Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT. COM.
Sun. Oct.29, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America
Dobbs and Trump talk trade, terrify opponents
By Jim Dicks
In his iconic farewell address to the nation in January, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower presaged the battle President Trump is now waging against the Deep State and multinational corporations. Eisenhower, having presided over the Cold-War imperative of a rapid military and technological-industrial escalation, warned the nation about the corrupting danger that powerful government insiders and their wealthy corporate allies pose to our representative democracy. Here is his timeless quote from that speech.
We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties and democratic processes.
Fifty-six years later, the movement that propelled our current president to the White House was fueled by very real and similar fears of misplaced power – many would say stolen power – by multinational corporations, global behemoths that see the United States as a crucial wealth-generator to be manipulated in the global economy to move goods and labor from country to country, like players on a game board, to maximize profits.
This past Wednesday, our populist, nationalist, pro-American, anti-establishment president sat down with Lou Dobbs of Fox Business Network, in a friendly discussion between two men who share a similar vision of the proper relationship between the government and its people.
Dobbs addressed the corruption in Washington moving the country closer to the realization of President Eisenhower's fears for the sovereignty of a free people in a democratic republic. As Dobbs put it to President Trump:
The role of business in this country [is] critical, fundamental to the country's well-being and its future, to the creation of jobs. But business has taken such a voice in this town, in this swamp, that you are the only countervailing influence to that dominance of U.S. multinationals in this country.
Eisenhower, in his farewell address, reiterated his great concerns of threats from powerful business, technological, and military interests to the democratization of power.
We want democracy to succeed for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become captive to a scientific, technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system, ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Today, that balance has been lost. President Trump discussed with Dobbs the status of various initiatives he has undertaken to rebalance the relationship between government and business.
After a positive interchange regarding tax reform legislation, the issue of trade arose, in which the president reiterated his determination to amend the existing iteration of NAFTA, with its provisions that are crippling our manufacturing base, with terms more favorable to the U.S., or he will exit it entirely. He raised his concerns regarding the World Trade Organization (WTO), a governmental agency created in 1994, replacing GATT and designed to regulate international trade. The president claimed that the WTO was "set up to benefit everyone but us." He further lamented the fact that in the WTO trade dispute courts, "we lose almost all the lawsuits within the WTO because we have fewer judges than other countries. You can't win." The system is "set up ... to take advantage of the United States."
President Trump derides free trade as an illusion. He reframes the discussion in terms of balanced or fair trade. Differences in economic, political, and philosophical systems; a lack of reciprocal trade treatment (one-sided tariffs and other barriers to market entry); and currency manipulations combine to make free trade between most countries a mirage. Trump's response is to carefully craft individual bilateral trade agreements rather than cumbersome multi-nation agreements like the Obama TPP he so readily canceled, so that aberrant trade behavior can be effectively monitored and violations dealt with swiftly.
As Mr. Dobbs pointed out, for simply demanding that trade agreements be negotiated that protect US interests, President Trump is labeled by his many adversaries "protectionist" and "isolationist." Dobbs noted, "Of all our trading partners, we're the only ones who say, 'Please take what you want. We don't have to have a mature relationship with you. We don't have to have balanced trade.'"
The heads of U.S. multinational leviathans as well as politicians, both current and prospective, would do well to ponder President Eisenhower's wise parting words that are as relevant today, and will be as relevant in the future, as when he spoke them:
As we peer into society's future, we, you and I, and our government, must avoid the impulse to live only for today. Plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow, we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren, risking the loss of their political and spiritual heritage.
This admonition from Dwight Eisenhower, who, like Donald Trump, never served a day in political office prior to assuming the presidency, surely resonates with Mr. Trump as he forges ahead to drain the swamp and resist "the weight of this combination [that] endanger[s] our liberties and democratic processes."
In his iconic farewell address to the nation in January, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower presaged the battle President Trump is now waging against the Deep State and multinational corporations. Eisenhower, having presided over the Cold-War imperative of a rapid military and technological-industrial escalation, warned the nation about the corrupting danger that powerful government insiders and their wealthy corporate allies pose to our representative democracy. Here is his timeless quote from that speech.
We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties and democratic processes.
Fifty-six years later, the movement that propelled our current president to the White House was fueled by very real and similar fears of misplaced power – many would say stolen power – by multinational corporations, global behemoths that see the United States as a crucial wealth-generator to be manipulated in the global economy to move goods and labor from country to country, like players on a game board, to maximize profits.
This past Wednesday, our populist, nationalist, pro-American, anti-establishment president sat down with Lou Dobbs of Fox Business Network, in a friendly discussion between two men who share a similar vision of the proper relationship between the government and its people.
Dobbs addressed the corruption in Washington moving the country closer to the realization of President Eisenhower's fears for the sovereignty of a free people in a democratic republic. As Dobbs put it to President Trump:
The role of business in this country [is] critical, fundamental to the country's well-being and its future, to the creation of jobs. But business has taken such a voice in this town, in this swamp, that you are the only countervailing influence to that dominance of U.S. multinationals in this country.
Eisenhower, in his farewell address, reiterated his great concerns of threats from powerful business, technological, and military interests to the democratization of power.
We want democracy to succeed for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become captive to a scientific, technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system, ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Today, that balance has been lost. President Trump discussed with Dobbs the status of various initiatives he has undertaken to rebalance the relationship between government and business.
After a positive interchange regarding tax reform legislation, the issue of trade arose, in which the president reiterated his determination to amend the existing iteration of NAFTA, with its provisions that are crippling our manufacturing base, with terms more favorable to the U.S., or he will exit it entirely. He raised his concerns regarding the World Trade Organization (WTO), a governmental agency created in 1994, replacing GATT and designed to regulate international trade. The president claimed that the WTO was "set up to benefit everyone but us." He further lamented the fact that in the WTO trade dispute courts, "we lose almost all the lawsuits within the WTO because we have fewer judges than other countries. You can't win." The system is "set-up ... to take advantage of the United States."
President Trump derides free trade as an illusion. He reframes the discussion in terms of balanced or fair trade. Differences in economic, political, and philosophical systems; a lack of reciprocal trade treatment (one-sided tariffs and other barriers to market entry); and currency manipulations combine to make free trade between most countries a mirage. Trump's response is to carefully craft individual bilateral trade agreements rather than cumbersome multi-nation agreements like the Obama TPP he so readily canceled, so that aberrant trade behavior can be effectively monitored and violations dealt with swiftly.
As Mr. Dobbs pointed out, for simply demanding that trade agreements be negotiated that protect US interests, President Trump is labeled by his many adversaries "protectionist" and "isolationist." Dobbs noted, "Of all our trading partners, we're the only ones who say, 'Please take what you want. We don't have to have a mature relationship with you. We don't have to have balanced trade.'"
The heads of U.S. multinational leviathans as well as politicians, both current and prospective, would do well to ponder President Eisenhower's wise parting words that are as relevant today, and will be as relevant in the future, as when he spoke them:
As we peer into society's future, we, you and I, and our government, must avoid the impulse to live only for today. Plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow, we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren, risking the loss of their political and spiritual heritage.
This admonition from Dwight Eisenhower, who, like Donald Trump, never served a day in political office prior to assuming the presidency, surely resonates with Mr. Trump as he forges ahead to drain the swamp and resist "the weight of this combination [that] endangers our liberties and democratic processes."
Only MLB Player To Kneel During National Anthem Complains After Being Refused Service Over His Protest
Bruce Maxwell took a knee during "The Star-Spangled Banner" and got ... served.
Oakland A's catcher Bruce Maxwell says a waiter in an Alabama restaurant refused to serve him because he knelt during the national anthem.
Maxwell was the first — and only — Major League Baseball player to join in the National Football League's #TakeAKnee protest, going down on one knee during the national anthem during a game back in August. The MLB quickly noted that players are required to stand during pre-game ceremonies, and Maxwell's demonstration was brought to a swift end.
While the protest may have registered as barely a blip in the national #TakeAKnee news cycle, it seems people in Maxwell's hometown of Harvest, Alabama noticed — and when Maxwell returned home for the summer, he says people acted differently towards him. In one case, a waiter in a local restaurant actually refused to serve him.
I got racially profiled in my hometown the day I got home. I wasn’t even home four hours and I got denied service at lunch with our city councilman who is also an African American guy I went to highschool with because the dude recognized me as the guy who took a knee and he voted for Trump and was at that Trump rally in Huntsville, Alabama.
And so he denied us service at lunch and they had to go get us another waiter to wait on our table in that same restaurant.
He was like, "Oh, yeah, you’re that guy, huh?” And I was like, “scuse me?” He was like “Yea, you’re the guy that took the knee?” He goes, “I voted for Trump and I stand for everything he stands for.”
Maxwell went on to say that the incident proved his point: that racial bias still exists in America, and that professional athletes are bringing attention to a very important issue.
The strange thing is, of course, that Maxwell thought his own protest was legitimate, and that refusing to stand for the national anthem — which is actually part of his job, per the MLB — was the correct way to make what seems to be a complex issue personal to millions of Americans. But when a waiter also protested on the job, bringing the issue of disrespect towards the flag home to Maxwell, Maxwell was outraged.
Maxwell did say, however, that there are a few positives that have come from his protest. He's friends with Colin Kaepernick now, for starters, and Kaepernick has offered to mentor the MLB catcher. Hopefully, Kaepernick isn't giving him any contract advice.
Princess Oomgalagala does it again...She’s full of it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren Slinging Bull Joins #MeToo Campaign: Portrays Professor She Once Praised as Sexual Predator
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said on NBC’s Meet the Press last weekend that a former professor sexually harassed her when she was a young law professor at the University of Houston. This is the same professor, who died in 1997, that she eulogized at his funeral, joking about his fondness for her and their interactions.
“Yes, I have a ‘me, too’ story too,” Warren said. “I was a baby law professor and so excited to have my first real teaching job. And there was this senior faculty member who, you know, would tell dirty jokes and make comments about my appearance.”
“And one day he asked me if I would stop by his office, which I didn’t think much about,” Warren said. “And I did. And he slammed the door and lunged for me.”
“It was like a bad cartoon,” Warren said. “He’s chasing me around the desk, trying to get his hands on me.”
“And I kept saying, ‘You don’t want to do this. You don’t want to do this. I have little children at home. Please don’t do this,” Warren said. “And trying to talk calmly. And at the same time, what was flickering through my brain is, ‘If he gets hold of me, I’m going to punch him right in the face.’”
Warren also posted on Facebook about her “me too” experience.
“If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem,” Warren wrote. #MeToo
But media reports reveal that Warren’s opinion of the late Professor Eugene Smith has changed over the years.
The Boston Globe reported this week that Warren recounted the same incident in a “more light-hearted manner” at a memorial service after the professor’s death 20 years ago.
“During the service after his death in 1997, Warren spoke fondly of law professor Eugene Smith and told the gathered mourners she was laughing as Smith chased her around his desk, according to a colleague’s memoir,” the Globe reported, referring to a book written by retired professor John Mixon.
But the Globe spoke with Warren, who said her perspective of what took place has changed over the years.
“It was 20 years later, and he didn’t have power over me anymore,” said Warren, who was at that time a Harvard law professor.
The Globe inquired about the contrast between the two accounts:
She did not directly answer when asked if she spoke fondly of Smith at his memorial or if she told mourners she was laughing as Smith tried to grab her in his office.
“I made it clear that I was just fine,” Warren said.
The Globe described Warren’s changed narrative as an “evolution” arrived at “amid changing attitudes about harassment and increasing empowerment of women to speak up.”
Warner’s colleague also told the Globe his written account about Warren and Smith may not have been accurate.
“I may have been wrong saying she was laughing,” Mixon told the Globe.
The paper also reported that Warren failed to mention on Meet The Press that Smith was severely disabled by polio and was in a wheelchair because of his disability.
Mixon described Smith’s disability this way:
Gene Smith was lucky to be alive. Shortly before the Salk vaccine made polio history, Gene contracted the disease in his late teens. He was among the polio victims to survive by forced breathing in an iron lung.
According to Mixon, Smith, a teenager at the time of the disease’s onset, “eventually gained enough strength to leave the iron lung” but “walked like a crab, swinging his almost useless arms to keep his balance.”
Mixon recalled that Smith, born in 1933, would struggle to reach his second-floor bedroom, “without realizing he was weakening his muscles and hastening the onset of post-polio syndrome which eventually disabled him entirely, even from riding around in his electric cart.”
Top Republican Drops Impeachment Truth Bomb, People Are Furious
Frank Spear
Since the day President Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States we have listened to the Left screech that he needs to be impeached. One Congressman has an important message for those people.
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), was recently interviewed on Fox Business Network where he delivered a flat message to the Left who are still clamoring for impeachment. “If you’re one of these people…dreaming of President Trump’s going to be impeached for collusion…keep on dreaming.” This has come as a major blow to many Democrats, who have been deceived into believing, for almost a year, that President Trump has ties to Russia.
As it turns out, the exact opposite has been proven to be true.
The story is still developing, but what has come out to this point is alarming, to say the least.
Rep. Stewart, who also serves on the House Intelligence Committee, is part of a growing investigation into the Left and their ties to Russia via the Uranium One deal. The committee stated they would begin their investigation this past Tuesday.
Their goal is to discover how former-President Barack Obama’s Justice Department justified approving a deal that resulted in the United States giving 20 percent of America’s uranium supply to a company owned by the Russian government. It is a tale straight out of a spy novel, yet here it is.
The investigation is also going to delve into the then-Secretary of State and failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email server. Former-FBI Director James Comey dismissed Clinton’s behavior with her emails, while at the same time calling her reckless.
Committee Chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), also commented on the situation. He stated that they have been “looking into this for some time,” according to NewsMax. The Uranium One deal has been scrutinized since 2010, and now there is enough evidence for action.
As more evidence has surfaced it is clear there is a connection between the Clintons, Democrats, and Russia. The entire scheme to impeach President Trump has literally blown up in their faces.
There are also reports that state, while the Uranium One deal was going on, Hillary Clinton was getting millions of dollars. The donation money was coming to The Clinton Foundation courtesy of Russia.
Oddly, as soon as the Uranium One deal was complete, the donations stopped pouring in. It almost seems as though Russia was trying to pay-off the Clintons to “make something happen,” almost.
To make matters worse, Bill Clinton was giving speeches in Russia at exactly the same time. Apparently, former-President Bill Clinton’s words are worth around half a million dollars for just one speech. It couldn’t be his accessibility to the then-Secretary of State or the ability to facilitate a deal that would take 20 percent of our Uranium, could it?
Sadly, the answer to that question appears to be yes, based on what we have so far. One thing is for sure, the liberal’s dream of seeing President Trump impeached is going to remain a dream for them, while the adults in government work on solving serious, sinister issues.
Judicial Watch: FBI Recovered 72,000 Pages of Clinton Records
State Department Tells Court It Processed only 32,000—And Has Yet to Review 40,000 Clinton Records --- Courts Orders Explanation on Processing(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that the State Department revealed in a federal court hearing that it has yet to process 40,000 of 72,000 pages of Hillary Clinton records that the FBI recovered last year. The revelation came during a federal court hearing in Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that were sent or received during her tenure from February 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The case is before Judge James E. Boasberg.
The hearing focused on the State Department’s progress on processing the tens of thousands of emails Clinton failed to disclose when she served as Secretary of State, some of which were emails sent by Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop of her estranged husband Anthony Weiner. The State Department has processed 32,000 pages of emails so far, a small number of which have been released, but 40,000 pages remain to be processed.
Judicial Watch asked the court to require the State Department to identify any records from the seven FBI discs that it intends to withhold, and why, in a timely manner. The State Department disclosed to the Court that it was adding extra resources to its FOIA operation but would not commit to a faster production of the Clinton emails. On October 19, Judge Boasberg ordered the State Department to “explain how its anticipated increase in resources will affect processing of records in this case and when the processing of each disk is likely to be completed.” Surprisingly, the Tillerson State Department and Sessions Justice Department previously argued to the court that there was diminished public interest in the Clinton emails.
In November 2016, the State Department was ordered to produce no less than 500 pages of records a month to Judicial Watch, emails of which the FBI found in its investigation into Clinton’s non-government email system. The State Department has produced 23 batches of documents so far. At the current pace, the Clinton emails and other records won’t be fully available for possible release until at least 2020.
Clinton attempted to delete 33,000 emails from her non-government server. The FBI investigation recovered or found a number of these missing emails, many of which were government documents.
“Secretary Tillerson should be asked why his State Department is still sitting on a motherlode of Clinton emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disheartening that an administration elected to ‘drain the swamp’ is stalling the release of documents to protect Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.”
In a related lawsuit Judicial Watch recently revealed that the State Department admitted it received 2,800 Huma Abedin work-related documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that were found on her estranged husband Anthony Weiner’s personal laptop. The State Department expects to complete its review and production of the FBI records by December 31, 2017.
Possibly the Best Thing You Will Ever Read on Global Warming. Pt 1: The Science.
1249
Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the global warming scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of global warming.
Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.
Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe. Here are highlights of the English translation. As you’ll see, he doesn’t pull his punches.
CO2 is not – and has never been a poison
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2 proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
Plants love CO2. That’s why the planet is greening
Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There have been periods where the CO2 concentration was many times higher than now. Life thrived.
During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.
Animals need CO2 too. And by the way – forests are not the ‘lungs of the earth’…
In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70 percent of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees. Contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.
It is not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. Reports of its influence have been exaggerated
It is worth remembering here too that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04 percent of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1. The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2 percent in the atmosphere. Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.
Climate change is natural
Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.
Don’t worry about shrinking glaciers. We’ve been here before…
In Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome (except during a snowstorm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.
Sea level rise is normal
Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99 percent of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[1] and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.
[1] The island shores are eroded by the persistent pounding of the ocean waves. This is perceived as ‘sinking’ or as ‘sea level rise,’ but the upward creep of the waters is due to island soil being washed away.
The polar ice caps are fine too
Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years. One may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but, on average, that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Arctic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years and, similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and so on.
Extreme weather events are actually decreasing
From storms to tornadoes, extreme events are going down all around the world and, when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease.
Recent warming is modest – much smaller than the alarmists’ various computer models predicted
If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest, that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain. This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures, for which there is no precision data[1], except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known. The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.
Claims by alarmist ‘experts’ that 2016 was that ‘hottest year ever’ are pure balderdash
The World Meteorological Organization – another emanation of the United Nations and which is also, like the IPCC, an intergovernmental forum – declares 2016 the year the warmest of history. Knowing that 2016 is supposedly hotter by 0.02°C than 2015 and that the margin of error on this value is 0.1°C, we see the absurdity of this statement. For those who don’t understand, this means that the variation in temperature can be of + 0.12°C (global warming) or -0.08°C (global cooling). In short, we can’t say anything and WMO has simply lost its mind.
No, ‘climate change’ hasn’t led to an increase in tropical diseases
Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located. If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low. In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on climate change comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of vaccinations, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.
Again, CO2 is greening the planet. And that’s a good thing. So stop demonizing it!
Present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2 available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they, therefore, consume less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2 level in the atmosphere makes plants need less water so they can afford to colonize arid regions.
Obama CIA Director Drops Bombshell, Liberals Hate This
Ben Baker
Much of the Russia and Trump collusion allegations are based on an unverified dossier created by the company Fusion GPS which was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
The Daily Caller reports that even former CIA Director Leon Panetta believes there needs to be an investigation into who “knew what and when” regarding payments. According to Panetta, “Well, it’s obviously something that the intelligence committee is going to have to look at.”
The infamous Trump dossier contained allegations that the Russians had embarrassing dirt on President Trump and evidence that he was colluding with Russia to win the election. Even though the dossier was unverified and much of it remains unverified, many Democrats have run with it as evidence of their allegations that President Trump could only win the election with Russia’s assistance.
It was long known that Fusion GPS had hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile the document, but it’s been recently revealed that Fusion GPS was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to create the dossier, who paid more than $9 million for the services through their law firm, Perkins Coie.
Yet very few claim to have known anything about it at both the DNC and Clinton’s campaign team.
Former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon says Hillary Clinton, “may have known, but the degree of exactly what she knew is beyond my knowledge.” Clinton herself has suspiciously remained silent on whether she was aware of the payments or the project.
A DNC official maintains that members of the DNC were unaware that Perkins Coie, the lawyer who organized the payments to Fusion GPS, had engaged Fusion GPS’ services. “Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization.”
Yet as Rep. Peter King (R-NY) points out, one cannot be involved in paying $9 million for something unless they know where it’s going. “You don’t lay out that kind of money in a campaign unless you know.”
President Trump, who was deeply offended by the
eyebrow-raising claims in the dossier, told reporters that this revelation of the DNC and Clinton campaign’s involvement is a low for the Left. “They’re embarrassed by it, but I think it’s a disgrace. It’s a very sad commentary on politics in this country.”
Fallon tried to shrug off the attention and throw it back onto Republicans, referencing the fact that an unknown Republican source had initially hired Fusion GPS to try and find dirt on Mr. Trump, “So what if she did? Looking forward to the RNC reaction when the identity of the GOP funder comes out.”
Yet this unknown Republican source had let go of Fusion GPS once Trump was elected from the primaries and long before the dossier had ever been created. Making the DNC and Clinton campaign solely responsible for its creation and the unverified accusations found within.
The watchdog organization, The Campaign Legal Center, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission saying the DNC and Clinton’s campaign broke campaign finance law when they failed to disclose the funding used to hire Fusion GPS.
According to Brendan Fischer of the Center, “Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”
The fact that the dossier is still considered largely unverified, despite nearly a year passing since its creation, and the fact that the DNC and Clinton campaign were directly responsible for its creation, makes the entire existence of the dossier suspect.
King is likely correct that these politicians wouldn’t have paid so much money without knowing exactly where it was going or what it was for. It also says a lot that they’ve tried to hide their involvement in the dossier’s creation for so long.
The Russia and President Trump collusion investigation is based on allegations made by Democrats using the unverified claims in a dossier they created themselves to prevent him from winning the election. In other words, it’s a scandal that’s beginning to blow up in their faces.
Paul Ryan Snuck Behind Closed Doors To Reveal His Sick Plan To Betray Trump
Paul Ryan is plotting his worst scheme yet.
The RINO Speaker of the House has never been an ally of Donald Trump.
And now Ryan just held a secret, closed door meeting to reveal his awful plan to betray Trump.
Ryan told a group of House Republicans that he plans to include amnesty for illegal aliens – the so-called “DREAMers” – in the December government funding bill.
To make matters worse, he is going to kill any attempt to fund Trump’s border wall.
The Huffington Post reports:
“House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) privately conceded to a group of House conservatives on Tuesday that he plans to include a legislative fix for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children in a year-end spending deal.
Asked if he envisioned a December omnibus spending bill including Cost Sharing Reductions for Obamacare or some sort of solution for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Ryan told leaders of the Republican Study Committee that he didn’t believe CSR payments would be part of the deal with Democrats, but that DACA would.
“He did talk about the fact that that would be good if we could get ahead of that as opposed to being reactionary,” RSC Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) told HuffPost Tuesday night…
… “He did talk about border security,” Walker said of Ryan. “The language that I’ve used, when we did the poll in the RSC, 83 percent of the RSC members believe that a precursor of any kind of long-term DACA fix is securing the border. Now that could be defined different ways. I didn’t get any impression that Speaker Ryan has moved off of that position.”
But Walker conceded that enhanced border security didn’t necessarily mean “a wall.”
“I don’t think that anybody has said definitively that the wall has to be part of that,” Walker said.”
Trump was having none of it.
He was asked about a proposed deal where illegal aliens would get amnesty and no border wall funding would be appropriated.
Trump immediately shot it down.
Breitbart reports:
“President Donald Trump again stated his demand for wall funding in return for a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA] deal with Democrats.
“I’d love to do a DACA deal,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for Dallas, Texas. “But we have to get something very substantial for it, including the wall, including security, including a strong border.”
In recent weeks, the president has appeared to walk back reports that he agreed to a DACA deal with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, after his reported remarks threw his base into an uproar.
“We need a wall in this country. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it,” Trump said during a press conference with Mitch McConnell last week when asked about DACA. “We need a wall, and that will be part of it.”
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/10/httpift_29.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment