Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Climate Change Caused Man

                Change?  Yes, and it must be mans fault! (Fault? I thought progressives were all about change and disdained the status quo). Hmmm.  Really? A brief review of some important events in history might gain us some perspective.

               First there was nothing.

              Then there was the “Big Bang.”

              And everything.

             That was a pretty big change.

             Really, the biggest ever. We didn’t even exist. Eventually there was an earth. The entire land mass was as one and was later dubbed “Pangaea” by scientists. Pangaea split up and the now separate continents drifted apart, eventually taking up residence in roughly their current locations. We weren’t around then, either.
              Somehow, dinosaurs arrived… and then were made extinct. Was an asteroid, a meteor, or perhaps vast climate change the culprit?  No Homo Sapiens trod the planet at the time. Ice ages came…and went. Mile(s) thick glacial ice sheets pushed hundreds and thousands of miles farther south in the northern hemisphere. And then retreated  due to a rapidly warming Earth. There were few humans and fewer domesticated animals. There were no factories and no fossil-fuel-based energy production or consumption.
              Yet all these massive cosmic and planet-wide changes happened.

              Which led to us.

              Ergo, it is simply impossible to logically assert (let alone with smug certainty) that humans are the cause of most or all of the climate change that may be occurring today. We were, however, apparently the result of the many massive cosmic and global changes that preceded us.

                ‘Man-caused climate change?’

                Climate change caused man.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Pregnancy "Choices"

                 Driving home today, I passed a building with a large sign proclaiming “Pregnancy Choices.” It houses a counseling center and offers pregnancy testing and related services. It touts these services as free and promises “no judgment,” “no agenda” and “no pressure.” Its mission is to help “the under-served” pregnant market. If the client should decide she wants an abortion after the “coaching,” they are there to provide support for that client and that decision and facilitate her wishes.
                What must a woman be thinking when she avails herself of this (or a similar) organization’s services? “Let’s see, there are so many choices! I’m pregnant and I don’t want to be. What can be done about that? It’s so confusing!”
                The sinless one doesn’t get a choice. “No judgment” for the mother is a harsh judgment upon the baby. In many cases a death sentence. Talk about “under-served!”

                The rest of us better learn how to (recognize and) handle the truth or we will see our society and ourselves eventually euthanized through euphemisms.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Net Neutrality To Suppress Free Speech

                 Net neutrality? The FCC commissioner himself, Ajit Pai, wrote, “The order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have.”
                Well said, sir.
                This is simply another power grab by an insatiable federal government drunk on its own success at cowing and controlling the people… and thereby trashing the Constitution like a Frat house on Friday night.
                As always, statists couch their arguments for usurping more and more power from the people in terms of wanting to protect the people from those who (they say) have power…namely evil corporations headed by white males. Or, in this case, Internet service providers, which are, oddly enough, not exactly bastions of conservatism.
                Of course, in the real world, those of us who truly cherish free and open communication have a great deal more to fear from the federal government than we do from our ISP’s.
                In recent years, leftists in Washington have tried to use the FCC to destroy conservative talk radio (“the Fairness Doctrine”; I always loved that one…no fairness, all Doctrine). They’ve used the IRS to target and suppress conservative political groups, they’ve tried to “amend” the First Amendment to permit much more regulation of political speech, and, with Robert Kennedy Jr., have actually called for the imprisonment of those who disagree with them on certain issues.
               The "Net Neutrality Act" ( a misnomer, as it isn't an "act", is not legislation and wasn't "passed" by a deliberative body of elected representatives) will slowly but inevitably lead to abuse and the squelching of innovation and expression even as it purportedly seeks to protect free and unfettered access to legal sites and content.  The Fairness Doctrine was really designed to vastly curtail free speech. The People’s Republic of China is not a Republic, but  a communist dictatorship where the people have little  to no say in their government. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a Republic and its citizen-slaves that haven’t starved to death yet have even less say in their government- and their lives- than the Chinese do. Statists love to use certain words and phrases in their  false advertising campaigns to convince the people to trust them and relinquish their natural rights to the federal government.
                The internet  ushered in a new era of freedom…of thought and mind. Despite its excesses, it had made it much, much harder for dictators and totalitarian states to shield their citizens from information and ideas that they don’t wish them to be exposed to.
                Recently the governments of North Korea, China, and Russia, among others, have taken control of the internet and now determine what sites their subjects can and can’t have access to
                Incredibly, the United States is now essentially going to  follow suit.

                The affect of the Net Neutrality Act is not neutral.
                The government is yet again empowered.

                The people are neutered.


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Camp David No Shangri-La To Obama

                It was FDR that turned what is now known as  Camp David into a presidential retreat, one he himself dubbed “Shangri-La” in 1942. President Eisenhower renamed it Camp David after his grandson, David Eisenhower. Virtually every president since has used it as a get-away, a critical refuge from the public spotlight and a chance to spend time outdoors and recharge the executive batteries, as well as a venue for soft-touch presidential diplomacy.
                Many presidents truly enjoyed the more rustic, no-frills living… FDR, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush among them. Dozens of world leaders have spent time there over the years, meeting with the American president and his delegation to discuss matters great and small and perhaps forge a tighter bond.
                George W. Bush often spent weekends and major holidays at Camp David. He frequently invited lawmakers to the compound as part of his outreach to Congress.
                So, when Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani visited Camp David Monday, March 23rd, to engage in weighty geopolitical negotiations on difficult issues, where was President Obama?
                Not there.
                Michelle Obama once stated that the president was “an urban guy” not taken with the place. Apparently, this president doesn’t like being in the woods, on the water, or surrounded by the wilds, even as he panders to radical environmentalists.
                Or perhaps he doesn’t like the Jewish overtones of the name “David.”
                In any case, this ex community organizer and current race-baiter would rather be on a golf course, that symbol of white affluence and exclusivity, and man’s control over untidy nature.
                Just as his long-time pastor/mentor Jeremiah Wright, who famously implored his flock to join him in shouting “God Damn America” because of the nation’s supposed injustice and inequality,  prefers his “house” to be in Tinley Park, a wealthy, mostly white, gated community outside of Chicago rather than in the mean streets of the inner city.

                With liberals, this stunning hypocrisy is... par for the course.


Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Chinese Waste

                Even our garbage is made in China!

                So says a study published online recently in the journal Science. The study, apparently the first worldwide estimate of where the ocean’s plastic garbage comes from, reveals that China’s heavily coastal population contributes as much as 3.5 million metric tons of plastic trash to the world’s oceans each year, primarily because of mismanaged waste.
                Eight of the top 10 most egregious ocean-trashers were in Asia, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri-Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh. The study estimated that between 4.8 million and 12.7 million metric tons of plastic entered the world’s oceans in 2010 alone.
                An oceanographer from the Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts stated, “Our low-end estimate is equivalent to the amount of tuna fished from the ocean in a single year. We are taking out tuna and putting in plastic.” A University of Georgia environmental engineer, a co-author of the study, added that even  the middle range, or 8 million metric tons, “is the same as five (trash) bags filled with plastic for every foot of coastline in the world.”
                The study noted that few of the top contributing countries  have adequate infrastructure for handling trash disposal. That would be stating the obvious. The United States contributes between 40,000 and 110,000 metric tons per year, ranking 20th, the study found.
                While these are very broad estimates and I don’t have great faith in the accuracy of a couple of the studies claims,  it is unquestionably disturbing to have so much trash despoiling the planet’s oceans.
                The U.S. is to shoulder the burden of reducing carbon emissions even as many of the rest of the planet’s top (or soon-to-be top) carbon emitters get a free pass as “developing nations.”
                If our most plastic of Presidents previous remarks touting his deep concern for polluting the planet in any way are not to be proven to be so much… garbage…he needs to hold China- and others- accountable for cleaning up their act.

And our oceans.


Sunday, March 22, 2015

Too Cold For Penguins

                The periodical “Global Change Biology” (I don’t know about you, but I always renew my subscription early) recently published the work of researchers from the universities of Southampton, Oxford, Tasmania and the Australian Antarctic Division suggesting that Antarctica was too cold and icy for penguins during the last ice age. Yes, that’s right, the emperor penguins that thrive in temperatures of well under 20 below zero Fahrenheit and do their breeding on the ice saw their populations plummet between 19,000 and 26,500 years ago new genetic evidence suggests. At this time, Earth’s glacial sheets were more widespread then they have ever been since, and populations were as much as seven times smaller than today, according to an article in the Washington Post last week.
                The researchers traced modern emperor penguins back to three distinct genetic groups that survived the colder period. These groups are believed to have broken into smaller populations of refugees, then became more prominent again once the world warmed up. Again, folks, we are talking about penguins here. You see, even though penguins need ice, they also need access to open ocean for feeding. Apparently, in most parts of Antarctica, the ice cover became too widespread at this time for sufficient access to food. Researchers suspect that the birds that survived relied on “polynyas”. These are places where the wind and currents were strong enough to keep sea ice from forming.
                But, just because these self-same scientists are alleging that the planet is now warming again,   it’s not acceptable to quit worrying about these penguins. On the contrary, they say that, in the Ross Sea, wind pattern changes associated with climate change are now causing an increase in ice.
                So, when the planet warmed dramatically the last time, before any large-scale human activity of note, the ice sheets of  Antarctica naturally shrunk. Now, however, when “experts” allege the planet has been in a man-caused warming phase for decades, they claim the ice sheets there are expanding in some areas. The article went on to say that “this trend is expected to reverse within the century…”
                Oh, why is that? I’m confused. Is it because global warming is expected to cease or get worse? Is “climate change” abating or accelerating?

                It doesn’t matter to the climate change cool-aid consumers.

                It will be our fault in any case.
                Case closed.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Benevolent Sexism?

                “Benevolent sexism makes men more smiley when they interact with women, and that’s bad news. Men who put women on a pedestal may be the wolves in sheep clothing hindering gender equality,” stated a brief article in the “A” section of a local paper recently.
                “A small study examining nonverbal cues in interactions between men and women finds that men deemed to have high ratings of ‘benevolent sexism’- attitudes toward women that are well-intentioned but perpetuate inequality- finds that smiling and other positive cues increase when this kind of sexism is present.”
                No. And no.
                Women make men more smiley when they interact with women. (At least the genuine ones do). Men’s smiling and other positive cues increase when this sex is present, not because of sexism.
 Do we really have to investigate why this might be in 2015? (It’s no wonder we don’t even have replacement fertility rates in the West).
And then label this smiling as “bad” and attempt to cast all those guys who smile at a woman as “wolves in sheep clothing?”
What about all the women who smile- or wink- and flirt with men? Those now empowered to ask the guys to dance? Those engaging in one night stands?
And what, then, can we make of the countless millions of women around the world in love with “Fifty Shades of Grey,” and men like Christian Grey?
I’m tired of the hypocrisy. This kind of sexism against males is not benevolent. It’s purely agenda driven.
So I conducted my own “small” study and here are my “findings”: no man can say the words “puppy” or “panties” without smiling.

And it’s not because he wants to hurt either of them.                

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Thank You, Mother Climate Change!

                The journal Science published a brace of papers recently, in which researchers described the discovery of a 2.8 million year old jawbone studded with teeth in Ethiopia’s Afar regional state. This finding, according to scientists, reveals that our genus, Homo, appeared nearly half a million years earlier than previously believed. This came after branching off from the more apelike Australopithecus genus that included “Lucy,” perhaps the most famous set of skeletal remains in history. Researchers say the significance of the discovery is twofold. First, it solidly fixes the origins of Homo in East Africa. Second, “it fits the hypothesis that climate change drove key developments in a variety of mammals, including our early forebears,” stated an article in the Los Angeles Times about the papers findings.
                When “Lucy” trod the Ethiopian soil roughly 3.2 million years ago, the region had lengthy rainy seasons that supported the existence of many trees and a broad array of vegetation. By the time Homo first appeared on the Horn of Africa, however, the climate had become much drier and the landscape was treeless and looked very similar to today’s Serengeti plains or Kalahari  desert. A tough climate in which to survive.
                But the genius of the genus that includes Homo sapiens is resourcefulness. Larger brains, the ability to fashion and use tools, and teeth suited to chewing a variety foods gave our early ancestors the ability to live in an inflexible environment, researchers claim.
                “This early Homo could live in this fairly extreme habitat and apparently Lucy’s species could not,” said an Arizona State University paleontologist who worked on both studies, according to the Times’ article (titled “Human evolution likely guided by changing climate”).
                The studies’ co-author is the director of Arizona State’s Institute of Human Origins. He stated, “The time period between 2 (million) and 3 million years ago is one of the least-well-understood in human origin studies.”
                We do now know two things. One, we weren’t responsible for the vast changes in climate 2 or 3 million years ago. And two, we wouldn’t be who we are without them.

                We didn’t make climate change, it made us!

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Netanyahu Wins! Putin Missing! Major Sun Flare! Nude Girls! Important New Posts From The World's Best Blog Writer!

                Some bloggers will do almost anything to drive traffic to their site. I, however, refuse to use the desperate and disingenuous tactics that others may employ, relying solely on my peerless content and writing ability to attract readers to this site. This is why I am confident that you will love this post, a lengthy dissertation on the subtle nuances of certain actuarial tables.

                Let’s get started, shall we…? You there?

                Okay, okay. Those of you sucked in by the Netanyahu election results, please read my various posts pertaining to Israel. Putin news gatherers please read my recent posts on Russia…and the Russian President. Those of you attracted by the Sun Flare headline, please feel free to browse around. Finally, to those of you who were scavenging for pictures of nude girls, I can’t help you. However, you might want to check out a few of my posts on relations between the sexes or genders. You may not be aware that we now recognize about as many genders as Heinz has varieties!
                I don’t know that you’d want to see pictures of all of them.

                Well, see you all next post. Godspeed.


Monday, March 16, 2015

Scott Walker Bashers- A Credit To No One

                Society, fixed as it is on “credentials,” is much the poorer for it. We have effectively shut out and precluded many extremely intelligent and creative people from vital roles that they otherwise would play. Most companies (in most industries) will not even grant an interview to a person that doesn’t sport one or more degrees. Even worse, today most resumes are screened by computer programs that automatically reject or throw out any resumes/applications that don’t list a bachelor’s degree and/or other required accreditation. You could be the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Tom Hanks, but you will not even be granted a forum to state your case and exhibit your knowledge, skills and desire.
                No paper, no job.
                Is this really a good way to fully and properly evaluate the potential talent pool? Or is it an easy way out for the employer and a way for those in unions and those who already hold certain jobs to lock everybody else out?
                What if professional sports teams picked their employees the same way? Sure, if they required degrees they would obviously dramatically reduce their talent pool. Insert your own joke here, please. But that’s not what I’m talking about per se’. What if they simply wouldn’t consider any player who couldn’t run a 4.3 in the forty? What if a team automatically refused the resume of anyone under 6’ 3” tall? Or of anyone who couldn’t bench press 300 lbs.? Or had any other type of inflexible, arbitrary,  An enormous number of the best players across all sports would never have gotten a chance.
                The Great Gretzky? Sorry, never would’ve happened. Michael Jordan? Nope. Babe Ruth? Yeah, right! Walter Payton or Barry Sanders? Not so much.
                Poor Scott Walker.  He wants to be President, but doesn’t have a degree. And he wasn’t even a community organizer! All he did was run the state of Wisconsin in difficult times. Outrageous!
                Let’s look at a few past Presidents that didn’t graduate from college or hold a degree. (Yes, there are a few)! Let’s also look at a few who did. The passing of time should help us more clearly see the results of their actions as Chief Executives.
                The first President, the “Founder of Our Country,” didn’t graduate from college. He wasn’t accredited!  As the first Head Honcho of the United States, George Washington didn’t have any precedent to go by, he had to make it all up as he went along. How he did this without at least a Bachelor’s degree is impossible to say. Re-elected, he reluctantly agreed to serve a second term before he retired to his beloved Mount Vernon. Most wanted him to serve another term and some wanted him king. He wanted to relinquish his power and return home. (Understandable, as he was previously away from home for the entirety of the Revolutionary War. King George III of England did not understand. He asked his American painter what Washington would do after winning the War for Independence. His painter stated that “he wishes to return to his farm.” The king, his long-time adversary, replied “if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world!”).
                Not bad for an unaccredited man.
                Then we have Abraham Lincoln. You might have heard of him. He had one year of formal schooling in total and never attended college. He saved the Union that Washington founded. The under-educated Mr. Lincoln helped a nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, endure a bit longer.
                Harry S. Truman carried no college degree, either. He finished up World War II for the U.S. He had to make what many feel was one of the most difficult decisions a President has had to make: whether or not to drop the atomic bomb(s) to end the war. He made the correct choice, ultimately saving hundreds of thousands of lives, many of them Japanese.
                “The buck stops here,” declared the sign on his desk, even though his formal education stopped  before he graduated from college. How is this possible? He didn’t even have a B.S. degree! (Nor did Winston Churchill graduate from college prior to standing up to Hitler- alone for a lengthy stretch- and  saving the free world. The greatest orator of all time didn’t have a college degree).
                On the other hand, we have many Presidents who did/do hold a college degree or degrees, such revered Presidents as Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, LBJ, and Herbert Hoover among them. Luminaries and history-makers such as James Buchanon, Rutherford B. Hayes, John Tyler and Chester A. Arthur pass the college-graduate test, as well. And, of course, Barack Obama is an approved product of higher education!
                Those of you who have graduated from prestigious colleges and universities may be qualified to draw your own conclusions. I have mine. Character? Focus? Drive? Work ethic? Creativity? Independent thought? Mental toughness? Humility? Common sense? Logic and reason?
                Obviously not as important as a piece of paper, especially one from a prestigious “indoctrination factory.”

                We grow dumber by degrees.

                And that is B.S.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

"Climate Change" Frightens U.S. Military

                The Associated Press reports that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated recently that rising sea levels and other effects of climate change will pose major challenges for America’s military, including more and worse natural disasters and the threat that food and water shortages could fuel disputes and instability around the world. Addressing a conference of military leaders as the pentagon released a new report on the issue, Hagel said, “Our military’s readiness could be tested, and our capabilities could be stressed.”
                The new report identifies four things that it says will affect the U.S. military: rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, more extreme weather and rising sea levels.
                Doesn’t our navy go around the world to aid nations and areas that have been hit by natural disasters and consequently food and water shortages? And rising sea levels? Is this really a big problem for our navy? Don’t our boats float?!!
                Rising temperatures will have to be dealt with? What about ISIS in the Middle East? Do they only work in the shade? Is it really a big deal to our special forces if it is 89 degrees instead of 82 degrees?
                Changing precipitation patterns? Really?  “Damn it, how can you expect the marines to do their job when we don’t even know if it is going to rain tomorrow?!” What a disservice to those brave men who’ve gone before.
                This is such a pathetic canard, it is almost beyond one’s ability to describe.
                If there were any challenges to our military because of global warming, they would be glacially- paced in coming. Incremental, and back and forth. Not exactly a “blitzkrieg.”

                And I thought we should be prepared to oppose Russia and China, ISIS and Hezbollah.

                Russia’s modernized nuclear arsenal is growing along with its belligerence. They have already retaken Georgia and Crimea, and are fighting for other parts of the Ukraine. Hello?
                China is modernizing and expanding its own military, and is itself much more bellicose towards both its neighbors and the U.S. than it ever has been.
                We are in the process of essentially allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Might that change the dynamic in the Middle East a bit?!
                Terrorism is surging around the world. Rarely does a month go by without the appearance of a new terror group. It’s hard to keep track of all the names and acronyms as it is. Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaida, ISIS or ISIL, etc., etc.  
                                                                                                                                                                                    Yet our defense establishment is worried about political incorrectness, workplace violence, diversity and now... climate change?


Thursday, March 12, 2015

A Run For The Money

                Andrew Jackson’s portrait has adorned the $20 bill since 1928. “Old Hickory” made it through many battles in his time, but he may lose the one brewing now. The organizers of “Women on $20s” want to see Jackson’s likeness removed from the $20 bill, to be replaced by a woman’s such as Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Tubman… or one of numerous others.
                At first blush this seems odd, as Andrew Jackson accomplished many things that should make him an icon to modern day liberals. He is, in fact, the fore father of the modern day Democratic Party. He dismantled the Second Bank of the United States in 1832 on policy grounds. He faced down South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis when that state’s politicians believed they had the right to nullify Federal law. He strengthened the power of the Presidency and expanded the spoils system to bolster his own political base through patronage. A sure-fire  Democratic hero, no?
                He does have two strikes against him, however. He wasn’t against using military force if necessary and he “relocated” a number of Indian tribes to the West and Southwest.
                The latter is an unfortunate, sad story. But it is not “genocide” as some now believe, including many in the “Women on 20s” group. (The group was named because 2020 marks the 100th anniversary  of  the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Thus they are targeting the $20 bill).
                Rosa and Harriet did do some great things, and Eleanor tried her best while putting up with her wandering husband. Some of the other women on their list to potentially bedeck the bill are not as impressive, and a few of them would be truly shameful and offensive. To whit:
                *Rachel Carson. Seriously? She authored the book “Silent Spring” back in the 1970’s. It turns out that none of her hysterical predictions have come true.
                *Betty Friedan. A vitriolic hyper-feminist with no great accomplishments on her resume’?
                Incredibly, it gets worse.
                *Margaret Sanger. She opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S., hung out with anarchists and was a member of the Socialist Party. A free-love advocate, she had affairs with psychologist Havelock Ellis (love that name) and writer H.G. Wells, among others. (Hence the urgent need for birth control, I guess). She started the precursor organization to today’s Planned Parenthood, “the American Birth Control League.” Her second husband (why do you need a second husband if you are in a free-love relationship or open marriage?), J. Noah H. Slee (you can’t make it up) was, ironically, a wealthy oil baron who funded her “reform” efforts. Margaret believed in Eugenics and in the mandatory sterilization of the mentally-ill or impaired. (Other than that she was a peach).
                Well, I for one, don’t believe this effort goes far enough.  Let’s yank all of the old white guys off our currency. George Washington on the $1 bill? The Father of our country? How passe’ and sexist! Let’s replace him with Gloria Steinem, someone of real character and achievement. Abraham Lincoln on the $5 bill? How about we replace him with “Billary Clinton?” Yes, the first bill to have two people on it! Sharing is good, right? And didn’t/doesn’t Bill  love women? And Hillary is one! For counterfeit protection the shadow of Monica Lewinsky’s dress could be used on this bill. Under UV light it could turn from a faint blue to yellow. And honestly, isn’t honesty overrated?
                Or, even better, let’s put Monica herself on the $10 bill in place of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton wasn’t ever president either and his relationship with George Washington wasn’t as close as Monica’s was with Bill. Just sayin’.
                Then there is Jane Roe (aka Norma McCorvey) of Roe v. Wade fame. The woman who brought abortion into the mainstream of American life. (Talk about genocide!). But wait, she won’t do, she’s become an anti-abortion advocate and now works with Operation Rescue to prevent them from occurring. Never mind.
                How about taking Ulysses S. Grant off the $50 dollar bill? Sure, he and Lincoln won the Civil War, preserving the Union, but he smoked cigars and drank! We could replace him with Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme who attempted to assassinate Gerald R. Ford. I mean, Ford pardoned Nixon, duh! How appropriate.
                Ben Franklin, the randy old codger, is on the $100 bill. He lived in France much of the time. He could be replaced by Patty Hearst. She actually joined the self-same terrorist group that took her hostage! That is so 2015!
                Salmon P. Chase is on the $10,000 bill. All he ever did was serve as Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, and as a senator from Ohio, and as the 23rd governor of Ohio… and the sixth Chief Justice of the United States of America.
               Nobody alive knows who he was.
                Therefore, I propose we expunge him from that bill and replace him with Jenna Jameson. Everyone on the face of the Earth knows Jenna… and is the happier for it. And, in perfect symmetry, she now makes about $10,000 per scene. (More than George Washington made leading the Continental Army to victory over the British and ushering in this nation).

                Face value?

               Right on the money?


  (We could put Kim Kardashian on the two-dollar bill. Jefferson is on it now, but Kim  is, like, way more famous. And if, with inflation over time and the Fed’s loose money policy, a higher denomination bill is needed in the near future, Bruce Jenner might be an attractive option by that time).


Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Red Storm Rising- Part II

                The Bloomberg News story began, “Thousands of Muslims vented their anger in unison, shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ as their leader condemned supporters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo after militants murdered five of its cartoonists.” This protest against caricatures of the prophet Mohammed and the policies of the U.S. and its allies was organized by the state and televised live across the country, but it wasn’t in Iran or Pakistan or Yemen.

                It was in Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is now attempting to turn Muslim anger to his- and Russia’s- advantage by pushing for a united front against the United States. “The protest was an attempt to meld Muslim opinions with Russian-wide views about the Western world” in order to unite the population around Putin one Middle East analyst said.
 Yet Ramzan Kadyrov, a Putin loyalist, has said that the U.S. secretly controls ISIL. Say again?
Fomenting Islamic terror as a weapon against the U.S. and the West is new for Russia.
And now Russia is threatening to cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine and Europe, an action it has taken in past disputes with rivals, even as it categorically denies using energy as a weapon.

 It has come to this: Boris Nemtsov, a Russian opposition leader and sharp critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead last week near the Kremlin. One day before a protest against Putin’s rule. Nemtsov’s lawyer said the politician had received threats on social networks recently and had informed the police about them, but authorities didn’t take any steps to protect him.
What an amazing series of coincidences! One opposition activist said Nemtsov was working on a report presenting evidence that he believed proved Russia’s direct involvement in the separatist rebellion that “erupted” in Ukraine this past year, something that the Russian government has vehemently denied. He has no doubt that Nemtsov’s murder was politically motivated.
An “atmosphere of hatred toward alternative thinkers” has clearly formed since the annexation of Crimea last year, stated a Russian political analyst. (Sadly, an atmosphere of hatred toward “alternative thinkers,” i.e. conservatives, has clearly formed over the years in the United States, as well, especially on college campuses and as illustrated by the mainstream media).
 The Russian authorities were not backing off in the wake of Nemtsov’s death, either, according to the Bloomberg piece. The national Internet watchdog briefly blocked the blog of Alexei Navalny, the leader of a younger generation of Kremlin critics. Just hours after the Nemtsov assassination, investigators showed up at Navalny’s apartment in Moscow, searched his files and confiscated his hard drive. Navalny is in jail serving a 15-day sentence for distributing fliers promoting the rally.
Russia’s state-run television networks, meanwhile, spew violent rhetoric, with anchors bragging about the nation’s military prowess. And “Investigators” say that one of the possibilities they are considering is that the opposition movement itself arranged for Nemtsov to be murdered, in order to create a martyr that it could rally around.
“Investigators” were also forcing Nemtsov’s long-time girlfriend, Ukrainian citizen Anna Duritskaya, to remain in Moscow against her will. She was under heavy guard and will not be allowed to return home any time soon, according to her lawyer.

It’s okay, Anna, the Russians will be bringing Ukraine home to you.


And I wonder when I’ll be home again and the morning answers “Never”
And the evening sighs, and the steely Russian skies go on… forever

(last lines from Al Stewart’s song, “Roads to Moscow,” published by Dick James Music, BMI; 1974 Arista Records, Inc.)


Monday, March 9, 2015

Atlas Should Shrug

                Over 45% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Therefore, less than 55% of Americans pay for everything. They are awarded for this staggering largess by being told they need to “pay their fair share.” Their “fair share”, one might logically surmise, would be around 55% of the federal income taxes paid, not 100%. The top 20% of income earners pay more  than  67% of all these taxes. “Progressive,” you know. They should be lauded as pillars of the community, as not only the most productive, but the most charitable and giving folks in society. Instead, they are called “greedy” by the self-same people who receive all the benefits of this mass income redistribution.
                Literally stupefying.
                If you make a lot more money than I do, have more wealth than I do, and you are made to give me a bunch of it, how is it that I could possibly get away with calling you greedy? Am I not the greedy- and sinfully ungrateful- one?!!
                Then there is the top 1%, who alone pay nearly 40% of all the federal income taxes. In a logical world, I’m sure they would love to pay “their fair share of taxes!” Instead, they are openly and arbitrarily robbed. And reviled. Eat the rich.
                The top 1% of income earners in the U.S. now pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined! That is one of the most amazing statistics I’ve ever heard.

                It is  truly incredible that Atlas has not yet shrugged.

                With the ever increasing and completely illogical attacks on the strong, productive and successful, the rest of us shouldn’t plan on being held aloft for much longer.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Red Storm Rising

                Russian tanks, aircraft, and missiles are rolling off assembly lines at rates not seen in decades. Russian war games involving tens of thousands of troops are breaking out all over. Russian jets roar through European skies with impunity. Though most economic sectors in the world’s largest country are facing a ten percent cut in their budgets this year, military spending for 2015 will rise by a staggering 33%! Russian President Vladimir Putin is clearly ready for a possible showdown with the West over Ukraine. The new Russian military doctrine, endorsed by Putin this past December, actually specifically names NATO as a top threat to the Motherland.
                Russia is reviving Soviet-era airfields and opening new military bases in the Arctic. It has plans to send strategic bombers on regular patrols as far as the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. NATO said it intercepted Russian aircraft more than 400 times last year, triple the intercepts of the previous year. Since annexing the Crimean Peninsula, Russia has deployed scores of combat jets there, including nuclear-capable long-range bombers. The Russian navy finally conducted a series of successful test launches of a new submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missile, and has already equipped two submarines with it. A third will be commissioned next year, with five more to follow. The Russian army, for their part, is set to receive a new tank this year. It will surpass all Western tanks in that it will have a remotely controlled cannon.
                Moreover, last year the Russian armed forces received a record number of 38 new nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. This year they will get another 50, effectively fulfilling their goal of replacing their Soviet-built missiles.
                In an effort to spread fear in the region, this past September Russian operatives crossed into Estonia and captured an Estonian internal security officer at gunpoint and dragged him into Russia. They have not released him.
                On February 21st, thousands of Russians gathered for a protest near Red Square. Many carried banners that said “Die, America!” and “USA, Stop the War!” The first is something we’ve seen in the past only in places such as Iran. The second…is a bit of a puzzler. I mean, Boris, WTF?
                A 65-year-old retired female teacher at the protest stated  that another Maidan “will never win in Russia. I will bring the ammunition myself!” (Maidan is the Ukrainian word for “square” and is usually used to refer to Independence Square, where  Ukraine’s own pro-European protests took place a year ago). In the past year anti-American sentiment has spiked in Russia, to levels not seen since at least the early 1990’s. According to a poll conducted last month by the “independent” Levada Center, 81% of Russians feel negatively about the United States. The number of Russians who described the U.S. as an outright “enemy” leapt from 4% in January of 2014 to 42% in February of 2015!

                There is more “change you can believe in.” Ironic.

                The Russian defense minister stated recently, “The task set by the President not to allow anyone to get a military advantage over Russia will be fulfilled no matter what.”
                Meanwhile, the West frets about how many genders there may be and if they should all use one bathroom. It tries everything it can to not hurt the feelings of Muslims, even those attached to groups known to sponsor terror.

                Obama polishes his golf clubs when not insulting the Israeli Prime Minister.

                Historically, the West never learns from history.

                If it doesn’t get serious soon, it may succumb to it.


Friday, March 6, 2015

Heil, Putin!

                 In recent days the actions, intentions and long-term goals of the Russian Bear have become crystal clear.  She intends to be who she was, intends to become the U.S.S.R. 2.0.
                The tragedy is that this time there is no one- and no nation- willing to challenge her. The Biblical prophecies are rapidly coming true before our very eyes. Europe is weak and self-serving, unwilling to do the hard work either domestically or abroad. The United States has become a paper tiger, unwilling to challenge- or even hold accountable- any of our former or potential enemies. According to some reports, however, it may have challenged Israel… for challenging Iran’s nuclear program! Israel, the tiny speck adrift in the giant Middle East Sea of Hate, may have to stand alone against evil. Or let itself be “wiped off the face of the Earth.”
                Less than two weeks ago, Ukrainian soldiers were routed by Pro-Russian rebels (and, almost certainly, some Russian troops) in the town of Debaltseve, suffering more than 13 dead and hundreds missing, captured or wounded. Afterwards, the rebels (and Russians?) grabbed a bloodied blue and yellow Ukrainian flag and ground it into the frozen earth with their boots, laughing and hugging and posing for pictures. This is also how Russia historically treats cease-fires, such as the one that was in place this time when the rebels attacked Debaltseve.
                And this is what Russia already did to Georgia and plans to do to the rest of Ukraine. And Estonia. And Latvia…Lithuania…and whatever other nearby country N.A.T.O. will let them have. Sound familiar?

                It should.

   Heil, Putin!


(The war in eastern Ukraine has killed more than 5,600 people and forced over a million to flee their homes since fighting began in April, one month after Russia “annexed” the Crimean Peninsula).


Wednesday, March 4, 2015

"Emergency" Spending Bills

             I’m getting really tired of hearing  politicians talk about “emergency spending bills.”
Whenever they really want to get something unpopular passed, they attach it to an “emergency spending bill,” because no Senator or Congressman of either party has the guts to vote against a bill that provides for “emergency spending.” Who gets to decide what program, agency or study is so critically important that it can’t possibly be unfunded- or “underfunded”- for a few weeks without the republic collapsing?
Typically, if a congressman wants to get an amendment through that, say, mandates cutting off the genitalia of all male Tea Party members, he or she will attach it to an emergency spending bill that  provides uninterrupted- if not increased- funding for transgender studies departments at major American universities. In other words, a bill that would be political suicide to block or veto.
If, however,  they wish to whisk an amendment through that would grant illegal aliens driver’s licenses, no-cost healthcare, unlimited food-stamps, gratis college educations, lifetime passes to Disney World, free stays at any AmericInn in the country until 2049 and a cabin in the Hamptons, they may attach it to an emergency spending bill requiring existing citizens to pay higher taxes, turn in their guns and renounce Fox News.
There also exists  the possibility that the congressman may attach an amendment that mandates the uninterrupted funding for transgender studies departments at major American universities to a bill calling for the genitalia of all male Tea Party members to be cut off, so diverse are the opinions, mores and values of most of today’s politicians.
The amendment to increase funding for spotted owl research in boreal forests of north-central Oregon will surely be attached to the emergency spending bill to allow continuous study of the mating habits and gender preferences of the African Tsetse fly.
We are nearly 19 trillion dollars in debt, but there’s just nothing we can cut out of the budget, nowhere we can trim, except for the obvious…national defense.

Once again, Scotty. (Beam me up).

Monday, March 2, 2015

Wisconsin Senate Passes Pro-Choice Bill For Workers

The Wisconsin state Senate passed legislation Wednesday, February 25th that would make Wisconsin the 25th right-to-work state. Predictably, union workers chanted “Shame! Shame!” as the Senators left the chamber after the vote.
                The bill would make it a crime to require private-sector workers who aren’t in a union to pay union dues. Well, duh. It is simple theft. Taking money from somebody against their will  (let alone in this case when those paying don’t receive any benefits  and aren’t  even a member of the organization that requires the dues) is simply theft. There are no two ways about it.
                Opponents of the bill outnumbered supporters at the Capitol by a 70-1 ratio. There’s a shock! Those supporting the right-to-work bill were…at work?! Too polite? Scott Walker won election- twice- by facing down the rapacious unions back in 2011-2012, so we know there is at least a simple majority of voters in Wisconsin that support this measure. 70-1 is a mob, a “thugocracy,” not an indicator of the public’s support. And these opponents of the legislation act accordingly. Two spectators yelled out “This is not about democracy. You work for the people of the state!” Say what? Well, they certainly don’t want this to be a democratic process, as that process passed this bill. And they would love it if the Senators and the Governor worked for “the state,” as in those who work in government.
                Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald said the measure would provide “true workplace freedom.” He also stated that the bill was about giving workers the freedom to decide whether to pay union dues and would be good for the economy. Who’s not pro-choice? In actuality it’s amazing what liberals want people to have freedom of choice on and what they don’t. There decision on whether choice is good or not on any particular issue is made based solely on what makes things easier for them and theirs. They aren’t concerned with access to choice for others such as conservatives, WASPS, babies, constitutionalists, traditionalists, Christians, et. al.
                Many in the crowd outside protesting held up signs saying “Stop the War on Workers.” Why is it that anyone, or group, that disagrees with any of the left’s beliefs is immediately branded as conducting “a War on…?” The “War on Women,” the “War on Workers,” etc., etc.
                Conservatives rarely if ever say the left is conducting a “War on Guns,” a “War on the Constitution,” a “War on Babies,” a “War on White People,” a “War on the Founders,” or such like.

                Are unions conducting a “War on Logic and Reason?”

                You decide.