Liberals are trying to take credit
for falling oil and natural gas prices, which is ludicrous. Fracking in the US and Saudi Arabian oil
production policy are the main causes of big moves in energy prices. The initial falling prices of oil and natural
gas came from fracking, which Liberals strongly oppose and have outlawed in New
York and California. If the Keystone Pipeline had been built and if it was
legal to export crude oil from the US, the price of oil would be even lower. Liberals
oppose both of those actions in the name of preventing global warming. The
other contributing factor to crashing oil prices is Saudi Arabia's conclusion
that the Chicago Machine Prodigy in Chief will not stop the Iranians from
building nuclear weapons. They decided to maintain Saudi oil production at
current levels to crash the price and bankrupt the Iranian mullahs. For the
Saudis, damage to Russia was a nice side benefit, as the Russians sell weapons
and reactors to Iran. Which of these actions did our Dear Leader have any
positive contribution towards? I grant that the "Reset" with Russia
and the endless nuclear negotiations with Iran caused the Saudis to conclude
they had to act alone. Do you think that was the intended consequence when the
Smartest President Ever made those moves?
Translate
A Call for Healing
Democrats Call for Healing the Country
Dec 22, 2014
Gruber Subpoenas will Cause More Disks to Fail
As everybody in IT knows, the leading
cause of disk crashes is subpoenas. All Issa's Congressional subpoenas are going to do is
cause more unrecoverable hardware failures. And don't ask for any backup tapes
or disks or cloud storage. The government has a very modern system of backup to
floppy disks and punched paper tape, but they overwrite it every two weeks in
order to economize.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394553/gruber-documents-subpoenaed-john-fundTerrorists are NOT Covered by the Geneva Conventions
Captured terrorists are
not covered by the Geneva Conventions. They are war criminals. They attack
innocent civilians instead of military targets and intentionally kill them.
They do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from innocent civilians. In
fact, they hold civilians near their military activity as shields. They torture
and even behead prisoners. They commit ethnic cleansing and genocide. The
enslave women. All of these actions are war crimes. Terrorists are outlaws in the Medieval sense
of the word, which means they get no protection from the law and can be shot
(or attacked by drones) on sight. The laws of war do not apply to them. They
are not in the same class as soldiers captured in uniform on a battlefield and
do not have the same rights to fair treatment. The closest comparable status would
be spies. Anybody who says we never used enhanced interrogation techniques on
spies during WWII or the Cold War is either exceedingly naive or willfully
ignorant.
This report is an
attempt to rewrite history. At the time, Democrats were informed of the
interrogation techniques but the fear of Al Qaeda was paramount then. Now,
Democrats desperately need issues that work against Republicans, so they want
to erase their past consent to enhanced interrogation techniques. If their past
consent goes down the memory hole, then they can be "shocked,
shocked" that "torture" was going on. Feinstein is so corrupt,
she does not care that pursuing this strategy means no foreign intelligence
service will ever cooperate with us again. The needs of the Democratic Party
and the cause of Liberalism come first.
Dec 7, 2014
Pinky and The Brain Use the Threat of Global Warming
The Global Warming Alarmists are
hitting the guest editorial circuits again in the buildup to the next climate
talks. Dr. Michael E. Mann, the
ringleader of the Alarmists, has declared that 2014 was the hottest year on
record. What statistical level of
significance did these results have? How far back does the temperature record
go? If part of the temperature record is estimated using other data, what is
the statistical accuracy of the estimates used? We have a 36 year global
weather history based on satellite observations. Prior to that we have mercury
thermometer records for a few locations going back to what, 1800? Prior to that
we have the Climate Research Unit's estimates, for which they refused to
release their raw data and their methods in 2009. The CRU fought off a Freedom
of Information request by saying that they had "accidentally" erased
the data, the scientific equivalent of the dog ate their homework. There may or
may not be global warming, but the Alarmists have to prove that it's caused by
man or there's not much we can do. Their models involve solving huge systems of
difference equations, which require a massive amount of parallel computing
power. We have had enough power to do this for perhaps 30 years at most. Don't
you think Dr. Mann and his friends are being a little hasty to demand that
government take control of all energy sources? What is the statistical accuracy
of these models of the effect of carbon dioxide concentrations on global
temperatures? Is any of this worth totally reverting to an Amish paradise where
we get a meager output from renewable energy and do without carbon based energy
to make up the difference? Having grown up around horses, I can tell you they
are not much fun when you have to shovel up after them. The people who tell you
we can get the same amount of energy from renewable sources with no cost
increases are the same folks who told you, "if you like your doctor, you
can keep your doctor." I think the best way to look at this is as a real
world episode of Pinky and the Brain. The Brain has decided to use the scary
threat of melting ice caps to take over the world.
Whenever you ask these Global Warming
Alarmists for the statistical significance of their results, they start talking
about thousands of papers, but they want you to find them for yourself. If
they're so easy to find, why don't the Global Warming Alarmists find them and
provide links? The fact that they don't leads me to believe this is all an
exercise in Jonathan Gruber style over complication to conceal a huge power
grab without any real justification. Global warming alarmists are the guys
asking for big changes. The burden of proof is on them. Us rednecks are fine
clinging to our guns and private property. We already know we don't get to keep
our doctors and our plans. We don't believe the seas are going to rise 30 feet
and swamp both coasts. Besides, most of us don't live on the coasts anyway. Maybe the
rich folks who do live on the coasts should pay for dikes to protect their
property themselves. Most of the 1% live on the coasts anyway, so they should
have to pay and leave the rest of us alone in our SUVs with rifle racks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)