Thanks to Al Gore's 2006 climate change documentary (?), 'An Inconvenient Truth', many now believe the polar bear is on the brink of extinction because of the lack of sea ice. Al's movie portrayed them flailing around in the water, exhausted, and ultimately dying in a failed attempt to find any ice to rest upon. Thus, the distressed polar bear had become the unofficial "face" of climate change and global warming.
Let me a assure you however, the polar bear is doing just fine. A new study released by the Norwegian Polar Institute finds that the population of polar bears has increased 30% in the 11 years since 2004. And, the study concludes that they all appear to be in excellent health with some even described as "fat as pigs". Ah yes. Life is good in polar bear land; especially since hunting them down legally has been outlawed for the last 40 years.
To me, the phrase "fat as pigs" doesn't describe an animal that is fighting for its life, as Al Gore would have us believe. Instead, it implies a pretty laid-back lifestyle with plenty of food. A lot like someone's portly old uncle glued to his couch; chugging beer; and, having pizza every day. Maybe not a healthy lifestyle, but certainly one not lacking in rest and food.
References:
Al Gore's Polar Bear Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6muVtgLto0
New Survey: Polar bear numbers increased 30% over last 11 years in key population – Some of them ‘as fat as pigs’: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/23/new-survey-polar-bear-numbers-increased-30-over-last-11-years-in-key-population-some-of-them-as-fat-as-pigs/
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Clinton, O'Malley, & Sanders: American Corporations and Their CEO's Are Under Siege
When Martin O'Malley announced his candidacy, he took aim at American CEO's.
First he said:
Also, he said this:
Later, O'Malley made the comment that he is happy to be 'the last person' Wall Street CEOs want running in 2016. Which, is not even a veiled threat that, if elected, he would go after America's engine of economic growth.
Then, there's Bernie Sanders.
Early on in his campaign, he said he would be fine with a 90% tax on the wealthy. He also took aim at 18 CEO's that he claimed took billions in bailouts, outsourced jobs, and dodged taxes. One of those was Jeffery Immelt of GE who sits on President Obama's Economic Council.
Rounding out the attack on CEO hatred, there's Hillary Clinton.
In the first month of her campaign, she claimed the average CEO was payed 400 times that of an average worker, and as such, if she was elected, she would do something about that. However, this statistic only narrowly applies to 350 of the nearly 1/4 million CEO's in the country. The median salary for those top-paid CEO's is $15.1 million while the median salary for most is a little over $173,000. Obviously, she wants to pit the workers against the CEO's in her effort to get elected.
What all of this shows is that the Democratic party and its presidential candidates have become more and more anti-wealth and anti-business socialists. This at a time when most of Europe has figured out that socialism doesn't work and are now trying to throw that form of politics and economics overboard.
References:
Martin O’Malley announces presidential campaign: http://nypost.com/2015/05/30/martin-omalley-announces-presidential-campaign/
Martin O'Malley is happy to be 'the last person' Wall Street CEOs want running in 2016: http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-omalley-is-happy-to-be-the-last-person-wall-street-ceos-want-running-in-2016-2015-6
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) doesn't think a 90 percent tax rate on the richest is too high in order to combat income inequality.: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/
Bernie Sanders Exposes 18 CEOs who took Trillions in Bailouts, Evaded Taxes and Outsourced Jobs: http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/25/bernie-sanders-exposes-18-ceos-trillions-bailouts-evaded-taxes-outsourced-jobs.html
Fact check: Hillary Clinton misuses stat on CEO pay: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/05/21/fact-check-hillary-clinton-ceo-pay/27719353/
Poll: Dems now have as favorable a view of socialism as they do capitalism: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/05/12/poll-dems-now-have-as-favorable-a-view-of-socialism-as-they-do-of-capitalism/
Europe: Social-democratic parties are in crisis everywhere — ideological and political: http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-lonely-socialist/
First he said:
"I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street: The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families."The term "bullies of Wall Street" certainly implies some deep seated hatred of these companies and their execs.
Also, he said this:
"Tell me how it is that not a single Wall Street CEO was convicted of a crime related to the 2008 economic meltdown."Well, maybe because the meltdown was more about legislative and political efforts and the position that Wall Street and the Banks were put into in order to push for low income and poor home ownership.
Later, O'Malley made the comment that he is happy to be 'the last person' Wall Street CEOs want running in 2016. Which, is not even a veiled threat that, if elected, he would go after America's engine of economic growth.
Then, there's Bernie Sanders.
Early on in his campaign, he said he would be fine with a 90% tax on the wealthy. He also took aim at 18 CEO's that he claimed took billions in bailouts, outsourced jobs, and dodged taxes. One of those was Jeffery Immelt of GE who sits on President Obama's Economic Council.
Rounding out the attack on CEO hatred, there's Hillary Clinton.
In the first month of her campaign, she claimed the average CEO was payed 400 times that of an average worker, and as such, if she was elected, she would do something about that. However, this statistic only narrowly applies to 350 of the nearly 1/4 million CEO's in the country. The median salary for those top-paid CEO's is $15.1 million while the median salary for most is a little over $173,000. Obviously, she wants to pit the workers against the CEO's in her effort to get elected.
What all of this shows is that the Democratic party and its presidential candidates have become more and more anti-wealth and anti-business socialists. This at a time when most of Europe has figured out that socialism doesn't work and are now trying to throw that form of politics and economics overboard.
References:
Martin O’Malley announces presidential campaign: http://nypost.com/2015/05/30/martin-omalley-announces-presidential-campaign/
Martin O'Malley is happy to be 'the last person' Wall Street CEOs want running in 2016: http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-omalley-is-happy-to-be-the-last-person-wall-street-ceos-want-running-in-2016-2015-6
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) doesn't think a 90 percent tax rate on the richest is too high in order to combat income inequality.: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/
Bernie Sanders Exposes 18 CEOs who took Trillions in Bailouts, Evaded Taxes and Outsourced Jobs: http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/25/bernie-sanders-exposes-18-ceos-trillions-bailouts-evaded-taxes-outsourced-jobs.html
Fact check: Hillary Clinton misuses stat on CEO pay: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/05/21/fact-check-hillary-clinton-ceo-pay/27719353/
Poll: Dems now have as favorable a view of socialism as they do capitalism: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/05/12/poll-dems-now-have-as-favorable-a-view-of-socialism-as-they-do-of-capitalism/
Europe: Social-democratic parties are in crisis everywhere — ideological and political: http://www.politico.eu/article/europes-lonely-socialist/
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Chicago: The Ferguson Effect and Justice Not Served
In most every big city in America, murders and violent crime surged in 2015. Up between 11% and 16%; depending on the study you look at.
Something called the "Ferguson Effect" is being blamed for it. Essentially, the "Ferguson Effect" has chilled active policing in our major cities for fear that a cop, any cop, will find themselves in court, or perhaps in prison for murder, should something go wrong during an altercation that may ends in the death of a suspected criminal. Thus, the crooks have gotten the streets back.
For Chicago, the number of murders in 2015 is projected to hit 505; up more than 11% from the 2013 and 2014 counts of 450 and 454, respectively. However, on a positive side, it won't see the highly publicized number of 514 murders that was seen in 2012.
Also, for Chicago, 2015 was also the year when the video of Laquan McDonald being shot to death by a cop was released to the world press. Now, some people are calling for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to resign. On top of that, GQ Magazine has named Rahm to its worst people's list of 2015.
In my opinion, there is a bigger issue regarding the Chicago Police and Mayor Emanuel that is being ignored amid the charged environment of the Laquan video. That issue is the fact that so few murders are actually solved and brought to justice in that City. In 2012 -- a year that saw the recent record of 514 murders -- only 26% were solved. Another report by the Chicago Sun Times found that, since 1990, the solved murder rate has fallen from 70% to below 30%.
Essentially, Rahm Emanuel has neutered the Police's investigative capabilities in an effort to solve the City's budget problems. The Sun-Times found that the "number of Chicago Police detectives, evidence technicians, and forensic investigators has declined by at least 19 percent since Emanuel took office."
If Rahm does resign, it should be over his weakening of the Police Department; leaving the City exposed, justice not being served, and criminals left on the streets to commit even more crime. The 2015 stats may only be the tip of the iceberg, created by an overworked police investigative team which will continue to create an exponential rise in crime in the years to come.
References:
Rahm Emanuel, Under Siege in Chicago, Shows Contrite Side: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/rahm-emanuel-under-siege-in-chicago-shows-contrite-side.html
Trying to Hide the Rise of Violent Crime: Progressives and their media allies have launched a campaign to deny the ‘Ferguson effect’—but it’s real, and it’s increasingly deadly for inner cities: https://www.google.com/search?q=Trying+to+Hide+the+Rise+of+Violent+Crime&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
FBI head doubles down on 'Ferguson effect' | TheHill: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260080-fbi-head-doubles-down-on-ferguson-effect
2015 Chicago Crime Stats: http://heyjackass.com/
Chicago’s Criminals Are Getting Away With Murder: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2013/Getting-Away-with-Murder/
WBEZ report: Chicago has more unsolved murders, fewer detectives: http://homicides.suntimes.com/2015/03/24/wbez-report-chicago-has-more-unsolved-murders-fewer-detectives/
Something called the "Ferguson Effect" is being blamed for it. Essentially, the "Ferguson Effect" has chilled active policing in our major cities for fear that a cop, any cop, will find themselves in court, or perhaps in prison for murder, should something go wrong during an altercation that may ends in the death of a suspected criminal. Thus, the crooks have gotten the streets back.
For Chicago, the number of murders in 2015 is projected to hit 505; up more than 11% from the 2013 and 2014 counts of 450 and 454, respectively. However, on a positive side, it won't see the highly publicized number of 514 murders that was seen in 2012.
Also, for Chicago, 2015 was also the year when the video of Laquan McDonald being shot to death by a cop was released to the world press. Now, some people are calling for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to resign. On top of that, GQ Magazine has named Rahm to its worst people's list of 2015.
In my opinion, there is a bigger issue regarding the Chicago Police and Mayor Emanuel that is being ignored amid the charged environment of the Laquan video. That issue is the fact that so few murders are actually solved and brought to justice in that City. In 2012 -- a year that saw the recent record of 514 murders -- only 26% were solved. Another report by the Chicago Sun Times found that, since 1990, the solved murder rate has fallen from 70% to below 30%.
Essentially, Rahm Emanuel has neutered the Police's investigative capabilities in an effort to solve the City's budget problems. The Sun-Times found that the "number of Chicago Police detectives, evidence technicians, and forensic investigators has declined by at least 19 percent since Emanuel took office."
If Rahm does resign, it should be over his weakening of the Police Department; leaving the City exposed, justice not being served, and criminals left on the streets to commit even more crime. The 2015 stats may only be the tip of the iceberg, created by an overworked police investigative team which will continue to create an exponential rise in crime in the years to come.
References:
Rahm Emanuel, Under Siege in Chicago, Shows Contrite Side: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/rahm-emanuel-under-siege-in-chicago-shows-contrite-side.html
Trying to Hide the Rise of Violent Crime: Progressives and their media allies have launched a campaign to deny the ‘Ferguson effect’—but it’s real, and it’s increasingly deadly for inner cities: https://www.google.com/search?q=Trying+to+Hide+the+Rise+of+Violent+Crime&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
FBI head doubles down on 'Ferguson effect' | TheHill: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260080-fbi-head-doubles-down-on-ferguson-effect
2015 Chicago Crime Stats: http://heyjackass.com/
Chicago’s Criminals Are Getting Away With Murder: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2013/Getting-Away-with-Murder/
WBEZ report: Chicago has more unsolved murders, fewer detectives: http://homicides.suntimes.com/2015/03/24/wbez-report-chicago-has-more-unsolved-murders-fewer-detectives/
Monday, December 28, 2015
Another Hillary Clinton "Video" Lie
First it was her claim that an anti-Mohammed video was responsible for the death of our Ambassador and others in a terrorist attack on Benghazi. A lie that was debunked by her own email to Chelsea saying otherwise, and a separate email that she had sent to the Egyptian Prime Minister the following day, in which she explained that it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video.
Now, the latest "video" lie comes from the last Democratic debate where she said this:
For HillaryClinton, lying comes as easily as breathing.
References:
No evidence for Hillary Clinton's claim that ISIS is using videos of Donald Trump as recruiting tool: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/19/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-isis-using-vi/
Some of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi-related emails released: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-emails/
Hillary Clinton's public vs. private Benghazi facts: https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-public-vs-private-benghazi-facts/
Rep. Jim Jordan vs. Hillary Clinton: Why Did You Tell Egyptians Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack But Not The American People?: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/22/rep_jim_jordan_vs_hillary_clinton_why_did_you_tell_egyptians_benghazi_was_a_terrorist_attack_but_not_the_american_people.html
pb
Now, the latest "video" lie comes from the last Democratic debate where she said this:
"He [Trump] is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."Just like Benghazi, there is zero truth in this. There are no such videos nor any facts supporting the claim, and Hillary's team can't produce a video either. PolitiFact gives this one a big, wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap "False".
For HillaryClinton, lying comes as easily as breathing.
References:
No evidence for Hillary Clinton's claim that ISIS is using videos of Donald Trump as recruiting tool: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/19/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-isis-using-vi/
Some of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi-related emails released: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-emails/
Hillary Clinton's public vs. private Benghazi facts: https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-public-vs-private-benghazi-facts/
Rep. Jim Jordan vs. Hillary Clinton: Why Did You Tell Egyptians Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack But Not The American People?: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/22/rep_jim_jordan_vs_hillary_clinton_why_did_you_tell_egyptians_benghazi_was_a_terrorist_attack_but_not_the_american_people.html
pb
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
The Unsettled Science of Climate Change
Climate change and global warming alarmists tell us that man-caused global warming is a real and settled science. They also tell us that to deny it is tantamount to not believing in science at all. Thus, when a scientist tells us something, we should embrace it as fact.
My problem, is that all too often, scientific studies contradict each other; leaving the person reading them with a severe headache. Perfect examples of this were two recent stories, just a month apart from each other, regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
The first appeared online at EcoWatch.com on November 9th of this year titled: "Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High".
Slightly less than a month later, the U.K. Independent published an online article with this title: "Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row".
So, who to believe? Both headlines are based on "true" scientific studies and supposed measurements. If "the" science is settled, why two divergent results? It is no wonder that sane people find climate change alarmism extremely difficult to take seriously. Which story will be in your Global Warming/Climate Change Internet bookmark? My guess is that you are a "believer" and on the political left, the first story is the most believable as noted by this graphic from Pew Research:
Tell me that climate change alarmism isn't more politics and less science!
References:
Climate Change Denial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High: http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/carbon-hit-record-high/
Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html
Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/
pb
My problem, is that all too often, scientific studies contradict each other; leaving the person reading them with a severe headache. Perfect examples of this were two recent stories, just a month apart from each other, regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
The first appeared online at EcoWatch.com on November 9th of this year titled: "Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High".
Slightly less than a month later, the U.K. Independent published an online article with this title: "Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row".
So, who to believe? Both headlines are based on "true" scientific studies and supposed measurements. If "the" science is settled, why two divergent results? It is no wonder that sane people find climate change alarmism extremely difficult to take seriously. Which story will be in your Global Warming/Climate Change Internet bookmark? My guess is that you are a "believer" and on the political left, the first story is the most believable as noted by this graphic from Pew Research:
 |
| Click on Image to Enlarge |
References:
Climate Change Denial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High: http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/carbon-hit-record-high/
Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html
Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/
pb
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Obama's Climate Change Nightmare: Cheap Oil Getting Cheaper
I'm of the belief that every time Obama says something, the opposite is true. If he says you can keep your doctor, you can't. ISIS is a JayVee team? Not hardly. These are only two examples of countless failed assertions made by this President.
In January 2015, Obama said "Don't buy that gas guzzler, fuel prices are gonna go up." True to form, oil and subsequently gasoline prices, have fallen significantly. At the time Obama said that, West Texas oil (WTI) was around $59/barrel. As of this writing, it now sits at $36.32/barrel, and many say it could go as low as $20/barrel. If that should happen, the national average for gasoline would be about $1.34 a gallon. Substantially lower than the $1.61/gallon when Obama took office. Currently, the national average is slightly above $2/gallon according to the American Automobile Association (triple "A").
The reason that the President said "Don't buy that gas guzzler" is because he knew what would happen with low gasoline prices. In general, people would stop buying fuel efficient and expensive hybrids and electric cars. According to a recent story in Scientific American, Ford's biggest gas guzzlers, the brawny and high performance Mustang and the massive Lincoln Navigator, had a 70% increase in sales over last year. The increase in sales of low-mpg and large SUV's and trucks are showing across the board sales increases among all manufactures. At the same time, sales of electrics and hybrids have suffered.
I believe that falling oil prices drove President Obama's recent decision to not approve the Keystone XL pipeline project. But, another decision on his part, will only make oil even cheaper. That decision was to, again, allow Iran to sell its oil on the world market. Thus, the current glut that is driving oil prices down, will only become a bigger problem when Iran's oil hits the markets. For a President who wants his legacy to be about being green and lowering CO2 emissions from automobiles, cheap gas is his worst nightmare.
References:
Obama: Don't buy that gas guzzler, fuel prices are gonna go up: http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24697/obama-dont-buy-that-gas-guzzler/
West Texas Oil Prices: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/%40CL.1
Gasoline Price Calculator Based on Oil Price: http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/06/gasoline-price-calculator
Cheap Gas Fires Up Big SUV Sales, Slows Electric Cars, Hybrids: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cheap-gas-fires-up-big-suv-sales-slows-electric-cars-hybrids/
AAA: Daily Fuel Guage Report: http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/
The case for $20 oil is getting stronger by the day: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brace-yourself-because-20-oil-could-be-next-for-this-market-2015-12-08
Oil-price drop may threaten to undercut Obama's clean energy legacy: http://www.autonews.com/article/20150128/OEM01/150129810/oil-price-drop-may-threaten-to-undercut-obamas-clean-energy-legacy
In January 2015, Obama said "Don't buy that gas guzzler, fuel prices are gonna go up." True to form, oil and subsequently gasoline prices, have fallen significantly. At the time Obama said that, West Texas oil (WTI) was around $59/barrel. As of this writing, it now sits at $36.32/barrel, and many say it could go as low as $20/barrel. If that should happen, the national average for gasoline would be about $1.34 a gallon. Substantially lower than the $1.61/gallon when Obama took office. Currently, the national average is slightly above $2/gallon according to the American Automobile Association (triple "A").
The reason that the President said "Don't buy that gas guzzler" is because he knew what would happen with low gasoline prices. In general, people would stop buying fuel efficient and expensive hybrids and electric cars. According to a recent story in Scientific American, Ford's biggest gas guzzlers, the brawny and high performance Mustang and the massive Lincoln Navigator, had a 70% increase in sales over last year. The increase in sales of low-mpg and large SUV's and trucks are showing across the board sales increases among all manufactures. At the same time, sales of electrics and hybrids have suffered.
I believe that falling oil prices drove President Obama's recent decision to not approve the Keystone XL pipeline project. But, another decision on his part, will only make oil even cheaper. That decision was to, again, allow Iran to sell its oil on the world market. Thus, the current glut that is driving oil prices down, will only become a bigger problem when Iran's oil hits the markets. For a President who wants his legacy to be about being green and lowering CO2 emissions from automobiles, cheap gas is his worst nightmare.
References:
Obama: Don't buy that gas guzzler, fuel prices are gonna go up: http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24697/obama-dont-buy-that-gas-guzzler/
West Texas Oil Prices: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/%40CL.1
Gasoline Price Calculator Based on Oil Price: http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/06/gasoline-price-calculator
Cheap Gas Fires Up Big SUV Sales, Slows Electric Cars, Hybrids: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cheap-gas-fires-up-big-suv-sales-slows-electric-cars-hybrids/
AAA: Daily Fuel Guage Report: http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/
The case for $20 oil is getting stronger by the day: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brace-yourself-because-20-oil-could-be-next-for-this-market-2015-12-08
Oil-price drop may threaten to undercut Obama's clean energy legacy: http://www.autonews.com/article/20150128/OEM01/150129810/oil-price-drop-may-threaten-to-undercut-obamas-clean-energy-legacy
Monday, December 21, 2015
The False Claim That ObamaCare Isn't Costing Jobs
In a recent Washington Post article, Democrat and Obama Economist, Jared Bernstein, along with another lesser known writer said, simply from its title "Yet another inconvenient truth for its opponents: Obamacare is not ‘killing jobs’". Of course, in the article, they point to facts that support their claim.
Others have pointed out that jobless claims this year have been at 42-year lows despite this being the same year that the employee mandate kicked in. So, how can it be said that ObamaCare is costing jobs?
The problem is, that jobs are being lost in a way that is not obvious from the employment reports. As of 2014, 34% of the workforce, or 53 million employees, are contracted labor; up from just 7% of the workforce or 10 million workers in 2005. And, up 11 million workers or almost 25% in just one year, from 42 million in 2013. The real inconvenient truth is that employees are being converted to contractors as employers maneuver to avoid federal and state mandates like matching FICA payments, salaried overtime requirements, and, oh yes, Obamacare.
Also, be aware that when an independent contractor (freelancer) is laid off, he/she is not eligible for unemployment insurance. Additionally, 4% of our workforce are involuntarily working part-time. That's almost 50% higher than the traditional 2.7%. This despite the supposed lowering of the unemployment rate to 5%. The only rational explanation for this is that employers are avoiding the 50 full time employees rule of ObamaCare by converting full time jobs to part time.
References:
Yet another inconvenient truth for its opponents: Obamacare is not ‘killing jobs’: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/09/yet-another-inconvenient-truth-for-its-opponents-obamacare-is-not-killing-jobs/
How Businesses Are Handling the Obamacare Employer Mandate: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/239039
Freelancer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer
53 million Americans are freelancing, new survey finds: https://www.freelancersunion.org/blog/dispatches/2014/09/04/53million/
US jobless claims fall 7K, revisit 42-year lows - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/15/us-jobless-claims-fall-7k-revisit-42-year-lows.html
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
Others have pointed out that jobless claims this year have been at 42-year lows despite this being the same year that the employee mandate kicked in. So, how can it be said that ObamaCare is costing jobs?
The problem is, that jobs are being lost in a way that is not obvious from the employment reports. As of 2014, 34% of the workforce, or 53 million employees, are contracted labor; up from just 7% of the workforce or 10 million workers in 2005. And, up 11 million workers or almost 25% in just one year, from 42 million in 2013. The real inconvenient truth is that employees are being converted to contractors as employers maneuver to avoid federal and state mandates like matching FICA payments, salaried overtime requirements, and, oh yes, Obamacare.
Also, be aware that when an independent contractor (freelancer) is laid off, he/she is not eligible for unemployment insurance. Additionally, 4% of our workforce are involuntarily working part-time. That's almost 50% higher than the traditional 2.7%. This despite the supposed lowering of the unemployment rate to 5%. The only rational explanation for this is that employers are avoiding the 50 full time employees rule of ObamaCare by converting full time jobs to part time.
References:
Yet another inconvenient truth for its opponents: Obamacare is not ‘killing jobs’: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/09/yet-another-inconvenient-truth-for-its-opponents-obamacare-is-not-killing-jobs/
How Businesses Are Handling the Obamacare Employer Mandate: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/239039
Freelancer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer
53 million Americans are freelancing, new survey finds: https://www.freelancersunion.org/blog/dispatches/2014/09/04/53million/
US jobless claims fall 7K, revisit 42-year lows - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/15/us-jobless-claims-fall-7k-revisit-42-year-lows.html
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Low Labor Participation Rate Is Not Due To Baby Boomers Retiring
Once again, we have another Employment Report, and once again, the unemployment rate gets a boost from people who have left, or are leaving the the workforce. The lowest in nearly 4 decades. Some would argue that if the labor participation rate was where it was at pre-recession, the actual unemployment rate would be over 10% and not at the 5% we see today.
Last March, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee blamed the "Obama economy" for the decline in labor participation. However, a writer for FactCheck.org wrote this while arguing against that criticism of the President.
Simply, the labor participation rates for older Americans are rising; indicating a willingness to work past the early retirement age of 55 years or the normal retirement age of 65 years. The real losses have been for those of the working ages 16 to 24 and 25 to 54; with the 16 to 24 year olds being hardest hit.
Enough with the lame baby boomer argument for losses in the labor participation rate.
References:
Employment Situation Report for November 2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Civilian labor force participation rate by age, gender, race, and ethnicity: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
FactCheck.org: Declining Labor Participation Rates: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
Participation Rate Lowest in 38 Years - CNS News: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94610000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-38
Over 38 Million Men Not in Labor Force, Reaching New Record Low: http://opportunitylives.com/over-38-million-men-not-in-labor-force-reaching-new-record-low/
Last March, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee blamed the "Obama economy" for the decline in labor participation. However, a writer for FactCheck.org wrote this while arguing against that criticism of the President.
"economists say most of the decline, which has been happening for more than a decade, is due to demographics, including the trend of baby boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to no longer work."The problem with the retiring baby boomer argument, is that its just flat wrong. Once a year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issues a report on labor participation rates. The latest for 2014 shows this:
Simply, the labor participation rates for older Americans are rising; indicating a willingness to work past the early retirement age of 55 years or the normal retirement age of 65 years. The real losses have been for those of the working ages 16 to 24 and 25 to 54; with the 16 to 24 year olds being hardest hit.
Enough with the lame baby boomer argument for losses in the labor participation rate.
References:
Employment Situation Report for November 2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Civilian labor force participation rate by age, gender, race, and ethnicity: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
FactCheck.org: Declining Labor Participation Rates: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
Participation Rate Lowest in 38 Years - CNS News: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94610000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-38
Over 38 Million Men Not in Labor Force, Reaching New Record Low: http://opportunitylives.com/over-38-million-men-not-in-labor-force-reaching-new-record-low/
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
The Iowa Caucuses: What's the Big Deal?
It seems like every time a new Iowa poll comes out, the media begins buzzing about whoever is leading. But, history tells us that Iowa is neither a good prognosticator of who gets the nomination for either party, nor a good predictor of the ultimate President. Cases, in point are as follows, with 40 years of data from Wikipedia.
Picking the Party's Nominee
For Democrats since 1976, Iowans -- putting 2nd term presidential runs aside -- have only picked the party's nominee 4 times; Barack Obama (2008), John Kerry (2004), Al Gore (2000), and Walter Mondale (1984). On the Republican side, Iowans only picked their party's ultimate nominee 3 times: George W. Bush (2000), Bob Dole (1996), and Gerald Ford (1976).
Picking a First-Term President
For the Democrats, only one person has been picked to become the party's nominee, and then gone on to be President. That was Barack Obama in 2008. Similarly, for the Republicans, only George W. Bush accomplished the same feat in 2000. This fact should scare Hillary Clinton to death, if she, as it almost seems inevitable, wins Iowa. It should also scare whoever wins on the Republican side. Clearly, the odds are against the Iowa victor becoming President.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that the only two sitting Presidents who won Iowa and lost the General Election were Jimmy Carter for the Democrats in 1980 and George H.W. Bush for the Republicans in 1992.
Clearly, the political junkies will find Iowa an adrenaline rush, but in reality, it is no big deal. I mean, no offense to the people of Iowa, but being first may simply mean that people aren't really paying attention yet.
References:
The Iowa Caucuses: History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses
pb
Picking the Party's Nominee
For Democrats since 1976, Iowans -- putting 2nd term presidential runs aside -- have only picked the party's nominee 4 times; Barack Obama (2008), John Kerry (2004), Al Gore (2000), and Walter Mondale (1984). On the Republican side, Iowans only picked their party's ultimate nominee 3 times: George W. Bush (2000), Bob Dole (1996), and Gerald Ford (1976).
Picking a First-Term President
For the Democrats, only one person has been picked to become the party's nominee, and then gone on to be President. That was Barack Obama in 2008. Similarly, for the Republicans, only George W. Bush accomplished the same feat in 2000. This fact should scare Hillary Clinton to death, if she, as it almost seems inevitable, wins Iowa. It should also scare whoever wins on the Republican side. Clearly, the odds are against the Iowa victor becoming President.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that the only two sitting Presidents who won Iowa and lost the General Election were Jimmy Carter for the Democrats in 1980 and George H.W. Bush for the Republicans in 1992.
Clearly, the political junkies will find Iowa an adrenaline rush, but in reality, it is no big deal. I mean, no offense to the people of Iowa, but being first may simply mean that people aren't really paying attention yet.
References:
The Iowa Caucuses: History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses
pb
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Obama: ISIL is Contained. Really?
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on November 13th, President Obama said this about ISIS (the Islamic State):
References:
Obama on ISIS: "We Have Contained Them": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/13/obama_on_isis_we_have_contained_them.html
As It Fights ISIS, Pentagon Seeks String of Bases Overseas: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/us/politics/pentagon-seeks-string-of-overseas-bases-to-contain-isis.html
Politifact: What Obama said about Islamic State as a 'JV' team: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/07/barack-obama/what-obama-said-about-islamic-state-jv-team/
pb
"I don't think they're gaining strength. What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them."Now, less than 4 weeks later, on December 10th, the New York Times has reported the following:
"As American intelligence agencies grapple with the expansion of the Islamic State beyond its headquarters in Syria, the Pentagon has proposed a new plan to the White House to build up a string of military bases in Africa, Southwest Asia and the Middle East."Once again, Obama is wrong about ISIS. As wrong as when he called them a JayVee team for which Politifact gave him a completely "false" score. As I have often said before in this blog. It's simple. When Obama says something, the opposite is the truth.
References:
Obama on ISIS: "We Have Contained Them": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/13/obama_on_isis_we_have_contained_them.html
As It Fights ISIS, Pentagon Seeks String of Bases Overseas: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/us/politics/pentagon-seeks-string-of-overseas-bases-to-contain-isis.html
Politifact: What Obama said about Islamic State as a 'JV' team: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/07/barack-obama/what-obama-said-about-islamic-state-jv-team/
pb
Monday, December 14, 2015
Chicago's Near 50-Year Cycle of Race Rioting?
Forty-seven years ago, in 1968, Chicago was the site of a major race riot sparked by the assassination of Martin Luther King. Along with Washington D.C., it helped lead the way to other rioting across the country. 49 years before that, in 1919, another series of riots occurred throughout the U.S., with Chicago, again, being the worst.
Thus far, the protests in Chicago regarding the shooting death of Laquan McDonald have been fairly peaceful. But, as we all know, peace can turn to violence in seconds. Also understand, that the City's Black Lives Matter people are not merely protesting the McDonald shooting. They are protesting what they believe to be a pattern of the Chicago police unjustifiably killing blacks for years.
My concern, is that Chicago race riots tend to be contagious and can quickly spread throughout the nation. Also, should rioting happen, it would confirm a near 50-year recurrence in that city. Hopefully nothing will happen, but if Mayor Emmanuel doesn't resign, it just might.
References:
1968 Chicago Riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Chicago_riots
1919 Chicago Race Riot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_race_riot_of_1919
List: 1968 Riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_riots
Thus far, the protests in Chicago regarding the shooting death of Laquan McDonald have been fairly peaceful. But, as we all know, peace can turn to violence in seconds. Also understand, that the City's Black Lives Matter people are not merely protesting the McDonald shooting. They are protesting what they believe to be a pattern of the Chicago police unjustifiably killing blacks for years.
My concern, is that Chicago race riots tend to be contagious and can quickly spread throughout the nation. Also, should rioting happen, it would confirm a near 50-year recurrence in that city. Hopefully nothing will happen, but if Mayor Emmanuel doesn't resign, it just might.
References:
1968 Chicago Riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Chicago_riots
1919 Chicago Race Riot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_race_riot_of_1919
List: 1968 Riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_riots
Friday, December 11, 2015
Straw Man Arguments For Gun Control: Gun Show Loophole, Internet Sales, and Straw Purchases
Once again, there was another mass shooting. This time in San Bernadino. Once again, the Democrats are trotting out a symphony of calls for new, common-sense gun control laws. President Obama, only a day after the San Bernadino slaughter, vowed to close the Gun Show Loophole using an executive order. Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton said, that if she was President, she would use an executive order to not only close the Gun Show Loophole, but also, ban Internet sales and Straw Purchases that evade background checks.
First of all, understand that there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole.
Under existing federal laws -- the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 -- anyone selling more than 4 guns a year, and if those guns haven't been made earlier than 1944, and therefore not considered antique, are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and initiate an instant bckground check with a 5-day waiting period on every gun they sell. Thus, there are very few sellers of guns at Gun Shows who will be willing to pay upfront promotional fees to set up a table to only sell 4 or fewer guns. The only ones that do are typically selling antiques that don't require background checks and don't require an FFL.
The hidden agenda of the political left is to cite the supposed Gun Show Loophole as a means to force background checks on all firearm transactions; even if you are selling a hunting rifle to your brother-in-law. Something that would almost surely be impossible to enforce and would require millions of man hours to do so. Further, it would do nearly nothing to reduce gun violence and gun-related crime in this country. According to a 2013 report (page 13) from the Bureau of Justice, a survey of 18,000 state and federal prisoners revealed that only 8-tenths of a single percent of them that used guns at the time of their arrests, had purchased those guns at a gun show. Also, there was no indication in that report as to whether or not they were purchased without any federally mandated background check.
Then, there's the "Internet" straw man argument. Just like the Gun Show sellers, Internet sellers must also have an FFL if they plan to sell more than 4 guns a year. But, there's an additional federal law that says no guns can be sent directly to someone in the mail or via another conveyance such as UPS. Instead, a firearm must be sent first to an FFL dealer, who in turn will process a required background check and hold the gun for the mandated 5-day waiting period.
Lastly, there is the "Straw Purchase" argument. A straw purchase is when someone buys a gun for someone else. Specifically, if they buy a gun for someone who wouldn't pass a background check. However, this is already covered by existing laws. It is a federal crime to purchase a gun for someone that is a known felon; or who knowingly intends to use it in the commission of a crime; or has a mental illness. Again, the issue here is enforcement. There is always going to be the person who buys a gun for a felon, or a terrorist, who will grind off the firearm's serial number and make it untraceable to the original owner. In actuality, millions of Americans are, in a way, guilty of straw purchases. Someone who buys a firearm for the home, that is accessible to others has engaged in a straw purchase. Buying a gun and giving it to a friend or family member who is being stalked or threatened would be considered a crime under what the Democrats would consider a straw purchases. Buying a gun as a gift also, technically, is a straw purchase.
Essentially, the Gun Show Loophole, Internet Sales, and Straw Purchases are all false arguments that will do very little to stop mass shootings and murders throughout the country. We already have enough laws to cover any of these scenarios. Maybe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- both lawyers -- and other Democrats should spend more time getting acquainted with the existing laws before calling for new ones that just copy the old.
References:
Obama looks to use executive power to close gun loophole: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obama-gun-order-20151203-story.html
Three Pinocchios: Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows and over the Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/
Gun Control Act of 1968: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
Justice Department Report: Firearm Violence, 1993-2011: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
The Facts about Gun Shows: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows
pb
First of all, understand that there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole.
Under existing federal laws -- the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 -- anyone selling more than 4 guns a year, and if those guns haven't been made earlier than 1944, and therefore not considered antique, are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and initiate an instant bckground check with a 5-day waiting period on every gun they sell. Thus, there are very few sellers of guns at Gun Shows who will be willing to pay upfront promotional fees to set up a table to only sell 4 or fewer guns. The only ones that do are typically selling antiques that don't require background checks and don't require an FFL.
The hidden agenda of the political left is to cite the supposed Gun Show Loophole as a means to force background checks on all firearm transactions; even if you are selling a hunting rifle to your brother-in-law. Something that would almost surely be impossible to enforce and would require millions of man hours to do so. Further, it would do nearly nothing to reduce gun violence and gun-related crime in this country. According to a 2013 report (page 13) from the Bureau of Justice, a survey of 18,000 state and federal prisoners revealed that only 8-tenths of a single percent of them that used guns at the time of their arrests, had purchased those guns at a gun show. Also, there was no indication in that report as to whether or not they were purchased without any federally mandated background check.
Then, there's the "Internet" straw man argument. Just like the Gun Show sellers, Internet sellers must also have an FFL if they plan to sell more than 4 guns a year. But, there's an additional federal law that says no guns can be sent directly to someone in the mail or via another conveyance such as UPS. Instead, a firearm must be sent first to an FFL dealer, who in turn will process a required background check and hold the gun for the mandated 5-day waiting period.
Lastly, there is the "Straw Purchase" argument. A straw purchase is when someone buys a gun for someone else. Specifically, if they buy a gun for someone who wouldn't pass a background check. However, this is already covered by existing laws. It is a federal crime to purchase a gun for someone that is a known felon; or who knowingly intends to use it in the commission of a crime; or has a mental illness. Again, the issue here is enforcement. There is always going to be the person who buys a gun for a felon, or a terrorist, who will grind off the firearm's serial number and make it untraceable to the original owner. In actuality, millions of Americans are, in a way, guilty of straw purchases. Someone who buys a firearm for the home, that is accessible to others has engaged in a straw purchase. Buying a gun and giving it to a friend or family member who is being stalked or threatened would be considered a crime under what the Democrats would consider a straw purchases. Buying a gun as a gift also, technically, is a straw purchase.
Essentially, the Gun Show Loophole, Internet Sales, and Straw Purchases are all false arguments that will do very little to stop mass shootings and murders throughout the country. We already have enough laws to cover any of these scenarios. Maybe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- both lawyers -- and other Democrats should spend more time getting acquainted with the existing laws before calling for new ones that just copy the old.
References:
Obama looks to use executive power to close gun loophole: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obama-gun-order-20151203-story.html
Three Pinocchios: Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows and over the Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/
Gun Control Act of 1968: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
Justice Department Report: Firearm Violence, 1993-2011: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
The Facts about Gun Shows: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows
pb
Thursday, December 10, 2015
ObamaCare Fails To Save Families $2,500 a Year
In 2008, while running for the presidency, the then-Senator Barack Obama said his healthcare reform plan would save the average family $2,500 a year. Then, in December of 2009, after emerging from a meeting with the Senate Democrats on the progress of his health plan, he said this: "We [he and the Senate Democrats] agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care."
Over the years since making those statements, there was never any proof that his claims of savings were simply lies in order to sell his takeover of healthcare in this country. That is, until last week. That's when the Obama Administration reported that, in 2014 and the first year of the individual mandate, healthcare expenses had risen the most, percentage-wise, since Obama took office. But, putting percentages aside, the dollar amount increase in 2014 was the largest single-year increase in 54 years; rising $151.4 billion dollars from $2.879.9 trillion in 2013 to $3.031.3 trillion in 2014. That also reflects a half-trillion dollar increase in this nation's healthcare costs since Obama took office.
To put that $151 billion increase into perspective, you need to understand that this amount equals $526 dollars for every one of the 287 million men, women, and children who were insured in 2014 (the population of 320 million people less the 33 million who were still uninsured in that year). Thus, an average family of four saw their expenses for healthcare rise by $2,100. Almost the complete opposite of the $2,500 a year drop that Obama promised.
The string of broken promises associated with ObamaCare just keeps getting longer and deeper. In essence, ObamaCare is imploding on itself and making healthcare access more limited, and the costs substantially higher. This thing needs to be repealed.
References:
Barack Obama '8: BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/factsheet_healthcare.pdf
Obama said health care reform will reduce the cost of health care: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/18/barack-obama/obama-said-health-care-reform-will-reduce-cost-hea/
Health Care Spending Grew at Fastest Pace Since Obama's Presidency: http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-spending-grew-at-fastest-pace-since-obama-s-presidency-214929362.html
US Health Care Costs Surge to 17 Percent of GDP: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/03/Federal-Health-Care-Costs-Surge-17-Percent-GDP
Over the years since making those statements, there was never any proof that his claims of savings were simply lies in order to sell his takeover of healthcare in this country. That is, until last week. That's when the Obama Administration reported that, in 2014 and the first year of the individual mandate, healthcare expenses had risen the most, percentage-wise, since Obama took office. But, putting percentages aside, the dollar amount increase in 2014 was the largest single-year increase in 54 years; rising $151.4 billion dollars from $2.879.9 trillion in 2013 to $3.031.3 trillion in 2014. That also reflects a half-trillion dollar increase in this nation's healthcare costs since Obama took office.
To put that $151 billion increase into perspective, you need to understand that this amount equals $526 dollars for every one of the 287 million men, women, and children who were insured in 2014 (the population of 320 million people less the 33 million who were still uninsured in that year). Thus, an average family of four saw their expenses for healthcare rise by $2,100. Almost the complete opposite of the $2,500 a year drop that Obama promised.
The string of broken promises associated with ObamaCare just keeps getting longer and deeper. In essence, ObamaCare is imploding on itself and making healthcare access more limited, and the costs substantially higher. This thing needs to be repealed.
References:
Barack Obama '8: BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/factsheet_healthcare.pdf
Obama said health care reform will reduce the cost of health care: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/18/barack-obama/obama-said-health-care-reform-will-reduce-cost-hea/
Health Care Spending Grew at Fastest Pace Since Obama's Presidency: http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-spending-grew-at-fastest-pace-since-obama-s-presidency-214929362.html
US Health Care Costs Surge to 17 Percent of GDP: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/03/Federal-Health-Care-Costs-Surge-17-Percent-GDP
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Obama's Feckless Oval Office Address on the San Bernadino Terror Attack
When a President of the United States takes to the Oval Office to address the nation following a major event, Americans expect that something new and significant will be conveyed. They expect a plan of action and reassurance. That was the case for President Kennedy's address during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or when George H. W. Bush announced the start of the first Gulf War, or when Reagan addressed America following the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, and surely when George W. Bush addressed the nation following 9/11.
The setting is intentionally formal. The President is seated at his work desk; with flags flanking him on both sides. Obama's Sunday night address was indeed in the oval office. However, instead of at the desk he stood in front of a podium, awkwardly placed in front of the desk; giving the appearance of just another press conference, or one of his speeches on the road. What's worse, he conveyed nothing new about the terrorist attack in San Bernadino. Personally, I think he chose the podium over the desk because he really didn't have anything new or important to say, No real plan of action. No reassurances. He simply, once again, blamed inaction on gun control; even though none of the proposed gun control measures would have prevented San Bernadino. Essentially, it was a stay the course speech on what he, in his own mind, thinks is working to defeat ISIS and terrorism.
To me and others, his speech merely reinforced the belief that this President is simply marking time until he can get out of office and hand the problem over to his successor. In the meantime, there may be more San Bernadino's in our future due to his inaction.
References:
List of Oval Office addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oval_Office_addresses
Obama speech: Reassurances about ISIS fall flat in Oval Office address: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/06/obama-speech-reassurances-about-isis-fall-flat-in-oval-office-address.html
President Obama's speech about ISIS: What they're saying: http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/12/president_obamas_speech_about_isis_what_theyre_saying.html
Oval Office address, RIP? - POLITICO: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/oval-office-address-rip-216509
The setting is intentionally formal. The President is seated at his work desk; with flags flanking him on both sides. Obama's Sunday night address was indeed in the oval office. However, instead of at the desk he stood in front of a podium, awkwardly placed in front of the desk; giving the appearance of just another press conference, or one of his speeches on the road. What's worse, he conveyed nothing new about the terrorist attack in San Bernadino. Personally, I think he chose the podium over the desk because he really didn't have anything new or important to say, No real plan of action. No reassurances. He simply, once again, blamed inaction on gun control; even though none of the proposed gun control measures would have prevented San Bernadino. Essentially, it was a stay the course speech on what he, in his own mind, thinks is working to defeat ISIS and terrorism.
To me and others, his speech merely reinforced the belief that this President is simply marking time until he can get out of office and hand the problem over to his successor. In the meantime, there may be more San Bernadino's in our future due to his inaction.
References:
List of Oval Office addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oval_Office_addresses
Obama speech: Reassurances about ISIS fall flat in Oval Office address: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/06/obama-speech-reassurances-about-isis-fall-flat-in-oval-office-address.html
President Obama's speech about ISIS: What they're saying: http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/12/president_obamas_speech_about_isis_what_theyre_saying.html
Oval Office address, RIP? - POLITICO: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/oval-office-address-rip-216509
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Blame JFK for the Rise in Mass Shootings
Once, again, we had another mass killing. This time at a Colorado Planned Parenthood facility. The killer is obviously mentally ill and a loner. While the Democrats and President Obama want to focus on gun control as a means to stop these events, Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is the only adult in the room to call for stronger mental health laws and reporting.
In 2014, the Washington Post published this graphic showing the mental status of mass killers since 1984:
With only 26% of the above labelled "With No Mental Health Issue", it is obvious that the majority of murders were committed by people with mental problems (areas in black and possibly grey). For example, all 6 of the mass killing events in 1999 were committed by mentally ill people. The same was true in 2012. Of course, if the "Unclear" group was assumed to possibly have some mental illness (otherwise, they would be in blue), then the vast majority were mentally ill in some way. This proves that Paul Ryan is on to something by calling for better mental health laws in this country, in order to control their access to guns.
The problem with mentally ill people being on the streets actually goes back to 1963 when then-President John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act. Under that law, people would no longer be institutionalized against their will unless they were either found to be a threat to themselves or others, or if they themselves, requested to be institutionalized. Thus, the practice of scooping people off the streets was stopped and nearly 90% of beds at state mental hospitals were emptied. This is also why so many of the homeless, that walk our streets, appear to have mental problems. It's no coincidence that the enactment of that law has resulted in a rise of mass killings into the 1970's and beyond. Note these statistics that show the number of these events by decade since the 1900's from the "History of Mass Shootings" (linked in "References" below).
1900s: 0
1910s: 2
1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
Thus, there is a clear correlation between the passage and implementation of the Community Mental Health Act in the 1960's/1970's, and the rise of mass killings. Before the Planned Parenthood shooter went on his rampage, he shot his neighbor's dog.
Pre-1960, that act may have landed him in a mental institution, or he at least would have been flagged so he could no longer own a gun. Not shown above is the 2010s, where mass killings are already double what they were in the Bush years of the 2000s (also linked below).
Additionally, another law is allowing the mentally ill to possess firearms: HIPAA or the Health Insurance and Portability Act of 1996. The privacy restrictions of that law make it nearly impossible, under federal law, for mental health providers to notify authorities of a patient who probably shouldn't own a gun. That law was passed by another Democrat President, Bill Clinton.
How Paul Ryan and Congress would effect changes to the original JFK Community Mental Health Act and the privacy provision of HIPAA are anyone's guess. But, I believe that keeping guns out of the hands of certain mentally ill patients would definitely save lives and would be a lot easier to implement than trying to take millions of guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that responsibly own them for sport or their own protection.
References:
Paul Ryan: 'Clearly we can do more' to address mental health issues: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/paul-ryan-colorado-shooting-mental-health-issues/
Washington Post: Weapons and Mass Shootings (statistics): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/weapons-and-mass-shootings/
History of Mass Shootings: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130112/NEWS02/701129949
Community Mental Health Center Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act
HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/mhguidance.html
In 2014, the Washington Post published this graphic showing the mental status of mass killers since 1984:
With only 26% of the above labelled "With No Mental Health Issue", it is obvious that the majority of murders were committed by people with mental problems (areas in black and possibly grey). For example, all 6 of the mass killing events in 1999 were committed by mentally ill people. The same was true in 2012. Of course, if the "Unclear" group was assumed to possibly have some mental illness (otherwise, they would be in blue), then the vast majority were mentally ill in some way. This proves that Paul Ryan is on to something by calling for better mental health laws in this country, in order to control their access to guns.
The problem with mentally ill people being on the streets actually goes back to 1963 when then-President John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act. Under that law, people would no longer be institutionalized against their will unless they were either found to be a threat to themselves or others, or if they themselves, requested to be institutionalized. Thus, the practice of scooping people off the streets was stopped and nearly 90% of beds at state mental hospitals were emptied. This is also why so many of the homeless, that walk our streets, appear to have mental problems. It's no coincidence that the enactment of that law has resulted in a rise of mass killings into the 1970's and beyond. Note these statistics that show the number of these events by decade since the 1900's from the "History of Mass Shootings" (linked in "References" below).
1900s: 0
1910s: 2
1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
Thus, there is a clear correlation between the passage and implementation of the Community Mental Health Act in the 1960's/1970's, and the rise of mass killings. Before the Planned Parenthood shooter went on his rampage, he shot his neighbor's dog.
Pre-1960, that act may have landed him in a mental institution, or he at least would have been flagged so he could no longer own a gun. Not shown above is the 2010s, where mass killings are already double what they were in the Bush years of the 2000s (also linked below).
Additionally, another law is allowing the mentally ill to possess firearms: HIPAA or the Health Insurance and Portability Act of 1996. The privacy restrictions of that law make it nearly impossible, under federal law, for mental health providers to notify authorities of a patient who probably shouldn't own a gun. That law was passed by another Democrat President, Bill Clinton.
How Paul Ryan and Congress would effect changes to the original JFK Community Mental Health Act and the privacy provision of HIPAA are anyone's guess. But, I believe that keeping guns out of the hands of certain mentally ill patients would definitely save lives and would be a lot easier to implement than trying to take millions of guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that responsibly own them for sport or their own protection.
References:
Paul Ryan: 'Clearly we can do more' to address mental health issues: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/paul-ryan-colorado-shooting-mental-health-issues/
Washington Post: Weapons and Mass Shootings (statistics): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/weapons-and-mass-shootings/
History of Mass Shootings: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130112/NEWS02/701129949
Community Mental Health Center Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act
HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/mhguidance.html
Monday, December 7, 2015
Another False Narrative: Obama's 'No-Fly List' Gun Control Argument
Following the San Bernadino terrorist attack, Barack Obama trotted out another false narrative that had nothing to do with that massacre or any other shooting by saying this: [they] "can't get on planes, but those same people who we don't allow to fly
could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm
and there's nothing that we can do to stop them...That's a law that needs to be changed."
OK, Republicans. Make Obama happy and pass a law that says you can't buy a gun if you're on the "No-fly List". It won't make one hill of beans difference to what happened in San Bernadino or any other mass shooting in this country. Syed Farook, the legal owner of guns used in the San Bernadino attack. made two trips to Saudi Arabia. He wasn't on the "No-Fly List". None of the killers in any of the other mass shootings were on the "list" either.
Also understand, that the Federal No-Fly List is both problematic and riddled with errors. For example, people who have names that are the same or similar to someone on that list will be erroneously denied the legal purchase of a weapon. Then, there are known errors and it is nearly impossible to get off the "list" once you're on it. One Stanford student spent 7 years in federal lawsuits trying because an FBI agent made a clerical error by checking off the wrong box!
So, leave it to this President to try to make an issue out of a list made up of 47,000 people (of which only 800 are Americans) as a means of stopping terrorist attacks instead of going after the source, which is: The radicalization taking place in too many Mosques throughout the world.
A Special Note: After writing this, the Drudge Report linked a story that said at least 72 Homeland Security employees were on the "No-Fly List". What about that, Mr. Obama? People that are supposed to be watching over our nation's security are on a terrorist watch list! By the way; That fact was announced by a Democrat by the name of Congressman Stephen Lynch. Also, one has to wonder; Did these people get on the "list" before they were hired or while working for Homeland Security?
Link: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/
References:
Terrorist Watch List No Bar to Buying Guns: http://www.newsweek.com/terrorist-watchlist-no-bar-buying-guns-400959
8 ways you can end up on the no-fly list [rightly or wrongly]: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list/
pb
OK, Republicans. Make Obama happy and pass a law that says you can't buy a gun if you're on the "No-fly List". It won't make one hill of beans difference to what happened in San Bernadino or any other mass shooting in this country. Syed Farook, the legal owner of guns used in the San Bernadino attack. made two trips to Saudi Arabia. He wasn't on the "No-Fly List". None of the killers in any of the other mass shootings were on the "list" either.
Also understand, that the Federal No-Fly List is both problematic and riddled with errors. For example, people who have names that are the same or similar to someone on that list will be erroneously denied the legal purchase of a weapon. Then, there are known errors and it is nearly impossible to get off the "list" once you're on it. One Stanford student spent 7 years in federal lawsuits trying because an FBI agent made a clerical error by checking off the wrong box!
So, leave it to this President to try to make an issue out of a list made up of 47,000 people (of which only 800 are Americans) as a means of stopping terrorist attacks instead of going after the source, which is: The radicalization taking place in too many Mosques throughout the world.
A Special Note: After writing this, the Drudge Report linked a story that said at least 72 Homeland Security employees were on the "No-Fly List". What about that, Mr. Obama? People that are supposed to be watching over our nation's security are on a terrorist watch list! By the way; That fact was announced by a Democrat by the name of Congressman Stephen Lynch. Also, one has to wonder; Did these people get on the "list" before they were hired or while working for Homeland Security?
Link: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/
References:
Terrorist Watch List No Bar to Buying Guns: http://www.newsweek.com/terrorist-watchlist-no-bar-buying-guns-400959
8 ways you can end up on the no-fly list [rightly or wrongly]: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/09/09/8-ways-can-end-up-on-no-fly-list/
pb
Friday, December 4, 2015
Was the Chicago Chief of Police Scapegoated in the Laquan McDonald Shooting?
Anyone -- upon seeing the video of Laquan McDonald being shot to death by a Chicago cop -- probably can't believe it took 13 months to charge Officer Jason Van Dyke with murder; especially during this time of heightened racially charged attitudes towards police shootings and brutality.
So, obviously, simply charging the cop with murder wasn't enough. Someone in a position of authority, had to pay. Thus, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy had to go. Not Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who appointed McCarthy just 3 years before Laquan's death. Not the Cook County State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, who sat on the McDonald case for a year, and then hurriedly filed a murder charge against Van Dyke just minutes before the damning dash-cam video became public.
In my opinion, the firing of McCarthy is an attempt to shield Rahm Emanuel and Anita Alvarez from being unseated. McCarthy did what had to be done following the shooting. He placed Officer Van Dyke on desk duty until Alvarez decided whether or not to charge him. Rahm had to have known that a murder charge was eventually forthcoming, otherwise he wouldn't have authorized a $5 million payment to the McDonald family last March as compensation.
You have to ask yourself. Should a man who has been in the job for just 3 years be responsible for the actions of a 14-year veteran police officer? One who was trained and hired under the watch of the then-current Superintendent Terry Hillard. Also, over those 14 years, there had been 20 citizen complaints against Van Dyke and nothing was done about him. To me, this exposes a protective culture that exists within the department and among police officers, and no one chief of police is going to change that. The main driver of that culture is the police union which too often shields its members from being disciplined. This is obvious from the fact that Van Dyke was put on desk duty with pay; rather than laid off or even fired. He even remained on desk duty after the City paid out $5 million in compensation to the McDonald family. If that isn't enough to fire someone, what is?
References:
He Fired Garry McCarthy, His Top Cop. Is Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Next?: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/he-fired-garry-mccarthy-his-top-cop-chicago-mayor-rahm-n472116
Chicago officer had history of complaints before Laquan McDonald shooting: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/us/jason-van-dyke-previous-complaints-lawsuits/
Anita Alvarez Responds to Calls for Her Resignation, Says She Will Not Be 'Bullied': http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Anita-Alvarez-Responds-to-Calls-for-Her-Resignation-359012851.html
Chicago paid $5 million to shooting victim's family, keeping them quiet and video secret while Rahm re-elected: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/chicago_paid_5_million_to_shooting_victims_family_keeping_them_quiet_and_video_secret_while_rahm_reelected_.html
History: HEADS OF THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT: http://chicagocop.com/html/history/heads_of_the_cpd.html#sthash.G2AtL7nI.dpbs
So, obviously, simply charging the cop with murder wasn't enough. Someone in a position of authority, had to pay. Thus, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy had to go. Not Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who appointed McCarthy just 3 years before Laquan's death. Not the Cook County State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, who sat on the McDonald case for a year, and then hurriedly filed a murder charge against Van Dyke just minutes before the damning dash-cam video became public.
In my opinion, the firing of McCarthy is an attempt to shield Rahm Emanuel and Anita Alvarez from being unseated. McCarthy did what had to be done following the shooting. He placed Officer Van Dyke on desk duty until Alvarez decided whether or not to charge him. Rahm had to have known that a murder charge was eventually forthcoming, otherwise he wouldn't have authorized a $5 million payment to the McDonald family last March as compensation.
You have to ask yourself. Should a man who has been in the job for just 3 years be responsible for the actions of a 14-year veteran police officer? One who was trained and hired under the watch of the then-current Superintendent Terry Hillard. Also, over those 14 years, there had been 20 citizen complaints against Van Dyke and nothing was done about him. To me, this exposes a protective culture that exists within the department and among police officers, and no one chief of police is going to change that. The main driver of that culture is the police union which too often shields its members from being disciplined. This is obvious from the fact that Van Dyke was put on desk duty with pay; rather than laid off or even fired. He even remained on desk duty after the City paid out $5 million in compensation to the McDonald family. If that isn't enough to fire someone, what is?
References:
He Fired Garry McCarthy, His Top Cop. Is Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Next?: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/he-fired-garry-mccarthy-his-top-cop-chicago-mayor-rahm-n472116
Chicago officer had history of complaints before Laquan McDonald shooting: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/us/jason-van-dyke-previous-complaints-lawsuits/
Anita Alvarez Responds to Calls for Her Resignation, Says She Will Not Be 'Bullied': http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Anita-Alvarez-Responds-to-Calls-for-Her-Resignation-359012851.html
Chicago paid $5 million to shooting victim's family, keeping them quiet and video secret while Rahm re-elected: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/chicago_paid_5_million_to_shooting_victims_family_keeping_them_quiet_and_video_secret_while_rahm_reelected_.html
History: HEADS OF THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT: http://chicagocop.com/html/history/heads_of_the_cpd.html#sthash.G2AtL7nI.dpbs
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Tyshawn Lee: The Forgotten Black Life That Mattered
In Chicago, while the "Black Lives Matter" crowds have been protesting over the cop shooting of Laquan McDonald, another life cut short went completely ignored. Tyshawn Lee was a nine year old boy who was executed by gunfire by a gang, as payback for his father's "sin" of being a member of a rival gang. The executioner was a felon who should have never owned a gun under Federal law and, for sure, under the even more rigid gun restrictions of Chicago. But, he and two others had guns that were probably purchased on the streets.
The sad fact is that there are all too many "Tyshawn Lee's" in Chicago and around the country. Many of these murders go unsolved because people in the community are afraid to talk; or, there were no witnesses due to the all too many drive-by shootings. Far more than the 33 unarmed blacks that have been shot and killed this year by police in the entire United States as of this writing (as reported by "The Counted").
Where is the outrage over the children killed almost weekly by these gangsters? Most of these are black lives. Again, not just in Chicago, but in every major city with high black populations. I think "Black Lives Matter" has its priorities upside down.
References:
Demonstrators protest Laquan McDonald shooting for 5th day: http://abc7chicago.com/news/demonstrators-protest-laquan-mcdonald-shooting-for-5th-day/1102565/
Chilling Details Revealed in Bond Hearing for Suspect in Tyshawn Lee's Murder: http://abcnews.go.com/US/chilling-details-revealed-bond-hearing-suspect-tyshawn-lees/story?id=35454416
14-Year-Old Killed, Another Teen Injured in Drive-By: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/14-Year-Old-Killed-Another-Teen-Injured-in-Drive-By-Shooting-in-Kenwood-328413991.html
Rapper Capo and 1-Year-Old Boy Killed in Drive-By Shooting: http://www.etonline.com/news/167824_rapper_capo_and_a_1_year_old_boy_killed_drive_by_shooting_chicago/
The Counted: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#
The sad fact is that there are all too many "Tyshawn Lee's" in Chicago and around the country. Many of these murders go unsolved because people in the community are afraid to talk; or, there were no witnesses due to the all too many drive-by shootings. Far more than the 33 unarmed blacks that have been shot and killed this year by police in the entire United States as of this writing (as reported by "The Counted").
Where is the outrage over the children killed almost weekly by these gangsters? Most of these are black lives. Again, not just in Chicago, but in every major city with high black populations. I think "Black Lives Matter" has its priorities upside down.
References:
Demonstrators protest Laquan McDonald shooting for 5th day: http://abc7chicago.com/news/demonstrators-protest-laquan-mcdonald-shooting-for-5th-day/1102565/
Chilling Details Revealed in Bond Hearing for Suspect in Tyshawn Lee's Murder: http://abcnews.go.com/US/chilling-details-revealed-bond-hearing-suspect-tyshawn-lees/story?id=35454416
14-Year-Old Killed, Another Teen Injured in Drive-By: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/14-Year-Old-Killed-Another-Teen-Injured-in-Drive-By-Shooting-in-Kenwood-328413991.html
Rapper Capo and 1-Year-Old Boy Killed in Drive-By Shooting: http://www.etonline.com/news/167824_rapper_capo_and_a_1_year_old_boy_killed_drive_by_shooting_chicago/
The Counted: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Three Studies Throw Ice Onto the Global Warming Alarmists
It was just a month ago that a new study stated that the ice in Antarctica was melting so fast, the entire continent would be at risk by 2100; just 85 years from now. Now, NASA research scientists claim that the snow pack has been growing at a faster rate than usual, and outpacing any ice loss. So much so, that the enormity of growth is actually slowing the rise of sea levels throughout the world. Another NASA revelation is that the snow pack is the highest we've seen in 300 years; a couple of hundred years before the automobile was even invented.
So, what is it? Fast growing ice and snow or unheard of melting. Isn't the "settled"
science over global warming and climate change exciting?
On top of that, a team of European scientists, at an astronomy symposium, said that the lack of solar activity over the next few years will put the world into a mini ice age between 2030 to 2040. That's because there will be a reduction in solar activity by 60 percent in the ten years prior to that; a fact that has been seen since the 1600's when, the River Thames froze over completely. Icebreaker stock prices just went up!
Lastly, NASA's Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data shows that another month has gone by without moving the needle upwards on global warming. For the last 18 years and 9 months, the average trend in global temperatures has been flat.
But, to the 150+ world leaders who are meeting in the UN's Paris Climate Change summit (COP 21), these facts are immaterial. Instead, they will be negotiating massive redistribution of wealth and plans that will probably hurt all their people, especially the poor, with higher and higher energy prices. Additionally, those 50,000 delegates and hundreds of media types flying to Paris and back to wherever they came from, will cost the environment 300,000 "tons" of carbon dioxide.
Certainly, the city hosting the event is guaranteed big payoffs during this grand tourism activity. Vive La Paris hotels, cabbies, restaurants, shop owners, and car rental operations!
References:
Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/12/antarctic-ice-melting-so-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100
MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first EVIDENCE global warming is NOT REAL: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting
Yet another study shows Antarctica gaining ice mass – snowfall accumulation ‘highest we have seen in the last 300 years’: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/yet-another-study-shows-antarctica-gaining-ice-mass-accumulation-highest-we-have-seen-in-the-last-300-years/
GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates': http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates
The [warming] Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-paris/
COP 21: 'Never have the stakes been so high' - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/europe/france-paris-cop21-climate-change-conference/
Let's hope the talks aren't a load of hot air, at least: Global warming summit will produce '300,000 TONS of C02' as 50,000 people travel to Paris from across the world for two-week conference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339333/Let-s-hope-talks-aren-t-load-hot-air-Global-warming-summit-produce-300-000-TONS-C02-50-000-people-travel-Paris-world-two-week-conference.html
pb
So, what is it? Fast growing ice and snow or unheard of melting. Isn't the "settled"
science over global warming and climate change exciting?
On top of that, a team of European scientists, at an astronomy symposium, said that the lack of solar activity over the next few years will put the world into a mini ice age between 2030 to 2040. That's because there will be a reduction in solar activity by 60 percent in the ten years prior to that; a fact that has been seen since the 1600's when, the River Thames froze over completely. Icebreaker stock prices just went up!
Lastly, NASA's Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data shows that another month has gone by without moving the needle upwards on global warming. For the last 18 years and 9 months, the average trend in global temperatures has been flat.
But, to the 150+ world leaders who are meeting in the UN's Paris Climate Change summit (COP 21), these facts are immaterial. Instead, they will be negotiating massive redistribution of wealth and plans that will probably hurt all their people, especially the poor, with higher and higher energy prices. Additionally, those 50,000 delegates and hundreds of media types flying to Paris and back to wherever they came from, will cost the environment 300,000 "tons" of carbon dioxide.
Certainly, the city hosting the event is guaranteed big payoffs during this grand tourism activity. Vive La Paris hotels, cabbies, restaurants, shop owners, and car rental operations!
References:
Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/12/antarctic-ice-melting-so-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100
MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first EVIDENCE global warming is NOT REAL: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting
Yet another study shows Antarctica gaining ice mass – snowfall accumulation ‘highest we have seen in the last 300 years’: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/yet-another-study-shows-antarctica-gaining-ice-mass-accumulation-highest-we-have-seen-in-the-last-300-years/
GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates': http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates
The [warming] Pause lengthens again – just in time for Paris: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-paris/
COP 21: 'Never have the stakes been so high' - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/europe/france-paris-cop21-climate-change-conference/
Let's hope the talks aren't a load of hot air, at least: Global warming summit will produce '300,000 TONS of C02' as 50,000 people travel to Paris from across the world for two-week conference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339333/Let-s-hope-talks-aren-t-load-hot-air-Global-warming-summit-produce-300-000-TONS-C02-50-000-people-travel-Paris-world-two-week-conference.html
pb
Monday, November 30, 2015
The Futility of the Paris Climate Talks
Starting on November 30th, world leaders convened in Paris at the behest of the United Nations to come to some agreements on countering Climate Change. The semi-stated goals of those talks are as follows:
The problem with the above is that it contradicts past statements made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is made up of 2000 scientists. As reported by the SFGATE.com -- one of the San Francisco Chronicle's online news sites -- the IPCC believed the following 11 years ago:
In my opinion, getting the world to abide by whatever the Paris attendees try and agree on, will be a lot like herding cats.
Some might achieve or even exceed the targets while many others won't. There's a long time between now and 2030. Recessions, war, changes in political leadership and governments can easily alter a county's priorities away from focusing on global warming. And, there will always be corruption. Poorer countries, run by despots and receiving climate change funding, will never see those monies applied to the cause. Instead the funds will be diverted to corrupt leadership. Already, Latin America is asking for reparations from rich countries for any damage done to their countries. Even if its unable to prove it was caused by global warming.
I think Paris will, in retrospect, turn out to be an exercise in futility. Just as the original global warming initiative in Kyoto, was a farce.
References:
Paris climate summit: world leaders told to iron out differences before talks end: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/28/paris-climate-summit-world-leaders-talks-france
Warming set to breach 1C threshold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036
SFGate: It's much too late to sweat global warming / Time to prepare for inevitable effects of our ill-fated future: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/It-s-much-too-late-to-sweat-global-warming-Time-2699599.php
LatAm hands climate bill to rich world at summit: http://news.yahoo.com/latam-hands-climate-bill-rich-world-summit-050003973.html
The global warming dividend: Canada abandons Kyoto Protocol to protect its lucrative oil reserves: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073520/Canada-abandons-Kyoto-Protocol-save-14bn-penalties-missing-greenhouse-gas-targets.html
Bush Taunts EU Over Missed Kyoto Targets: http://neurope.eu/article/bush-taunts-eu-over-missed-kyoto-targets/
Kyoto Protocol, 10 years later: Did deal to combat greenhouse gases: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/kyoto-protocol-10-years-later-was-the-deal-to-combat-greenhouse-emissions-successful-and-what-of-its-future
- Reduce green houses gases by 20 to 45% by 2030.
- Agree to limit global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030.
- Wealthy countries should agree to redistribute $100 billion of their own wealth a year to poorer countries so they can contribute to the fight in global warming.
The problem with the above is that it contradicts past statements made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is made up of 2000 scientists. As reported by the SFGATE.com -- one of the San Francisco Chronicle's online news sites -- the IPCC believed the following 11 years ago:
- It's already too late to stop extreme global warming because it would take 50 to 100 years to reverse the amount of CO2 already in our atmosphere.
- To avoid extreme global warming, the world must act now by reducing CO2 levels by 50% to 70%.
- A 2 degree Celsius rise would cause extreme and catastrophic weather events throughout the world.
- A new focus should be on preparing the world on the inevitability of our global warming fate.
In my opinion, getting the world to abide by whatever the Paris attendees try and agree on, will be a lot like herding cats.
Some might achieve or even exceed the targets while many others won't. There's a long time between now and 2030. Recessions, war, changes in political leadership and governments can easily alter a county's priorities away from focusing on global warming. And, there will always be corruption. Poorer countries, run by despots and receiving climate change funding, will never see those monies applied to the cause. Instead the funds will be diverted to corrupt leadership. Already, Latin America is asking for reparations from rich countries for any damage done to their countries. Even if its unable to prove it was caused by global warming.
I think Paris will, in retrospect, turn out to be an exercise in futility. Just as the original global warming initiative in Kyoto, was a farce.
References:
Paris climate summit: world leaders told to iron out differences before talks end: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/28/paris-climate-summit-world-leaders-talks-france
Warming set to breach 1C threshold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036
SFGate: It's much too late to sweat global warming / Time to prepare for inevitable effects of our ill-fated future: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/It-s-much-too-late-to-sweat-global-warming-Time-2699599.php
LatAm hands climate bill to rich world at summit: http://news.yahoo.com/latam-hands-climate-bill-rich-world-summit-050003973.html
The global warming dividend: Canada abandons Kyoto Protocol to protect its lucrative oil reserves: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073520/Canada-abandons-Kyoto-Protocol-save-14bn-penalties-missing-greenhouse-gas-targets.html
Bush Taunts EU Over Missed Kyoto Targets: http://neurope.eu/article/bush-taunts-eu-over-missed-kyoto-targets/
Kyoto Protocol, 10 years later: Did deal to combat greenhouse gases: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/kyoto-protocol-10-years-later-was-the-deal-to-combat-greenhouse-emissions-successful-and-what-of-its-future
Friday, November 27, 2015
Ben Carson's Jefferson and the Constitution Comment
During a recent interview on C-Span, Dr. Ben Carson said this: "Jefferson seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people would react
and tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control
people's natural tendencies and control the natural growth of the
government.".
Almost immediately the American media jumped all over Carson, because at the time the Constitution was being drafted, Jefferson was serving in France as a U.S. minister. The political left was even more vicious in their attacks.
But, here's the thing. Jefferson didn't have to be in this country to have provided input into the crafting of the Constitution. He simply corresponded with those drafting it. For example, the Library of Congress makes this comment about a letter sent to Madison in 1787 after reading a draft of the Constitution:
References:
Carson flubs Thomas Jefferson's role in the Constitution: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/ben-carson-thomas-jefferson-constitution-founding-fathers/
Ben Carson Doesn't Know Who Wrote The Constitution: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/ben-carson-constitution/
Library of Congress: Thomas Jefferson: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html
United States Bill of Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Almost immediately the American media jumped all over Carson, because at the time the Constitution was being drafted, Jefferson was serving in France as a U.S. minister. The political left was even more vicious in their attacks.
But, here's the thing. Jefferson didn't have to be in this country to have provided input into the crafting of the Constitution. He simply corresponded with those drafting it. For example, the Library of Congress makes this comment about a letter sent to Madison in 1787 after reading a draft of the Constitution:
"Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America."We know, today, that a Bill of Rights was added as the first ten amendments which defined personal freedoms and limited the scope of government. So, Jefferson's input was influential. The only mistake that Carson made was in saying Jefferson "tried to craft" which implies that he was the actual author of the Constitution.
References:
Carson flubs Thomas Jefferson's role in the Constitution: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/ben-carson-thomas-jefferson-constitution-founding-fathers/
Ben Carson Doesn't Know Who Wrote The Constitution: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/ben-carson-constitution/
Library of Congress: Thomas Jefferson: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html
United States Bill of Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Bad News: ObamaCare May Be Terminally ILL
Just recently, the healthcare insurance giant, United Healthcare announced that it may leave the ObamaCare exchanges at the end of 2016; claiming losses as the reason. Now, ask yourself: If the nation's largest insurer can't operate successfully in the exchanges, then how can smaller companies survive? Well that question can be easily answered by something called the "Risk Corridors" provision of ObamaCare.
Under the Risk Corridors provision, insurers are given protections for extreme losses in the first three years of their operation in the exchanges (2014, 2015, and 2016). What this means is, if an insurer loses 3% in profits, that insurer absorbs those losses completely. However, if those losses exceed 3%, but are less than 8%, the federal government will compensate the insurer for 50% of the losses. If they are greater than 8%, the federal government will cover 80%. Similarly, if an insurer's profits are more than 3% but less than 8%, the insurer must hand over 50% of those profits to the feds. Over 8%, the insurer can only keep 20%.
This year, it was reported by Health and Human Services that, in 2014, the insurers are owed $2.87 billion dollars for losses, while the government is only owed $362 million in excess profits. This is a clear indication that insurance under ObamaCare is a losing proposition. The fact that United Healthcare is complaining about losses so late in 2015, means that the trend of 2014 had continued for United again this year.
A further indication of extreme losses comes from the fact that, of the 23 co-op insurers that were established by the Obama Administration at a cost of $2.5 billion dollars to provide competitive pricing and wider acceptance by doctors, 2 last year and 12 this year have gone belly up, leaving tens of thousands struggling to find new insurers who would include their existing doctors. For example 200 critically ill cancer patients who were being treated at Sloan Kettering, were left with no other insurer who would cover the cost that hospital was charging when their New York co-op went bankrupt.
Lastly, the fact that insurers are struggling to keep above water is reflected by the rate increases they submitted for approval by the state regulatory authorities. In July, the New York Times found that the insurers were asking for increases of between 20 and 40 percent. But, apparently, those increases had been disapproved and set substantially lower. That ls because Health and Human Services only recently announced that rates will only go up an average of 7.5% for next year. That means that the insurers might be exposed to losses of anywhere between 12.5% to 32.5% which will, again, be covered partially by the Risk Corridors provision.
Simply, as ObamaCare goes into open enrollment for 2017 and as the Risk Corridors support ends, there might not be an insurer left to sell in the exchanges. And, if any are left, it will be too expensive for anyone to afford to buy or maintain coverage unless the insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government. At that point, ObamaCare will just implode.
Of course, you can expect Democrats to keep ObamaCare alive by wanting to extend or expand the Risk Corridors program. After all, you can't just leave millions of people without any further insurance. If that happens, it will just be a matter of time before a single-payer, fully government funded and controlled, health insurance program will come to be. Something the Democrats have wanted from the very beginning.
References:
United Healthcare may pull out of the exchanges: What does this mean for Obamacare?: http://blog.chron.com/intheloop/2015/11/united-healthcare-pulls-out-of-healthcare-exchange-is-this-the-end-of-obamacare/
Risk Corridor Claims By Insurers Far Exceed Contributions (Updated): http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/10/01/implementing-health-reform-risk-corridor-claims-by-insurers-far-exceed-contributions/
Even If You Like Your Obamacare Co-Op Insurance, You Probably Can’t Keep It: http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/11/even-if-you-your-obamacare-co-op-insurance-you-probably-cant-keep-it/123719/
Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html
Obamacare premiums to rise an average of 7.5% for benchmark plan: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/27/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/
Under the Risk Corridors provision, insurers are given protections for extreme losses in the first three years of their operation in the exchanges (2014, 2015, and 2016). What this means is, if an insurer loses 3% in profits, that insurer absorbs those losses completely. However, if those losses exceed 3%, but are less than 8%, the federal government will compensate the insurer for 50% of the losses. If they are greater than 8%, the federal government will cover 80%. Similarly, if an insurer's profits are more than 3% but less than 8%, the insurer must hand over 50% of those profits to the feds. Over 8%, the insurer can only keep 20%.
This year, it was reported by Health and Human Services that, in 2014, the insurers are owed $2.87 billion dollars for losses, while the government is only owed $362 million in excess profits. This is a clear indication that insurance under ObamaCare is a losing proposition. The fact that United Healthcare is complaining about losses so late in 2015, means that the trend of 2014 had continued for United again this year.
A further indication of extreme losses comes from the fact that, of the 23 co-op insurers that were established by the Obama Administration at a cost of $2.5 billion dollars to provide competitive pricing and wider acceptance by doctors, 2 last year and 12 this year have gone belly up, leaving tens of thousands struggling to find new insurers who would include their existing doctors. For example 200 critically ill cancer patients who were being treated at Sloan Kettering, were left with no other insurer who would cover the cost that hospital was charging when their New York co-op went bankrupt.
Lastly, the fact that insurers are struggling to keep above water is reflected by the rate increases they submitted for approval by the state regulatory authorities. In July, the New York Times found that the insurers were asking for increases of between 20 and 40 percent. But, apparently, those increases had been disapproved and set substantially lower. That ls because Health and Human Services only recently announced that rates will only go up an average of 7.5% for next year. That means that the insurers might be exposed to losses of anywhere between 12.5% to 32.5% which will, again, be covered partially by the Risk Corridors provision.
Simply, as ObamaCare goes into open enrollment for 2017 and as the Risk Corridors support ends, there might not be an insurer left to sell in the exchanges. And, if any are left, it will be too expensive for anyone to afford to buy or maintain coverage unless the insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government. At that point, ObamaCare will just implode.
Of course, you can expect Democrats to keep ObamaCare alive by wanting to extend or expand the Risk Corridors program. After all, you can't just leave millions of people without any further insurance. If that happens, it will just be a matter of time before a single-payer, fully government funded and controlled, health insurance program will come to be. Something the Democrats have wanted from the very beginning.
References:
United Healthcare may pull out of the exchanges: What does this mean for Obamacare?: http://blog.chron.com/intheloop/2015/11/united-healthcare-pulls-out-of-healthcare-exchange-is-this-the-end-of-obamacare/
Risk Corridor Claims By Insurers Far Exceed Contributions (Updated): http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/10/01/implementing-health-reform-risk-corridor-claims-by-insurers-far-exceed-contributions/
Even If You Like Your Obamacare Co-Op Insurance, You Probably Can’t Keep It: http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/11/even-if-you-your-obamacare-co-op-insurance-you-probably-cant-keep-it/123719/
Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html
Obamacare premiums to rise an average of 7.5% for benchmark plan: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/27/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Have U.S. Sales Of Electric Cars Peaked?
In the years 2010 and 2011, Americans only bought a total of 17,425 electric vehicles (EV's). The following year, 3 times that amount were sold; putting another 52,607 on the road. In 2013, that number was almost doubled to 97,507. But in 2014, Americans only bought 25,542 more EV's than they did the year before; bringing the total sales for that year to 123,049. Even so, that number represented 38% of all worldwide sales of EV's.
However, 2015 is a completely different story. In the first 10 months of this year, only 92,347 cars were sold. Compared to the same period in 2014, this represents a decline of 8,018 vehicles sold; year-to-date. Also, America's 38% of all sales in 2014 fell to just 25% of the worldwide sales in 2015. So, obviously, the slowdown is isolated to this country.
While a one-year decline doesn't make a trend, it could be the beginning of one. That reality is reinforced by the fact that the growth in American EV sales has been slowing each year. Certainly, as an all-around vehicle, electric cars are pretty impractical with limited range. Couple that with the knowledge that you have to find a place to charge them whenever you run their batteries down. Another reason may be that the price of gas has fallen from $3.76 a gallon in May of 2014 to the lowest price since 2006 at $2.39 in October of this year.
It will be interesting to see if the decline of sales continues. Also, when it comes to saving the planet, putting less than 400,000 cars on the road since 2010 is hardly a "green" winner in a country that has more than 254 million passenger cars. Additionally, the tax payers are on the hook for nearly $3 billion federal dollars since 2010 from handing out $7,500 subsidies to just 383,000 buyers of EV's; mostly a bunch of wealthy environmentalists. $3 billion dollars is a hollow effort to save the planet. Further, when people decide to trade-in their old EV's, they find that they take a big financial hit since there is little demand for used ones. There's no rebate and the fact that someone might have to replace a very expensive lithium ion battery is quite a turnoff.
References:
Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard: http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
Electric Vehicle Incentives: http://www.teslamotors.com/support/incentives
U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m
Passenger vehicles in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
Resale Prices Tumble on Electric Cars: http://www.wsj.com/articles/resale-prices-tumble-on-electric-cars-1424977378
pb
However, 2015 is a completely different story. In the first 10 months of this year, only 92,347 cars were sold. Compared to the same period in 2014, this represents a decline of 8,018 vehicles sold; year-to-date. Also, America's 38% of all sales in 2014 fell to just 25% of the worldwide sales in 2015. So, obviously, the slowdown is isolated to this country.
While a one-year decline doesn't make a trend, it could be the beginning of one. That reality is reinforced by the fact that the growth in American EV sales has been slowing each year. Certainly, as an all-around vehicle, electric cars are pretty impractical with limited range. Couple that with the knowledge that you have to find a place to charge them whenever you run their batteries down. Another reason may be that the price of gas has fallen from $3.76 a gallon in May of 2014 to the lowest price since 2006 at $2.39 in October of this year.
It will be interesting to see if the decline of sales continues. Also, when it comes to saving the planet, putting less than 400,000 cars on the road since 2010 is hardly a "green" winner in a country that has more than 254 million passenger cars. Additionally, the tax payers are on the hook for nearly $3 billion federal dollars since 2010 from handing out $7,500 subsidies to just 383,000 buyers of EV's; mostly a bunch of wealthy environmentalists. $3 billion dollars is a hollow effort to save the planet. Further, when people decide to trade-in their old EV's, they find that they take a big financial hit since there is little demand for used ones. There's no rebate and the fact that someone might have to replace a very expensive lithium ion battery is quite a turnoff.
References:
Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard: http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
Electric Vehicle Incentives: http://www.teslamotors.com/support/incentives
U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m
Passenger vehicles in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
Resale Prices Tumble on Electric Cars: http://www.wsj.com/articles/resale-prices-tumble-on-electric-cars-1424977378
pb
Monday, November 23, 2015
Why Radical Islam Exists and May Never Be Defeated
This is the seed of radical Islam:
Thousands of Madrassas (schools) like this exist around the world; starting in the 1970's. In them, children are generally taught to take the Qur'an literally in a brand of austere Islam called Wahhabism. For all too many, this is the only education they will ever receive.
While there are numerous verses in the Qur'an that teach peace and tranquility, there are many that don't. Those that don't are based on the belief that there can only be one god in the world and his name is Allah; and that there can only be one religion in the world and that is Islam.
So, these children are taught that "unbelievers" (infidels) -- which, by the way, include modern day secularized Islamics -- must either be converted to fundamental Islam or be killed or enslaved. Thus, they are taken back to the earliest days of Islam under the Prophet Muhammad. A time when the Prophet, himself, spent the last 10 years of his life as a military commander in his effort to spread Islam through wars against Christians, Jews, and Pagans.
What should concern us all is the depth to which these Madrassas have radicalized Islam. In France, for example -- there are "No Go Zones" where the French government does not intervene and where Muslims are left to govern and educate themselves, and where support for ISIS is the highest of all other European countries. 27% of 18 to 24 year-olds, and 22% of the 25 to 34 age group support ISIS.
Simply, it is impossible to stop the radicalization unless the Madrassas are shutdown.
References:
Wahhabism: A Saudi Time Bomb: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
The Quran's Verses of Violence: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
KORAN commands to kill infidels: http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Military career of Muhammad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
Muslim conquests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
snopes.com: Sharia Law Muslim 'No-Go' Zones in France: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
27% of Young French Muslims (1.62 million) back the Islamic State, poll finds: https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/27-of-young-french-muslims-1-62-million-back-the-islamic-state-poll-finds/
pb
Thousands of Madrassas (schools) like this exist around the world; starting in the 1970's. In them, children are generally taught to take the Qur'an literally in a brand of austere Islam called Wahhabism. For all too many, this is the only education they will ever receive.
While there are numerous verses in the Qur'an that teach peace and tranquility, there are many that don't. Those that don't are based on the belief that there can only be one god in the world and his name is Allah; and that there can only be one religion in the world and that is Islam.
So, these children are taught that "unbelievers" (infidels) -- which, by the way, include modern day secularized Islamics -- must either be converted to fundamental Islam or be killed or enslaved. Thus, they are taken back to the earliest days of Islam under the Prophet Muhammad. A time when the Prophet, himself, spent the last 10 years of his life as a military commander in his effort to spread Islam through wars against Christians, Jews, and Pagans.
What should concern us all is the depth to which these Madrassas have radicalized Islam. In France, for example -- there are "No Go Zones" where the French government does not intervene and where Muslims are left to govern and educate themselves, and where support for ISIS is the highest of all other European countries. 27% of 18 to 24 year-olds, and 22% of the 25 to 34 age group support ISIS.
Simply, it is impossible to stop the radicalization unless the Madrassas are shutdown.
References:
Wahhabism: A Saudi Time Bomb: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
The Quran's Verses of Violence: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
KORAN commands to kill infidels: http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Military career of Muhammad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
Muslim conquests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
snopes.com: Sharia Law Muslim 'No-Go' Zones in France: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
27% of Young French Muslims (1.62 million) back the Islamic State, poll finds: https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/27-of-young-french-muslims-1-62-million-back-the-islamic-state-poll-finds/
pb
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Just 8 Out of 10,000 Syrian Refugees To Repeat Paris Terror Attack
It took only 8 terrorists to kill more than 129 people and wound 3 times that many in the attacks at 7 sites in Paris on November 13. Yet, despite this, President Obama still plans to initially immigrate 10,000 Syrian refugees. In addition, 72 Democrats want him to accept 100,000. With those numbers, the odds that 8 terrorists could hide in plain site are extremely high. In fact, I'm sure that ISIS isn't so dumb that they wouldn't take advantage of the refugee influx to the U.S. as a means to do us serious harm. Is that the risks that the President is willing to take on behalf of our "values"? Tell that to the families of those who may die or be wounded because of his flawed actions.
Obama and those Democrats better hope there isn't another Paris-like attack (or worse) on our soil before the 2016 election cycle.
References:
At Least 129 Dead, More Than 350 Wounded in Paris Terror Attack: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/13/report-multiple-people-killed-explosion-deadly-shooting-paris
President Obama Calls Rejection of Syrian Refugees a "Betrayal of our values": http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/obama-calls-rejection-syrian-refugees-betrayal-our-values
72 House Democrats ask Obama to take in 100,000 Syrian Refugees: http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/09/13/72-house-democrats-ask-obama-take-100000-syrian-refugees/
Obama and those Democrats better hope there isn't another Paris-like attack (or worse) on our soil before the 2016 election cycle.
References:
At Least 129 Dead, More Than 350 Wounded in Paris Terror Attack: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/13/report-multiple-people-killed-explosion-deadly-shooting-paris
President Obama Calls Rejection of Syrian Refugees a "Betrayal of our values": http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/obama-calls-rejection-syrian-refugees-betrayal-our-values
72 House Democrats ask Obama to take in 100,000 Syrian Refugees: http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/09/13/72-house-democrats-ask-obama-take-100000-syrian-refugees/
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Obama's False Argument On Syrian Refugees
While in the Philippines, Obama spoke out against those Republicans who would close our borders and block Syrian refugees from coming into this country. While doing so, he falsely implied that the GOP is "scared of widows and 3-year-old orphans". No, Mr. Obama, the GOP are instead afraid of the potential fighting age men who might harm Americans in the same fashion as in the Paris massacre. To that point, I present this picture of Syrian refugees entering Serbia:
I see two women and one child in this picture. The majority are men who could very well do harm to Americans. But, we also know from the Paris attack that one of the eight terrorists was a woman.
Are we supposed to believe that all 20,000 refugees, that are coming to the U.S. under Obama's directive, will be properly vetted? Think about that. Are we to assume that Bashar al-Assad has provided us with birth records and arrest records for all these people? I don't think so. What are we going to do? Have them check a box indicating that they aren't a terrorist.
Don't forget. This is the same Obama Administration whose FBI interviewed the Boston Marathon bombers and Fort Hood shooter and didn't see them as threats.
References:
Obama Chides Anti-Refugee Politicians for Being 'Scared of Widows and 3-Year-Old Orphans': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/obama-chides-anti-refugee-crowd-being-scared-widows-3-year-n465301
Source of Image above: Alvand, 18, from Syria takes a selfie with his friends as they walk along a railway track after crossing into Hungary from Serbia last week. (Marko Djurica/Reuters): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/syrian-refugees-settlement-where-surrey-coquitlam-burnaby-bc-richmond-vancouver-1.3321584
FBI agents interviewed bombing suspect in 2011 - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/us/boston-suspects-no-links/
Fort Hood Shooting: FBI Ignored Evidence Against Nidal Hasan for Political Correctness: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/fort-hood-shooting-fbi-nidal-hasan-political-correctness_n_1685653.html
pb
I see two women and one child in this picture. The majority are men who could very well do harm to Americans. But, we also know from the Paris attack that one of the eight terrorists was a woman.
Are we supposed to believe that all 20,000 refugees, that are coming to the U.S. under Obama's directive, will be properly vetted? Think about that. Are we to assume that Bashar al-Assad has provided us with birth records and arrest records for all these people? I don't think so. What are we going to do? Have them check a box indicating that they aren't a terrorist.
Don't forget. This is the same Obama Administration whose FBI interviewed the Boston Marathon bombers and Fort Hood shooter and didn't see them as threats.
References:
Obama Chides Anti-Refugee Politicians for Being 'Scared of Widows and 3-Year-Old Orphans': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/obama-chides-anti-refugee-crowd-being-scared-widows-3-year-n465301
Source of Image above: Alvand, 18, from Syria takes a selfie with his friends as they walk along a railway track after crossing into Hungary from Serbia last week. (Marko Djurica/Reuters): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/syrian-refugees-settlement-where-surrey-coquitlam-burnaby-bc-richmond-vancouver-1.3321584
FBI agents interviewed bombing suspect in 2011 - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/us/boston-suspects-no-links/
Fort Hood Shooting: FBI Ignored Evidence Against Nidal Hasan for Political Correctness: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/fort-hood-shooting-fbi-nidal-hasan-political-correctness_n_1685653.html
pb
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
The ISIS Name Game
Years ago, pop-singer Prince changed his name to a symbol which had no translation. So, the media started to refer to him as the "Artist formerly known as Prince". Well, when it comes to referring to the terrorist group formerly known as ISIS, confusion also reigns. This is because the acronym doesn't translate well into English.
Most people, including the media, use the acronym ISIS thinking that it means the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". But the last "S" really stands for al-Sham (a borderless area called "Greater Syria" which includes Syria). ISIS itself, prefers to call themselves the Islamic State or "IS" as declared by their current religious leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In doing so, any concept of border limitations is removed.
Our President, and most of his minions, prefer the acronym "ISIL" or the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". But "Levant" is a variant of the Arabic "al-Sham" and much more restrictive of the geographical area that al-Sham implies. Also, by taking the last "S" meaning Syria out of "ISIS", some believe the intention is to avoid focusing on the mess he created in Syria by not taking the lead to take down Assad.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is much more free swinging. Sometimes he uses the term "ISIS". Other times, when being a good Obama soldier, he sticks to "ISIL". But, increasingly he refers to "ISIS" as "Daesh" which is actually a closer English interpretation of the original name "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham". The trouble with "Daesh" is that it can also mean things that can be insulting. Thus, al-Baghdadi has banned the use of the term throughout his so-called Islamic State. To al-Baghdadi, its use it and lose your tongue. So, when Kerry and French President Hollande use Daesh, they are intentionally (I hope) insulting ISIS.
Lastly, the Iraqi government has started to refer to ISIS as "dookh" which stands for "Dawlat Al Islamiya Al Khalifa". However, this, too, is considered an insult because it is closely related to the Arabic word meaning "confused". As if things weren't already confusing.
Anyway, we're at war with some acronym that rapes, kills, beheads, throws gays off buildings, destroys irreplaceable antiquities, takes down a Russian aircraft, attacks Paris, and threatens to attack Washington D.C.. I think that if the world wants to collectively defeat these bastards, it should at least come together on a single name for the enemy.
References:
Why is John Kerry referring to ISIS as "Daesh"?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is-john-kerry-referring-to-isis-as-daesh/
John Kerry defends Syria strategy ahead of peace talks: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/john-kerry-syria-strategy-peace-talks/
Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/09/words-matter-isis-war-use-daesh/V85GYEuasEEJgrUun0dMUP/story.html
Militants in Iraq and Syria are trying to re-create a nation that never existed: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/17/there-is-no-al-sham/
Obama's Use Of ISIL, Not ISIS, Tells Another Story: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/24/obamas-use-isil-not-isis-tells-another-story
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
Most people, including the media, use the acronym ISIS thinking that it means the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". But the last "S" really stands for al-Sham (a borderless area called "Greater Syria" which includes Syria). ISIS itself, prefers to call themselves the Islamic State or "IS" as declared by their current religious leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In doing so, any concept of border limitations is removed.
Our President, and most of his minions, prefer the acronym "ISIL" or the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". But "Levant" is a variant of the Arabic "al-Sham" and much more restrictive of the geographical area that al-Sham implies. Also, by taking the last "S" meaning Syria out of "ISIS", some believe the intention is to avoid focusing on the mess he created in Syria by not taking the lead to take down Assad.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is much more free swinging. Sometimes he uses the term "ISIS". Other times, when being a good Obama soldier, he sticks to "ISIL". But, increasingly he refers to "ISIS" as "Daesh" which is actually a closer English interpretation of the original name "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham". The trouble with "Daesh" is that it can also mean things that can be insulting. Thus, al-Baghdadi has banned the use of the term throughout his so-called Islamic State. To al-Baghdadi, its use it and lose your tongue. So, when Kerry and French President Hollande use Daesh, they are intentionally (I hope) insulting ISIS.
Lastly, the Iraqi government has started to refer to ISIS as "dookh" which stands for "Dawlat Al Islamiya Al Khalifa". However, this, too, is considered an insult because it is closely related to the Arabic word meaning "confused". As if things weren't already confusing.
Anyway, we're at war with some acronym that rapes, kills, beheads, throws gays off buildings, destroys irreplaceable antiquities, takes down a Russian aircraft, attacks Paris, and threatens to attack Washington D.C.. I think that if the world wants to collectively defeat these bastards, it should at least come together on a single name for the enemy.
References:
Why is John Kerry referring to ISIS as "Daesh"?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is-john-kerry-referring-to-isis-as-daesh/
John Kerry defends Syria strategy ahead of peace talks: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/john-kerry-syria-strategy-peace-talks/
Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/09/words-matter-isis-war-use-daesh/V85GYEuasEEJgrUun0dMUP/story.html
Militants in Iraq and Syria are trying to re-create a nation that never existed: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/17/there-is-no-al-sham/
Obama's Use Of ISIL, Not ISIS, Tells Another Story: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/24/obamas-use-isil-not-isis-tells-another-story
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Obama's Delusional War Against ISIS
In a press conference at the G20 summit, President Obama touted the fact that we have dropped 8,000 bombs against ISIS. According to Mother Jones those 8,000 bombs are a result of 17 sorties a day; releasing 60 bombs each. Just hours before the Paris terrorist attack, Obama said his actions in Iraq and Syria have "contained" ISIS.
But, understand that, compared to other wars, 17 sorties a day is simply a pinprick. In the 13 years that we were directly engaged in the Vietnam war and before that war was "Vietnamized" in 1973 and we ceased all direct action, we conducted 1.9 million sorties. That's an average of 400 air attacks per day. Yet, we still weren't able to win. On average, the daily count of bombs dropped was 1400.
Believing that dropping 60 bombs a day is containing ISIS is delusional. By the way, containing is not defeating. Obama continues to believe that ISIS is on the "run" and Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat. Really?
References:
Obama Criticized for Claim That ISIS Is 'Contained' - ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-criticized-claim-isis-contained/story?id=35202328
What Kind of Bombing Campaign Against ISIS Do Republicans Want?: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/what-kind-bombing-campaign-against-isis-do-republicans-want
General Statistics-- Vietnam: http://www.103fieldbatteryraa.net/documents/74.html
Feinstein Breaks With Obama, ISIS Is not "Contained": http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/dianne-feinstein-obama-isil-215935
Obama: ISIS Is On The Run, Al Qaeda is defeated - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCX80P-wrOk
But, understand that, compared to other wars, 17 sorties a day is simply a pinprick. In the 13 years that we were directly engaged in the Vietnam war and before that war was "Vietnamized" in 1973 and we ceased all direct action, we conducted 1.9 million sorties. That's an average of 400 air attacks per day. Yet, we still weren't able to win. On average, the daily count of bombs dropped was 1400.
Believing that dropping 60 bombs a day is containing ISIS is delusional. By the way, containing is not defeating. Obama continues to believe that ISIS is on the "run" and Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat. Really?
References:
Obama Criticized for Claim That ISIS Is 'Contained' - ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-criticized-claim-isis-contained/story?id=35202328
What Kind of Bombing Campaign Against ISIS Do Republicans Want?: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/what-kind-bombing-campaign-against-isis-do-republicans-want
General Statistics-- Vietnam: http://www.103fieldbatteryraa.net/documents/74.html
Feinstein Breaks With Obama, ISIS Is not "Contained": http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/dianne-feinstein-obama-isil-215935
Obama: ISIS Is On The Run, Al Qaeda is defeated - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCX80P-wrOk
Monday, November 16, 2015
Free College and Student Loan Forgiveness?
Last week, college students across the country rallied, demanding free public college tuition and the erasure of all student loan debt. Obviously, they'd gotten their cue from socialist Democratic candidate for President, Bernie Sanders. Their simple solution to pay for this is to tax the richest 1% at 90%. Thus, the lowest paid 1%-er would be left with $34,400 after a 90% income tax was collected against his/her $344,000. Less than that when state taxes are also applied. But, that's only fair in their minds. After all, why should a senior law partner and Harvard graduate be paid more than a high school dropout garbage collector?
However, my biggest problem with "free" college is the fact that we already graduate too many college students who never fully utilize the degrees they have. In a study conducted by the New York Federal Reserve, one-third of all college graduates will never work at a job in which the degree they earned was a requirement; including all too many jobs that require no degrees. And, for recent graduates, those under 27 years of age, that underemployment rate jumps to 45%.
According to the same study, of those underemployed, 45% will spend their working life in non-degreed but good paying jobs. 15% will never achieve a good paying job. And, another 15% will spend their lives working part time.
To put it bluntly, these protesting students are asking the tax payers to pay for a full third of degrees that are, at times, more like hobbies than productive or job creating. For example, 63% of the people working in the Leisure and Hospitality industry have a degree, but are working in jobs that don't require one.
There's another side to this story as well. American college students don't always dedicate themselves to a degree program. From another study covered by U.S. News, we have this chart:
While lack of funding may be the case for some, most of the low on-time graduation story has to do with students making bad choices or not being prepared for college. Twenty percent of all new undergraduates lose time towards their degree by having to take at least one remedial course. Delays in graduation are also caused by changing majors or by losing credits due to transferring to another school. Also, too many students prefer not to take a full course load in any given semester. Or they simply dropout for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to money. Also, lets not forget that another study found that 30% of high school seniors, moving on to college, are doomed to flunk out.
In my opinion, making college free, will only exacerbate the problems outlined above. College should not be a "right" as some would say. In fact, the goal should be to reduce college enrollment by focusing on better qualified students enrolled in degree programs that have a realistic chance of getting them a good paying job. Does anyone really believe that the fastest growing degree program in this country should be in the fields of parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies? 31,667 degrees were earned in the last 10 years; most will never be used as originally intended.
References:
Students across U.S. march over debt, free public college: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/students-across-u-march-over-debt-free-public-110404606.html
Lowest Income For Top One Percent: https://www.google.com/search?q=lowest+income+for+1+percent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
New York Federal Reserve: Are Recent College Graduates Finding Good Jobs?: http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf
Most College Students Don't Graduate On Time: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/01/report-too-much-freedom-hurts-college-graduation-rates
20 Surprising Higher Education Facts: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/09/06/20-surprising-higher-education-facts
Over 30% Of High School Seniors Are On Track To Flunk Out Of College: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2014/08/20/over-30-of-high-school-seniors-are-on-track-to-flunk-out-of-college/
However, my biggest problem with "free" college is the fact that we already graduate too many college students who never fully utilize the degrees they have. In a study conducted by the New York Federal Reserve, one-third of all college graduates will never work at a job in which the degree they earned was a requirement; including all too many jobs that require no degrees. And, for recent graduates, those under 27 years of age, that underemployment rate jumps to 45%.
To put it bluntly, these protesting students are asking the tax payers to pay for a full third of degrees that are, at times, more like hobbies than productive or job creating. For example, 63% of the people working in the Leisure and Hospitality industry have a degree, but are working in jobs that don't require one.
There's another side to this story as well. American college students don't always dedicate themselves to a degree program. From another study covered by U.S. News, we have this chart:
In my opinion, making college free, will only exacerbate the problems outlined above. College should not be a "right" as some would say. In fact, the goal should be to reduce college enrollment by focusing on better qualified students enrolled in degree programs that have a realistic chance of getting them a good paying job. Does anyone really believe that the fastest growing degree program in this country should be in the fields of parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies? 31,667 degrees were earned in the last 10 years; most will never be used as originally intended.
References:
Students across U.S. march over debt, free public college: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/students-across-u-march-over-debt-free-public-110404606.html
Lowest Income For Top One Percent: https://www.google.com/search?q=lowest+income+for+1+percent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
New York Federal Reserve: Are Recent College Graduates Finding Good Jobs?: http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf
Most College Students Don't Graduate On Time: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/01/report-too-much-freedom-hurts-college-graduation-rates
20 Surprising Higher Education Facts: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/09/06/20-surprising-higher-education-facts
Over 30% Of High School Seniors Are On Track To Flunk Out Of College: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2014/08/20/over-30-of-high-school-seniors-are-on-track-to-flunk-out-of-college/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
