Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.BLOGSPOT. COM
Fri. Feb. 22, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
HOMOSEXUAL HOLLYWOOD HATE HOAXER JUSSIE SMOLLETT IN CUSTODY: But Why No FBI Raid With 29 Heavily-Armed Paramilitary Goons à la Roger Stone in a Pre-Dawn Raid With CNN Filming?
9-0: SCOTUS Delivers Devastating Decision To State Sponsored Seizure Schemes
By Jose Nino
The Supreme Court has just put the clamps on states’ ability to impose excessive fines and use civil asset forfeiture to seize private property.
On Wednesday February 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines also applies to states. This landmark ruling bolsters property rights and could curtail controversial law enforcement seizures, especially those carried out via civil forfeiture.
In the decision, Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court sided with small time drug offender Tyson Timbs, whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement officials. Civil asset forfeiture is one of the most controversial methods used to raise revenue across the nation. However, it has garnered considerable criticism from political figures across the political spectrum.
In a previous case, Austin v. United States, the Court ruled that the Eight Amendment, which is clear about its prohibition of “excessive fines”, limits the federal government’s ability to seize property. Timbs v. Indiana now extends those limits to the states.
For once, Justice Ruth Ginsburg gets it right. She wrote:
“The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming.”
Ginsburg drew from Anglo-American legal traditions to rule in Timbs’s favor:
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties.”
She also presciently noted the potential abuse that excessive fines engender:
“Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
If only she applied such reasoning to other cases where she has let judicial activism get the best of her…
Anyways, this decision is a welcome development for criminal justice.
Civil asset forfeiture reform is gaining traction nationwide. States like Arizona, Nebraska, and New Mexico have led the way in signing civil asset forfeiture reform into law.
Now, the North Dakota Legislative Assembly is considering a bill, HB 1286, which requires that a criminal conviction be obtained before any forfeiture is carried out, and then mandates that proceeds from the seizure go to a general or school fund instead of going directly to a police department’s budget. This bill would also close the “equitable sharing” loophole, which allows law enforcement agencies to bypass strict state forfeiture laws by passing these cases off to the feds.
In times of high political polarization it’s great to see the Supreme Court come to a unanimous decision on civil asset forfeiture. This is one issue that should unite people from all sides of the political aisle.
SHARIA LAW OR AMERICAN LAW? Which Did Somali Muslims In Ilhan Omar’s District Choose? [Video]
Documentary filmmaker, Ami Horowitz hits the streets of Cedar-Riverside neighborhood in Somali immigrant and Democrat U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar’s district of Minneapolis Minnesota. Horowitz points out that Omar’s district is known for the export of terrorists who go overseas to fight for terror organizations ISIS and Al-Shabatt. It’s been reported that dozens of young Muslims have been recruited and gone to fight with terror groups from this community.
Horowitz engages a number of Somali Muslims in conversation, as he tries to discover how interested these Somali Muslims are in assimilating with American culture and American law. He asks them how easy it is to be a Muslim in American. The Muslims who are being interviewed cite rights like free speech as reasons they like living in the United States.
Every Muslim immigrant Horowitz speaks with says being a Muslim in American is easy. Things get interesting when Horowitz asks the Muslims he speaks with if they prefer Sharia law or American law. Across the board, they all prefer Sharia law over American law.
Horowitz also asks how the Muslim immigrants he’s questioning feel about the prophet Mohammed being mocked in cartoons. He asked the Muslims if they felt a law should be made to prevent Americans from insulting the prophet Mohammed? Every Muslim immigrant answered, “yes.” The real shocker came when Horowitz asked if someone who mocks the prophet, Mohammed, should they be killed? Again, they all answered, “yes.”
Finally, when Horowitz asked the Muslim immigrants if they would prefer to live in America or a Muslim majority nation, every person he interviewed claimed they would rather live in a Muslim majority nation.
Watch:
It’s easy to see after watching this video, why the radical Muslim, and anti-Semite refugee from Somalia, Democrat Ilhan Omar was elected as their U.S. Congresswoman.
What do you think? Should American taxpayers be forced to support immigrants who would rather be living in the country they immigrated from because there are more people there who practice the same religion?
Roseanne emerges in profane-lace video, takes on AOC with scathing rebuke of socialism
Frieda Powers
The Green New Deal has earned Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez some epic mockery but probably none as brutal as the latest from Roseanne Barr.
The actress and comedian blasted the freshman lawmaker as a “bug-eyed b**ch” in a profane but entertaining YouTube video, railing about the climate change bill and Ocasio-Cortez’s support of socialist ideals.
**Warning for language:
“That Green New Deal that that Farrakhan-loving b**ch, I don’t even remember her name, the bug-eyed b**ch, it looks like a realtor, she got the realtor eyes,” Barr began in the nearly two-minute video. “I can always tell by realtor eyes, she got ‘em. Bug-eyed lying b**ch, Farrakhan fan, Israel hater, lefty dumbass, dumbasses.”
“I’m gonna try to correct some of the mistakes she’s made like costing hundreds of people decent-paying jobs ‘cause, I don’t know, they breathe carbon in the air or some horsesh*t,”
“She got paid to do that — paid to decimate communities,” she added, never mentioning the New York congresswoman by name.
“But that’s what the Dems have been doing,” she went on. “That’s what socialism does, and I just gotta say it: socialism is a fake f***ing con. It’s just like capitalism but it comes from the bottom up, not the top down. It’s a f***ing Ponzi scheme and a con game.”
The bill, introduced by Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey earlier this month, proposes “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years as well as renovating every building in America, providing free healthcare, free education and government security for anyone unable – and unwilling – to work.
“Here’s why they want the immigrants,” Barr continued in her video. “First of all, because all their buddies are hiring up for less than minimum wage, that’s a big draw. And second because no Americans are going to vote for their asses anymore, ‘cause we woke up to the sh*t you’re doing. You’re decimating whole communities in inner cities while you live up there in a vineyard and a mansion.
“That’s what socialism gets us,” the 66-year-old actress said. “We don’t want none of that sh*t, okay? We don’t want what you did in Venezuela.”
Twitter users were happy to see Barr and hear from her again and many more were thrilled about her blasting Ocasio-Cortez.
Video Emerges of Democrat Communist Bernie Sanders Praising Castro’s Communist Revolution in Cuba ‘Against the Ugly Rich People,’ Had a ‘Sick Feeling’ Watching JFK Bash Communism
Video Emerges of Democrat Communist Bernie Sanders Praising Castro’s Communist Revolution in Cuba ‘Against the Ugly Rich People,’ Had a ‘Sick Feeling’ Watching JFK Bash Communism
Left wing commies...Bernie’s pals…
HOMOSEXUAL HOLLYWOOD HATE HOAXER JUSSIE SMOLLETT IN CUSTODY: But Why No FBI Raid With 29 Heavily-Armed Paramilitary Goons à la Roger Stone in a Pre-Dawn Raid With CNN Filming?
It’s Time To Send The CO2-Obsessed Back To Science Class
Advocates of a hypothesis that there is global warming that humans are causing ridicule those who won’t join their club. Yet the problem is that our schools have spread lack of understanding throughout our once-great society. Every institution run by people has been diminished. So let this be a primer if readers want to understand the hypothesis of global warming or try to free a believer from their fever:
I. Failing Freshman Statistics
The vast majority of the Earth is not being measured by weather stations. As we try to compare temperatures earlier in time, the poor coverage grows radically worse the farther back in time we go toward 1880.
The Earth’s surface measures 196.9 million square miles. Today, there are an estimated 10,100 weather stations world-wide, in addition to 1,000 free-floating buoys completely useless for measuring climate change.
That means that if the temperature measurements were spread evenly across the Earth’s surface (they aren’t), there would be 1 weather station for every 19,495 square miles of the Earth’s surface. That’s almost the size of the State of Maryland (12,407 square miles).
Can today’s pseudo-scientists measure trends in the planet’s temperature? No. Here’s why:
First, the vast majority of the Earth’s surface is not being measured.
Second, a statistically valid sample, must be a random sample. You must take 196.9 million temperature measurements and average 196.9 million temperature measurements to come up with a single global average.
We can only resort to a smaller sample if the sample is random. But it is not. Any first-year student in undergraduate science would get an “F” if he tried to use a non-random sample to extrapolate the Earth’s overall global temperature.
But it gets worse. Third, the temperature as a serious instrument of scientific measurement – as opposed to a toy or novelty — dates only to 1880. That’s 139 years of temperature records. A standardized, calibrated instrument of consistent manufacture using temperature scales started providing useful records only from 1880.
But in 1880, careful, historical, temperature records only started in a few large cities in Western Europe and the Northeast United States. I don’t mean that someone was using a thermometer. I mean carefully keeping precise, historical records to be maintained for posterity.
Fourth, how can we compare temperature records from 1970 to 1910 when the locations being measured were not the same in 1910 as in 1970? The number and locations being measured were concentrated in Western Europe and Northeastern North America.
This is why free-floating buoys are useless (for this purpose). We cannot compare the temperature records from one year to the next, because they are not measuring the same place year to year. The 1,000 buoys, 7,000 ships, and various airplanes may be good for monitoring “weather” — the movement of air masses and changes in pressure driving weather systems — but useless for measuring the planet’s temperature over the long haul. (And that is not “random.” Letting buoys drift does not constitute a truly random sample, starting from scratch for each measurement.)
Measurements from satellites systematically disagree with measurements at the Earth’s surface. Pseudo-scientists “adjust” (a.k.a. falsify) satellite data to hide this problem.
Fifth, temperature measurements of planet Earth would get an “F” grade in Freshman statistics. And that’s before we get into missing measurements when stations malfunction, temperature stations at airports in the exhaust of jet engines of airplanes taking off, next to fire department barbecues, next to industrial air conditioning exhaust, near asphalt or brick heat sinks, or in heat islands. And then there are the 80%+ weather stations that don’t meet the required standards, especially for site locations. And then there is the outright fraud in the temperature measurements that have been exposed.
Sixth, since most weather stations are at airports, we are measuring the transition in aviation from small propeller planes, to large propeller planes, to small jet engine airplanes, to massive jumbo jets. There are weather stations actually in the line of jet exhaust at the end of runways being blasted with super-heated jet exhaust. But notice that airplanes have changed over the decades. So the temperature of the heat from aviation operations is much hotter now with jumbo jets than in 1930 with small propeller planes. And the quantity of take-offs and landings is dramatically larger. The Earth is not getting warmer. The airplanes blowing exhaust into the airport weather stations are getting bigger and more frequent per day.
So has the Earth warmed since 1880? We haven’t the slightest clue. And before 1880, “proxy” measurements are completely unscientific. No, you can’t use tree rings or sediment layers, because you can’t measure things with a margin of error vastly wider than the small changes you are trying to discern. Consistent levels of precision with your instruments of measure is a fundamental precept of science. Where tree rings are imprecise, you cannot use them to calculate precise analysis. No one knows if the Earth has warmed or cooled, and anyone who tries to say they do either doesn’t know science or hopes you don’t know science.
II. The Fatal Flaw: Air Travels
The real issue is that air does not stay still. One of the defining characteristics of the atmosphere is that it is constantly in motion. Air masses (weather) travel around. So a weather station in Los Angeles may show an unusually high temperature because the colder air up and moved somewhere else. But there is no net change for the planet as a whole.
III. The Ever-Churning Atmosphere Cools the Earth
When heated, “hot air rises.” Technically, the gases in a particular air mass expand when heated. When gases expand, that air mass becomes less dense than the air on either side or above it. The pocket of warm air rises — driven by denser, heavier air forcing its way down underneath.
This is what cools the Earth. This is the process that drives thunderstorms and hurricanes.
Convection operates as an air conditioner for the planet. Air heated near the surface rises. Warmth at the Earth’s surface is carried upward, where it is released. Heat is transported up towards space. This conveyor belt will cycle faster if free-floating CO2 absorbs more heat.
But the higher we go in altitude, the thinner the air is. At 30,000 feet, the air is only 30% of the air pressure at the Earth’s surface. So when gas molecules radiate heat in the form of electromagnetic energy, the probability that the energy will exit the atmosphere, leave planet Earth entirely, and radiate out into space increases with altitude.
The chance the heat will travel down is the same as the chance it will travel out into space. But the atmosphere is thinner above than below, so a significant fraction of the heat energy will leave the planet instead of hitting other air molecules.
IV. There is no Greenhouse Effect in the Open Atmosphere
The “greenhouse” metaphor is a fatally flawed idea. A greenhouse works by trapping air in an enclosed container. The air inside is warmed by sunshine. But the trapped air cannot move So the air heated by sunlight grows hotter inside than outside.
Now, imagine hooligans steal the glass panels out of a greenhouse. They carry glass panels around randomly. Will there be a greenhouse effect? No. The air inside is no longer trapped. There is no “greenhouse effect” in the open atmosphere, where gases are free to circulate.
V. Carbon Dioxide is Not a Blanket
A blanket works by trapping warmth generated by your body. If you put a blanket out in the forest in the Winter snow, the blanket will be just as cold as the snow. If a blanket floated up from your bed and floated around the room it would never trap warmth.
So carbon dioxide does not have a ‘blanket’ effect. It does not stay at the Earth’s surface. Cooler air drops down from above as the hotter air at the surface changes places. This circulation is called convection by junior high school science teachers.
VI. That’s Why Global Warming Is Not Scientific
Therefore, we cannot perform any experimentation of how carbon dioxide may play a role in global temperature. We can observe CO2 trapped in a container in a laboratory. But that tells us nothing about what happens when CO2 is floating freely in a complex planet-wide atmospheric system.
There has never been a single experiment testing the hypothesis of human-caused climate change. But such an experiment would be an impossibility. Remember that all other variables would have to be controlled and kept constant, when they are not constant.
Scientists would literally need to compare Earth A to Earth B to see the planet-wide effects of increasing carbon dioxide in only Earth A but not Earth B. Is there a greenhouse effect on Venus? We would actually have to run a comparison between Venus A and Venus B to do real science. (What advocates are trying to do is compare an earlier time period with a current time period on the same Earth. This fails, however, because all other variables are not the same. the Earth’s orbit changes over time, causing the ice ages and inter-glacial warm periods. So a 1,000 year period on Earth in the past is different from a recent 1,000 year period even on the same Earth.)
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen & 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/2019/02/www_21.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment