budbromley

Tuesday – April 24, 2018

Before President Trump trashes the Iran nuclear deal, he might consider: If he could negotiate an identical deal with Kim Jong Un, it would astonish the world and win him the Nobel Peace Prize.

For Iran has no nuclear bomb or ICBM and has never tested either. It has never enriched uranium to bomb grade. It has shipped 98 percent of its uranium out of the country. It has cameras inside and inspectors crawling all over its nuclear facilities.

And North Korea? It has atom bombs and has tested an H-bomb. It has intermediate-range ballistic missiles that can hit Guam and an ICBM that, fully operational, could hit the West Coast. It has shorter-range missiles that could put nukes on South Korea and Japan.

Hard to believe Kim Jong Un will surrender these weapons, his ticket of admission to the table of great powers.

Yet the White House position is that the Iran nuclear deal should be scrapped, and no deal with Kim Jong Un signed that does not result in the “denuclearization” of the peninsula.

If denuclearization means Kim gives up all his nukes and strategic missiles, ceases testing, and allows inspectors into all his nuclear facilities, we may be waiting a long time.

Trump decides on the Iran deal by May 12. And we will likely know what Kim is prepared to do, and not prepared to do, equally soon.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron is in D.C. to persuade Trump not to walk away from the Iran deal and to keep U.S. troops in Syria. Chancellor Angela Merkel will be arriving at week’s end with a similar message.

On the White House front burner then are these options:

Will North Korea agree to surrender its nuclear arsenal, or is it back to confrontation and possible war?

Will we stick with the nuclear deal with Iran, or walk away, issue new demands on Tehran, and prepare for a military clash if rebuffed?

Do we pull U.S. troops out of Syria as Trump promised, or keep U.S. troops there to resist the reconquest of his country by Bashar Assad and his Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Shiite allies?

Beyond, the larger question looms: How long can we keep this up?

How long can this country, with its shrinking share of global GDP, sustain its expanding commitments to confront and fight all over the world?

U.S. planes and ships now bump up against Russians in the Baltic and Black seas. We are sending Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kiev, while NATO allies implore us to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance.

This would mean a U.S. guarantee to fight an alienated, angered and nuclear-armed Russia in Crimea and the Caucasus.

Sixteen years after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, we are still there, assisting Afghan troops against a Taliban we thought we had defeated.

We are now fighting what is left of ISIS in Syria alongside our Kurd allies, who tug us toward conflict with Turkey.

U.S. forces and advisers are in Niger, Djibouti, Somalia. We are aiding the Saudis in their air war and naval blockade of Yemen.

The last Korean War, which cost 33,000 U.S. lives, began in the June before this writer entered 7th grade. Why is the defense of a powerful South Korea, with an economy 40 times that of the North, still a U.S. responsibility?

We are committed, by 60-year-old treaties, to defend Japan, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand. Voices are being heard to have us renew the war guarantee to Taiwan that Jimmy Carter canceled in 1979.

National security elites are pushing for new naval and military ties to Vietnam and India, to challenge Beijing in the South China Sea, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

How long can we sustain a worldwide empire of dependencies?

How many wars of this century — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen — turned out to have been worth the blood shed and the treasure lost? And what have all the “color-coded revolutions” we have instigated to advance “democracy” done for America?

In a New York Times essay, “Adapting to American Decline,” Christopher Preble writes: “America’s share of global wealth is shrinking. By some estimates, the United States accounted for roughly 50 percent of global output at the end of World War II. … It has fallen to 15.1 percent today.”

Preble continues: “Admitting that the United States is incapable of effectively adjudicating every territorial dispute or of thwarting every security threat in every part of the world is hardly tantamount to surrender. It is rather a wise admission of the limits of American power.”

It is imperative, wrote Walter Lippmann, that U.S. commitments be brought into balance with U.S. power. This “forgotten principle … must be recovered and returned to the first place in American thought.”

That was 1943, at the height of a war that found us unprepared.

We are hugely overextended today. And conservatives have no higher duty than to seek to bring U.S. war guarantees into conformity with U.S. vital interests and U.S. power.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

I could not agree more.  Thankyou Pat!

http://buchanan.org/blog/americas-unsustainable-empire-129168

Comey. His is the same look as Pres. G.W.Bush in the school room at the moment he was told airliners were striking the World Trade Center. He can put on his kilt or his shield. But, at the end of the day, he is somebody’s pawn. We might wish that he could take responsibility for that. But we know that is not true.

You are the ball.  And you’re in play.

I closed my account at Citi today. I sent an email protest. I do not do business with companies or individuals that attempt to take my rights or the rights of others. I suggest that you do the same.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/citibank-goes-full-anti-gun/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/23/citibank-requiring-gun-store-customers-quit-selling-high-capacity-magazines/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-22/citigroup-restricts-some-gun-sales-by-its-business-customers

We know from science publications that CO2 and methane emissions from oceans and land increase as the oceans and lands warm.  Warming causes increasing CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere.  Warming trends are positively correlated with increasing CO2 concentration trends with respect to time.  The CO2 trend follows the warming trend.   These two facts mean CO2 cannot be the cause of significant warming trends.  The effect (warming trend) cannot precede its cause (increasing CO2 concentration). Human-produced CO2 is not causing significant warming of the atmosphere or the oceans.

We know from doing the math that it is not possible for humans to generate enough energy to significantly warm the oceans or the land. (Except possibly via thermonuclear war.)  If humans devoted all available energy sources to directly heating the oceans, the math tells us that it would take many centuries to raise ocean temperature by 1 degree Celsius.  Regardless how much CO2 humans might add to the atmosphere, the math tells us that the atmosphere does not have enough heat capacity, mass and volume to significantly change the temperature of the oceans, which occupy more than 70% of earth’s surface.  Do the math.

We know that humans can change the weather and climate by making major changes in the uses of land and water, such as creating giant, paved cities where there was once a forest or a marshland, or cutting down major forests without replanting.  But these are not effects of human-produced CO2.

We know that CO2 is not pollution and not causing significant warming.  We know CO2 in the air is the only source for plants to obtain carbon, which is the fundamental building block of plants and all life.  CO2 is plant food.  More CO2 results is more plants, more food, and a healthier environment.

Therefore, there is no logic and no justification for suppressing use of fossil fuels under a presumed necessity to reduce CO2 produced by combustion of fossil fuels.  Also, there is no logic and no justification for redistribution of wealth, or carbon taxes, or global control of natural resources under that presumed necessity.

There is sound logic and good justification for conservation of nature and minimizing pollution.

There is sound logic, good justification and legal basis for prosecuting global warming alarmists for defrauding the public out of billions of dollars.  The triple damage awards gained from court cases against wealthy climate alarmists and their backers could be used for natural conservation projects and restoration of critical infrastructure, such as repair and rebuilding of clean-burning natural gas energy generators.  It is one thing to study climate science and have the freedom of speech to publish results, but it is a crime to falsely alarm the public in order to extract billions of dollars from taxpayers and donors.  Among other types of crime, this must be the largest case of mail fraud in history.

Today, some of these criminals are cooling the earth by creating clouds in the upper atmosphere.  They are using your tax money/tax debt to create a problem.  This is extremely dangerous.

How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica

by Holger Schmithüsen, Justus Notholt, Gert König‐Langlo, Peter Lemke, Thomas Jung

First published: 25 November 2015

pdf at link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2015GL066749

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749

More on this subject by Kenneth Richard on 16. April 2018

http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/16/in-2015-climate-scientists-wrecked-their-own-co2-forced-polar-amplification-narrative/#sthash.BzTYXBbZ.dpbs

———-

Bombing Syria is worse than useless, it is stupid.  America’s interests are NOT served by bombing Syria. The interests of people who want to control Syria and oil pipelines are served. All of the reasons given for this and the last bombing by Trump are dubious at best, no better than the reasons for bombing Libya.  The global elitists hate Trump and hate American values and individual sovereignty. Bombing Syria is rapidly turning off Trump’s base of support and votes, which is the purpose of the anti-Trump/anti-America global elites. Bombing does not make America great again, it makes America worse.  Saving humanity is the alibi of tyrants and that meme will be used against Trump. Bombing based on suspicions raised by an intelligence operation that is unable to police itself is suicide. First, Trump and Americans must drain the rats from the swamp at home.

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO₂ from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO₂, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison. ~  Professor Richard Siegmund Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1386476

“We Have Nothing to Fear from CO2,” booklet in pdf form by Donn Dears, here is the link…

http://ddears.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Supplement-NTF-from-CO2-with-correction-sent-to-Karl-Brochure.pdf

Every move you make and every step you take! (3:49 video) Absolute must watch!!!  Here’s what Google captures from your cell phone.  https://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Google.mp4?_=1

Google employees protest

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/google-employees-protest-pentagon-partnership-to-ceo-sundar-pichai.html

On June 24, 2008, Associated Press (AP) and the channels that distribute AP reported that Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s chief climate modelling expert, told Congress, “We’re toast if we don’t get on a different path.”  And, “This is the last chance.” And, “The thing that I think is the most important is to block coal-fired power plants.”

“We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes,” Hansen told AP.  “The Arctic is the tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would,” he said.

“Hansen, echoing work by other scientists,  said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of ice in summer.”

U.S. Senator Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts (a U.S. Representative in 2008) and head of the committee that heard Dr. Hansen’s testimony, added, “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.”

As I write this, it is April 10, 2018.  In just over 2 months from today it will be 10 years since Dr. Hansen’s dire warnings.  So, let’s take a look at the ice in the Arctic North Pole and compare 2008 with 2018.

But first, here is the AP article from a newspaper.  The details are interesting.

Here’s the link to the newspaper:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490

And here is the Artic ice in January 2008 and January 2018

There has been an increase in Arctic sea ice thickness and volume over the past ten years.  Meanwhile, taxpayers and donors to the climate scheme have had billions of dollars re-destributed out of their wallets under color of authority.

U.S. Senators especially Democrats like Markey, Brian Schatz, Maizie Hirono and many others should reconsider their positions, their votes and spending the people’s money and time on such demonstrable nonsense as human-caused climate change, previously called global warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as well as the United Nations and the myriad U.S. government bureaucracies, programs, policies, laws and NGOs that depend on this nonsense for funding.  Soon the people will begin questioning what they knew and when did they know it.

The stink of fraud is in the air.