Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Paradigms and Demographics Today: December 6th, 2016

Weasel-words and Phrases

Alveda King on Disproportionate Abortion of Black Babies: 'That's Certainly Black Genocide'
Satanists Plan to Challenge Texas Law Requiring Aborted Babies to be Buried or Cremated
Rep. Bucshon: Aborted Baby Parts Trafficking Probe Not Halting ‘Vital Medical Research’

Castro Notes

$15 minimum wage is not without consequences
The Center Is Not Holding
Last world leader standing: The photo that shows just how much the world has changed in 2016

Global Warming
CBS Hawks Another Antarctic Climate Scare Based on a Lot of ‘Maybe’
Winter is Here!
Shut Down the Department of Energy, Yesterday if Possible

America Agrees with Madonna… We Too are Ashamed that She’s American!
Hollywood Star tells Other Celebrities to Keep their Mouths Shut about Politics!

Media and Communications
A Great Flood of Information
5 Lessons for Republicans from Trump's Win

Middle East
Scrap international opinion, build national consensus: The key to ending the Israeli settlement debate
Turkey’s Desperate President

Weasel-words and Phrases

By Rich Kozlovich

Editor's Note:  I published this some years back, but I think that it is worth publishing once again with some updates. RK

When you start to look at these “studies” touted by the activists you find that there is one common thread. They are full of weasel words and phrases. This gives them a great deal of wiggle room because they never come out and definitively state that things are factual….they are always ‘maybes’, and always scary ‘maybes’. Did it ever occur to anyone that these “Weasel-words and Phrases” are perhaps just somebody’s unfounded printed accusation, or perhaps some professional’s words for guessing? When this stuff makes it into print, they never give the impression that this may be not only a minority opinion, but may be viewed as …..well……whacky……by the rest of the scientific community.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was one such idea that was considered laughable; at least until the government started feeding huge amounts of grant money into studying it and then it became “science”. Especially since only those who promoted it got the money. All the “science” has turned out to be wrong or fraudulent; but what has that to do with grant money? After all, truth is no longer the Holy Grail of science…..The Holy Grail of science is now grant money.

I have been keeping an updated running list of Weasel-Words and Phrases. You might find them amusing…..You will also notice that these phrases appear in all these “studies” that make outrageous claims against chemicals.  Actually, these words and phrases are the same boilerplate stuff turned out by the greenies that's deliberately vague for every one of their environmental crusades
  1. Might cause
  2. Studies suggest
  3. Could cause
  4. The long term effects are unknown
  5. Linked
  6. Voiced concerns about 
  7. Expressed some concern
  8. Experts fear
  9. Warning that the chemical could be causing neurological and behavior effects in unborn babies and young children
  10. Negligible concern is still expressed
  11. Minimal concerns 
  12. Still leaves doubts
  13. Warning of a great cause for concern
  14.  Some scientists were critical
  15.  Researchers hypothesize
  16.  Suspected hormonal imbalance
  17.  Many scientists say 
  18. Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious
  19. Data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem
  20. But government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.
  21. May make women more likely to
  22. We've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations 
  23. Probably to blame
  24. Ecologists are worried that
  25. It has been found through laboratory analysis that (X) substance is present in
  26. While further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that 
  27. While voicing caution on the link to (X), concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, (X) could hurt the environment.
  28. Have the potential to significantly promote
  29. This one is my favorite
  30. The simple truth is that the way we allow chemicals to be used in society today means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people 
  31. Factors suggest
  32. In sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Human impacts beyond isolated cases are already demonstrable. They involve impairments to reproduction, alterations in behavior, diminishment of intellectual capacity, and erosion in the ability to resist disease. (This turned out to be a lie)
  33. Mounting evidence" that these chemicals "may trigger hormonal changes."
  34. There is a serious connection to….
  35. “Scientists are still unsure of the long-term neurotoxicity of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, particularly among children and those susceptible to allergies.”
  36. Contrary to the overwhelming impression conveyed by scientists and politicians.
  37. When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.
  38. "Is'' becomes "maybe;'' "proves'' becomes "validates;''
  39. Providing mechanistic plausibility.
  40. May be more susceptible
  41. Are associated with
I guess that the 100 to 300 million dollars (and that number keeps going up) spent by chemical companies to meet the required testing by EPA in order to introduce a pesticide into the environment is meaningless.  Then again....perhaps I am being too concerned about that which is factual, truthful and provable.  Oh...wait!  It just dawned on me.  Perhaps I can get in on this 'grant money express'. 
Let's give this a try......
There is something in the environment that might cause something because scientists state that studies suggest something could cause long term effects which are unknown due to possible links to some unknown substances that some have expressed or voiced some concerns over. Experts are issuing this warning for fear that this something could be causing some effects in unborn babies and young children. Although negligible or minimal concern is still expressed, studies still leave doubts; therefore questions remain.
Some scientists were critical and felt a warning of a great cause for concern should be issued because researchers hypothesize that something may cause a suspected, or even an unsuspected something. Many other scientists are quoted as saying that; “Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious although the data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem with something.
Although government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved, and lack of evidence from other studies. It is possible that this should make women more likely to be concerned because we've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations which suggest something is probably to blame.
Other scientists say that ecologists are worried that it has been found through laboratory analysis that some substance is present in something and while further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that something could have the potential to significantly promote something. While voicing caution on the link to something, concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, something could hurt the environment.
The simple truth is that the factors suggest that if we allow something to be used in society today, it means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people; in sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Furthermore, due to the growing body of assertions; there is mounting evidence that something may trigger something.
What do you think? Do you think I could ask for a grant of $150,000,000 to get started to study “something”?
It sounds reasonable to me.

CBS Hawks Another Antarctic Climate Scare Based on a Lot of ‘Maybe’

Whenever I read the latest dire warning from scientists about melting this or rising that, I’m tempted to print the article up and mark all of the qualifying words with a highlighter. If I were more patient, I’d do that with every post I read for a year and publish the results. This post from CBSNews.com is a perfect example.  It begins with the requisite alarming headline:
Antarctic ice shelf could collapse within 100 years, scientists warn
It then follows with boilerplate wordiness that is mostly hollow vagueness disguised as explanation.
A massive iceberg splintered off one of West Antarctica’s largest glaciers last year, and now, scientists have discovered the “troubling” reason why, they said.
In 2015, an iceberg measuring almost 225 square miles broke off from the Pine Island Glacier, which forms part of the ice shelf that bounds the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Recently, while reviewing satellite images taken before the giant iceberg broke off, researchers found evidence of a rift at the very base of the ice shelf. This suggests that the sprawling glacier broke apart from the inside out, the new study said.....To Read More....

Scrap international opinion, build national consensus: The key to ending the Israeli settlement debate

By Gidon BenZvi

If you missed the news about the Israeli Air force's alleged bombing of an arms convoy belonging to Hezb’allah and a Syrian Army site in Damascus, you're not alone. There is a glaring lack of media coverage dedicated to Israel's ongoing campaign against the terrorist group. In comparison, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter's calling on the Obama administration to recognize the state of Palestine generated an avalanche of headlines, commentary, tweets, and social media posts.

Why the discrepancy?
The lack of newsworthiness is due in part to a national consensus in Israel that the only way to prevent Hezb’allah from firing rockets into civilian areas inside the country is if IAF warplanes periodically conduct airstrikes in Syria or Lebanon.

Far from being lambasted as right-wing war-mongering, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's repeated vows to prevent Hezb’allah from obtaining “game-changing” arms – specifically, advanced anti-aircraft systems of chemical weapons – elicit little more than a collective yawn. Yet it’s the construction of a few dozen housing units over the Green Line, not the potentially global ramifications of Israel’s attacks on Hezb’allah, that provokes a hysterical reaction from the media......Read more

The Center Is Not Holding

By Michael Curtis

It is a hyperbolic overstatement to say that the center cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, but it is fair to recognize that the tectonic plates of European politics are shifting. In one week in November-December 2016 this actuality was illustrated by electoral results in France and Italy, and to a lesser extent in Austria.

In France, after the victory on November 28, 2016 of Francois Fillon to be the candidate of the right-wing Republic party in the 2017 presidential election, and the growing popularity of Marine Le Pen the leader and candidate of the far right Front National, the incumbent socialist President Francois Holland declared he would not compete in the presidential election. The public opinion polls indicate that since Fillon and Le Pen are leading, a socialist candidate, whether Prime Minister Manuel Valls or someone else, is unlikely to get to the second round, let alone win.......

This attempt to limit immigration of Muslims into Europe comes at a moment when the belief that Muslims may not be part of the national community is understandable.....Paradoxically, the report criticizes the British police for “pandering” to ethnic minorities......43% of Muslims in the country want at least some aspects of Sharia law to be in force and to replace British law.......there is revolt and popular anger against what is seen as the elite and the centrist politics of the country. The populist backlash that took Trump to the White House and Britain out of the European Union is continuing...... Read more

A Great Flood of Information

By Dexter Wright

In the wake of the 2016 election, there have been efforts at soul searching by politicians on both left and right. But neither side has been able to focus on the fact that the river of history is at a flood stage and is washing away the banks on both the left and right sides of the river. This has gone unnoticed for the most part, but as with most things in life, it is easy to see if you just change your perspective, and an historical perspective is what is called for here.

In 1440, Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable type printing press by pouring molten lead into molds to form the individual letters which could be moved and reused to print pages and pages of information on a scale never before seen. Prior to this invention, books were hand scribed, illuminated, illustrated and sewn into a binding which, when finished, was more of a work of art than a volume of reference material. The advent of cheaper and more plentiful books resulted in the widespread availability of information and the Age of Enlightenment began.

This new availability of information, in the form of printed books, resulted in a flood of cultural revolutions with high water marks such as the Reformation in religion, the Copernican Revolution in science and ultimately, in the political arena, the American Revolution.........The Democrats, and probably many Republicans too, have failed to see the raging floodwaters of information lapping on the doorstep of every household as any sort of significant force. But the World Wide Web is changing the course of history. Each household can now observe, without filtration, what politicians are “doing on their behalf.” These flood waters of unfiltered information are washing out the stagnated swamp, and as with the Biblical Flood, a new beginning has been ushered in.........Read more

America Agrees with Madonna… We Too are Ashamed that She’s American!

By Jeff Dunetz December 5, 2016

Hollywood Star tells Other Celebrities to Keep their Mouths Shut about Politics!

By Onan Coca December 4, 2016

Hollywood star Mark Wahlberg has been the lead in many major blockbusters over the years, but he may be laying the groundwork to become even more popular. While many celebrities use their platform to spew their political beliefs and denigrate the beliefs of others, Wahlberg has taken a different path… he keeps his mouth shut about politics. He wishes more in Hollywood would follow his example.

When it comes to talking politics, Wahlberg recently told the military-geared news outlet Task & Purpose that, “A lot of celebrities did, do, and shouldn’t.”

Wahlberg explained that the preachy celebrities who get on their high horse and talk down to people who disagree with them, don’t actually do any good.
“You know, it just goes to show you that people aren’t listening to that anyway. They might buy your CD or watch your movie, but you don’t put food on their table. You don’t pay their bills.”
Wahlberg continued by pointing out that it seemed as though most of liberal Hollywood couldn’t even fathom that a large number of Americans might disagree with them, because they were trapped in the Hollywood “bubble.”.....To Read More....

$15 minimum wage is not without consequences

Donald Trump’s presidency sparks an interesting dichotomy—a Republican that rode into office on a wave of populism, including fiscal populism. Officially, the President-elect favors a higher minimum wage: “On the minimum wage, Mr. Trump has voiced support for raising it to $10 at the federal level, but believes states should set the minimum wage as appropriate for their state.” 

The “Fight for 15” movement is taking notice:
Now, four years into their crusade, the movement’s leaders are signaling a determination to expand their reach beyond the urban working poor, who were among the chief beneficiaries of their earlier efforts. Among their new targets: working-class Americans frustrated by an economy that is no longer producing the middle-class jobs they or their parents once held. 
Many of these workers voted for Donald J. Trump. 
“A whole bunch of us out there are not doing well,” Scott Courtney, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union and one of the chief architects of the Fight for $15 campaign, said in an interview last week.
And, employers are fighting back. For example, take a gander at this op-ed from Fortune, penned by the former CEO of McDonald’s USA:
In 2013, when the Fight for $15 was still in its growth stage, I and others warned that union demands for a much higher minimum wage would force businesses with small profit margins to replace full-service employees with costly investments in self-service alternatives. At the time, labor groups accused business owners of crying wolf. It turns out the wolf was real. Earlier this month, McDonald’s announced the nationwide roll-out of touchscreen self-service kiosks. … 
Of course, not all businesses have the capital necessary to shift from full-service to self-service— … a $15 minimum wage would force many small businesses to lay off staff, seek less-costly locations, or close altogether.
Facesof15.com catalogs the sad stories of dozens upon dozens of employers that have made the sad choice to raise prices, layoff staff, or even shut their doors because of higher state or local minimum wages.

And, in the meantime, “Fight for 15” protests continue nationwide, the latest just one week ago.

If you are faced with protests outside your business, there is not much you can do unless the protesters get out of hand or violent.

There are no easy answers to the problem of low-wage workers. And I believe those that bought into President-elect Trump’s populist message will be pissed when they realize that their working class interests do not fall in line with the core of this administration’s fiscal policies.

In the meantime, understand that a $15 minimum wage has real consequences, and consider whether it’s better to have a job that pays $8 or $10 an hour versus no job at all

5 Lessons for Republicans from Trump's Win

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog 13 Comments
What can Republicans learn from Trump’s victory? The biggest lesson is that the old way of politics is dead. McCain and Romney showed that twice. Now Trump has shown how Republicans can actually win.

1. Find Your Natural Base

The GOP is ashamed of its base. It doesn’t like being associated with the very voters who made 2016 happen. Its autopsy last time around searched for ways to leave the white working class behind.

There’s a party that did that. Their symbol is a jackass. They just lost big because they ran out of working class white voters.

The Democrats have tried to manufacture their base using immigration, victimhood politics and identity politics. The GOP has wasted far too much time trying to compete on the same playing field while neglecting its base. Trump won by doing what the GOP could have done all along if its leadership hadn’t been too ashamed to talk to people it considered low class because they shop at WalMart.

The GOP wanted a better image. It cringed at Trump’s red caps and his rallies. And they worked.

Trump won because he found the neglected base of working class white voters who had been left behind. He didn’t care about looking uncool by courting them. Instead he threw himself into it.

That’s why McCain and Romney lost. It’s why Bush and Trump won.

The GOP is not the cool party. It’s never going to be. It’s the party of the people who have been shut out, stepped on and kicked around by the cool people. Trump understood that. The GOP didn’t.

The GOP’s urban elites would like to create an imaginary cool party that would be just like the Democrats, but with fiscally conservative principles. That party can’t and won’t exist.

You can run with the base you have. Or you can lose.

2. Media and Celebrities Don’t Matter

The first rule of Republican politics is to look in the mirror and ask, “Are we trying to be Democrats?”

Twice Obama’s big glittering machine of celebrities, media and memes rolled over hapless Republicans. Republican operatives desperately wondered how they could run against Oprah, Beyonce and BuzzFeed. How were they supposed to survive being mocked by Saturday Night Live and attacked by the media?

The answer was to find voters who weren’t making their decisions based on any of those things.

The GOP’s approach in the last few elections was to try and duplicate the Obama machine. These efforts were clumsy, awkward, expensive and stupid. The Obama machine was great at influencing its target electorate of urban and suburban millennial college grads because that’s who ran it and directed it. But that’s not the Republican base. And chasing it was a waste of time, money and energy.

Instead of trying to duplicate the Obama machine, the Trump campaign targeted a class of voters who didn’t care about those things. The white working class that turned out for Trump was a world away from the cultural obsessions of the urban elites who had traditionally shaped both sets of campaigns.

Romney wanted everyone to like him. Being rejected hurt him so much because he wanted to be accepted. Trump ran as an outsider. Being rejected by the establishment was a badge of pride. He couldn’t be humiliated by being mocked by the cool kids because he wasn’t trying to be accepted.

Asking, “Are we trying to be Democrats?” isn’t just for policy. It’s also something for Republicans to remember when Election Day comes around. The Republican base isn’t the Democrat base. When Republicans commit to pursuing their base, they can stop worrying about what Saturday Night Live, Samantha Bee and random celebrities think of them. And they can just be themselves.

The mediasphere matters most when you care about it. When you don’t and when you focus on voters who don’t either, then it ends up as weak and impotent as it did in this election.

3. Go Right Young Man

Hillary Clinton’s campaign with its efforts to appeal to Republicans was a master class in triangulation. The Clintons were radicals who wanted to appear moderate. In the final weeks, Hillary’s people got out their brushes and makeup kits and tried to make her over into a candidate anyone could vote for.

But triangulation doesn’t work anymore.

Even before Trump, Bernie Sanders nearly derailed her by running as an unapologetic leftist. Hillary Clinton borrowed much of the structure of the Obama campaign, but missed its biggest feature.

Obama was much closer to Bernie Sanders than to Bill Clinton. He promised to destroy coal jobs, defended wealth redistribution and turned “You didn’t build that” into his mantra. It was a long way from Hillary’s ultra-cautious campaign. And it worked. Obama’s left-wing base turned out for him.

Trump won by unapologetically going to the right and infuriating the left. And it also worked.

Hillary hired plenty of Obama’s people, but it was Trump who had truly learned the lesson of Obama’s victories. American elections are no longer won by going to the center. Some of the most endangered senators had been centrists. The Republican moderate strategy cost them two presidential elections.

The radical left has polarized the country. Chasing the center is a dead end. Instead you champion your base. You promise them everything they want. You make them love you. And you win.

Instead of retreating, you double down. It doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks of you. If your base loves you and will stand for hours waiting to hear from you, they will do that on Election Day.

It worked for Obama. It worked for Trump.

4. Money Doesn’t Matter

What do Krispy Kreme, Costco and Donald Trump have in common? They don’t advertise.

When you have a compelling enough product, then you don’t need to advertise. You will be talked about and the customers will want to know more about you.

You still need money to win presidential elections, but you need a lot less money than the consultants and experts would like you to think that you do. Trump spent a lot less than Hillary Clinton did.

Ad budgets have ballooned, but the impact of advertising in the age of the smartphone is shakier than ever. Ads for national candidates have far less impact than their public presence in the reality show of life. Far more Americans followed Hillary’s health crisis than watched all of her ads combined.

Trump was unafraid to benefit from gobs of media coverage. Even when it was mostly negative. Meanwhile Hillary avoided engaging with the media while spending a fortune on advertising. It was an expensive and outdated approach that didn’t work for her during the primaries or the general election.

The Trump campaign didn’t repeat Romney’s mistake of spending a fortune on consultants. Hillary Clinton did. It’s usually the unnatural candidate, the politician least comfortable in his own skin, who makes that mistake. Instead Trump spent money on the practicals, like the ground game, he paid more attention to local ads than to national ads. And he didn’t make the common mistake of believing he could buy the election. It’s not how he had won the nomination. It’s not how he won the election.

5. Controversy Works

Trump’s campaign was declared dead more often than disco. None of the scandals worked. None of the outrage stopped him. Instead it helped him win. Every downturn in the polls preceded another upturn.

If you’re running as a consensus candidate, a scandal can destroy you. But if you’re running against the system, then scandals only make you stronger. Each attack on Trump gave him credibility. It defined him as a politician who wasn’t part of the system. And none of Trump’s critics understood that by attacking him they were only helping him win. They couldn’t stop this compulsive behavior even when it didn’t work. Surely the next scandal was the one that would finally and permanently do Trump in.

Even now they’re still thinking that way.

Traditional campaigns are run by professionals who see their job as avoiding controversy. Candidates are schooled not to offend anyone. But if you don’t offend anyone, you also don’t inspire anyone.

Inspiration without controversy is a fridge magnet. In politics to inspire, you must be controversial.

Controversy made Trump a national and then an international figure. The more an establishment attacked him, the more he was seen as a savior by its enemies. Controversy, more than anything else, made him a change candidate. Trump wasn’t Teflon. He didn’t survive attacks the way Bill Clinton did. Instead he thrived on them until he became the voice of millions of angry Americans.

Controversy isn’t something to be feared. It’s something to be embraced.
In the years ahead, consultants and experts will insist that Trump’s campaign was a fluke that nothing can be learned from. They will argue that the old failed way of politics is best. But the old way of politics is dead. The future belongs to Republicans who listen to their base instead of their consultants.

The future belongs to Republicans who care more about what their supporters think of them than what the media does.

(This article first appeared as "5 Ways Trump Shows How to Win Elections" at Front Page Magazine.)

Last world leader standing: The photo that shows just how much the world has changed in 2016

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has resigned following his defeat in the country’s referendum to reform the constitution
An image of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, America’s outgoing President Barack Obama, Italy’s newly resigned Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and former British Prime Minister David Cameron speaks volumes about the turmoil seen in world politics over the course of this year. The picture was taken in April this year at a G5 summit, but only one of these world leaders is still in a position of power and also seeking another term in office in the next year following a series of shocking events, from the UK voting to leave the European Union to Italy voting against constitutional reform, resulting in the resignation of two European prime ministers in the space of six months.....To Read More...

Turkey’s Desperate President

A country on the edge.
Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a desperate man. He is faced with turmoil at home and abroad, the Turkish lira is crashing and internationally he is in the doghouse... the AKP turned on its military and secular opponents....Then the turn came to the liberals..... “Our dream of a European Turkey has turned into a nightmare.....The results are clear. Over 92,000 have been detained, 40,000 arrested and 115,000 people have been dismissed from public service. Turkish prisons are overcrowded and there are reports of mistreatment, torture and already 25 suicides.......

Erdogan has already turned his back on the Lausanne Treaty from 1923, which defined the borders of modern Turkey, and has instead invoked the Misak-i Milli National Pact, passed by the Ottoman parliament in 1920, which laid claim to areas of Greece, Syria and Iraq.......Meanwhile, the Turkish economy, which is dependent on foreign capital, continues to tank. Moody’s has downgraded Turkey’s credit rating to junk....To Read More....  

My Take - What really stood out to me in this article was Turkey's rejection of the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 - signed by Turkey as a result of losing WWI - and has now decided to adopt the Misak-i Milli National Pact as it's new foreign policy laying claim to areas of Greece, Syria and Iraq, none of which they can occupy since they don't have the money or the military to do so, even though neither Greece, Syria or Iraq would be capable of defending themselves against any real adversary, and by 2030 - based on economics and demographics - Greece may not even be an independent country.

But this is the kind of thing that makes Putin worried and want to control Ukraine.  There are seven defensive gaps Russia has to defend - and they only have the manpower to defend three of them.  Two of them are in the Ukraine.  And what neighbor do the Russians have to defend those gaps against?  Turkey! Turkey and Russia have been traditional enemies for centuries, and nothing's changed.


Castro Notes

Fidel Castro: Death of a Communist Dictator
By Stephen W. Browne
“The world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights,” said President-elect Donald J. Trump.....

Fidel Castro Hated America
By Cliff Kincaid
“Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro’s family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. In the days ahead, they will recall the past and also look to the future. As they do, the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.” President Barack Hussein Obama........

Castro, Obama and the Prisoner’s Dilemma
By José Azel
Cuba, the non-cooperative betraying criminal, received the favorable treatment of being rewarded with U.S. diplomatic relations. And, the accommodatingly silent Obama administration ought to be harshly sentenced in the court of public opinion for its failure to act in the best interest of the United States to get its Hellfire Missile back. It is hard to conceive a more graphic example of a failure to protect U.S. national security interests. Just as troubling, the administration kept this information from Congress and withheld it from any public discussion of the new U.S. - Cuba policy........

Alveda King on Disproportionate Abortion of Black Babies: 'That's Certainly Black Genocide'

By Barbara Hollingsworth

Pro-life black leaders are denouncing the disproportionate number of black babies who are aborted every year as genocidal population control.  According to the latest report from the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) 35 percent of of unborn babies aborted in the U.S. in 2013 were black, even though blacks make up only 13.3 percent of the total population.

“All abortion is genocide. All abortion is eugenics. It’s designed for population control for various reasons," Alveda King, the niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., founder of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition, and director of Civil Rights for the Unborn at Priests for Life, told CNSNews.com.  “The numbers are higher in the African American community, so that’s certainly black genocide,” she said. "But abortion is genocidal in nature and it is a eugenicist plot.".....To Read More....

Satanists Plan to Challenge Texas Law Requiring Aborted Babies to be Buried or Cremated

By Lauretta Brown

The Satanic Temple released a statement Saturday challenging new rules proposed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott which require aborted babies to be cremated or buried and go into effect Dec. 19th.   The Satanic Temple called burial rites a “well-established component of religious practice” and said their members believe in “the inviolability of the body,” concluding that “as such these rules contradict our fundamental beliefs.”

The Satanists invoked their First Amendment “right to practice our beliefs,” adding that “under the Religious Freedom Reform Act (RFRA), the State must present a compelling reason for why they want to enforce rules that inhibit adherence to our religious practices.”....To Read More....

Rep. Bucshon: Aborted Baby Parts Trafficking Probe Not Halting ‘Vital Medical Research’

By Lauretta Brown

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), a cardiac surgeon, countered claims Thursday that the work of the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives was halting “vital medical research.”  The House debated providing additional funding to the panel, which is looking into the ethics of the medical practices of abortion service providers and the business practices of the procurement organizations who sell baby body parts.   Bucshon pointed out that “human fetal tissue research represents only a tiny fraction of the overall scientific enterprise. In fact, only 0.2 percent used human fetal tissue.”........

while it is commonly claimed that fetal tissue was used to produce the polio vaccine, this is largely false. The polio vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk in 1955 using a monkey cell line, and is still produced using monkey cells.”    “Of the 75 vaccines in use today, not one was produced with fetal tissue. Furthermore, the NIH has not funded fetal tissue transplant grants for nearly 10 years,” Bucshon emphasized. “That should tell us something.”.....To Read More...

Shut Down the Department of Energy, Yesterday if Possible

December 5, 2016 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

President-Elect Trump has picked Ben Carson as his Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which immediately produced two thoughts.

First, since he had the best tax plan of all the 2016 candidates, too bad he wasn’t named Secretary of Treasury.
Second, I hope his job at HUD is to shut down the department, raze the building, and get the federal government out of the housing business.
Then I realized I was thinking too narrowly. Shouldn’t all Trump appointees start with the assumption that their department, agency, or program is an unconstitutional waste of money? I’ve already written columns explaining why some cabinet-level bureaucracies should be abolished.
Now let’s expand this list by taking  a look at the Department of Energy.

And our job will be easy since William O’Keefe has a very persuasive column for E21. Let’s look at some of the highlights, starting with the observation that the bureaucracy was created based on the assumption that the world was running out of energy and that somehow politicians and bureaucrats could fix that supposed problem.
The Department of Energy (DOE) traces its roots to the energy crisis of 1973, which was made worse by misguided government policy.  …there was, at the time, a firm belief that the world was going to run out of oil by the end of the century. Not only does the world have plenty of oil, but the United States is now a net exporter of natural gas–and would be exporting more if DOE was faster with its approvals. …Prior to DOE, the federal government played a very limited role in energy policy and development.  Presumed scarcity, excessive dependence on OPEC nations, distrust in markets, and the search for energy independence became the foundation for what is now a $32.5 billion bureaucracy in search for relevance.
In other words, the ostensible problem that led to the creation of the department was preposterously misdiagnosed.

The market produced lots of energy once the shackles of government intervention (including those from the Energy Department) were sufficiently loosened.
So what, then, does the department do?
What DOE has done is squander money on the search for alternative energy sources. In the process, it enabled Bootlegger and Baptist schemes that enriched crony capitalists who are all too willing to support the flawed notion that government can pick winners and losers.  For 2017, a large chunk of DOE spending–$12.6 billion, or 39 percent—is earmarked to “support the President’s strategy to combat climate change.” This is not a justifiable use of taxpayer dollars. Over 36 years, DOE’s mission has morphed from energy security to industrial policy, disguised as advanced energy research and innovation.  There is a long and failed history of industrial policy by the federal government.
Here’s the bottom line.
DOE has become the Department of Pork. …Energy firms do not need government subsidies to innovate and develop new technologies.  Horizontal drilling and fracking came from the private sector because the incentives to develop shale oil and gas were stronger than the illusions driving alternative energy sources. …Abolishing DOE would punish only the crony capitalists who have become addicted to its support.

By the way, Mr. O’Keefe’s argument is primarily based on the fact that DOE doesn’t produce value.
Since I’m a fiscal wonk, I’ll add another arrow to the quiver. We also should abolish the department so that we can save a lot of money.

My colleague Chris Edwards has an entire website filled with information about the uselessness of the department. You can – and should – spend hours perusing all of the information he has accumulated.

But here’s the part that jumped out to me. Over the years, the federal government has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars on a department that is most famous for wasteful Solyndra-style scams.

By the way, there are a small handful of activities at DOE that should be shifted to other departments (such as transferring nuclear weapons responsibilities to the Department of Defense).

But the vast majority of DOE activities never should have been created and produce zero value, so the sooner the bureaucracy is eliminated, the better.

P.S. We can have tons of evidence about the desirability of shutting down the Department of Energy, but it doesn’t matter if there aren’t politicians who think it is more important to protect taxpayers rather than to funnel money to cronyists and interest groups. We’ll have to wait and see whether Trump chooses wisely, though I’m not holding my breath. We certainly didn’t get any pro-taxpayer shift of policy the last time GOPers were in charge of the White House. And Trump’s commitment to the notion of smaller government doesn’t seem overly robust, though I very much hope I’m wrong.

Winter is Here!

By A.F. Branco December 5, 2016

Despite Denial, Global Temperatures Dropping Fast
All Global Data Sets Show Temperatures Falling As El Nino Ends
Image result for the guardian

David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday simply reported what has happened recently to the Lower Tropospheric temperature over land. They show the El Nino spike very clearly and the possible return to pre El Nino temperatures. Some have said the article is flawed because it has cherry-picked the particular data used, implying it is the only data set that shows the global temperature drop. This is nonsense. Other temperature data sets show something similar – that the global temperature has fallen a lot in recent months as a result of the ending of the El Nino. – David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 5 December 2016

HadCrut4 global land and ocean data
With 2016 on track to being the warmest year on record, some climate scientists and environmentalists declared the recent slowdown in global warming to be over. But that might not be the case, according to a new study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. They say there’s a 16 percent chance global warming could progress at a slower rate through 2020, and a 6 percent chance the slowdown could last until 2030. --Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 1 December 2016
The spike in global temperatures from the 2015/2016 El Nino has caused some to declare the warming slowdown to be over. This is not necessarily the case; we will need at least another 5 years of observations to determine whether the slowdown is over and warming resumes at a pace of at least 0.2°C/decade, or whether the slowdown will continue for another decade or two.—Judith Curry, Climate Etc., 30 November 2016
Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.” I understand why Mr. Podesta — most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman — wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena. --Roger Pielke Jr. The Wall Street Journal, 3 December 2016
Dan M. Kahan and Jonathan C. Corbin have published a new study titled “A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization.” Right-leaning subjects (Conservatives-Republicans) who have a better understanding of current science and math and/or can be characterized as having the mental/personality trait of actively cultivating an open mind have less belief in the consensus version of climate change. This is the result that Kahan and Corbin label “perverse”.  --Kip Hansen, Climate Etc., 1 December 2016

Monday, December 5, 2016

Paradigms and Demographics Today: December 5, 2016

My Commentary
The Left's War of the Words: Part IV

Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?
OECD Overlooks Amazing Success of Low-Tax Singapore, Urges Higher Taxes in Asia
The U.S. Economic Power

Forgotten (or Expunged?) History - Wolves
My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
Rolling back environmental progress?

Feeling the Bern: Venezuela to issue larger bill as currency continues to melt
Jeep Carrying Fidel Castro Ashes Breaks Down Mid-Funeral. ¡Viva La Revolución!

Europe in Crisis
Italian PM Matteo Renzi to resign in wake of referendum defeat

Shadow Government
Political Science’s “Theory of Everything”

Social Paradigms
IQ is Unmentionable

The Left's War of the Words: Part IV

Islamophobia: A word created by fascists, and used by cowards to confuse morons. - Christopher Hitchens

By Rich Kozlovich

Christopher Hitchens didn't say much I agreed with, but when he gets it right - he has a way with words.  The left has a way of using more words in more undefinable - or perhaps I should say unendingly redefinable - ways than anyone.

Take for example the word progressive.  That's what they called themselves at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Then they became liberals. Both of which means they're socialists, radicals and all round leftists. And we need to get this. Fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin - socialism.

Were the progressives socialist? Yes, but socialism didn't float in America in those days because socialism is foundationally atheistic, so they called themselves 'progressives' in order to fool society, and the binding force for that movement was - believe it or not - religion - in the form of the "social gospel". (and here also.)

But that didn't change who they were then, or who they are now, and the religionists were merely tools to the progressive movement to be used and tossed aside when no longer needed or useful.

These socalled progressives also refer themselves as activists, advocates - or when publicly organized - advocacy groups. They all have one defining role - they're all troublemakers!  Just as these anti-Trump riots and demonstrators - and in this case as so many others - they're paid demonstrators, even being bussed in from other states.  The left defines this as  "working courageously", which means sometime in their left wing insanity they were arrested for picketing, demonstrating, or burning down buildings.

As in all things left - nothing is as it seems, especially in their use of words to confuse and fool society.  The left has no moral foundation except for one thing.  Gain power by any means available.

Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?

William R. Morton, Analyst in Income Security
Wayne Liou, Analyst in Social Policy

November 23, 2016 Congressional Research Service


Summary The Social Security trustees project that, under their intermediate assumptions and under current law, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund will become depleted in 2023 and the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund will become depleted in 2035. Although the two funds are legally separate, they are often considered in combination. The trustees project that the combined Social Security trust funds will become depleted in 2034. At that point, revenue would be sufficient to pay only about 79% of scheduled benefits.

If a trust fund became depleted, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.

It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were depleted. After insolvency, Social Security would continue to receive tax income, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid. One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits.

Maintaining financial balance after trust fund insolvency would require substantial reductions in Social Security benefits, substantial increases in income, or some combination of the two. The trustees project that following insolvency of the combined funds in 2034, Congress could restore balance by reducing scheduled benefits by about 21%; the required reduction would grow gradually to 26% by 2090. Alternatively, Congress could raise the Social Security payroll tax rate from 12.4% to 15.7% following insolvency in 2034, then gradually increase it to 16.8% by 2090.

Trust-fund insolvency could be avoided if outlays were reduced or income increased sufficiently. The sooner Congress acts to adjust Social Security policy, the less abrupt the changes would need to be, because they could be spread over a longer period and would therefore affect a larger number of workers and beneficiaries. Even if changes were not implemented immediately, enacting them sooner would give workers and beneficiaries time to plan and adjust their work and savings behavior.

This merely the summary.  There's much more in the pdf here. 

OECD Overlooks Amazing Success of Low-Tax Singapore, Urges Higher Taxes in Asia

December 4, 2016 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

I wrote a rather favorable column a few days ago about a new study from economists at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Their research showed how larger levels of government spending are associated with weaker economic performance, and the results were worth sharing even though the study’s methodology almost certainly led to numbers that understated the case against big government.

Regardless, saying anything positive about research from the OECD was an unusual experience since I’m normally writing critical articles about the statist agenda of the international bureaucracy’s political appointees.

That being said, I feel on more familiar ground today since I’m going to write something negative about the antics of the Paris-based bureaucracy.

The OECD just published Revenue Statistics in Asian Countries, which covers Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines for the 1990-2014 period. Much of the data is useful and interesting, but some of the analysis is utterly bizarre and preposterous, starting with the completely unsubstantiated assertion that there’s a need for more tax revenue in the region.
…the need to mobilise government revenue in developing countries to fund public goods and services is increasing. …In the Philippines and Indonesia, the governments are endeavoring to strengthen their tax revenues and have established tax-to-GDP targets. The Philippines aims to increase their tax-to-GDP ratio to 17% (excluding Social Security contributions) by 2016…and Indonesia aims to reach the same level by 2019.
Needless to say, there’s not even an iota of evidence in the report to justify the assertion that there’s a need for more tax revenue. Not a shred of data to suggest that higher taxes would lead to more economic development or more public goods. The OECD simply makes a claim and offers no backup or support.

But here’s the most amazing part. The OECD report argues that a nation isn’t developed unless taxes consume at least 25 percent of GDP.
These targets will contribute to increasing financial capacity toward the minimum tax-to-GDP ratio of 25% deemed essential to become a developed country.
This is a jaw-dropping assertion in part because most of the world’s rich nations became prosperous back in the 1800s and early 1900s when government spending consumed only about 10 percent of economic output.

And not only were taxes a concomitantly minor burden during that period, but many nations didn’t have any income taxes at all.

At this point, you may be thinking the OECD bureaucrats are merely guilty of not knowing history.
That certainly would be a charitable explanation of their gross oversight/mistake.
But there’s something else in the study that makes this benign interpretation implausible. The study explicitly notes that Singapore is a super-prosperous developed nation with a very low tax burden – way below the supposed minimum requirement identified by the OECD.
Singapore has the highest GDP per-capita of the six countries and one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios. …The low tax-to-GDP ratio is explained by lower income tax rates (particularly on corporate income) and VAT rates, compared to other Asian countries. …The tax-to-GDP ratio in Singapore is lower in 2014 relative to 2000, driven by the decrease of individual income tax rates and corporate income tax rates.
Here’s a chart from the report showing that taxes consume less than 14 percent of economic output in Singapore.

Needless to say, there’s nothing in the report to square the circle. Nothing to explain why Singapore manages to be so rich with such a small burden of government. It’s as if the bureaucrats hoped that nobody would notice that numbers in the study undermined their ideologically driven claim that tax burdens should climb in Asia.

Indeed, I wonder if Hong Kong was omitted from the study simply because that would have further undermined the OECD’s preposterous assertion that higher taxes are a route to economic development.

P.S. Having low taxes and a modest burden of government certainly is part of what can make a nation rich and successful, but the real goal should be to have a good mix of free markets and small government. Singapore does that, ranking #2 in Economic Freedom of the World.

Other Asian nations, by contrast, may have modest fiscal burdens, but the potential economic benefit is undermined by statist policies in areas such as trade, regulation, monetary policy, and property rights. This certainly helps to explain why countries such as Indonesia (#79), Malaysia (#62), and the Philippines (#80) have much lower scores for overall economic liberty.

P.P.S. I’m not sure why the OECD would produce such sloppy research. If they simply wanted to create a false narrative, why didn’t the bureaucrats omit Singapore and simply hope nobody knew the numbers from that country (or the historical numbers for North America and Western Europe)? My suspicion is that the senior political types at the OECD wanted to produce a study that would be helpful for certain politicians  in the region (i.e., allow them to justify higher tax burdens) and they figured a lot of people would only pay attention to the press release.

P.P.P.S. The OECD certainly has a track record of dishonest research.

Forgotten (or Expunged?) History - Wolves

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Sanatyana

Jim Beers

Churchill worried not so much that those who forget the past are condemned to relive it, but that the loss of the past would mean “the most thoughtless of ages.”

As rural Americans, urban Americans, federal bureaucrats, radical organizers, federal politicians, professors, media mavens and the Washington “establishment” continue their 45-year hokey pokey wolf dance on the national stage; reasonable Americans are saying, “Enough!” Millions of lost tax dollars, extensive rural ruination, diminished big game herds, widespread disease infecting the American landscape and state governments becoming little more than enablers to radical causes and federal bureaucrats: all this with nothing more to anticipate than more and more and more. Watching all the “returning wolf management to states”; “studies” that are little more than propaganda pieces; and “documents”, “hearings”, “input”, and “decisions” that are no more than Soviet rules issued to vassal “republics” in the 1950’s is like listening to vile rap music words 24/7 in some tyrants prison cell.

We have become inured to the lies and unjust nature of the last 45 years under the Endangered Species Act, especially concerning wolves and grizzly bears. Opposition to wolves, grizzly bears and federal decrees about wildlife and “the environment” is equated in schools to smoking, racism and questioning government sex and race preferences. No one seems to believe anymore that wolves, like grizzly bears, do not belong in settled landscapes.

Just how far into imaginary unrealism about wolves we have sunk came home to me today as I read a Book Review in the Sunday Wall Street Journal. It was a history book that brought to mind Santayana’s aphorism and the unattributed observation about Churchill that appear above.

The reviewer was Stephen A. Schuker, a professor of history at the University of Virginia. The book is The Pursuit of Power: Europe, 1815-1914 by Richard J. Evans, published by Viking, 819 pages. It is the “seventh in a nine-volume set by distinguished practitioners spanning European history from the classical world onward.”

A few quotes from the review can give the flavor of the book:

“Liberalism, romanticism, nationalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, positivism and other ‘isms’ all find a place in these pages.”

“He writes with admirable narrative power and possesses a wonderful eye for local color; few readers will complain.”

“The author does equally well in showing how Europeans gained mastery over the natural world. They constructed roads and canals, and they channeled today’s navigable rivers, draining the malarial swamps around them, even before railroads and telegraphs linked distant cities beginning in the 1830’s.”

Note that this is a history book with no particular axe to grind about nature other than to place in perspective human events in a constantly changing environment of nature and human society. It is with this perspective in mind that I quote the following observation in the review and ask you to consider the words I have highlighted.

“Although village communities remained in the grip of atavistic superstition and enchantment, the inhabitants gradually tamed the ubiquitous forests and subdued the wild animals that made them dangerous. (Wolves, all the same, continued to eat 200 Russians annually for decades.) Mr. Evans traces the origins of zoos and elucidates the mania of aristocrats for displaying status by hunting big game, which they could do conveniently with new breech-loading rifles."

Consider these two facts together: “wolves continued to eat 200 Russians annually” and the advent of “breech-loading rifles”. Not even the “convenience” of “breech-loading rifles” (the equivalent of today’s drones, satellites and missiles in those years) could repress the human carnage from wolves in the pre-Soviet Russian Empire. Setting aside the losses of sheep, cattle, desirable game animals and what we know today about wolves as vectors of disease – wolves kill people. Depending on available food, weather, wolf density and other factors wolf attacks can increase or decrease but never disappear.

Despite a written history going back to Pliny the Elder (a Roman naturalist and military commander that died during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD) about the death and destruction caused by wolves; as Churchill and Santayana observed we prove ourselves to be “the most thoughtless of ages”, “doomed to repeat” what history warns us about in no uncertain terms.

We sit back and tolerate wolves being forcibly reinserted into the settled landscapes not only of the United States but of Europe as well. We accept the silliest lies and disinformation (that they are an endangered “Species” and thus must be accommodated no matter the costs) as justification for this.

We now are supposed to believe that wolves are “unique”; as distinct from other animals as hippopotamuses from giraffes. In fact they are as biologically “unique” as an Irish setter is from a basset hound.

Wolves breed with and have viable puppies with coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and ALL domestic dogs; yet we are told that the death and destruction wolves bring to settled landscapes must be endured because they are as “important and unique” as a rhinoceros is from an elephant or a crocodile is to riverbanks.

Wolves are currently crossbreeding with coyotes and dogs wherever the two cohabit in the Lower 48 United States.

All the falderal about “red” wolves, “timber” wolves”, “Mexican” wolves, “gray” wolves, etc. is silly justification for the sort of broad political agendas behind other environmental bogeymen like the climate change circus. Such wolf distinctions as bigger, smaller, darker, lighter, and behaviorally different based largely on the circumstances of their upbringing are characteristics shared by all those animals with which they breed and produce viable offspring. Imagine two Doberman pinscher breeders arguing about which kennel has the “best” Doberman: the muscular ones or the thin ones; the aggressive ones or the family-pet ones; the tall ones or the shorter ones; the dark ones or the red or lighter colored ones; etc., etc.

While wolves are the largest and most dangerous manifestation of the animals they breed with; we need go farther than the simple observations of dog owners worldwide when we remove the anthropomorphism and understandable affection so common among dog owners for their dog or dogs. Any dog can be mean and dangerous. Whether from mistreatment or simple behavioral differences due to a lack of any discipline, St. Bernards have suddenly killed children in the home as well as have Staffordshire Terriers killed children and elderly members in the home. Even mellow dogs like Golden retrievers have been known to snap and bite kids that get too near them while feeding. Yet most St. Bernards are wonderful and patient family pets and many Staffordshire Terriers have been known to be fierce defenders of “their” family and residences. Domestic dogs that run away have been known to quickly form a “pack” and prove remarkably dangerous and destructive to domestic and wild animals and even children that catch their interest while at the same time urban parents supporting wolves will rightly call the police or dog wardens to quickly catch or dispatch such “packs” immediately. Does anyone seriously wish to argue that 100+ lb. wild wolves are not infinitely more dangerous when hungry, or in packs, or when someone runs or shows themselves to be young or elderly or disabled, or is between them and a dog they want to kill or livestock or a downed game animal they want to kill and/or eat?

In the light of repeated historical records of wolf violence on humans, what are we to make of those persons forcibly imposing the wolves in our settled landscapes? Are they simply fools? Are they ignorant? Are they (like climate change believers with other far-reaching agendas) fooling us purposely? Are they pagan believers in the worship of animals in an imaginary ecosystem? Are they eugenicists, bent on “controlling” rural populations? Are they radicals intent on returning rural America for unfathomable reasons into those no-humans, wild and dangerous forests that our ancestors made into productive and fruitful human societies?

What would drive anyone to return something into their neighbor’s midst that killed “200 Russians a year for decades”? What could justify something that is like returning malaria or a dictatorship to communities where they would only kill a few hundred people a year? How did such a thing ever arise in a Constitutional Republic like the United States of America or in the European Union? Are there no good men left?

How sick is all this? How anti-human!

The incoming US Administration nailed it right on the head, “Washington is a swamp and it is time to drain it!” Federal excess in the US has gone way beyond the Pale and must be restrained significantly.

To quote Shakespeare’s Puck in A Midsummers Night’s Dream, “What fools these mortals be.”

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

IQ is Unmentionable

John Craig, Just Not Said, November 26, 2016

IQ brings liberalism crashing down. That’s why we never hear about it.    The extent to which IQ has simply disappeared from public discourse has been amazing. It’s not even mentioned in the context of noting how those horrible racists think there’s a genetic difference between the races when it comes to intelligence.

It has simply disappeared.

It’s almost as if the Left realizes that they’ve lost the nature/nurture argument, so feel it’s best to just not bring up the subject..........As the evidence accumulated, eventually it became plain that intelligence is largely genetic in origin. All the studies comparing IQ differences between adoptive siblings and biological siblings, or between separated identical twins and regular siblings raised together, pointed in the same direction. And every sophisticated mathematical analysis applied to studies of IQ pointed toward regression to a different mean for each race............To Read More....