budbromley

Pray tell, what is the reason for Empire Amerika?  We have allowed our government to kill millions of innocent babies with our tax dollars, we have no national borders, we are sheltering aliens in sanctuary cities and states – many who are violent.  We have borrowed tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars beyond our means to repay and beyond our grandchildren’s means to repay and yet Congress and the President irresponsibly spend more.  Our foreign policies will be judged as eugenics in some areas and genocide in other areas.  Our military and intelligence officers are killing each other.  Our Environmental Protection Agency is killing our environment.   Our courts, entertainment industry, schools and colleges are destroying morality, culture and liberty based on serially dis-proven theories.  There are giant logs in our eyes but we persist in using force and coercion to try unsuccessfully to remove the spec in eyes of others – all supposedly based on something called “national interest.”  Pray tell, what is that interest?  Whom does it benefit?  The shining light of liberty that was once on Bunker Hill is long gone.  The government that ‘we the people’ have made or allowed to be made worse than the European tyranny that our ancestors revolted against. Here we sit with our electronic toys making decisions of neglect or ignorance that enslave future generations. Is this your purpose in this, our corporal existence?  It is not mine.  We must rid ourselves of this Empire Amerika.

On the assumption that there are good and bad people on both the right and the left and that everyone is horrified by mass shootings, how is one to explain the great divide between right and left on the gun issue as it relates to these mass murders?
Why does the left focus on more gun control laws, and why doesn’t the right?
One reason is quintessentially American. Most Americans believe that it is their right — and even their duty — to own guns for self-protection. Unique among major democratic and industrialized nations, Americans have traditionally believed in relying on the state as little as possible. The right carries on this tradition, while the left believes in relying on the state as much possible — including, just to name a few areas, education, health care and personal protection.
A second reason for the left-right divide is that the left is uncomfortable with blaming people for bad actions. The right, on the other hand, is far more inclined to blame people for their bad actions.
Thus, liberals generally blame racism and poverty for violent crimes committed by poor blacks and Hispanics, while conservatives blame the criminals. Likewise, during the Cold War the left regarded nuclear weapons as the enemy while conservatives saw Communist regimes that possessed nuclear weapons as the enemy. It was the arms, not the values of those in possession of the arms, that troubled the left.
The third reason for the left-right divide on guns is that the two sides ask different questions when formulating social policies. The right tends to ask, “Does it do good?” The left is more likely to ask, “Does it feel good?”
Attitudes toward the minimum wage provide an excellent example.
As I noted in a recent column, in 1987, The New York Times editorialized against any minimum wage. The title of the editorial said it all: “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.”
“There’s a virtual consensus among economists,” wrote the Times editorial, “that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market.”
In 1987 the Times editorialized against having any minimum wage because it asked the question: “Does it do good?”
Twenty-seven years later, the same editorial page wrote the opposite of what it had written in 1987, and called for a major increase in the minimum wage.
Why? Did the laws of economics change? Of course not.
What changed was the question the Times asked. Having moved further and further left, the Times editorial page was now preoccupied not with what does good, but with what feels good. And it feels good to raise poor people’s minimum wage.
So, too, on gun control. Immediately after the killings in Oregon, President Obama expressed great anger over Congress’s unwillingness to pass more gun laws. But neither he nor other left-wing gun control advocates tell us what law or laws — short of universal confiscation of guns (which is as possible as universal deportation of immigrants here illegally) — would have stopped any of the mass shootings that recently occurred.
To liberals it feels good to declare a college a “gun-free zone.” Does it do good? Of course not. It does the opposite. It informs would-be murderers that no one will shoot them.
On gun violence, the left doesn’t ask, “What does good?” It asks, “What feels good?” It feels good to call for more gun laws. It enables liberals to feel good about themselves; it makes the right look bad; and it increases government control over the citizenry. A liberal trifecta.
Are federal background checks a good idea? The idea sounds perfectly reasonable. But if they wouldn’t have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, they would have been no help.
So, then, short of universal confiscation, which is both practically and constitutionally impossible, what will do good? What will reduce gun violence?
One thing that would make incomparably more difference than more gun laws is more fathers, especially in the great majority of shooting murders — those that are not part of a mass shooting. Why aren’t liberals as passionate about policies that ensure that millions more men father their children as they are about gun laws? Because such thinking is anathema to the left. The left works diligently to keep single mothers dependent on the state (and therefore on the Democratic Party). And emphasizing a lack of fathers means human behavior is more to blame than guns.
Another is to cultivate participation in organized religion. Young men who attend church weekly commit far fewer murders than those who do not. But this too is anathema to the left. The secular left never offers religion as a solution to social problems. To do so, like emphasizing fathers, would shift the blame from guns to the criminal users of guns.
I would ask every journalist who cares about truth to ask every politician who argues for more guns laws, and every anti-gun activist, just two questions:
“Which do you believe would do more to decrease gun violence in America — more gun laws or more fathers?” “More gun laws or more church attendance?”
Barack Obama says, “Our gun supply leads to more deaths. The GOP has no plausible alternative theory.”
The GOP does. But as usual, few Republicans say what it is. And no liberal wants to hear it. ~ All of above by Dennis Prager

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/10/06/the-right-does-have-answers-on-guns-mr-president-n2061614/page/full

In the general population, thinking is rarely tried.  Church is not recommended here by Dennis Prager as a means of indoctrination to one or another institutional religion. It is a means to encourage a man or woman or child to think about what is important in life, rather than just be sucked in by the mass media, Hollywood or our generally entitled and duped society.

Judeo-Christian churches today are the only organized means of getting a thoughtful and moral education, unless one is of the tiny minority of independent self-educators. Can you name another means of getting this?

Even if the result of this thinking is a decision to avoid institutionalized religions but gain appreciation of the spirit, as was my case, at least the education and thoughts took place.

By the way, Prager is a Jew. He is not proselytizing here for his religion, but for morality, thought and fatherhood.

Selected quotes by Dr. James Hansen, former NASA scientist and administrator, true believer in human-caused global warming, Al Gore’s science guru:

“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”

“We cannot afford to put off [climate policy] change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”

– James Hansen, 2009 (“President ‘has four years to save Earth’“, The Guardian, January 17)

“Did you know that cap-and-trade is by and for big banks? In the U.S. there is a revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. The skilled trading units at JP Morgan Chase and Goldman-Sachs can make enormous amounts from cap-and-trade, every dime coming out of the public’s pockets.”

“The half-baked 3000+ pages of the Waxman/Markey cap-and-trade scheme in the U.S. (and scheme is the right word) were not written by our Senators or Representatives slaving into the night. They were written by lobbyists for special interests and stapled into the bill by our elected representatives, who are beholden to the special interests.”

“Our representatives, in both parties, seem to feel entitled to the Washington life style, once elected. Did you know that Dick Gephardt, after retiring as House Democratic Leader, received $120,000 per quarter from a single source (Peabody Coal)? I doubt that Peabody wastes its money — they probably get their money’s worth in lobbying. I don’t mean to pick on the Democrats; one party is not noticeably better than the other in this regard.”

“We seem to have a situation where members of both parties like their status and don’t really want to stanch the money flow. And the electoral system has been pretty well rigged such that it is very hard for a third party to rise.”

– James Hansen, Facing Facebook: Australia’s Cap-and-Tax, July 29, 2014.

– James Hansen, 2006 (“The Threat to the Planet,” New York Times Review of Books)

James Hansen on California Cap-and-Trade (2012)

“You don’t want [California’s] system with caps, where you have trading, you have derivatives, you have markets that then collapse and don’t actually reduce emissions much. That’s been tried in Europe, and it didn’t do much.”

– James Hansen, quoted in David Baker, “James Hansen Blasts Cap-and-Trade,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 5, 2012.

James Hansen on U.S. Congress’ Federal (Waxman-Markey) Cap-and-Trade (2009/2010)

“Cap-and-trade’s complexity provides a breeding ground for special interests…. Why do those special interests deserve it anyhow?”

– James Hansen, “The People vs. Cap-and-Tax,” New York City, January 12, 2010.

“The truth is, the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless….”

– James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” July 13, 2009.

“Governments are retreating to feckless ‘cap-and-trade,’ a minor tweak to business-as-usual….

“Why is this cap-and-trade temple of doom worshipped? The 648-page cap-and-trade monstrosity that is being foisted on the U.S. Congress provides the answer. Not a single Congressperson has read it. They don’t need to – they just need to add more paragraphs to support their own special interests. By the way, the Congress people do not write most of those paragraphs—they are ‘suggested’ by people in alligator shoes.”

– James Hansen, “Worshipping the Temple of Doom,” 2009.

“The Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bills in Congress are larded with 2,000 pages of give-aways to special interests, soaking the public who must pay higher energy prices.”

“What is the chance that a United States cap-and-trade law could be a precursor for a global agreement? Zero. There is no chance that China will accept a cap. Nor should they. They are still in the early phase of their economic development.”

“Congress is accustomed to working with special interests. There is a revolving door between Congress and lobbyists. Ex-members know the Washington ropes. The lobbyists wrote most of the pages in the 2,000-page bills in Congress.”

– James Hansen, “The People vs. Cap-and-Tax,” paper delivered to the Chairperson of the Carbon Trading Summit, New York City, January 12, 2010.

“Cap-and-trade is a hidden regressive tax, benefiting the select few who have managed to get themselves written into the … bill…. Think revolving door between the government and Wall Street. Think revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.”

– James Hansen, “I Just Had a Baby, at Age 68,” (2009).

“Other characteristics of the ‘cap’ approach: (1) unpredictable price volatility, (2) it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors at public expense, (3) it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities that threaten ‘blackout coming’ to gain increased emission permits, (4) it has overhead costs and complexities, inviting lobbyists and delaying implementation.

“The biggest problem with [cap and trade] is that it will not solve the problem. It may slow emissions, but because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2, slowing the emissions does little good. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy they will be used eventually. There is no hope that cap and trade can get us back to 350 ppm CO2.”

– James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” 2009.

quotes compiled by By Robert Bradley Jr. — September 29, 2015, atMasterResource.org

https://www.masterresource.org/china-international/china-cap-and-trade-james-hansen-on-cronyism/

https://www.masterresource.org/hansen-james/james-hansen-false-alarms/

Here is just one of the UN’s BIG lies which are passed on by Obama, Gore, Kerry, the EPA, the Supreme Court, and virtually all Democrats and RINOs, not to mention all of the so-called “green” special interest non-governmental agencies like World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, National Geographic, Greenpeace and global banks and many private family foundations:

“Thanks to the IPCC, this is what we know:” “From 1880 to 2012, average global temperature increased by 0.85°C.” (See UN website link below)

However, as pointed out by the French Société de Calcul Mathématique (link below), today we do not have the ability to calculate average global surface temperatures today, much less in 1880.

“Let us make a rough analysis of how well stations are distributed. Let us say that the information provided by a sensor is representative of weather conditions in the surrounding 100 km2.”

“The Earth has a total surface area of approximately 500 million km2; this means that a reliable global analysis would require at least five million sensors, which is 1,600 times more than the 3,000 stations being used at the moment. And that is simply for the calculation of surface temperatures. This distribution would have to be repeated at every layer of the atmosphere and every depth of the seas.”

“This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors.” page 15. http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

The BIG Lie http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change-2/

The following is a letter about “the global warming scam” to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.  

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society 

6 October 2010 
Dear Curt: 
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). 
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be? 
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. 
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. 
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it… 
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

CO2 is not a problem on earth, and it will never be a problem. It is 100% natural plant food. It makes the planet greener and provides food. Satellite studies show that the earth is becoming greener as the CO2 concentration in air is increasing. Many peer reviewed science studies show that increasing CO2 increases the volume of plants. Photosynthetic incorporation of CO2 from the atmosphere into plants is the ONLY significant mechanism of building carbon based life.

It is impossible for CO2 to increase to a concentration that becomes dangerous. Henry’s Law defines the relative concentration of any gas in air versus any gas dissolved in water. CO2 is highly soluble in water. According to Henry’s Law, the concentration of CO2 in air will never exceed 1 part versus 50 parts in water. Most of Earth is covered with oceans. Dissolved in these oceans are an abundance of minerals such as calcium. In the top 200 meters of ocean water alone, there is more than enough calcium to combine with all of the carbon on earth and convert it to calcium carbonate, which will precipitate out and fall to the bottom of the oceans as limestone. This has been happening for millions of years. The layers of limestone and marble are the geological record of this. Enormous heat is required to reconvert this limestone or marble into CO2 and calcium. The heat of a volcano is required. All of this has been known for many years. It is available in textbooks for ocean and atmospheric chemistry. This information is usually ignored by so-called climate scientists. Become conversant in Henry’s Law and Earth’s natural carbon cycle and you will know with certainty that human caused global warming is a scam.

The following is a letter about “the global warming scam” to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

I don’t often post things from RT, because it is so loaded with propaganda, but sometimes RT does report the truth. This is one of them. This is Syrian President Assad, who Obama (and his neo-con predecessors) and NATO madly want to replace like they did Gaddhafi in Libya, Mubarak in Egypt, Saddam in Iraq and many more going back to before many of you were born. America did not start the tribal violence in the middle east – and they will continue fighting after we are gone – but we are making it worse. Empire Amerika and our “allies” have been supporting and fighting wars of convenience for many decades. It is long past time for patriotic Americans to stand down our government, stop their meddling, and stop killing our young people, stop killing people in other countries for causes and histories we don’t begin to understand, stop wasting resources.  At the end of the day, this blood is on your hands too.  http://www.rt.com/news/315431-assad-interview-refugee-terrorists/

The U.S. has almost 10,000 years of natural gas supply. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) reported that in 2014 the U.S. consumed approximately 26.79 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas. According to the report submitted to Congress by the National Research Council (NRC) entitled “Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States,” the total United States resources of natural gas hydrates have been estimated to be on the order of 200,000 trillion cubic feet (TCF); that’s almost 10,000 years supply of natural gas. According to a report by the National Commission on Energy Policy entitled “Ending the Energy Stalemate–A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenge,” the United States may be endowed with over 1/4 of the methane hydrate deposits in the world.

About 1,000 years supply of natural gas (methane) at current US level of use is in the Gulf of Mexico. Combustion of natural gas under easily achievable settings produces ZERO pollution. In 2008, US Geological Survey (USGS) and Minerals Management Service (MMS) assessed methane gas hydrate volumes in place in the Gulf of Mexico. On the outer continental shelf are 21,444 Trillion Cubic Feet (TCF) and of that volume, 6,717 TCF are located in sand reservoirs, which are considered the most favorable for methane production. The MMS report is available here:  http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Resource_Evaluation/Gas_Hydrates/MMS2008-004.pdf

According to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) data highlighted by the immigration subcommittee staff of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions – chairman of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest – in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.