Tuesday, November 17

Administration officials slated to testify to congress cancel at the last minute

Remember the emperor's solemn, solemn promise that His would be "the most transparent administration in history"?

Eh, you probably don't.  After all, Americans have so many more important things to be concerned about--like making a living and paying taxes.  Who has time to monitor what some political figure said, eh? 

Well about that "most transparent" promise: officials from the Office of Personnel Management, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget were scheduled to appear before a closed-door session of the House Armed Services Committee to testify about the giant computer hack that resulted in the Chinese government stealing the complete personnel records of something like ten million federal employees.  A really serious deal.

Well, at the last minute every one of those officials said they weren't gonna appear.

Interesting, eh?  You'd think...nevermind.

The official excuse given--by the agencies--was that they had issues with the briefing being "on the record."  

Tell me, Democrats:  Since it's a "closed door briefing" (not open to the public), before people with adequate security clearances, and they'd have ample chance to redact the record if necessary to avoid giving away any harmful information, how can you believe this complaint has any merit or substance?

Oh, silly me:  For just a second there I thought you were actually serious about trying to help our representatives do their oversight job and find out if any procedures needed to be changed to prevent this from happening again, but in truth you just want to help Barack cover up the problem.

What's next, Democrats?  Ya gonna try to go back and erase all those videotapes of your emperor making that "most transparent administration in history" bullshit "promise"?

More insanity from the Left re Muzz killers

Further to the observation that liberals are utterly deranged (specifically in using the murders of 120 or so in Paris by muzz shouting allah snackbar and armed with automatic weapons against unarmed civilians to bash conservatives), consider this jaw-dropping post by Britain's liberal Green Party:
As Paris mourns its dead and cares for its wounded after the hideous weekend attack, the Green Party today said it was important to ensure that we did not act in ways that fuel ISIS and terrorism.
Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said “There is a real risk that amongst the outcomes of the heinous attacks in Paris will be increased fear and division, the stirring up of Islamophobia and an impulse to retreat from the compassion and support with which Europe has so far met those fleeing ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
So after Muzz terrorists kill 120 civilians in one of the most civilized capitals in the world, Natalie's worried about...stirring up Islamophobia??   Seems to show quite clearly where her sympathies lie. 

"We cannot let the actions of a handful of extremists dictate our response to the ongoing refugee crisis. The Green Party will resist calls to reduce Britain and Europe's access to refugees and are redoubling our calls for Britain to welcome its fair share of the refugees reaching Europe. 
Ah yes, the liberal demand that you "shoulder your fair share of the responsibility" for a gazillion refugees--most from countries other than Syria--flooding Europe.  
Green Party foreign affairs spokesperson Tony Clarke said:  “...world leaders must find a way forward that defeats ISIS using the weapon that these terrorists fear most of all, peace talks.
So this goofball thinks we can defeat ISIS by using peace talks?  He literally claims ISIS "fears" peace talks!  How do you imagine that'll work, Sparky?  What can you offer them that you think they want enough to stop killing westerners?  Do you think ISIS will stop killing westerners if you surrender?

Surely every rational human should finally, by now, be able to see that liberal policies are insane.  Their policies and ideas are suicidal--which wouldn't bother me if they simply inflicted those policies on themselves.  But of course they want to force us all to adopt their insane policies.  Sorry, can't agree.

Liberal website uses Paris murders to bash the Right

"Salon" is some sort of liberal website, seemingly run by anti-American, pro-Muzz marxists. 

Oh, I guess that was redundant, wasn't it?  Sorry!

Anyway, after the murders of 120 or so by Muzz armed with full-auto weapons, shooting unarmed victims at point-blank range in Paris, before the bodies were even cold some scum at Salon posted two comments on twitter that should tell you everything you need to know about all these people:
Real terror unfolds in Paris. Perhaps this will convince the right to done [sic] down their incessant violent rhetoric  (7:45 pm)
And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right’s violent language toward activists. 
So guys shouting "Allahu snackbar" murder 120 unarmed civilians in Paris, and Salon blames the right.  Wow.

Folks, the scum at Salon want you dead just as much as the Muzz terrorists.  Get a clue.

Friday, November 6

Why "catastrophic human-caused global warming" is bullshit--short version

In re-reading my long post about global warming--which those pushing the theory claim is both "catastrophic" and mostly due to humans burning fossil fuels--it occurs to me that it's probably too technical to "grab" most people.  So here's a Wiki, if you will, on the screamin'-obvious holes in the theory.

1.  The folks pushing the scare story claim increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will trigger a series of "positive feedbacks" that will make global temps "run away" to a dangerous level.  But we know that at one time CO2 levels were roughly ten times higher than today, yet there's no evidence global temperature warmed to an unusual or dangerous extent.  This suggests that the "runaway" theory is wrong.

2.  Deep ice cores from Antarctica show that rather than CO2 causing temperature to increase, CO2 actually lags temperature change by roughly 200 years.  A decade or so ago, researchers drilled a couple of 14,000-foot "ice cores" into antarctic ice, revealing about 800,000 years of climate records.  A quick first analysis of these cores showed that there was a good correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, which the warmies touted as proving that rising CO2 made temperature go up.  This conclusion made lots of headlines.  But then a more careful analysis of the cores showed that CO2 was actually rising *after* temperature rose, instead of before.  Hard to claim causation when temperature rose after the CO2.  Yet the pushers of the theory still claim CO2 causes global warming.  As far as I know, none of the pushers has addressed the ice core data wrecking their claim that CO2 causes warming.

3.  Every government agency has been changing the actual measured temperature data in a direction that makes it appear that global warming is occurring at a "scary" rate.  Since changing  measured data on a whim would be considered pretty unscientific, one would expect the agencies were changing the temps based on some computer algorithm (rather than "I think...") to decide which measurements "needed to be changed," and which direction, and by how much.  But the agencies refuse to release any such algorithm.  A logical reason would be that no such algorithms were used, and that the temp changes were just fabrications made to make the data appear to support their theory.

4.  The main pushers of human-caused global warming (supposedly due to rising CO2 caused by fossil fuels) have been caught exchanging emails in which they explicitly discussed how to change the measured data to make previous warmer historical periods disappear.  This is prima facie evidence of fraud.  The emails also showed them discussing ways to prevent papers by AGW skeptics from being published.  This suggests those pushing CAGW know their theories, data and methods couldn't withstand an honest challenge.  Otherwise why try to block those who claim to have evidence that would refute the CAGW theory?  If the CAGW theory is right, it should be able to withstand an honest challenge.

5.  The 1930's was the hottest decade on record in the U.S.  Of course this was before the huge boom in cars and fossil fuel consumption that occurred after WW2.  This shows that CO2 didn't cause the record heat of the 1930's, and that Earth's climate naturally oscillates between cooler and warmer periods.  If so, how can the pro-AGW people claim with any certainty that the very slow warming seen over the last century is caused by CO2 and not by any "natural" cause?

6.  Similarly, for about 30 years in the early 1600's Europe experienced a period of record cold referred to as the "Little Ice Age."  Obviously no one was measuring CO2 back then but nothing in the record suggests that CO2 levels dropped before this cold period.  This clearly shows--again--that the climate has significant variability independent of CO2 level.  Warmists have no explanation for why the Little Ice Age happened, but it certainly seems to indicate that CO2 isn't a significant temperature driver.

7.  Similarly, historical records show that the climate warmed significantly around 1000 A.D.--an event now called the Medieval Warm Period.  During this time Greenland warmed so much that settlers successfully grew grapes for decades, before the climate cooled so much that they were forced to abandon the settlements there.  Again, shows natural climate variation having nothing to do with CO2.  As a result the warmists have been frantically trying to make this record vanish.

8.  Glaciers in many parts of the world have been "retreating"--shrinking.  OMG!  Proof of global warming!  Except...they've been retreating for the last couple of centuries--long before humans started burning a significant amount of fossil fuel.  Which--again--strongly suggests that GW is NOT caused by CO2.  Ask the warmies how they rationalize this data.

Wait, wait, I know!  Just as the agencies decided they should "adjust" actual measured temps from decades ago--presumably because no one back then could actually read a thermometer correctly--it's obvious to socialists and liberals that early explorers either didn't know how to read a map, or couldn't correctly identify a glacier.

Yeh, dat's da ticket:  Those early guys drew glaciers that weren't really there!  So we'll correct their observations.  Cuz we government scientists know what was there better than the guys who were actually, you know, there.

9.  Finally (for now, anyway), the folks pushing the CAGW theory claim the antarctic has been losing ice like mad for the last couple of decades.  Like, gigatons of ice.  But then in the last four years or so sea ice in antarctica has hit record levels.  Since this didn't fit the fable, the warmies replied that sea ice simply didn't matter.  What counted was land ice!  And they claimed gravity measurements by satellites showed that the continent was losing, like, gigatons of land ice.
    But then someone found that laser measurements--by satellites--of elevations over that continent showed elevations were either steady or increasing.
    Uh...wait...how could that happen if the land ice was melting?  So the warmies countered that the laser data was simply wrong and should be ignored in favor of the gravity data.
    Starting to see a pattern here?  Sure--every time a dataset is found that casts doubt on AGW, the warmies claim that dataset or study or measurement should be ignored, and that we should only accept their data.  So ask 'em the scientific basis for their claim that the laser data is wrong but the gravity data is right.

Monday, November 2

What if a conservative newsfeed ran the following pic...

If a conservative news service ran this photo, how do you think liberals would react? 

They'd scream bloody murder!

So when the Associated Press ran the photo below, did a single liberal group call 'em on it?  Of course not.

But do keep telling us there's no liberal bias in the mainstream media. 


Photoshop from the excellent blog "Taxicab depressions."

Thursday, October 29

Why has government ordered 1.5 Billion rounds of hollow-point ammo?

Unless you're familiar with guns you probably don't know what a "hollow-point bullet" is.

Start here: international agreement bans their use in war.  Think about that for a second.

Okay, hollow-points are designed not just to make a hole in whatever they hit, but to open up when they hit flesh.  They're designed to make large, jagged, tearing wounds, meaning that someone who is unfortunate enough to be hit with such a round, even in a place that wouldn't normally be fatal, is likely to bleed to death from the larger wound.  So...really nasty things.

A year or so ago the emperor's henchmen ordered 1.5 BILLION rounds of...hollow-point ammo.

Even the damn Social Security administration has ordered 174,000 rounds of the stuff.

By way of comparison, at the height of the Iraq war U.S. armed forces used 70 million rounds.  One and a half Billion rounds would sustain that level of combat for over 20 years.

Who are they planning to shoot?

"Oh," my moronic liberal acquaintances say, "that story has to be bullshit--just another right-wing rumor.  Our wonderful government would never do such a thing!"

Or they say it's a clerical error, that they really meant to order regular practice rounds but keyed in the wrong stock number or something.

Yeah, cupcake, dat's it.  If that's what you're goin' with, ask yourself if the emperor's lackeys cancelled the order after it was called to their attention.

Here's a clue:  They didn't.  But do keep making whatever excuses you need to stay comfortable.
Who are they planning to shoot?

Tuesday, October 27

Half of Americans don't seem bothered by criminal behavior by their "leaders"

Having lived in the U.S. for decades it seems to me that most Americans are hard-working and hate injustice.  But given the support for Hillary--and for the current emperor, who has repeatedly violated laws by decree--I'm beginning to re-think that. 

After all, the careers of both Hillary and Obama have been absolutely filled with lies and deception, yet neither has ever been held accountable.  For example, when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Hillary reported a profit of $100,000 in a single year from...trading cattle futures.  Hilly had never traded cattle futures before, but nevertheless, in an astonishing run of...uh, luck...every one of her trades made money. 

Yep, the record showed she ostensibly never had a single losing position in an entire year.

Of course the old hands were pretty sure right away what was really going on:  the profits from her statistically impossible "success" in cattle futures were simply a way to funnel payments to her husband, the governor.

Now, I'm not naive:  I realize that bribing politicians is fairly common.  Hell, I'd guess that a quarter of all pols in the U.S.--both fed and state--have taken money in exchange for a vote or favor of some sort.  She (and Bill) got away with it, and can't be called to account.  Not one of her supporters is the least bit upset about that.  My only observation is that you'd think rational Americans wouldn't want to *promote* a known crooked pol to the nation's highest office.

But of course no one under 40 has the slightest idea of Hillary's past.  The only folks who could enlighten voters under 40--the mainstream media--support liberal Democrats so would support Hillary even if they had proof she'd lied under oath, or underpaid her taxes by millions--or had been using diplomatic cover to help the CIA deliver shoulder-fired missiles to Syrian jihadists through the CIA annex in Benghazi.

No law seems to touch this woman.  With the help of the mainstream media she seems to be able to ignore all the laws that the rest of us must obey--and to do so without consequence.  It's almost as though she's being protected by some supernatural force.

Ah well, as Her Evilness herself said--when testifying before a congressional committee about the killing of four Americans at Benghazi, "What difference, at this point, can it possibly make?"

Thursday, October 22

Government agencies are reporting higher temperatures than actually recorded

For the past decade or so liberals, Democrats, socialists and communists have been pushing the idea that
      1) Earth's climate is warming at a dangerously high ("catastrophic") rate;
      2) that the this warming has been caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the air;
      3) that this increased CO2 is generated almost entirely by human activity; and finally,
      4) that the solution to this alleged "crisis" is for government to impose a "carbon tax" that would make it far more expensive for you to drive, and would make your utility bills skyrocket.

You may have heard something about this "crisis," since not a day passes without some news broadcast or article screaming about it.

Think for a second:  What do you recall hearing on TV or reading in the papers about this issue?  You've almost certainly heard some buzz-phrases.  How about "The science is settled"? 

How about the endlessly-repeated claim that "All reputable scientists agree" that human activity is the cause of global warming? (They don't, BTW.)

You might have seen the pic at right, of a polar bear standing on a tiny chunk of ice.  Did you feel sad for the 'poor trapped bear'?
"Help me!  I can't get down!"

Heard the term "greenhouse gas"?  It's almost certain that you know the name of the allegedly "bad" gas that's supposedly causing the alleged disaster.  Of course you do.  Every American over the age of ten or so knows the cause of this alleged "catastrophic global warming."

Oh wait, make that "climate change"--because after a string of record-breaking low winter temperatures in the U.S, the folks pushing this idea on you realized that freezing Americans were about to conclude that "global warming" was bullshit.  So the folks pushing this simply changed the name of the alleged disaster, from "catastrophic global warming" to "climate change."

Still catastrophic, of course.  Even if they dropped "catastrophic" from the new name.

It was a switch George Orwell (author of the chilling novel "1984") would have envied: One day the problem was described as global warming, until it became too obvious that that was crap, so they simply renamed the alleged "crisis" to "climate change."

Hard to argue with that one, eh?  Cuz if the climate got either warmer or cooler, either way they could claim it was your fault!

Too little rain where you live?  Climate change!

Too much rain?  Same answer.

Winter colder than usual?  Same answer.

It was the perfect hook for people looking for someone to blame for...well, for anything at all.  And of course the main target of blame was...you--because you're an American, and we use a lot of energy.  That use makes us productive--as it does everywhere it's used.

After the brazen re-naming of the alleged horrible, urgent, "catastrophic" problem--from "global warming" to "climate change"--you'd think virtually every rational adult would have realized this was nothing but a giant scam.  But of course liberals and socialists didn't bat an eye--they were total believers both before and after the name change.

They're the same folks who think the U.S. is responsible for virtually all the bad things in the world today.

Oh, and they think there are far too many Americans--while simultaneously opening our borders to 30 million illegal aliens.  But don't expect consistency from liberals.

They see you as a neanderthal who's killing the planet because you drive a gas-fueled car instead of a Prius, while they happily fly to Geneva or Paris or Copenhagen a few times a year to attend Important Conferences on climate change, generating more CO2 emissions in 8 hours than an SUV does in a year.  But that's okay because... well, they're special.  And Special People don't need to be consistent.

That's all background.  Here's the kicker:

Turns out that about ten years ago government agencies that stood to reap billions in extra budget appropriations from climate programs began changing the actual *measured* temperatures--deliberately--to make it seem like the planet was warming at a much faster rate.

They did this both by raising recent measured temps--the real temperatures--to make the present look much warmer, and by lowering measured temps from decades earlier, to make the past appear cooler than it really was.  Both of these changes made it appear that the planet was warming at a far scarier rate.  (The actual measured surface temps, and satellite temp measurements, show no global warming for 17 years now.)

In addition, one agency has simply been making up temperatures for stations that have been removed from service.  And--surprise!--every one of the fabricated temperatures alleged to have been measured by the "phantom" stations is hotter than the temps actually measured by nearby real stations.

Imagine that! 

This, purely and simply, is fraud--on a scale so huge that the average American finds it almost impossible to believe it's really happening.  And yet the record of actual *measured* temperatures versus those reported (and published) by the government agencies totally supports this conclusion.

Before we take a look at the evidence, consider this:  The people pushing this fraud have a huge motivation to do it, since it results in their getting grants that let them do fun research instead of mundane, boring things like teaching.  Most of these grants allow them to fly to conventions or seminars all over the world to present the results of their research.

But there's another motive at work too, and it's much stronger:  The folks pushing the notion of "catastrophic global warming" caused by your use of fossil fuels have stridently supported this theory for decades.  How would their egos and reputation fare if the theory they've so aggressively supported for all these years were shown to be false?

Some people hate to be wrong so intensely that they're willing to do anything to not be seen to be wrong.

So now for the evidence:  The agencies call the changes they make to the actual measured temperatures "adjustments," and claim the actual measured temps need to be adjusted because, well, they're just not *accurate enough* for such important work.  And the agencies are quite open about this.

For example, the graph below shows the changes made by one NASA office to actual measured temps in the past 15 years.  They've changed temps going back to 1920 or so, and note the trend of the changes:  They've made the past cooler and the present hotter.

The plot at right shows how our merry fraudsters adjusted Illinois temperatures
from 1960.  Again, note how the actual measured temps have been changed to make the past look cooler, and the present warmer.

Below Illinois is the same data for Indiana.  Note that the actual measured temps show a slight cooling, but after the "adjustments" by the NCDC, the adjusted temperatures--which are the ones published by the agency as the "official" ones--show warming.

And it's always the same story:  the actual measured temps show flat or a slight cooling trend, but the "adjusted" values--which are published as if actual--always show what seems to be a warming.

Always the same outcome.  Amazing, huh?

Below the Indiana graph is a plot of the changes made by the same government agency for the entire country.  Again, the measured temperatures have been changed ("adjusted") to make the past look much cooler than the measured temps.

Now it may surprise you to hear that the actual *measured* temps aren't considered accurate, and instead are in need of "adjusting."  In any other field of science this might reasonably be called "fabricating data."  So a reasonable question to ask every adjusting agency would be,
What computer algorithm does your agency use to determine whether a particular measured temperature 'needs' to be adjusted?  And how does that algorithm compute the adjustment?"

As of a year or so ago the answer these government agencies gave was quite brief:  "We refuse to show you.  It's, um...*proprietary*!  Yeh, dat's it.  We own it, so we don't have ta show ya.  So there."

Then some ordinary taxpayer/blogger pointed out that IF such an algorithm existed, it had to have been developed with tax dollars...and that unless the government claimed a national security exception, a government agency couldn't conceal the result by claiming to "own" it.  This resulted in lots of court battles between taxpaying American citizens who knew a lot about statistics and suspected a con, and the Special Elites who wanted to keep the water as muddy as possible for as long as possible.

Last time I checked, not one of the gummint agencies had released their precious, super-secret algorithm.

They won't disclose/release their algorithms because they know it's all bullshit...because all the changes made to recent temperatures have been to make 'em warmer than the actual measurements, while virtually all the changes to earlier years have been negative--i.e. they make the past look cooler.  There's no reasonable rationale for doing that.

Think about it:  Why would the agencies refuse to reveal the correction algorithm if they didn't have something to hide?  Real science doesn't have to hide behind bullshit excuses.

Again, the actual measured temps show a cooling, but those "officially published" by every government agency (i.e. after "adjusting") show a warming.  How...interesting.

Changing *any* actual measured data point is brazen enough, but it's particularly interesting that our merry fraudsters have been able to go back and adjust actual measured temperatures from 90 years ago!  You need to know that temps in the 1930's were record highs.  Since this was before humans started using huge volumes of fossil fuels (including from driving), it seriously damaged the theory that the climate was fabulous until you dumb Americans started driving--gasp!--*cars* and putting us all in deadly danger!

Since the existence of hotter decades before WW2 damaged the "global warming" fable, our global-warming pushers adjusted the OLD temps downward to get rid of the unhelpful record heat of the 1930's.  And cooler not just some of the time, but in every month and every year. 

Pretty neat, huh?

But wait, it gets *still better*!  In the last few years, as the earth's actual climate cooled slightly and it got harder to change the measured temps enough to make the climate look like it was warming without prompting questions that could have blown the scheme wide open, our merry fraudsters started using a new trick:

From time to time, a few weather stations are closed for various reasons.  The new trick was to simply make up a temperature for the phantom station and report it as if it were an actual measurement.

One is hard pressed to find a sound reason for doing this, since there's no way fabricated data could possibly be more accurate than measured data, but remember we're talking about climate "science" here, so normal rules don't apply.

The plot at right shows how the temps for the "phantom stations" compared with the actual measured temps.  Hmmm.....

If a scientist in any other field simply made up data--which conveniently happened to support his hypothesis!--the guy would lose all credibility.  But because pushing global warming (or climate change, or whatever) is so critical to Democrats and socialists, the people who simply make up temperatures and treat them as if they were real measurements get rewarded, not punished.

You're probably asking, "How can this guy claim the temperatures attributed to the phantom stations are an attempt at fraud?"  It's because *all* of the fabricated temps were considerably higher than all of the temps surrounding them.  What possible logic could support this odd result? 

The folks who authored this fraud never believed anyone would catch them, for many reasons.  One is that there are literally tens of millions of recorded historical temps over the years in the U.S. alone.  With such a huge dataset our merry fraudsters believed they could fudge a few thousand here and there--enough to change the average by a mere 0.1 degree--and no one would be likely to detect their tampering.  It'd be like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.

What made it possible to expose the fraud was computers and the internet.  Our fraudsters couldn't erase all the original data--some of which was already on the Net.  And since each reporting station was specifically identified by location, a group of folks who knew a lot about statistics, working on ordinary desktop computers, could compare ten million original, measured temps with the "adjusted" (published, supposedly "official") records--and spot every instance where an agency changed the actual measured temperature.

Using ordinary tools like Excel, these guys logged every change they found.  And the pattern was clear:  In every case, all the changes made recent years look hotter than they really were, while the old records were lowered to make the 1930s look quite a bit cooler than the actual, measured temps showed.


But Wait, you say:  Haven't scientists shown that arctic sea ice is vanishing, summer high temps are getting hotter, snow cover in the U.S. is getting smaller every year and a dozen other things that absolutely, totally, unequivocally PROVE that the planet is getting hotter? 

SO glad you asked.  Let's take a look at all those claims.  For instance, here's a graph the area covered by snow in North America going back 46 years.  See a trend?

Sure:  Snow cover is slightly up.

Does this support the idea that the planet is warming?

"Well...uh...this has to be just a fluke!  Remember, you stupid denialists, that even if some places on the globe may be cooling, the planet is getting hotter overall!  Really!  For example, Everyone Knows that lots more acreage is burning every year because it's a lot hotter and drier than ever!"

Really, snowflake?  Here's a plot of the number of acres burned by fire in the U.S. over the last 12 years.  See a trend?

Sure:  Down.

(And yes, it'll go up a chunk because of the California fires this year.)

Well how about average measured summertime temperatures over the entire U.S?  Everyone Knows it's getting hotter, so surely that data will show a pronounced warming...

Oooh, SO close!  Here's the plot of actual measured summer high temps going back to 1920.  As you see, the trend is...down.

How about arctic sea ice coverage?

Al Gore told the whole world that the arctic would be totally ice-free by now.  Turns out that prediction was...ooh, so close.

Wait, it's not close at all:  After decreasing for several years, Arctic ice coverage is up over the last two years.  Sure, it's less than normal, but if the planet was continuously warming, would you expect the ice area to recover at all?

One dataset the "warmies" don't say a word about is the satellite data.  Since the late 1970s the U.S. has had satellites measuring the Earth's temperature--and not just at a few selected stations that are subject to air-conditioner exhaust or the "urban heat island" effect, but the entire planet.  They take tens of thousands of measurements per day.  AGW believers believed the satellite record would absolutely prove that the earth is warming--at least since the late 70's. 

Okay, so what do the satellites show?

No "statistically significant" warming for the past 18 years.

So now the government agencies are trying to find an excuse to "adjust" this data as well.  Cuz, you know, the 1970's was decades ago, and way back then the warmies will try to convince you that no one knew how to make accurate thermometers!  Or something like that.  Because old science is only reliable if it supports the Narrative.

Wait, it gets better:  As more people began to notice the discrepancy between the satellite data, the measured temps and the ones reported by the agencies, more Americans were beginning to think maybe AGW wasn't real.  The AGW crowd had to find some way to counterattack.

One of the agencies that has changed actual measured temperatures the most is the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), one of the myriad offices of NOAA.  It's headed by a guy named Thomas Karl.  This past June Karl counterattacked, submitting a short paper claiming that despite the satellite data and actual measured surface temps showing no warming for 18 years (the "pause"), the truth was that the planet was not only still warming, but might be doing so at even a faster rate than previously thought!

Here's the abstract:
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

The paper was immediately published by the National Academy of Science, which is totally dedicated to the idea that warming is "catastrophic" and caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

An hour after the paper was published, NOAA issued this press release:

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming"

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

The apparent observed slowing or decrease in the upward rate of global surface temperature warming has been nicknamed the "hiatus." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released in stages between September 2013 and November 2014, concluded that the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998­­-2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951-2012.

Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014--the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.
You need to know that "improvements" in the data is their translation of "We changed the data in a way that helps our position."  The phrase "improvements in the calculation of trends" is similarly puzzling, as there don't seem to be any trend calculations more puzzling than simple linear regression, and there's nothing to suggest they "improved" that long-known technique.  This seems to be bullshit, designed to make the paper appear to have a sound theoretical basis, when in reality all they did was change the data.

Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

In addition, more detailed information has been obtained regarding each ship's observation method. This information was also used to provide improved corrections for changes in the mix of observing methods."   

For their supporters in the MSM who may not have grasped the nuance, the press release included the helpful graphic on the right.  Note that the arrows for trends under "New Analysis" are larger than for the "Old analysis."

Science, baby.
Global temperature trends.

Serious scientists immediately noticed some glaring flaws:  The authors noted that the most accurate measurements of ocean temperatures were made by automated buoys, which presumably rarely made mistakes.  But before the buoys, temps were measured by ships, either by lifting a bucket of water to the deck and sticking a thermometer in it or by reading "engine intake" water temp--gauges which weren't very sensitive.  Both sources consistently gave slightly higher readings than the buoys.

But rather than investigate whether some part of the procedure accounted for the difference, Karl and his co-author simply subtracted the difference from all the old records--which had the obvious (and certainly known) effect of cooling the past.

Most troubling, though, was that the "confidence interval" is reported to have been just ten percent, whereas the standard for most scientific papers to reasonably claim an alleged effect is 90 percent.  [This seems unlikely even for the "warmie" fraudsters, so I'm trying to get a copy of the actual paper.]

In light of such a profound disagreement in dueling datasets, the chair of the House committee on Science and Technology asked NOAA to provide the data supporting the report, and copies of all "communications" by the authors regarding the paper.

NOAA sent the committee *some* information--a copy of the encyclopedia and the Manhattan phonebook, perhaps? (kidding, of course)--but refused to provide the actual data the committee asked for, and particularly the communications, citing the desire to allow "scientists" to exchange ideas without having those ideas divulged.

Problem: No feature of the law allows government agencies to do that.  NOAA just pulled that out of their ass.  And why?  Well think for a second: if the data and "communications" supported the report's conclusions, would they have hesitated to release either?  Of course not.  They're trying to hide the fact that the only way the "report" can be supported is by altering the actual measured data.

And I suspect that if the "communications" are ever divulged they'll reveal that some NOAA employee mentioned this somewhere along the line and was told to shut up.

But until that happens we're left with the fact that a taxpayer-funded federal agency is defying a congressional subpoena.  But hey, no skullduggery here, eh?

People should be going to jail over this, just as Lois Lerner (the IRS division chief who used that agency to harrass conservative political groups and delay/deny issuance of tax-exempt status) should have gone to jail.  But of course Lerner has was allowed to retire, with full pension--because she was doing the emperor's bidding.

No one in the emperor's regime has gone to jail, or been fined or otherwise punished.  And won't, as long as they do the emperor's bidding.

In the emperor's regime, lying and lawbreaking to further regime goals are *always* rewarded, never punished. 

Gee, wonder if watching this happen will have any effect on young, impressionable youth?

Nah, who could imagine such a thing?  Young people don't pay attention to such things, right?

We are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of all-powerful members of the nomenklatura who do as their superiors order, regardless of legality--knowing there won't be any consequences.

A coda to this from Pat Michaels, commenting at the blog
[Tom] Karl was the chief of the science team for the first (2001) National Assessment. That team considered nine global climate models and chose two.  One, the Canadian climate model, produced more warming than any other model. The other, the UKMO model, produced the greatest precipitation changes.
     I tested them both on historical 20th century 10 year running means, and the residual error was larger than the standard error of the raw data--a seemingly impossible example of a model actually supplying negative knowledge.

I wrote up my results as a part of the review and commentary process on the draft, and I also sent a copy to Tom. He wrote back that they had run a similar test and found the same thing.

And the report was published anyway. So you see, they knowingly violate rules of normative science in service of their careers and their political masters.
It'll be interesting to see if the chair of the House committee presses the subpoena or drops it.  No Republican so far has pressed Obama on anything--they always fold.  Maybe this rep will be different.  One thing certain: because an adverse court decision on this could cost Obama political power, Karl and his bosses at NOAA wouldn't have defied a congressional subpoena unless they'd been assured that's exactly what Obama wanted them to do.

Interesting times.

Iran tests ballistic missile capable of nuke--ten days before start of Obozo's deal

Your president--a man whose entire career has been built on bluff, bluster and altering his record to polish his image--has insisted on "making a deal" with the terrorist-sponsoring mullahs of Iran. 

Ooooh, a deal!   Like, a diplomatic agreement, such as one might expect of a guy who was nominated for the Nobel peace prize a week after he took office--and won it, based on zero accomplishments.  But he's got a D after his name, so that's all that matters in New America.

This "deal" released roughly $150 Billion in bank accounts owned by Iran, in exchange for a solemn promise by the mullahs to...do exactly the same thing they've been doing for years.

Man, that's some sharp deal by Barky and John F'n Kerry, eh?

Virtually every adult who isn't a liberal/Democrat warned that this "deal" was an illusion, a piece of theater that would give the mullahs a green light to develop an atomic bomb.  It was obvious from the outset, because the "deal" doesn't provide for any no-notice inspections.  So let's say the CIA had a spy in an Iranian lab who sent 'em pics of a atomic bomb being assembled in a secret lab in Iran.  By the provisions of this wonderful "deal" we'd have to give the mullahs 28 days notice before inspecting.

And even then, "we" couldn't inspect.  That task is farmed out to the IAEA.  But you trust them, right?

Does this requirement to give 28 days notice before inspection strike you as a good deal?

The 'inception date' of this POS was last Sunday.  Here's what happened about a week earlier:
The United States, Britain, France and Germany called on Wednesday for the United Nations Security Council's Iran sanctions committee to take action over a missile test by Tehran that they said violated a U.N. ban.
In a letter containing details on the launch, they said the ballistic missile was "inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon." 
The letter, seen by Reuters, was sent to the committee after the United States raised the issue in the 15-member Security Council. 
"We trust that this information will assist the Committee in its responsibility to examine and take appropriate action in response to violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions," they wrote. 
Iran said earlier this month that it had tested a new precision-guided ballistic missile.
Diplomats have said it was possible for the sanctions committee to blacklist additional Iranian individuals or entities if it determined that the missile launch had breached the U.N. ban. However, they said Russia and China, which have opposed the sanctions on Iran's missile program, might block any such moves. 
"The United States will continue to press the Security Council to respond effectively to any future violations ... Full and robust enforcement of all relevant U.N. measures is and will remain critical," U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said in a statement on Wednesday. 
Iran has disputed the Western assessment that the missile was capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. 
"None of the Islamic Republic of Iran's missiles has been designed for a nuclear capability," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Saturday, according to Iran's state news agency IRNA. 
Ballistic missile tests by Iran are banned under a 2010 Security Council resolution that remains valid until a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers is implemented.
Under that deal, reached on July 14, most sanctions on Iran will be lifted in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. Once it takes effect, Iran will still be "called upon" to refrain from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years. 
The deal allows for supply of ballistic missile technology to Tehran with Security Council approval, but the United States has pledged to veto any such requests. 
U.S. officials have said the missile test is not a violation of the nuclear deal. 
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday conditionally approved the nuclear deal but warned it would be violated if any of the six world powers imposed any sanctions on any level and under any pretext.

Didja get that?  The supreme shit-stain of Iran "warned" that the deal would be "violated"--meaning by the western nations--if any western nation reimposed sanctions "under any pretext."  In other words he's saying "No matter what we [Iranians] do, you can't penalize us without killing this wonderful, brilliant, clever deal."  And of course no western pol wants to be the one to kill the wonderful deal.  So...the Iranians have a free hand to do...anything.

Sweet deal for them.  So what benefits does the deal contain for the U.S.?

Zero.  Zip, zilch, nada.

But Barky got the deal HE wanted.  And in bizarro-world that's all that ever mattered.

Wednesday, September 16

Back after a long break

After a long, unintended break, I'm back.

But after taking a look at the headlines, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to crawl into a hole and get totally wasted!

What idiots are running this country (and other western nations)?  What morons?  Has every single politician sold out?  Are they *all* being blackmailed?  Isn't there a single one with both the integrity and brains to whip this sorry government into shape?

To ask the question is to answer it. 

Oh well.  Sure glad I don't have kids.

Monday, July 27

Big statue of satan to be unveiled in...Detroit?

When I saw this story this morning I thought it had to be satire: A group calling themselves the Satanic Temple announced that it would unveil a statue of their impression of Satan this Saturday.  And this grand event was to take place in the Democrat stronghold city of...Detroit.

There was a photo with the article:  Seems the statue doesn't just depict a goat-headed apparition, but puts on the final touch by also depicting two children gazing up in wonder at the goat's head.

You'd have to see it to believe it.

Oh, and the press release says the thing “is not only an unparalleled artistic triumph, but stands as a testament to plurality and the power of collective action.”

Now I'm getting even more convinced this is a spoof, since "collective action" is often a euphemism for socialism:  Detroit has been ruined by the "power of collective action," as expressed in political corruption by the ruling party, unparalleled percentages on welfare, corrupt government unions and the power of manufacturing unions to cripple and ultimately kill companies.  So I thought "this is just too spot-on."

And it still may turn out to be a clever hoax.  But if so it fooled a local Detroit TV station.  Oh, wait,..that's it:  Probably Faux News, cuz they're always riling up viewers with goofy stories like this.

Wait...you say it wasn't Fox?  That the piece appeared on the web page of...[gasp!] a CBS station?  Whoa!  But of course most of us out here in flyover country don't believe a word CBS broadcasts, so you'll just have to decide for yourself.

Meanwhile here's the link.  Click at your own risk, cuz it's a pretty ugly statue.

Wednesday, July 22

One more step closer to the end

What would you think of a U.S. president who negotiated a binding agreement on our nation--a treaty in every respect save the bullshit assertion that it's not a treaty--but refused to tell you all its provisions?

Would you suspect that it contained something the emperor didn't want you to know? 

Well obviously, or they would have made the secret, binding terms public.

Would you suspect the hidden provisions were ones that most Americans would find intolerable?  Of course, or they wouldn't have tried to hide those provisions.

Would you think a president who made such a treaty was trustworthy, or would you think he was trying to pull a fast one on America and her citizens? 

Of course you couldn't trust him--a trustworthy president wouldn't have hidden ANY of the provisions, but would have been honest with the American people and said "We had to agree to these burdensome provisions to get the other side to agree to a deal--and we felt we had to get a deal because...um...legacy or something."

But Obama decided it was better to negotiate a deal with terms kept secret from you.  If you've got an IQ above that of the average Democrat, this should make you so mad you can't see.  You should be demanding impeachment.

Unless you've been off the planet for the last month, you know that the emperor's people negotiated a deal with Iran that lifted every last, painstakingly negotiated sanction and frozen bank account, in exchange for allowing them to develop an atom bomb.  What you don't know--and what the Lying Democrat Media won't tell you--is that there are two secret provisions.

"Oh wait," I hear you say:  "I'm sure you're just not telling us that the president will brief congress on the secret terms, and of course the senate then gets to vote on whether to approve the deal.  You know, that 'advise and consent' thing.  Takes a two-thirds majority, so I think we're protected against a bad deal.  So you're just a wing-nut. 

Aw, isn't that cute:  Of course you heard that by mis-naming this thing as NOT a treaty the emperor got the senate to agree that it would take effect with just a vote of one-third of the senators instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds, right? 

No?  How could you not have heard that?  Oh that's right: it got very little coverage in the Lying Media.  Because they all knew Obama was trying to pull a fast one.

But it gets even worse:  As of now, the emperor will NOT be briefing congress on the secret terms.

"Wait," you say.  "If the terms are secret, and no one has briefed congress on them, how in the world can you know they even exist, huh?  Huh?  Stupid wingnut, we gotcha!  Ha!"

The secret terms are known to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and were found by accident when senator Tom Cotton and GOP rep Mike Pompeo visited that agency's office in Vienna on June 17th.

You gettin' the picture yet?  Obama is a lying, treasonous, Constitution-shredding bastard.  Who has brilliantly given Iran a green light to develop a nuke, and arranged to blame the GOP-controlled senate for it!

Pretty cool, eh?  Well, if you're a Dem or a Muslim, anyway.

Oh, and those stories of the head religious leader of Iran giving speeches saying "We will destroy the U.S. and Israel"?  Probably just "Islamophobia."

See, your betters know that even a nuclear Iran would never actually use a bomb on, say, Israel.  Or put one in a shipping container for New York harbor.  Because...well, "Islam is the religion of peace" or something like that.

Friday, July 17

4 Marines killed in Chattanooga by muzz: The pace accelerates

The murders of 4 U.S. Marines by a 24-year-old Muslim were inevitable, as the pace of Muslim attacks on non-muslims accelerates.

Leftists and children deny this, first because most don't believe it (fair enough)--but a significant number simply refuse to admit it, because to do so would be to admit that their world is founded on unreality and deception,

In France three days ago, two huge petroleum storage tanks were set afire by explosive devices, detonated by cell phones.  The event didn't make the front section of a single U.S. paper.  And in Muzz-cowed Europe all official source sought to pin the event on anything *but* Muzz terrorists.

A week before that, another Muzz attacked an industrial facility and beheaded the plant's manager.  Surely you heard about that on the nightly network "news," right?  No?  Ah, well...why would an American viewer care about overseas events, right?

Now with the Chattanooga murders, the emperor has umm'd an uhh'd his way through an emotionless speech in which he said something like, Well, you know, all shootings matter.

Wow!  Another Churchillian moment for Duh One.  But it was obvious he really wasn't much concerned.  Of course the Left was blase:  To them, one or two or a dozen dead Marines is no big deal.  So when their leader took the same position they were fine with it.

Is there a pattern here?  Don't be ridiculous, citizen!  The killer was simply a "domestic terrorist."  Or a "troubled youth."  Or perhaps the lack of jobs radicalized him.

So you can now expect the lying, traitorous U.S. media to go into protection mode, circling around Dear Liar to explain that the killer in Chattanooga wasn't really Muslim at all.  Yes, his name may have been Mohammod [sic], but that proves nothing.

And his parents may have been muzz, but really, that's just a coincidence.

And so what if his social media page may have touted his anger against American society and his desire to commit jihad?  Lots of confused young men do stuff like that, eh? 

So see, nothing to do with Islam at all, citizen.  And if you think there IS a connection, you're a deranged hater.  Tea partier.  Anti-government.  Probably a domestic terrorist.

Say, do you have all the permits needed for those guns you own?  Have your children had all their shots?  Can you prove it?  Do you have a license for your dog?  Do you collect government-owned rainwater from your gutters?  We fined some anti-government troublemaker in Oregon ten grand for that last year, and you may be next unless...

Have you ever displayed a Confederate flag?  Ever made a favorable comment about the South?  Do you own a scoped rifle?  More than one box of ammunition?  Have you ever gone to a shooting range?  Ever made a comment critical of "undocumented immigration"?  Ever made a comment critical of the president?  Critical of his wife's lavish vacations, perhaps?

You don't want to make trouble, do you, citizen?  Because you've now violated, oh, 23 laws that could put you away for, oh, five years easy.  So sit down and STFU.  We done tol' ya the "little thing" [1] in Chattanooga had "nothing whatsoever to do with Islam," so you will believe us, and sit down.

[1] re: "little thing:"  the exact words Democrat rep Luis Gutierrez used to describe the murder of Kathy Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant last week.  Gutierrez is the embodiment of evil.

Article from last year shows how much things have changed in 18 months

Last year Rolling Stone ran a piece titled "5 economic reforms Millenials should be fighting for.  Although it's old, I wanted to show how much the author's ideas and recommendations have become policy in barely 18 months.

In essence the author recommends that the U.S. adopt full-on Communism.

Of course you think I'm kidding.  Wish I was.  For a couple of minutes I thought maybe the author was doing satire but his bio indicates he's serious. 

He lists "things we might want to start fighting for if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us."

"Economic hellhole"?  Well it's certainly true that the country's gone downhill a LOT after five years of King Obozo's misrule, but even with the socialist emperor running things I'm not sure the U.S. is ...how did you put it? an "economic hellhole"?   I'll bet this whiny prick hasn't actually been to a real hellhole or he'd realize the U.S. is a relative paradise.

But some people are slow learners.  Anyway, here's what this prick is pushing:

1. Guaranteed jobs.  He thinks the government should guarantee that everyone who wants to can earn a "decent living" in the public sector.  He compares this to the WPA under Roosevelt.  Somehow I don't think he'd consider WPA-level wages a "decent living."  Enough to stay alive, but scarcely more than that.  But comparing his proposal to Roosevelt's WPA reassures readers that this isn't a new or scary or expensive idea:  "Yes, the WPA was good, and helped everyone!"
"A job guarantee that paid a living wage would anchor prices..."  

First you need to know that "living wage" is socialist code.  Whatever you think that number is, think higher.  They've already demonstrated for fifteen bucks an hour.  So what does the author mean when he claims doubling the minimum wage will "anchor prices"?  If he means it would "anchor" a burger at McD's at ten bucks, somehow I don't think a lot of folks will be thrilled.
"...and target employment for the poor and long-term unemployed."
Like most of the article, this is nonsensical.  Does he really think raising the minimum wage to $15/hour will result in hiring lots and lots of new servers or cleaners?  It sounds like that's what he wants to claim, but follow me here, Sparky:  If there aren't enough jobs now, what in the world would make millions of new jobs magically appear if the government simply orders businesses to pay double the current minimum wage?

Of course I don't expect this argument would slow him down for a moment--because the guy isn't trying to map out a feasible economy, but simply asserting a feel-good idea, without regard to outcome.

Then, having argued (badly) for jobs for everyone, he suddenly does a U-turn:
"But let's think even bigger. Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs."

Wait, didn't you just argue that the gummint should create jobs for everyone?  But now you say jobs "blow"?  Then why did you take the time to argue that gummint should create one for every person?
"What if people didn't have to work to survive? Enter the simple idea of a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month. 
Ah yes, those simple ideas are the best, eh?  He calls this "Social Security for All" since everyone knows and loves social security, and isn't scared by it.

A universal basic income would provide everyone "time to cultivate new needs for pleasures, activities, senses, passions, affects, and socialities that exceed the options of working and saving, producing and accumulating."
This guy's too, too precious.  Yes, exceeding the options of working sounds cool.  And for the payoff pitch:
A universal basic income could make participation in the labor force truly voluntary...
 Short version:  "Y'all need to give us everything we want.  Period.  So we don't need to work."
"3. Abolish private ownership of land."  (And everything else, apparently.)
Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve.
   Think about how stupid that is. The value of the land has nothing to do with my idle, remote landlord; it reflects the nearby parks and subways and shops, which I have access to thanks to the community and the public. So why don't the community and the public derive the value and put it toward uses that benefit everyone? Because capitalism.
4.  Abolish private ownership of stocks.  (Or as the author disarmingly puts it, "Make Everything Owned by Everybody.")
There's a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that it's called a sovereign wealth fundAlaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it's good enough for Levi Johnston, it's good enough for you.
5. A Public Bank in Every State
You know what else really blows? Wall Street. The whole point of a finance sector is supposed to be collecting the surplus that the whole economy has worked to produce, and channeling that surplus wealth toward its most socially valuable uses. It is difficult to overstate how completely awful our finance sector has been at accomplishing that basic goal. Let's try to change that by allowing state governments into the banking game.
This is what passes for sound thinking in the world of Rolling Stone, NY Times and the Left.

Obozo advisor caught lying--on camera--about Iran nuke agreement

Does the name "Ben Rhodes" ring a bell?

Obama appointed Rhodes as "deputy national security advisor," because of his extensive experience in the intelligence community and his long military service.

Hahahahahahaha!  This of course is utter bullshit.  He got the job because his brother is president of NBC's propaganda division--sometimes called the "News" division by the ignorant.

Ben is nothing if not stupid.  You think I'm just being mean, but consider this:  Two days ago Obama officially confirmed the disastrous nuclear agreement (actually a total giveaway) with Iran.  The *stated* reason for negotiating was to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb for as long as possible.  A key provision would have been to demand that the west would only remove the painstakingly negotiated system of international economic sanctions on the Iranian regime if it allowed no-notice inspections of suspected bomb development sites.

The actual agreement does not contain that provision.  Also, no Americans will be allowed in the inspection teams.

Getting the picture yet?

Immediately after the cave-in was announced, critics noted what I just wrote, and began to criticize the thing as a disaster for the U.S.  At which point Rhodes went on CNN to defend Obozo's treason, and said
 "We never sought 'anytime, anywhere' inspections."
It took blogger Stephen Hayes about three minutes to unearth the same Ben Rhodes, again on CNN, back on April 6th--just over 3 months ago--saying of the nearly-negotiated agreement,
"We will have anytime, anywhere access across the nuclear facilities."
Compare the two quotes above.  A total contradiction.  Rhodes can't remember what lies he told 3 months earlier.  Just another lie from the emperor's regime--just like "If you like your health insurance you can keep it."  Remember that whopper?

It's bad enough that the entire Obozo regime utters one huge lie after another, but the *really* worrisome thing is that they're so brazen about it--like the architect of Obozocare, Jon Gruber, making videotaped speeches saying that they counted on the stupidity of the American public to pass the thing.

Of course if you're a liberal/Democrat/"progressive" this is all just dandy.  All is proceeding according to plan.

Friday, July 3

Can we learn any lessons from policies in other nations? Leftists: No, not a thing.

Can Americans learn any useful lessons from events in, say, Greece or Tunisia or Libya or Egypt or...fill in the blank?

Leftists, socialists, "progressives" and Democrats want you to believe nothing useful can be learned--that government policies in other nations that produce disastrous results will have totally good results here in the U.S.  Because Obama or something.

This of course is insane:  While different cultures have different values, human nature itself is pretty constant.  So bad policies in one country are likely to be bad if instituted anywhere else.

The Left insists that you avoid drawing that conclusion, because their policies almost always lead to disastrous outcomes in other nations.  Thus most rational adults would conclude that those policies should be avoided here.

For example: Bureaucrats in Greece can retire at age 58 on very generous pensions.  Moreover, they get 14 "monthly" paychecks per year, both before and after retirement.  (Two bonus checks for being such fabulous people.)  The Greek government doesn't want to change this, and as long as they can borrow from financially solvent nations, why should they?

Can you say "Ponzi scheme"?

Before about six years ago Egypt was a popular tourist destination, reasonable stable and reasonably safe.  Now the Muslim Brotherhood has started a terror campaign--much like the communists in South Vietnam back in the 1960's.  But the U.S. Left wants you to welcome many more hundreds of thousands of muslim immigrants into the U.S, because...well, they're the "right" kind of people.  And look what they've done for Egypt!

Oh wait--according to your emperor the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  In fact, they're not really authentic muslims at all!  It's a mystery why they took that name for their group, since they're not really Muslims, eh?

In South Africa--totally run by the communist African National Congress party--half the dockets of criminal cases ready for trial mysteriously disappear forever.  The cops are thoroughly corrupt.  But don't worry, citizen:  There are absolutely NO useful lessons Americans can learn from South Africa.

The European Union has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants from North Africa, who set out for Italy in old, overloaded boats.  But since the politicians of the EU have announced that their policy is to rescue all such voyagers, the boats keep coming.  But don't worry, citizen:  There is absolutely nothing in this event that would be relevant for Americans.

Polygamy is legal in many Muslim nations but theoretically illegal in Britain.  But because of stupid government policies--often defended as "religious tolerance"--Muslim immigrants with 4 wives and dozens of offspring are living on the dole in the U.K.  That is, the taxpayer is supporting multiple, current wives of the same man.

Values?  You don't get to have any.  But immigrants can break laws with impunity.  And get the taxpayers to support them as they do so.  But no possible lessons for Americans in this disaster.

Not to worry, citizen.  Just ignore it, and everything will be fine.  Let Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and Bernie Sanders run things.  Because "Democrats care about the common man."  Or so they keep saying.

Thursday, June 25

IRS destroyed evidence even after congress ordered 'em to preserve it.

How far have we fallen from a nation of laws?  Here's example 456,745:  When a congressional committee began closing in on the brazen harassment of conservative politica groups by the lying IRS division chief Lois Lerner, congress subpoenaed her emails to see if someone higher up in the emperor's administration had told her to do this.

Lerner then told congress that a hard drive crash had wiped out two years of her emails.  Oh, and bad luck, congressman:  The two years that were destroyed were exactly the period you were looking for, too.  Gosh, so sorry!

Then some congressional staffer noted that federal law required all agencies to preserve backups of emails, exactly to prevent crooked, lying bitch scum like Lerner from claiming what she claimed and getting away with it.  So where were the backups?

The head of the IRS himself appeared before congress and testified that provisions of law be damned, no backups existed.  And no, it wasn't his fault.  Because, "Oh, it's way too complicated for you morons to understand." 

The bastard actually smirked as he said the equivalent of this.

Oh, and we looked all over the place for the tapes but couldn't find 'em.

Of course, they may have existed at one time, but have been overwritten by new data--because, you know, those big reels of tape are expensive, and when the Rethuglicans did that thing with the budget a couple of years ago, well, we just couldn't afford new backup tapes so we had to write over the older ones.  So you know, it's your fault.

Then some investigator had the stunning idea to actually go down to the office that stores backup tapes for federal agencies and ask "Did the lying sack of shit who cashes a paycheck for nominally "running" the IRS ask you to look for these tapes?"

Answer:  "No one has ever asked us to look for anything."  And they proceeded to produce tapes containing, oh, 30,000 pages of emails.

Okay, now that you're up to speed:  The latest claim from the IRS is that well after congress subpoenaed tapes and any other media containing Lerner's emails, IRS employees destroyed 422 tapes containing another 24,000 Lerner emails.  And the excuse given?

"Ooh, was there some sort of search for these?  Oooh, a subpoena, you say?  Well, we had no idea.

In fact the destruction of the subpoenaed evidence occurred about three weeks before IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified to Congress that they would provide copies of the missing emails to Congress.

Hey, we're just Soooo f'n sorry about that, congressdudes.  Gosh, if only we'd somehow known not to erase all those tapes, we could have been more helpful.  But no one up the chain ever told us y'all were looking for these things.  Wow, bad luck, huh?  Well, is there anything else we can do for ya?

 Firing squads.  Everyone from GS4 all the way to the top.  These lying bastards will keep doing it until the first thousand are executed.  Then and only then will the brazen lying and lawbreaking stop.

Court rules the clear language of the ACA on subsidies does NOT mean what it says

Well the long-awaited ruling from the Supreme Court on whether the clear language of the actual Obamacare *law* regarding who can get taxpayer-funded subsidies means what it says was issued a couple of hours ago.

If you haven't followed the controversy, it's that the part dealing with subsidies says that people are only eligible for a subsidy (a check from taxpayers) if they bought their insurance through an "exchange established by a State."

Does that seem confusing?   What do you think the law's drafters meant by that phrase?

The intent of this provision was to dangle a carrot in front of the states, to encourage all the states to set up their own exchanges.  This incentive didn't work:  Only a handful of states set up their own exchanges, and at least two that states spent over a billion dollars building have now been terminated as being too costly.

But back to the language:  If you don't believe that the restrictive language (only to "an exchange established by a State") was inserted to entice the states into setting up their own exchanges, the main architect of Obamacare has been captured on video--on two separate occasions--saying exactly that.  So if you're looking at the intent of the law's language, there it is.

But let's suppose he hadn't made those two statements (again, caught on video).  In that case courts try to use logic to divine the intent of congress.  So consider this:  If the lying asshole socialist bastards who wrote the actual language in the bill had intended that everyone who bought health insurance would qualify to receive a subsidy, why would the drafters bother inserting any qualifying language in the bill at all? 

If they intended that everyone would qualify for a subsidy, any "limiting" language would not only be unnecessary but inaccurate.  So the mere existence of any language that would restrict the subsidy in any way speaks to their true intent.

The only possible conclusion is that the bill's authors meant what they wrote in the bill--NOT what they now claim.

But the court ignored this bit of very obvious logic in favor of re-writing the bill to do what the drafters NOW claim they wanted to do.  Which was give subsidies to everyone.

If you're a Democrat, liberal, "progressive" or communist, this is just faabulous.  Those folks all love for the courts to rewrite laws to accomplish things the Left wants done.  Unfortunately the court has historically declined to do that, reasoning that if the language clearly says "X," but congress wails that they *really* meant "Y," congress is free to repeal or amend the defective law at any time.

This principle has been upheld so many times as to be considered a fundamental judicial mandate.

By contrast, this court ruled that doing what the actual, you know, language says could possibly make Obamacare unworkable.  Since the court considers it unthinkable that Obamacare NOT work, it will simply re-interpret the clear language to be...inoperative.

Folks, I can't adequately describe what a ghastly, horrible, dangerous, deadly threshold this court has just crossed.  Because I'll bet you the drink of your choice that the justices won't actually re-write the troublesome language, nor rule that "Section xxx, line y is hereby deleted."  They won't do that because doing so will make it too obvious that they've crossed the line into legislating.

So the inconsistent language will remain.  But now what does the law actually *say*?  The Left knows what effect they (now) want, and the justices agree, but how are the rest of us to know what the unwritten language of the law now says?

Admittedly this example isn't dire, but the precedent is.  For if the court can rule that a law that clearly says X "really means" Y--but without setting that out in the statute itself--then no one can know what the law is.

Here's what dissenting justice Scalia wrote about today's decision:
1. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is [deemed to be] ‘established by the State.’”
2. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation...the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
3. “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”
4. "[T]he discouraging truth [is] that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Eh, no matter, citizen.  As I've written many times, the U.S. stopped being a nation of laws about seven years ago.  When it comes to the law we're now no better than Kenya or communist-ruled South Africa or North Korea:  the people who run the government will decide what a given law means, and which should be enforced, and against whom.  And it's just bad luck that you're always on the wrong end of those decisions, while elites like Hillary are always on the right end.

Damn shame about that, citizen.  Oh, just leave your keys on the front table when you leave.  Your former house will make a dozen new U.S. citizens very comfortable.  Oh, and don't bother telling anyone about this--no one will believe you.

Wednesday, June 24

EU still negotiating to bail out Greece. Greek pols laughing all the way to the bar.

Big meeting taking place in Greece between European Central Bank reps, members of the European parliament and Greek politicians to see how much taxpayer money the pols can give Greece to keep the latter from leaving the common Euro currency.

Problem is Greece has a huge debt and insists on continuing to spend far more than it takes in in tax revenue.  (Sound familiar?)  For a big insight on the stupidity, click here.

Summary:  For several years now the Greek govt has been living off cash borrowed from the EU.  They've missed several repayment "deadlines."  Two or three years ago European politicians pressured Greece's lenders to write off a huge chunk of that debt in exchange for solemn promises from Greek pols to repay the rest.

How'd that work out for 'em?  Do you need to ask?

Basically the deal from a few years ago was "We'll loan you even more billions if you'll solemnly promise to tighten your policies and repay the old loans."

Of course the Greeks ended up using the new loans to make partial payments on the old loans and string the lenders out longer, and now they're even farther in debt.  But the stupid members of the European parliament--a bunch even less useful than our congress--are just so *traumatized* by the plight of the Greek people that they're determined to squeeze their members to bail Greece out yet again.

Politicians are absolutely determined to feel good about themselves, no matter how much of other peoples' money they have to spend to do so.

Democrats: They're always "for the little people," right?

Democrats claim to be "for the common man."  Their constant refrain is "I'm just like you.  I care about you."  And sure enough, that shows in the way they live.   For example, below are two homes belonging to presidential candidates. 

One's a Republican, the other's a Democrat.

See if you can guess which home goes with which candidate.  Should be easy, right?
Home #1:

And here's #2:

Well OBVIOUSLY the first one belongs to the Democrat!  Because it's small, unpretentious, on a tiny suburban lot.  The second one--far larger, on acreage--clearly belongs to the Republican.  Cuz, you know, they're all rich and elitist and would never be caught dead living on the end of suburban cul-de-sac.  So there's the proof that...

What?  You say the first one belongs to...Marco Rubio?  Wait, isn't he a Republican?  Clearly someone has made a mistake.  This can't be right.

But then that must mean the far larger home on the huge lot must belong to...a...a...a...Democrat?  But I thought there were only two Dem candidates.  Is that Bernie Sanders' home?  Say, socialism must pay pretty well!  But then Bernie never did claim to be "just like us," eh?  He's always struck me as sort of elitist, and...

What?  You say that's NOT Sanders' place?  But...but...but...that would mean it's Hillary's. 

"Just like us," eh?  "Dead broke," eh?  Hmmm....

Hat tip to Jason Stevens at Federalist Papers.