I’M GETTING SO TIRED OF THIS…

Once again the PBS Newshour has struck a blow for mediocrity in reporting.  Tonight they interviewed a pinhead named Ben Strauss (of the Sea Level and Climate Impacts at Climate Central) who warned of impending destruction of America’s coastline as a result of man made global climate warming change.  According to Ben the scientists say the sea level has increased 4 – 8 inches in the past 100 years.  Additionally, the rate of increase in sea level has increased to .13 inches per year.  For you liberals out there that means that, at that rate, it would increase by 13 inches in the next 100 years.  A number of statements he made suggesting that flooding is getting worse were just really stupid and I won’t waste my valuable time addressing that.  Let’s get back to basics.

Scientists say that we are living in a period of earth’s history described as the Ice Age.  This is not what I say; it is what scientists say.  The Ice Age consists of cycles of change in the overall temperature of the earth.  The period is named for the repeated times of lowered temperature referred to as glacial maximums.  Between these maximums are warm periods referred to as glacial minimums or simply as interglacials.  In one of my posts I referenced a chart made from data downloaded from NOAA which covers the past 350,000 years.  During that time frame there have been three glacial maximums and (including the present one) four interglacials.  When I say the present one what I am referring to is the fact that the global climate has been warming up.  Not since George W. Bush became President.  Not since the invention of the automobile.  Not since the Industrial Revolution.  It has been warming up for the last 20,000 years.  According to scientists.  20,000 years ago ants had more impact on the climate than humans.  And despite the fact that it has been warming up for the last 20,000 years, it is still, and I can’t emphasize this strongly enough for all you liberal nitwits, nearly THREE DEGREES COOLER than the average peak temperature of the last three interglacials.  That is correct – THREE DEGREES COOLER.  So all things considered it should be expected that the natural cycle would mean that the current natural warming of the last 20,000 years should continue until the temperature increases another three degrees.  On the subject of sea level let me point out that 125,000 years ago, during the last interglacial, the sea level rose nearly TWENTY FEET (NOT INCHES) higher than it is today.  Surprisingly, the polar bears, which are now threatened with extinction by a 2 to 4 foot rise in sea level, managed to survive that rise of nearly 20 feet.

OK, so what’s going on.  For years scientists have debated the factors responsible for these warming and cooling cycles.  I’ve discussed these factors at length in earlier posts.  They include things like precession of the earth’s axis, cosmic rays from the sun, the effect of galactic cosmic rays, methane hydrates and changes in the earth’s magnetic field.  Now I would like to bet that you’ve never heard any of these terms mentioned on the evening news in a story about global climate warming change.  What term have you heard a LOT on the news?  CO2, right?  Why do you suppose it has not been considered one of the causal factors of the Ice Age?  That’s simple.  In the historic record, according to scientists, INCREASES IN CO2 FOLLOW INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE and do not proceed them.

So, why do you hear only about CO2?  That’s pretty simple, too.  All the money in the world could not have the teeny tiniest impact on the earth’s axis, cosmic rays, methane hydrates or the earth’s magnetic field.  However, you could spend loads of money and accumulate lots and lots of power pretending to address CO2.  Algore managed to parlay CO2 into becoming the first carbon billionaire without a single accomplishment.  And President Obama has committed the U.S. to spend many billions of dollars to “fix” CO2.  And power?  He has destroyed the coal industry.  He has directed gigantic piles of money to “renewable” energy projects.

This 20,000 year warming trend could go on for another thousand years or it could end tomorrow.   And there’s not a thing anyone can do about it.  Not Algore.  Not any POTUS.  Not the U.N.  No one!

Advertisements

LAST SEPTEMBER

Last September I expressed my concern that the United States might be facing an imminent disaster as a result of our continued falling away from giving honor to God for the way He has blessed this nation.  In my mind I imagined asteroids, earthquakes, volcanoes or terrorist attacks.  Since that warning none of those disasters or others I might have foreseen have occurred.  But now I see that there are many other ways that America can be afflicted by disasters.

We have just lost the primary voice for following the original intent of the founding fathers in writing the Constitution.  President Obama has announced his intent to nominate a candidate to replace Scalia with a liberal and we have a glint of the pressure he will apply to get a vote on his nominee.  One must worry, based on the manner in which Obama has manhandled the Republican leaders of Congress, whether he will get his way.  And despite the rosy picture President Obama has painted of our domestic situation and our world relations, his  domestic and foreign policy fiascoes have left the United States in a truly precarious position.

Tonight it has become clear that we face the very real possibility of a Presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Make no mistake; I will have no difficulty in choosing Trump over Hillary.  But that may only mean that he will be the lesser disaster of the two.  I will not vote for Trump in the primary, but if he gets the nomination I will vote for him over any Democrat in the general election.  But I worry that many of his positions may result in policies almost as disastrous as those of the current administration.  Or maybe, if he has been less than honest, even worse.

It’s not too late America.  Turn back to God before it is.

ABC SUNDAY MORNING

Well, once again ABC’s George Stepinapileofdufus has demonstrated just how biased the alphabet networks are.  This morning he interviewed both Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton.  And George’s textbook demonstration of how to help your political friends was amply displayed in the same question to each candidate.  First up was Marco.  George asked him to verbalize his ultra strict beliefs on abortion.  As Marco tried to explain why he held his particular beliefs, George interrupted him over and over challenging him to say that he opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest.  Only after Marco complied did George allow him to make his point that the right of the fetus to life was not dependent on how the conception took place and that Hillary’s policy was abortion for any reason at any point up to the moment of delivery.

Then came his interview with Hillary and the same question.  Hillary launched into a statement that she has always taken the position that abortions should be safe and legal.  Once and once only did George halfheartedly ask her whether she supported unlimited abortion.  Then he allowed her to make an uninterrupted two or three minute speech about how terrible a decision it was for women to choose abortion – not too hard apparently since there have 55 million of them in the last 44 years.  The closest thing to an actual statement of her policy was when she said several times something along the lines of “my policy on abortion is well known.”  If her policy were as well known as she contended why would she not just say it out loud.  I would suggest that she knows that a lot of people do not know her position on abortion and would be alarmed if they did.

You know, I’ve been told that George ran Bill Clinton’s “Bimbo Eruption Unit” in the 90’s and I have to wonder how ABC can be so openly biased without their own ombudsman publicly rebuking them.  Maybe they fired him.  That’s one way to avoid an uncomfortable situation.  In chess it would be called the “Nixon gambit.”

ECON 101

“Everyone should pay their fair share.” I’m sure you’ve heard this example of liberal speak from many liberal politicians and especially from our beloved leader, President Obama. What you probably do not know is precisely what it means. You may think you do, but there is much more to it than you realize. I will translate it for you. “Everyone who ‘I’ think has too much money should have it redistributed ‘by me’ to those who ‘I’ think don’t have enough money.” Actually, even though POTUS says that a lot he really only means that as a starting point. He actually believes that he knows best ‘who’ should have ‘what.’ Suffice it to say that POTUS believes in a completely centralized (Marxist) government with himself at the ‘center.’

You are perhaps thinking “what has started Sam on this tirade?” Corporate taxes! Some conservatives think it is necessary to explain to liberals that corporations do not pay taxes as if liberals are just dumb. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Liberals understand perfectly in an evilly brilliant way. A conservative will explain something like this –

“If a company needs to charge $100 to make and sell a product at a profit and the corporate tax rate is 10% then the corporation will sell the product for $110. If the tax rate is raised to 20% then the corporation will just pass on that additional amount to the buyer by charging $120 for the product.”

Liberals view this in a totally different manner. Here is the liberal view –

“Why not use the corporation to collect additional (hidden) tax revenue for us. That way we won’t have to go on record (and incur the wrath of the voters) for increasing personal income taxes, but we still get more money. We already know that almost all voters are too stupid to get it that we’re just using the corporation to hide our additional revenue collection. And as a secondary bonus we can increase the corporate tax rate and when they raise the price to pass on that increase, we’ll castigate them for gouging the consumer with higher prices. It’s just too wonderfully perfect for us.”

All that is old news though. After WW2 the United States adopted a policy of trying to help nations to improve their economies as a means of avoiding the kinds of conditions that allowed the Nazis to come to power in Germany. The problem today is that we’ve been pretty successful. In addition, other countries like China and India have been encouraged by the success of other nations to free up their own markets. So instead of Ford competing with Chevy, they’re both now competing against Honda, Toyota, Nissan et al. And therein lies the biggest problem with corporate taxes. Suppose a big developer, Honcho Corp., gets a gigantic contract to build a dam in Africa. They’re going to need 500 bulldozers. Let’s further suppose that U.S. company, Patterputter, can produce and deliver an identically capable bulldozer at an identical cost as one produced by Asian company Coconi. However, the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35% and the Asian country’s rate is only 10%. So the $100,000 bulldozer from the U.S. will now cost $135,000 delivered as opposed to the Asian bulldozer, which will cost only $110,000 delivered. From who do you think Honcho will buy?

Of course, the immediate, involuntary, knee-jerk reaction of liberals to a suggestion that we lower the corporate rate will be “they’re not paying their fair share!” This, even though we’ve seen that corporations do not pay taxes and we know that liberals know that. They just can’t help themselves. The fact is they would rather deny American workers a job than NOT punish a big company. The phrase “cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.”

And how do corporations try to deal with this problem.  Well, if they build their bulldozers in another country with a better tax position they will make more money.  They may also benefit from lower worker cost, though this advantage is rapidly decreasing.  Of course, if Patterputter sells 100,000 bulldozers per year and they start building 25,000 of them in another country, that means American workers will build 25,000 fewer bulldozers and a lot of Americans will lose their jobs.  Doesn’t matter one little bit to liberals.  Patterputter must pay its fair share!  Now you know why I think the corporate rate should be 0%.  There are a lot of other things in our trade policies that cost Americans jobs, but that must wait for another day.

I AM a CURIOUS – FELLOW

I see a few people persistently visiting my Blog and find it rather strange.  Most are from countries other than the United States.  My Blog support is from WordPress which does not identify individual inquirers (or at least I haven’t figured out how to do it), but does tell me the country from which the query comes.  I have to wonder why.  Are you Americans (yes, I know everybody in this hemisphere is technically an American, but we are the victim of one of the few mistakes made by our founding fathers.  If you are from Peru you are a Peruvian.  If you are from Brazil you are a Brazilian.  But we would be United Statesians.  How goofy does that sound?  So [in the spirit of out beloved leader who never stops apologizing for the United States] please accept my apology for us referring to ourselves as “Americans.”  It was our only option.) working and/or living abroad?  Are you natives of the country from which you are inquiring looking for English reading practice?  I think the current count is 34 countries.  If any of you would care to comment to enlighten me I would appreciate it.  In any case, thanks for visiting.