budbromley

The Russians have been interfering in American elections since the Russian Revolution. Americans have been interfering with Russian elections since WWII. Where’s the beef? Just more sour grapes from sore losers attempting to cover up the corruption of so-called “progressive” politicians.

American voters have soundly rejected so-called “progressive” values and their agenda. During Obama’s 8 years in office, Democrats lost a net of more than 1000 elected offices at the national and state level. RINO Republicans are also losing offices. Trump ran against them all and won. Since the agenda of so-called “progressives” in both parties, which includes almost all of mainstream media, has been rejected, now all they have left is to run against Trump to try to stop him from reversing Obama’s policies. Trump is rapidly, on a daily basis, reversing many Obama’s policies.

Unfortunately though, Trump is continuing the fully bipartisan neo-con regime change wars of hegemony by the military industrial complex started by Brzezinski under Jimmy Carter. And neither has Trump drained the festering sore, the treasonous swamp that is the U.S. secret intelligence agencies.

We need to make peace and business with the Russians while keeping our head about us. Trump is the only negotiator since Kennedy with the skills to accomplish that. Ever since Stalin, it has been Russian policy to diminish U.S. power, prestige and confidence.  Putin is no different.  But could he become so?  Today the U.S. has more in common with Russians than we do with the EU, except that Hungary, Czech, Romania, Poland are good allies. The U.S. can no longer be allied with western Europe because of their infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission is nothing less than global domination, under the color of authority provided by the United Nations and European Union. Italy and Greece will fall soon to the Islamic invasion and debt. Business in western EU nations will crash hard now. The European Central Bank (ECB) is unable to rescue Italy and Greece, and a major financial and humanitarian crisis will accelerate, but the U.S. under Trump will not bail them out on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.

If the U.S. Federal Reserve tries to bail out the ECB, that will instigate a crisis between the Trump administration which will have congressional and popular support versus the Federal Reserve. That crisis is likely to result in the re-nationalization of the U.S. dollar under the U.S. Treasury, which of course reports to the President, to replace the current global $200 TRILLION U.S. dollar-based debt bubble built by the Federal Reserve Notes piled onto the full faith and credit of U.S. taxpayers. We will have a new U.S. dollar based on reserves of some kind. However, despite the profligate 100+ years of progressive annual devaluation of the wealth of U.S. citizens by the quasi-private banking industry known as the Federal Reserve System, is it a good idea and time to give the U.S. federal government more power?

The U.S. also needs a new mainstream media of record. Call it Radio Free America. Mainstream media in America is now the cover story for sedition and resistance to our republican government by the people and for the people.

“If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it will ever recover the public trust it squandered.” …

“The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment…In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.”

Quotes from Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York Post, journalism professor at Columbia Univ Graduate School of Journalism, former reporter and City Hall Bureau Chief at The New York Times.

“The precautionary principle has been invoked to justify a policy of aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) emission controls that would go beyond “no regrets” actions to reduce global warming. However, this justification is based upon selectively applying the principle to the potential public health and environmental consequences of global warming but not to the adverse consequences of such a policy. This report attempts to rectify this one-sided application of the precautionary principle. It finds that such a policy, despite its claim to be precautionary, would, in fact, be incautious in many areas because it has a high likelihood of increasing overall risks to public health and the environment. Specifically, GHG emission reduction requirements that go beyond secular improvements in technology and elimination of unjustified energy subsidies could retard economic development, leading to greater hunger, poorer health, and higher mortality, especially in developing countries. Moreover, higher oil and gas prices would reduce food availability and would also retard switching from solid fuels to more environmentally benign fuels for heating and cooking in households of the developing world. Indoor air pollution resulting from current heating and cooking practices in these nations is a major source of premature deaths. A truly precautionary principle argues, instead, for focusing on solving current problems that may be aggravated by climate change, and on increasing society’s adaptability and decreasing its vulnerability to environmental problems in general and climate change in particular. These could be achieved by bolstering the mutually-reinforcing forces of technological change, economic growth, and trade. Moreover, enhancing adaptability and reducing vulnerability will raise the thresholds at which greenhouse gas concentrations could become “dangerous.”” ~ Abstract to the paper at the link below by Indur Goklany

Goklany Paper at SSRN

Murray Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy Washington University in St. Louis Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming (PDF Download Available).

The climate accord is another vehicle to transport wealth to struggling socialist systems.

The author, Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/climate-accord-will-transfer-wealth-to-socialist-c/

“The fantasy of quick and easy renewable energy” is the headline of this Fellow at The Brooking Institutions, the liberal, so-called “progressive” think tank. She and her references are still true believers in catastrophic human-caused global warming, but she and one reference rebut other true believers that “overly optimistic analyses and assumptions can get in the way of true progress toward decarbonizing.”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2017/06/19/the-fantasy-of-quick-and-easy-renewable-energy/

The author is a so-called “progressive,” a former graduate student in American History at University of Georgia, “a budding environmental activist” working to kill the Oconee River dam project, now professor of philosophy and an affiliated faculty member in the School of Global Environmental Sustainability at Colorado State University at Fort Collins.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Progressive-Case-for/151195

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency first claimed in 1996 that fine particles emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes — that is, soot — caused 15,000 Americans to die prematurely every year. Over the years, EPA escalated its body count to the point where first Obama EPA administrator Lisa Jackson testified to Congress in 2011 that fine particulate matter in the air (PM2.5) killed 570,000 Americans per year. That’s almost one-in-four annual deaths in the U.S. The United Nations adopted the EPA’s PM2.5 [i.e. fine particulates in the air] claims and extrapolated them into a global claim of 6.5 million deaths annually caused by soot.”

“The Obama administration used the EPA’s PM2.5 claim to destroy the U.S. coal industry with its various war-on-coal rules. Oddly enough, the Obama administration’s climate rules and “social cost of carbon” metric all depend on the notion that PM2.5 kills. The claimed effects of carbon dioxide pale in comparison.”

“So does PM2.5 actually kill that many people? Or really anyone at all? A new study just published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology drives a stake through the heart of EPA’s claims.”

Highlights (quoted from the science paper)

• California air quality and daily deaths are analyzed, 2000–2012.

• An extensive sensitivity analysis is done; 78,624 models are computed.

• No association of acute deaths with levels of PM2.5 or ozone is found.

• The data set and analysis code are made publicly available.

• With no association, causation is called into question for California.

Conclusion by the scientists, at this link: “The present paper adds to that literature by showing that, even by applying a variety of different statistical methods, we were unable to find any association between daily mortality and either PM 2.5 or ozone in what we believe to be the only public dataset based entirely on data since the 1997 revision of air pollution standards. Therefore, we conclude that the case for further revision of those standards is unproven at the present time.” https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.03062.pdf

Quotes above, except the scientists’ conclusion, are from the following publication:  http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/junk-science-week-behind-the-scientific-fraud-that-claims-air-pollution-is-killing-people/wcm/c076478d-92f0-4c60-b81b-9daf3815cad1

“Whereas 300 tonnes of steel in a combined cycle gas turbine can use natural gas to produce a generator with a capacity of 600 MW [i.e. 600 Megawatts or 600 million watts, or 2 thousand Watts per kg of steel] the same kilogram of steel in the nacelle of a wind turbine contributes 2 Watts of capacity, and once the concrete in the plinth and foundation of a wind turbine is included the ratio deteriorates still further.”

~ Date: 05/07/17, Prof Michael J Kelly, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FA, UK

https://www.thegwpf.com/michael-kelly-a-challenge-for-renewable-energies/

Ethics and morality have been systematically divorced from reason and human identity during the last fifty years.  Philosopher Allan Bloom in his book Closing of the American Mind and others have covered that already.  The impact on life and the future of humanity are enormous.  A Tower of Babel has been built, as usual, with no foundation.

For example, one might expect that academic physics would be well grounded in the reality of the natural world around us.  But that is not the case today.  Virtually all academic physicists (all but three I have found) in all physics departments subscribe to and/or profess string theory.  I won’t dig into string theory here except to say that string theory describes in the language of math and physics our universe as an almost infinite network of alternative dimensions to what we should recognize as objective reality.  The problem is that there is no physical evidence that these alternative dimensions exist.  There are no experiments, which is the hard core work of physics, which provide evidence that alternative dimensions exist.  Yet, almost the entire profession of physics professors subscribe to string theory.

Again, this is just one example.  I am not picking on physicists or their elegant string theory.  It’s fun, like reading Alice in Wonderland for the first time.

The connections between reason itself, ethics, morality and humanity are being divorced from natural laws by a metaphysics built on fantasy.  It is as if the philosopher Immanuel Kant returned and took over all physics departments.  We are now going to have buildings and islands and cities floating suspended in mid air as in the movies Avatar, Star Wars and Flash Gordon.  Or people will step through a door into another dimension.  But the knowledge to design a screw or a wing is being lost.

Hello!  You can write the software code and computer models to beam yourself aboard.  But back here in Kansas, where the sun still warms the planet, it is wrong, irrational, unethical and immoral to teach fantasy, dreams and unvalidated theory as reality, or to allow others to teach unvalidated theory as reality, or to allow the management in your associations to claim and influence others with their unvalidated theory.  And this is equally true in economics, political systems, psychology, climatology, physics or any field.  Whomever told you that there is no right or wrong, that your morals are no better than another person’s morals, well, that person was wrong or a liar.  Right and wrong are based on objective reality, not on subjective metaphysics, and not on the nostalgia of academic elites for Nietzsche and Godot, and definitely not on Hollywood or mainstream media.

The truth is your individual responsibility.  And, believe it or not, you need to be ready to die for truth at any time as well as to defend it intellectually.  You and other people that do that are the only thing that keep you free.  Maybe it feels good to parrot politicians and mainstream media as they fill your head with fake realities to sell their clicks.  In the real world, big government, minimum wages and guaranteed income result in lower standards of living.  Back here in Kansas, you look really foolish on that acid head trip.

As physicist Richard P. Feynman repeated, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”    The metaphysical construct called social justice, (and its features like diversity, multiculturalism, open borders and moral relativity) which has been sold to us all for at least three generations, is divorced from reality and you look like the Mad Hatter if you support it.   Get your feet firmly planted on the ground in your area of knowledge and then pull your family and friends down with you.  Make it so.