damages in the long run. The biggest issue with any liberal policy is its lack of “incentive” and the need to promote laziness. These policies promote government reliance and citizens have no incentive to work if they get things for “free”. Meanwhile, the working class has less incentive to earn more if the government continues to confiscate bigger chunks of their wealth in taxes. In other words, liberal policies reward unaccountability and punish accountability. I have no problem helping people in need. But I only want to help people who want to themselves. I do not want to help those who expect others to pay for their existence. Addiction to governance is just as dangerous as addiction to drugs or alcohol. Addictions are hard to break. If people give a drug addict money he is going to buy more drugs. If the government continues to give people welfare, they are not going to look for a job and seek independence. When an economic system is breaking there are many signs of unrest and chaos, and much that can be illustrated today. We see higher crime, lack of tolerance for free speech, a growing political divide, increased narcissism, increased terrorism threats, and a lack for authority such as the police. This is exactly what happened in Greece when their economy collapsed.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
As the election season kicks off, it is easy to see the difference between liberal freedoms and rights as compared to conservatives. Conservatives want individuals to control their own freedoms and rights. Conversely, liberals candidates are competing to be the most socialistic candidate for the 2016 election. And therefore, they say a lot of nice things such as offering “free” stuff – healthcare, housing, food, education, and so forth and so on. But anyone with a brain can see through this. First, nothing is “free” and someone has to pay for it. Who is paying for it? Companies and individuals through higher taxes. In fact, in true socialism, all companies are run by the government and all properties are confiscated by the government. Conservatives call this thievery while liberals call this a tax. Secondly, anything “free” is run and controlled by the central government. That means all schools, homes, food, and healthcare are controlled by the federal government. To some, that sounds refreshing to do away with private property, private schools, mass produced foods, insurance companies and all companies in general. But is “free” really freedom and a protector of our rights? Absolutely not! Liberals are first to want to break up any corporate monopolies, but the government is already the biggest monopoly in this country for so many businesses – healthcare for the old, student loans, home loans, etc. And what liberals want is for the government to be a monopoly over all products and services offered in this country. How do government monopolies destroy our freedoms and rights? Well, first of all, it would eliminate our choices. There will be one size that fits all for healthcare, education, housing, food and so forth. When choice is eliminated with brainwashing and propaganda, socialism eliminates the most important freedom we have: the freedom to think for ourselves; the freedom to pursue and practice what we want; and the freedom to make choices that are best for us. In essence, under socialism, people will not have any freedoms or rights. The government will dictate a one size fit all policy for every American. The government will take away our need for a brain – Education curriculum will consist of brainwashing material to get everyone on board. History books will eliminate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, because they are no longer relevant. I find this very scary and the number of people that can support Bernie Sanders is mind blowing. Anyone can get on a stage and offer free stuff, but not everyone can tell you how they intend to pay for it. No question Bernie plans on confiscating wealth, but where will he draw the line? In the narcissistic generation of social media, it appears more and more people expect to work little while intending to take advantage of free things offered by the federal government. This is not sustainable, look at Greece and many European countries that are financially collapsing. I receive dozens of spam messages each day that says I should take advantage of the Obama administrations healthcare, education, and housing subsidies. They may be phishing, but they know people expect our President to hand out free things. And what’s worse, we expect to get things for free without putting forth any effort. It is a sad state of affairs for our country.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
There is a great article written by Mike Jonas explaining why the climate change models created in the early 1970s to model 20th century global temperatures and beyond are so drastically wrong today. You can find his article here: HREF=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/ I will sum up his findings below: 1. Jonas averaged the findings of over 100 models and found that the average global temperature would rise by 0.2 degrees Celsius (nearly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) each decade starting around 1990 to 2000. These forecasts are cataclysmic to think global temperatures would warm 2 degrees Fahrenheit in 50 years and 4 degrees in a century. In other words, post ice age warming trends that would normally take tens of thousands of years would be done in a mere 100 years! Currently, the models are about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) over forecast in just 2 to 3 decades of modeling. 2. There are many reasons the models are wrong. The first reason is that about two thirds of the information in models is due to “unknowns”. To account for this, known numbers in the model were fiddled with until they match known temperature data from 1900 to 1970. If the data did not match the original models, then it comes as no surprise manipulated data in the model makes the model forecasts well off the mark in the future. 3. The models consist of three main components: clouds – 41%, CO2 – 37%, and water vapor – 22%. The models fail to take into account any of the following temperature sources (mostly because they are unknown and very unpredictable): volcanos, El Nino, ocean currents, ocean oscillations, wind, the sun, cosmic rays, and Milankovich cycles. 4. Clouds and water vapor were added to models to fiddle with results to get the models to track 20th century temperature data. So the data for those parameters (63% of the model) is sketchy moving forward. These climate change models are based on the fact that the only parameter effecting global temperature is CO2. And hence, it should come as no surprise that the models are completely unreliable. Remember, it was these doom and gloom models that started the whole green movement. And because these models forced us to rush to come up with solutions to climate change, most of the solutions we have put in place are bad: expensive, dependent on weather, and do not even solve the problem of rising CO2. What most people do not realize is that nature puts out more CO2 than what is manmade. This means that even if all of the world’s energy came from renewable sources – it would not necessarily stop the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere and subsequent warming. So many people have so much vested in Green that there is no going back. Our schools and government have invested billions to brainwash our populations into believing climate change is happening very fast; it is caused by man – industrialization (capitalism); and it can be solved by throwing money at it. And wouldn’t you know it, this fits the liberal narrative of higher taxes and their war on corporations and industries to a tee.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
First, renewables are overrated and will never completely remove ALL carbon. Hyping renewables as the reason the CO2 has not gone up year over year is just wrong and it seems part of these scientists goal is to sell us on renewable energy sources as part of their plan. Secondly, CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere at a much higher rate than he explains. He can deceive Americans because they cannot do simple math. And what’s so confusing to me is if you believe climate change is occurring at cataclysmic rates, then why would anyone want to rely on energy sources that rely on weather patterns. A change in climate could render renewable sources useless, right? And it is possible to reduce carbon emissions using other types of technologies such as carbon scrubbers without destroying our economy and changing our lifestyles. These are better solutions because they can actually reduce the level of carbon in our atmosphere, renewables will not. Let’s face facts, the political Left loves Green as much as the Right loves Gas (actually the Left loves gas as well – they tax it royally – What will replace this revenue stream once we move totally to renewables?). In fact, the Green economy is booming and there is a vicious cycle of money between Green companies and Washington. The growth in Green markets is concerning and could cause an economic recession when the bubble bursts. Solutions to global warming is what concerns me the most. They are expensive and really do not solve the problem at hand (rising CO2). They destroy the environment – solar and wind farms use as much land as the state of Rhode Island to produce the same amount of energy as a 5 reactor nuclear plant. Many Green devices, like electric cars, are dirtier than oil based counterparts. Electric cars, for instance, use elements mined from our mountains to build 600 pound batteries. Americans have been brainwashed into believing any product that is “green” is better. And this is far from the truth. The show then blamed manmade climate change on the increase in forest fires across the state of Colorado. Over 90% of fire fires are started by humans and this accounts for about half of all acres burned. As populations increase there are lots more people inhabiting rural areas as well as a drastic increase in people doing outdoor activities. This accounts for a great deal of forest fire increases. So “manmade” can be used to describe the increase of forest fires, but not in terms of climate change, but in terms of stupidity. Many claim warmer temperatures fuel more fires. We read about temperature changes of several degrees around the globe in recent times. In fact, temperatures have not even increased by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 1000 years. And that is from the doom and gloom scientists, other scientists dispute these findings and say our current temperature is 1 degree lower than 1000 years ago (the Medieval warming period). Even more confusing is the Left’s plan to reduce global temperatures by painting infrastructures white to repel heat. But this has nothing to do with CO2. What it does explain however, is how population increases and the subsequent increase in infrastructure can give misleading temperature data. The conduction of heat by infrastructure can provide misleading information about the actual surface temperature and appear that CO2 is causing the warming trend. Manmade climate change would be much more believable if people would stop the doom and gloom prognostications and using global warming to explain everything from earthquakes to record cold temperatures to heavy snow storms. This is not realistic. It is this type of fearmongering, contradicting findings among climate change scientists, and cataclysmic talk that makes these arguments so hard to believe. And if the Left would only provide realistic solutions it would be much easier to believe. Right now, I see the Left profiteering from Green products (which are expensive and not so green) and then in turn contribute these profits to the Democratic party starting a vicious cycle of money and a Green economic bubble.