Take Your Pick of Lies about Ozone, Methane or Mercury

Is it surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?

There is currently a piece of legislation under consideration by Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act, to force the EPA to disclose its scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.

This is what Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation had to say regarding the mercury air and toxics rule that the EPA claims would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. “The two studies that represent the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.”

In addition to claims about carbon dioxide as a dreaded “greenhouse” gas, methane is also getting the attention of those opposed to “fracking”, a technique that has provided access to both natural gas and oil. James M. Taylor, a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, noted in January that “Natural gas has high methane content, but the methane is converted to energy when natural gas is burnt.” Citing U.S. Energy Information Administration data, Taylor noted “The ongoing decline in methane emissions supplements ongoing declines in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.” Since 2000 both are down between 6% AND 9%.

The EPA is forever claiming billions in “health benefits” that result from their regulations. The public never gets to see the data on which such claims are based. The regulations, however, cost billions.

The day before Thanksgiving, the EPA announced that it intends to propose an updated national standard for ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog, based in part on the enforcement of rules concerning mercury. The previous day, the Supreme Court said it would review the agency’s standards requiring reductions of mercury emissions and other elements the EPA regards as toxic air pollution.

To put all this in perspective, in August CNS News’ Penny Starr reported on a study by the National Association of Manufacturers regarding the EPA’s proposed regulation of ozone. It found that “it could be the costliest federal rule by reducing the Gross National Product by $270 billion per year and $3.4 trillion from 2017 to 2040, and adds $3.3 trillion in compliance costs for the same period.” NAM president, Jay Timmons, said “The regulation has the capacity to stop the manufacturing comeback in its tracks.”

Concurrently with NAM, the American Petroleum Institute released an analysis of the NAM study that said “The nation’s air quality has improved over the past several years, and ozone emissions will continue to decline without new regulations.” NAM’s vice president of energy and resources policy, Ross Eisenberg, said, “We are rapidly approaching a point where we are requiring manufacturers to do the impossible.”

That, however, is exactly what the ozone regulation is intended to do. This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with destroying the nation’s power producers and manufacturers, reducing vital electrical energy, and forcing factories of every description to close.

At the upper levels of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, ozone is essential to the survival of life on Earth because ozone filters harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sunlight. Otherwise the radiation would damage both plant and animal life. The reason you get sunburned is that too much UV radiation has caused it. Like everything else in nature, too much or too little determines the harm or benefit it provides, but that too is largely determined by nature.

Ozone is a form of elemental oxygen, but it’s not something you want to breathe. As Wikipedia notes, “It is not emitted directly by car engines or by industrial operations, but formed by the reaction of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that react to form ozone directly at the source of the pollution or many kilometers down wind.” The initial mandate of the EPA to clean the air and water has been achieved. That is why smog is relatively rare nationwide. Further regulation is regressive.

As for mercury, in 2011 the EPA issued 946 pages of new rules requiring U.S. power plants to sharply reduce their emissions of mercury even though they were already quite low. As with the proposed ozone rules, the EPA claimed that they would cost $10.9 billion annually to implement, but would save 17,000 lives while generating $140 billion in health benefits. This is all just hogwash. Such figures are just plucked out of the air or, worse, based on “science” the public paid for but is not allowed to see!

Does anybody find it bizarre that, while the EPA is trying to remove the tiniest amounts of mercury in the environment, in 2011 Congress passed a law eliminate the incandescent light bulb and required their replacement by fluorescent lights that contain mercury?

As Willie Soon and Paul Driessen wrote in a 2011 Wall Street Journal commentary, “Mercury has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment. Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and trees, which absorb it from the environment.” They noted that “Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.”

The fundamental EPA lies about ozone and mercury involve the issue of toxicity. Since both are a natural part of the Earth, and since the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and since life expectancy has been increasing dramatically in recent decades, the likelihood that either represents a threat requiring the expenditure of billions to reduce tiny amounts of their emissions is based on environmental ideology, not on science.

Even if it was based on alleged science we would, as noted, not be allowed to see the data. If this reminds you of the way ObamaCare was foisted on “the stupid voters”, you’re right. The EPA hopes you are stupid enough not to realize that it is engaged in the destruction of the economy.

Editor’s Note: Help Dr. Jeremy W. Grabbe of SUNY Plattsburgh at Queensbury by participating in his survey about climate change. Go to www.surveymonkey.com/s/WHLF7XS and take a minute to answer the questions.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

False Predictions that a Huge Earthquake Can Happen “Anytime”

An article by Lyn Leahz in BeforeItsNews.com cites David Wilkerson’s vision that “The United States is going to experience, in the not-too-distant future, the most tragic earthquake in its history.” We believe Wilkerson was a godly man and blessed with insights, but the title of her article suggested it can happen “anytime.” The sense of impending calamity was true of prophets like Joel (2:10,11) and Zephaniah (1:7)

Wilkerson never saw the earthquake. His vision was in 1973–and he is dead and gone. And while we can expect the possibility of a man-made earthquake with HARRP technology (search YouTube if you haven’t seen it) as a pretext for martial law and control of the masses, a really huge earthquake should have biblical timing, and it may be expected this spring.

Why this spring? Because it would seem like God is marking this coming year with a solar eclipse as the biblical year begins in spring as He indicated to Moses in Exodus 12:2—the eclipse occurring on a new moon which signaled the new month and beginning of the new year in the text.

Then there is a “blood moon” on Passover two weeks later, much like Israel put blood on doorposts two weeks later in Exodus 12:7. God said He would “execute judgment” in the context of Passover in Exodus 12:12. Calamity befell them and there was a “midnight cry” like Christ foretold in His wedding parable that woke the 10 women up for the wedding. In Egypt, God took Israel to a wedding—they made a covenant and He later said, “I am married to you,” Jeremiah 3:14.

Paul says that history will repeat. He included the Exodus when he said, “All those things happened to them for examples….written for [us] upon whom the ends of the world are come,” 1Corinthians 10:1,11

Paul also said the end-time “day of the Lord” would come with “sudden destruction” when they are saying ‘Peace and safety.’ 1Thessalonians 5:2,3. That might imply Israel being forced to sign a peace treaty with Palestinians as our Muslim-favoring White House considers sanctions against Israel.

Re a huge earthquake, the insight offered by Ellen White is of interest. She was esteemed a prophetess by Seventh-day Adventists, but she saw her church in apostasy until the Lord comes. Nevertheless, she is a credible witness for these reasons:

She founded Loma Linda University, a community featured in National Geographic’s cover story on health and longevity as the only “blue zone” in the western hemisphere, November, 2005. The article pictured Marge Jetton, 100 years old, putting gas in her car. On an average, Adventists live 7-10 years longer than others in controlled studies, which is why NIH funded a study for millions to discover why.

It’s probably due to diet. Dr. Clive McCay, Professor of Nutrition at Cornell University, summarized a 7-page review of Ellen White’s writings on health–-“In spite of the fact that the works of Mrs White were written long before the advent of modern scientific nutrition, no better over-all guide is available today”

Back to the “Big One” and credibility as a prophetess…while visiting NYC, she was shown tall “buildings rising story after story…warranted to be fireproof…consumed as if made of pitch.” Vol 9 pg 11-13, of Testimonies for the Church, published in 1909.

In the same book, she visited the medical school she founded and saw a vision of an earthquake in which “many lives were blotted out…It seemed that Judgment day had come.” ibid, pg 93. Casual readers think she was reporting the San Francisco Earthquake that occurred then, but on pg 95, she cited Zephaniah 1:8 where God says, “In the day of the Lord’s sacrifice [Passover] I will punish…the king’s children clothed in strange apparel.”

Ellen White did not want pharmacology taught. She said drugs change the form and location of the disease. If she were writing today, she would probably call them Adverse Drug Reactions, cited in Journal of American Medical Association, April 15, 1998 as the 4th leading cause of death, but updated to #1 now at LeadingCauseOfDeathPrescriptionDrugs.com

Seventh-day Adventists think they are the “king’s children,” and American Christianity is also lukewarm with materialism and subject to the “knock” in Revelation 3:20 for a church that anciently ended in an earthquake circa 63 AD.

Christ words, You don’t know the day or hour” meant Christ’s disciples didn’t understand, and each time He said it, He gave an example that fit a provision in their law for Passover a month later, “as the days of Noah” when the Flood came with Passover timing, but in the 2nd spring month. Further clues explained in #8-10 at TheBridegroomComes.com.

RELATED VIDEO: Experts VERY CONCERNED-Warning USA To Prepare! Horrific Monster Quakes To Shake the Hell Out of USA!

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Ruhling recommends an inexpensive soft cover of Ellen White’s book on health as the best single book ever written on health, happiness and how to live life well. Readers can get a copy at  http://ChooseABetterDestiny.comThe book is non-denominational. Readers may also appreciate a copy of Dr. Ruhling’s latest eBook, “Our High Destiny Discovered in the Bible’s 7 Wedding Messages” free this Saturday – Happy Holidays! The featured image is from San Andreas the movie.

International Emissions Idiocy

Most of the people of the world have concluded that the decades of warnings about “global warming” and its successor, “climate change”, is just idiotic nonsense. Few believe that humans ever had or ever will have any role in what the weather will be tomorrow or a thousand years from now. They are right.

One of the most distinguishing factors about the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has been the way its advocates have always predicted major changes decades into the future. When the future arrived, as it has since the first doomsday predictions were made in the late 1980s, they simply push off the next arrival date for another couple of decades. A classic example is the prediction that that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice would have all melted by now. Instead the global cold weather have been making new records of late.

Delegates from two hundred nations attended the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties and the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol which took place from December 1 through 12. COP 20/CMP 10 was hosted by the Government of Peru in Lima. The event is part of the United Nations agenda that began with the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

The Kyoto Protocol dates back to 1997 and sets limits on how much “greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), nations could permit. The theory, now long since debunked, that CO2 was rising and would cause the Earth to warm too much was right in only one respect. There is more CO2, but the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for some 19 years at this point. The U.S. did not ratify, i.e. sign onto the Protocol. The Senate unanimously rejected it. Canada later withdrew from it. China and India were both exempted from it!

So what we have been witnessing have been a bunch of international officials wrangling over something that did not happen and will not happen.

The hard core “Warmists” wanted the climate change agreement to be legally binding under international law. They were led by those from the European Union. They and others wanted more money to be spent on renewable energy, wind and solar, and money given to poor countries to help them deal with climate change.

The COP20 conference was not about the climate. It was about funding wind and solar energy projects that have proven globally to be huge, expensive failures, and about providing money to poor countries that, as often as not, are poor because they are poorly governed. It’s a scheme based on totally false “science.”

Cover - Climate for the LaymanAs to the “science” proclaiming a warming Earth and that “greenhouse gas emissions” are responsible, the easiest and most entertaining way to learn the real science is to read Anthony Bright-Paul’s new book, “Climate for the Layman.”

Bright applies the known knowledge of the universe in which we live with the kind of logic you are not likely to hear from the likes of Al Gore or Bill Nye the “science guy.” Add to them the blissfully ignorant legions of “leaders” of various nations who have signed off on “global warming” without a lick of knowledge with which to refute the lies and you get idiotic conferences and demands to end the beneficial use of fossil fuels which improved our lives long before and since the IPCC was created.

“So how does one measure the temperature of something that has a multiplicity of temperatures and is constantly on the move?” asks Bright. “It is clearly impossible.” How difficult is that to understand?

“In my dictionary,” says Bright, “’Global’ is defined as ‘worldwide’. So let us ask ourselves the question—has there been a worldwide warming of 0.07 degrees Celsius? Has there been a uniform increase in temperatures worldwide? The answer is simple. It is utterly impossible to make such declaration”, adding that “It is completely impossible to measure the temperature of the atmosphere which is 100 kilometers high and which has a huge range of temperatures in a continuous state of flux.”

If it cannot be measured then years from now the climate cannot be predicted. The weather—what is happening where you live—can only be predicted in general terms for the next few days and that is largely thanks to modern satellites. Moreover, the weather is never exactly the same from day to day. Meteorologists focus on what’s happening now, but climatologists measure the climate in units of decades, the smallest of which is thirty years. The largest take in millions of years.

Carbon dioxide is such a minor “trace” gas—0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere–that most people are astonished to learn that it is Nitrogen and Oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere. Both are transparent to incoming and outgoing radiation. It is the Earth that acts as a conductor of heat, affected as always by solar radiation. It is the Sun along with the actions of the oceans and volcanic activity that determines the weather and, long term, the climate.

Virtually everything you have heard or been told about “greenhouse gas emissions” is pure bunkum.

The Earth is not a greenhouse closed in by heat trapping gases. It is the mass of the Earth that absorbs the Sun’s radiation and reflects it into the atmosphere. The process is so dynamic that there is no way to accurately predict what the temperature anywhere on any day.

The IPCC and its idiotic “climate change” conference wants you to believe it can predict the climate of the entire world! And control it.

Not a single dime of U.S. taxpayer’s money should be devoted to either the U.N. or any bogus “global warming” claims. We could begin by defunding the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations to limit “greenhouse gas emissions”, the reason they give for closing coal-fired plants to produce electricity.

We should laugh Secretary of State John Kerry off the stage every time in claims that climate change is the greatest threat to life on Earth.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

VIDEO: Marc Morano and Apollo 7 Astronaut Walt Cunningham in contentious debate at Lima Summit

Apollo 7’s Walt Cunningham: ‘My background in space science. My doctoral thesis that I was working on was fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field. I have no political inhibitions at all, I just think we ought to be honest about this and not be trying to use it to our own ends to try to get money from the government.’ Also see: Apollo Astronaut Slams UN for perpetrating the ‘one of the biggest frauds in the field of science’

Marc Morano: ‘The UN is first and foremost political and they have bastardized science to achieve a political end…The UN claims that they can alter global temperature and storminess and weather events many decades to 100  years into the future. And the United Nations does not have that power — that is reserved for medieval witchcraft.’

Morano: ‘If we did face a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on the UN, we would all be doomed!  People in the developing world need carbon based energy. It has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet. It brought us long life expectancy, low infant mortality. We should be here to praise carbon based energy.’

UN Climate TV Description of Debate:

Marc Morano, Walt Cunningham , CFACT

From Lima: COP20 UN Climate Change Conference 2014 in December 2014

COP20 (11/12/14) – Marc Morano of CFACT and Walt Cunningham talk to RTCC about their opinion that human activity cannot alter the climate. They feel that global efforts to tackle climate climate change, particularly in the UN, are politically and financially driven, referring to these efforts as the “global warming war”. They also debate the idea that their views are only held by a small minority of climate scientists, arguing that this notion is based on flawed evidence. In addition they talk about the difficulty of securing funding as a sceptical organisation, likening their struggle to David and Goliath. They go on to state that continuing to rely on carbon intensive energy is the best protection against extreme weather events.

Climate Depot’s Selected Transcripts:

Marc Morano: The UN is first and foremost political and they have bastardized science to achieve a political end. The head of the IPCC climate panel has said they are at the ‘beck and call’ of governments. So there whole mission is to enrich the UN. They are using that to claim that they can alter global temperature and storminess and weather events many decades to 100  years into the future. And the United Nations does not have that power — that is reserved for medieval witchcraft.

It’s about centrally planning a global economy — that is the agenda. It has got nothing to do with climate science. The UN is hyping the alarmist science and it is really bad science at times – when UN scientist and spokesmen are claiming that every weather event it proof of global warming.

In 1846, aborigines blamed bad weather on the introduction of the white man. In 1933, Syria banned the yoyo because they thought it caused drought. During WW2, many people thought the war caused bad weather. In the 1970s bad weather was blamed on global cooling. Now they are blaming our SUVs and modern way of living for bad weather. Bad weather happens all the time.

Question: UN asks Cunningham and Morano about alleged 97% consensus:

Walt Cunningham: ‘It is one of the most ridiculous numbers that I have ever seen used in this process.

UN TV interviewer to Cunningham: What are your qualifications?

Cunningham: My background in space science. My doctoral thesis that I was working on was fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field. I have no political inhibitions at all, I just think we ought to be honest about this and not be trying to use it to our own ends to try to get money from the government.

Morano on alleged 97% consensus:  The media refers to Rajendra Pachauri as the top climatologist, his background is in economics and engineering, he was a train engineer. The idea that somehow skeptics aren’t qualified to dissent. As Walt mentioned the 97% consensus alleged is not even 97 scientist, it is 77. Other survey have come out since and there have been peer-reviewed studies debunking them.

The UN is self-selected. Governments pick scientist that will play ball and toe the line. It is a political pressure group disguised as science – the IPCC. It is really appalling what is happening.

Cunningham: They go ahead and sell that then to the public who is not scientifically trained and does not understand when you should accept data and when you should not accept data. These people are politically driven, financially driven.

UN TV Asks About Funding of Skeptics

Morano: Fossil fuel donations to groups like the Sierra club exceed our annual budgets by 3 or 4 times. We are truly the David vs. the Goliath that is the global warming establishment.

UN TV asks about funding of GOP candidates by climate ‘deniers’:

Morano: They always mention the Koch brothers. One survey found the Koch Brothers are only 59th giving in U.S. politics. Way down the line. American labor unions are the largest and of course they mostly give to Democrats. Any perceived advantage is not there. The Left and the climate establishment has people like Tom Steyer who has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats just on the climate issue. So if you want to play the money game, skeptics are the David vs. the Goliath of the climate establishment.

UN TV asks what if skeptics are wrong about global warming?

Morano: You are basically saying what is wrong with an insurance policy? Well the UN is selling a policy with a very high premium with no payout. If we did face a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on the UN, we would all be doomed! The UN is in this for political reasons. Carbon based energy is the best ‘insurance’ against extreme weather, bad weather. The more development you have the more you can handle floods, hurricanes, droughts. Despite the fact that those are all on either stable or declining trends. Carbon based energy, coal, oil, natural gas, that is what the developing world needs more than anything.

The United Nations knows all about carbon based energy, this is one of the highest carbon footprint conferences they have ever had. Your president, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri says he lives in airplanes.

People in the developing world need carbon based energy. It has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet. It brought us long life expectancy, low infant mortality. We should be here to praise it. And it turns extreme weather into weather we can deal with. The more infrastructure you have from carbon based energy, the more you can deal with bad weather.

Related Links:

Skeptics Cleared Off Stage: Apollo 7 Astronaut Rushed Off Stage At UN Climate Summit To Make Way For Kerry Photo Op – Skeptics’ presentation at UN Abruptly Cut Short

Greenpeace faces ‘criminal’ prosecution for desecrating Peruvian sacred sites – Forced to apologize – Exclusive Video of Peruvians reacting

Reactions to Lima summit conclusion:

Warmists slam ‘lackluster’ Lima climate deal: ‘Little scientific relevancy…half-baked…bare minimum… political expediency won’

Lima climate conference tensions may bring storm clouds to Paris

Associated Press: ‘Weather porn? Storms take over evening news’

Paper: New era of cheap oil ‘will destroy green revolution’

Paper: UN climate negotiators pass watered-down deal in Lima

Lima climate change talks end in agreement – but who won?

UN summit rejects solar power as ‘too unreliable’ – Chose ‘diesel generators’ instead! Lima ‘organizers rejected powering the [summit] with solar panels on the grounds they were too unreliable’

Paper: ‘Lima climate talks reach global warming agreement’ – ‘Deal would for first time commit all countries – including developing nations – to cutting emissions’

Lima’s UN Climate Conference The Most Disgraceful, Destructive Ever…Time To Disband The Traveling Parasitic UN Circus

IS LIMA A FAILURE?

Obama’s Possible Paris Climate Agreement End Run Around the Senate

Skeptics Welcomes Non-Binding And Toothless UN Climate Deal

UN Climate Talks Once Again Break Down Over ‘Climate Reparations’

Tame tornadoes: Quietest 3 years for twisters on record

UN planning a global carbon tax?

Claim: Rising sea levels could make Florida beach front property ‘worthless’ in a few decades

German Scientists: ’2°C Target Purely Political’

Ice Expanding! Highest Global Sea Ice Since 1988

Shock News Report: BBC News: ‘Arctic sea ice volume holds up in 2014′ – ‘Ice may be more resilient than many observers recognize’

Roundup: UN’s COP-20 Ignored by Sunday Talkies and Video of Greenpeace Activists Damaging World Heritage Site

Bianca Jagger adds some glamour to the Lima climate jamboree: ‘Time is running out’ !

Video Coming Soon: Walt Cunningham & Marc Morano in contentious debate with UN TV Host

With Gore seated in the front row, John Kerry Tries To Out-Gore Al Gore in Lima

Harvard Astrophysicist: 2014 ‘Hottest Year’ Claim A ‘Prostitution Of Science’

Analysis: Kerry’s UN climate speech was packed with misinformation

UN SECRETARY GENERAL CONTINUES TO IGNORE CLIMATE REALISTS

John Kerry warns of ‘moral failure’ at climate conference

Kerry warns of climate ‘tragedy’

Time to tackle global warming running out, Pope tells climate summit

Skeptics Cleared Off Stage: Apollo 7 Astronaut Rushed Off Stage At UN Climate Summit To Make Way For Kerry Photo Op

UN hosts climate skeptics at summit: Apollo Astronaut Slams UN for perpetrating the ‘one of the biggest frauds in the field of science’

What Atheists and Evolutionists Don’t Understand about Intelligent Design

A new young pastor and his wife arrived in October excited about their opportunities, but when they saw the church, it was run down and needing much work. They set a goal to have everything done in time to have their first service on Christmas Eve.

They were ahead of schedule but on December 19th a rainstorm hit the area that lasted for two days. The pastor went to the church and his heart sank. The roof leaked, causing a large area of plaster to fall off the front wall of the sanctuary. The pastor cleaned up the mess and anticipated postponing the Christmas Eve service.

Heading home, he saw a local business was having a sale for charity, so he stopped in. One of the items was a beautiful handmade, ivory colored, crocheted tablecloth with fine colors and a Cross embroidered right in the center– just the right size to cover the hole in the front wall. He bought it and headed back to the church.

It was starting to snow. An older woman running to catch the bus, missed it. The pastor invited her to wait in the warm church for the next bus. The pastor got a ladder, hangers to put up the wall tapestry, but then he noticed the woman walking down the aisle. “Pastor, where did you get that tablecloth?”

The pastor explained. The woman asked him to check the lower right corner to see if the initials, E.B.G. were crocheted into it there. They were. These were the initials of the woman, and she had made this tablecloth 35 years before, in Austria.

The woman could hardly believe it as the pastor told how he had just gotten “The Tablecloth”. The woman explained that before the war she and her husband were well-to-do people in Austria. When the Nazis came, she was forced to leave. Her husband was going to follow her but he was captured and sent to prison. She never saw her husband or home again.

The pastor wanted to give her the tablecloth; but she made the pastor keep it for the church. The pastor insisted on driving her home. That was the least he could do. She lived on the other side of Staten Island and was only in Brooklyn for the day for a housecleaning job.

What a wonderful service they had Christmas Eve. The church was almost full. The music and the spirit were great. At the end of the service, the pastor and his wife greeted everyone at the door and many said that they would return. One older man, whom the pastor recognized from the neighborhood continued to sit in one of the pews and stare, and the pastor wondered why he wasn’t leaving.

The man asked him where he got the tablecloth on the front wall because it was identical to one that his wife had made years ago when they lived in Austria before the war and how could there be two tablecloths so much alike? He told the pastor how the Nazis came and he forced his wife to flee to safety and he was going to follow, but was arrested and put in a prison. He never saw his wife or home again in 35 years.

The pastor asked him if he would allow him to take him for a little ride. They drove to Staten Island to where the pastor had taken the woman three days earlier. He helped the man climb the three flights of stairs to the woman’s apartment, knocked on the door and he saw the greatest Christmas reunion he could ever imagine!

EDITORS NOTE: This column is by Pastor Rob Reid and was edited by Richard Ruhling. To learn more visit: http://ChooseABetterDestiny.com.

The World’s Climate Change Mafia Meet in Peru

To understand all the talk of “climate change” you must understand that everything and everyone involved—except for those of us who debunk the lies—are engaged in a criminal enterprise to transfer billions from industrialized nations to those who have failed to provide a thriving economy, often because they are run by dictators or corrupt governments who skim the money for themselves.

The lies being inflicted on Americans include Obama’s “war on coal” that is shutting down coal-fired plants that affordably and efficiently produce the electricity the nation needs, along with the six-year delay of the Keystone XL pipeline. Add in the thousands of Environmental Protection Agency regulations affecting our manufacturing, business and agricultural sectors and the price we are paying is huge.

At its heart, environmentalism hates capitalism.

One of the worst parts of this scam to take from the rich and give to the poor—otherwise known as “redistribution”—is the way the world’s media have played along since 1992 when the first Earth Summit was held in Rio. The perpetrators are headquartered in the United Nations, home to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sets the agenda.

While the 20th session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Conference of Parties meets in Lima, Peru this week, perhaps the most egregious and outrageous example of journalism was the December 2nd Associated Press article, “Hotter, Weirder: How Climate Change and Changed the Earth.” It is not attributed to a specific reporter; perhaps because it is filled with lies from start to finish.

It starts with the biggest lie of all: “WASHINGTON (AP) — In the more than two decades since world leaders first got together to try to solve global warming, life on Earth has changed, not just the climate. It’s gotten hotter, more polluted with heat-trapping gases, more crowded and just downright wilder.”

The Earth is in the 19th year of a natural cooling cycle, the result of a comparable cycle on the Sun which is producing less radiation to warm the planet. What astounds anyone who knows this is the article’s assertion that “It’s almost a sure thing that 2014 will go down as the hottest year in 135 years of record keeping, meteorologists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center say. If so, this will be the sixth time since 1992 that the world set or tied a new annual record for the warmest year.”

Would government agencies that are beholden to the existing administration for their budgets lie to the public? Yes, they would. While all fifty states experienced freezing weather within the past month, we are still being told that 2014 set new records for warmth. To borrow a phrase from Jonathan Gruber, the architect of ObamaCare, the government can tell “stupid” voters and others anything it wants in order to achieve its goals.

For the record, in 2013 and much of 2014, there have been record low numbers of tornadoes and hurricanes. There was a record gain in Arctic and Antarctic ice. There was no change in the rate of sea level rise; something measured in millimeters. The weather is the weather and that includes dramatic events such as blizzards or droughts, but it is hardly uniform. Depending on where you live on planet Earth, you will experience it differently on any given day.

As representatives of 190 climate mafia meet in Peru, you will be given data about carbon dioxide (CO2). The AP article cites increases of “60 percent.” If that were true, it would be good news. All vegetation on Earth depends on CO2, just as humans and other living creatures depend on oxygen. More CO2 means healthier forests and greater crop yields, an agricultural bonus in a world that needs to feed seven billion people. But it’s not true. Nor is the claim that the mere 0.04% of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere traps so much heat we’re all going to die. It doesn’t and most of us will die of old age.

As Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research reported in June, “The U.S. already leads the world in CO2 reductions and is a great role model. U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell 12.6 percent between 2005 and 2012, thanks to technology and conservation. Worldwide, CO2 emissions increased by 17.7 percent during the same period.” That’s a far cry from the AP claim of 60 percent.

The Peru conference is another effort to impose a global tax on “carbon” and to increase the UN’s “Climate Fund” to which some nations have pledged $9.3 billion. To put this in perspective, the United States just set a new record of $18 TRILLION in debt and cannot afford to be pledging money to that fund or any other fund. Most of that debt has been incurred during the one and a half terms of Barack Obama who just happens to be telling everyone that “climate change” is the greatest threat to all life on Earth.

“Climate change” is what the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth has been doing during all that time and will continue to do. Humans experience it as the “weather” which is measured in days and weeks while climate is measured in units not less than thirty years and more often in centuries. Today’s weather prediction is good for, at best, five days and is subject to change at any time.

As for all those claims about “global warming” it’s worth keeping in mind that not one of the computer models cited to prove it has been accurate. There isn’t a model or a computer big enough to take in all the many elements that compose the weather anywhere and everywhere on Earth. The weather is always in a state of flux and change, just as the temperatures during any hour of the day are in a stage of change.
Here’s a bit of advice. Do not believe anything that comes out of the UN conference because, scientifically speaking, it will be a lie. And don’t believe anything the Associated Press reports on “climate change” because that too must automatically be regarded as a lie as well.

Whatever Barack Obama has to say about “climate change” (formerly known as “global warming”) is a lie. It would be nice to have a President and a government we could trust.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Texas Citizens Cleanse anti-American Bias from Public School Textbooks

On Friday, November 21st something monumental happened in Austin, Texas at the State Board of Education.  The Truth in Texas Textbooks (TTT) Coalition changed the perception that average citizens could have a major impact on the content of textbooks for their children.  TTT is a grass roots organization composed of average concerned citizens formed in October 2013 with a simple mission: to insure the proposed social studies textbooks are as error free as possible.

What did these 100 unpaid volunteers do?   They corrected inaccurate or misleading textbooks for 5 million Texas children and found over 1500 errors in 32 textbooks.

These are just a small sample of the errors found:

  • Publishers attempted to push the softer definition of “jihad” as the “struggle to become a better person”. TTT pointed out the facts:  the Quran, Hadith’s (Islamic scholar approved collections of Muhammad’s life) and Mohammad’s biography defines jihad as “violence against infidels in the name of Allah”.  Attempts to re-define is “spin” and not based upon original Islamic sources.
  • Conditions in Cuba are painted as highly beneficial for young people from a healthcare and education standpoint.  Misleading information and half-truths is how TTT characterized this description of life in Cuba with details of other reports and sources providing facts justifying TTT’s position.
  • “It’s easy to get depressed about Climate Change.”Telling a child what emotions to have on a topic is “agenda building”. Only one side of the issue was told. TTT urged both sides but publishers chose to pull the book as the solution. 
  • Many publishers routinely referred to the U.S. form of government as a “democracy”.  The word “democracy” is not found in the constitution nor in any of the 50 state constitutions.  Our form of government is a constitutional republic.  The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is to the Republic for which it stands, not to the democracy for which it stands.
  • Publishers claimed in several instances that Muslims were the original inhabitants of the area we know of as Israel. TTT pointed out Jews inhabited this area hundreds of years before Islam existed.
  • Multiple publishers left out the terms “Islamic jihadist”, “Muslim terrorists” even when the attackers used these terms in describing themselves; no mention that the Barbary pirates were Muslims, no mention the 911 hijackers were Islamic jihadists, the absence of the word “Islamic” when describing the terroristsin the 1983 Lebanon Marine Barrack attacks. If the terrorists know who they are, why won’t publishers use those same terms?
  • Gorbachev had more to do with the Berlin Wall falling than Ronald Reagan according to one publisher; Communism deficiencies downplayed while Western democracies marginalized; TTT was able to get re-writes on these and many other distorted areas.

Publishers attempted to claim many TTT entries were not “errors” but request for “additional content”.  A half-truth or omission of fact does requires additional content for the student to know the “full truth”, not a partial truth. Fortunately the publishers at the direction of the SBOE began to make changes.

November 21, the SBOE approved the final selection of textbooks. One publisher’s entire collection of textbooks was removed from the approval process primarily due to their failure to respond to TTT’s inputs.

Our efforts won’t stop until we analyze all of the publisher’s replies and post them on our website at www.truthintexasttextbooks.com. The public can see the final grade we put on each textbook based upon the Texas Essential Knowledge Skills (TEKS) compliance rate and how many of the 1500 errors are corrected.

The books will be rated as “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Poor” or “Worse”. This simple report card rating will be easy to understand and assist parents, teachers and school board members as they analyze the books to determine the best textbooks for their children.

Our final report will be out for local school districts (1200+ school districts) as they begin reviewing the 95 social studies textbooks for purchase beginning in early January 2015.  Visiting TTT’s website in the coming weeks will provide interested citizens information on the best textbooks for their children.  Each of the 32 reviews can be found here.

The secret to our success was average citizens who took the time to get trained, dedicate time to the project, accept criticism of their work and work together as a team following TTT procedures.  I can never thank them enough or pass along all the accolades passed to me for their work.

The process has been so effective eight other states have asked for TTT’s protocols to duplicate in their states. Changing textbooks requires entering the review cycle at the right time with the right team. A public conference call for any interested individuals or groups who want more information is scheduled for late January 2015. More details on precise time and call-in information will be on our website beginning in early January 2015.

Publishers want to sell books but making changes before they go to print is the key versus waiting for them to get on the shelves. Please get involved in your children’s future and education, these textbooks are the pathway to their minds and our future.

You can see the testimony of several of our volunteers and the leadership of TTT by going to these YouTube links:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Fox News.

20 Questions to Ask Your Evolution Professor — Who Can’t Explain Intelligent Design

  1. How did we get such nicely rounded spheres from a Big Bang that should have given jagged rocks?
  2. How did all the planets come into orbit after such an explosion?
  3. Why do the planets vary in distance from the sun so greatly, and still stay in orbit?
  4. With more than 100 moons for the planets (Jupiter having 63), how did they come to orbit planets if they didn’t explode from them, and what evidence would we have that our moon exploded from earth, or where did it come from? Can we see significance to its orbit giving us our months?
  5. Isn’t it strange that these huge heavenly bodies don’t collide, and that we can set our time by them?
  6. How did earth develop its rotation so that we have day and night, and don’t fry on one side or freeze on the other?
  7. Was it just chance that earth has all the ingredients necessary for life?
  8. If we exploded off the sun, where did we get our atmosphere that was needed to support life?
  9. How would an explosion from the sun give us all the elements we see on the atomic chart?
  10. What would be the mathematical probability of an explosion in a junk yard giving us a jumbo jet? (That would be far easier than an explosion giving us any form of life)
  11. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says the energy systems tend to run down unless acted upon by an outside source. What is the Source that keeps our universe from becoming like a city dump?
  12. Darwin assumed that future discoveries would reveal “missing links” in the evolutionary chain, but after 150 years, we are still waiting. Where are the missing links, or could Darwin have been wrong?
  13. Living organisms have systems intricately complex and dependent on all parts to be functioning as a whole. Did they all evolve simultaneously?
  14. Wouldn’t primitive man have bled to death from a cut without the blood clotting mechanism with its cascade of reactions working from the beginning?
  15. Did mammals all evolve into male and female simultaneously so that after billions of years, they both arrived on the scene at the same time and could reproduce?
  16. With water so essential to life, how did earth get its vast supply if we exploded off the sun?
  17. With atomic nuclei having protons of positive charge, what keeps them from repelling each other?
  18. Did everything in the universe come from nothing, or how did it all happen?
  19. Comparing tiny atoms with our gigantic solar systems, each with orbiting electrons or planets, it is not difficult to see similarity or design. Dare we say Intelligent Design?
  20. If we tore 100 pages out of a book and scrambled them, wouldn’t the chance of our picking them up in order blind-folded be better than all of the above happening by chance?

EvolutionIf we consider the complexity of the human body, DNA or the development of eyesight that we don’t even understand, shouldn’t we be honest enough to ask ourselves, Who is the Designer?

Does it matter? Or dare we ask? Why do some “scientists” become irate when they can’t answer simple questions? Why don’t we just admit that evolution is theory that offers their view of some facts, while other scientists also have evidence for their view? A growing number of scientists have faith in the Designer of all that we can see, like the beauty of a sunset, or hear, like the song of a bird, or enjoy the food we eat.

An award-winning website offering abundant scientific support for Creation is at http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/creation-encyclopediaTOC.html. Another website offering excellent support for instantaneous Creation is at http://Halos.com.

A philosopher once said that religion is gratitude. Why not give it back to the Source and live like we appreciate what we’ve been given? The first page of the Bible helps us appreciate God as the Source, and He even invented sex! These are just a few starters for us to want to know Him better. And no, the #1 best-seller of all times is not fiction or myth–the greatest Person in history (His Story) that divided BC from AD also quoted from Genesis.

EDITORS NOTE: One of Dr. Ruhling’s websites is at http://ChooseABetterDestiny.com and he believes we have a far higher destiny that if we came from germs, mollusks and apes, but first we must endure the Fall of America…http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L1V2I84

Historic Global Temperature Drop Predicted

The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announced an important set of 7 climate change predictions dealing with the coming cold climate epoch that will dominate global temperatures for the next thirty years.

According to analysis of the most reliable solar activity trends and climate models based on the Relational Cycle Theory (RC Theory), the SSRC concludes the following:

  1. The Earth is about to begin a steep drop in global temperatures off its present global temperature plateau. This plateau has been caused by the absence of growth in global temperatures for 18 years, the start of global cooling in the atmosphere and the oceans, and the end of a short period of moderate solar heating from an unusually active secondary peak in solar cycle #24.
  2. Average global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures will drop significantly beginning between 2015 and 2016 and will continue with only temporary reversals until they stabilize during a long cold temperature base lasting most of the 2030’s and 2040’s. The bottom of the next global cold climate caused by a “solar hibernation” (a pronounced reduction in warming energy coming from the Sun) is expected to be reached by the year 2031.
  3. The predicted temperature decline will continue for the next fifteen years and will likely be the steepest ever recorded in human history, discounting past short-duration volcanic events.
  4. Global average temperatures during the 2030’s will reach a level of at least 1.5° C lower than the peak temperature year of the past 100 years established in 1998. The temperatures during the 2030’s will correspond roughly to that observed from 1793 to 1830, shortly after the founding of the United States of America. This average lower global temperature of 1.5° C on average, translates to declines in temperatures that will be devastating for crop growing regions in the mid latitudes of the planet.

The 2030’s and 2040’s may be even colder, much colder than indicated in the predictions above. The SSRC has already predicted two scenarios for this period as documented in its Global Climate Status Report (GCSR). The first expected scenario is one similar to 1793 to 1830. The second is one corresponding to the “Little Ice Age,” approximately from 1615 to 1745. This latter level of the coming cold climate has been predicted by climatologists at the Russian Academy of Sciences and others. Determination of which scenario will dominate can come as early as 2020 to 2023.

These periods of intense cold are also strongly associated with the largest earthquakes and especially the largest volcanic eruptions. Major volcanic eruptions can create a veil of dust and gas around the globe, blocking sunlight, thus adding to the intensity of the already existing cold period. This occurred during the last solar hibernation with the eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815, in Indonesia – the largest eruption ever recorded. It was 100 times larger than the Mt. St. Helens eruption of May 18, 1980.

As previously predicted by the SSRC, substantial crop damage, social disruption, civil strife, and loss of life are expected to result from the significant reduction in the Earth’s temperatures which will enter its final phase of rapid decline beginning between 2015 and 2016. The SSRC believes energy and food shortages are likely to result from the long lasting and extreme cold period in part, because agricultural conglomerates and utility companies are not factoring this potentially dangerous new cold epoch into their future food production and power
requirements.

The above new predictions by the SSRC and its President Mr. John Casey are echoed by other experts.

Dr. Dong Choi, Director of Research for the International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC), and Editor of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics (NCGT) Journal, states:

“I support John Casey’s predictions on the arrival of a major cold period caused by a solar hibernation. We are also witnessing a major increase in earthquake activity represented by deep strong quakes throughout the world since 1990, which perfectly matches the declining period of solar activity.”

From his field research location on the island of Svalbard, between Norway and the North Pole, is this comment by Dr. Ole Humlum, Glaciologist, Geomorphologist, and Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo notes:

“These latest series of predictions from the SSRC highlights the growing importance for politicians to formulate a plan B rapidly, given the likely possibility that their plan A (based on future warming as forecasted by CO2-driven climate models) will fail thoroughly in the years to come. The prospect of a significant decline of agricultural production due to lower temperatures is very disturbing.”

Greenhouse Gas Deal with China is an Attack on the American Economy

Ignore the cheers from the White House, the State Department, Mother Jones, and elsewhere over the U.S.-China greenhouse gas agreement. It’s simply another attack on abundant American energy and the economy.

Secretary of State John Kerry detailed the deal in the New York Times: “For the first time China is announcing a peak year for its carbon emissions – around 2030 – along with a commitment to try to reach the peak earlier.” In exchange, the “United States intends to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.”

Here are a few points:

1. Reason’s Ronald Bailey estimates how much the United States will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions under the agreement:

In 2005, the U.S. emitted the equivalent of 7.26 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. So cutting emissions by 28 percent by 2025 implies emissions of 5.23 gigatonnes in 2025, which is about the amount that the U.S. emitted in 1992. Assuming that Chinese emissions did peak in 2030, the country could by then be emitting three times more than the U.S.

2. China’s peak emissions year will be “around” 2030? Does that mean 2031, 2035, 2040? For international commitments to be meaningful and effective, they need to be precise. To put it mildly, “around” is not very precise.

3. This agreement is nonbinding and according to Reuters’ analysis is loaded with nebulous “intentions”:

The joint announcement employs language very carefully. Throughout, the operative word is “intend” or “intention”, which makes clear the statement is not meant to create any new obligations.

China’s 2030 emissions target is set in terms of a date but says nothing about the level at which emissions will peak.

4. Did China really agree to something that it expects will happen anyway? Ben White in Politico’s Morning Moneypoints to a 2012 story in The Guardian:

[B]arring any significant changes in policy, China’s emissions will rise until around 2030 – when the country’s urbanisation peaks, and its population growth slows – and then begins to fall.

5. Along those same lines, under the International Energy Agency’s baseline scenario (IEA-NPS) of greenhouse gas reductions, China’s emissions are projected to peak by 2030 anyway [see slide 17].

6. There’s plenty of international skepticism. A German newspaper commented on the deal, “[It’s] as if a grizzly bear and tiger discuss how the world can be more vegetarian.”

Add this all up and you have a one-sided agreement in China’s favor, as Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy said in a statement:

If actually implemented, this agreement would give an unfair advantage to Chinese manufacturers while forcing dramatic changes to America’s energy supply that will raise prices, threaten reliability, and increase the burden on hard working American families.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of workers moving coal out from a mine in Shanxi Province, China. China is the largest producer and consumer of coal in the world. Photo credit: Nelson Ching/Bloomberg.

Obama’s Cruel and Costly Climate Hoax

The intense cold that many Americans are encountering arrives more than a month before the official start of winter on December 21.

To discuss this, we need to keep in mind that weather is what is occurring now. Climate is measured over longer periods, the minimum of which is thirty years and, beyond that, centuries.

We are colder these days because the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years and that cycle is based entirely on the Sun which has been radiating less heat for the same period of time.

Describing the role of the Sun, Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, said, “There is a big thermonuclear reactor in the sky that emits huge amounts of energy to the Earth…The Sun provides the energy for photosynthesis. The Sun is the bringer of life to Earth. If the Sun were more energetic the oceans would boil. If the Sun were less energetic the oceans would freeze and all life on Earth would be destroyed.”

We don’t control the Sun. Or the climate. It controls us.

Sun & EarthConsider the fact that the Sun has a diameter of 865,000 miles. The Earth’s diameter is 7,917.5 miles. Thus, the Sun’s diameter is 109 times greater than the Earth’s. Carbon dioxide is barely 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Reducing it as the U.S.-China agreement proposes would have zero effect on the Earth’s climate.

We not only can, but should ignore the blatant lies of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, both of whom have been saying things about “climate change” without a scintilla of science to back them up. They’re not alone, however. In August, the U.N. Climate Chief, Christiana Figueres, warned of climate “chaos” in 500 days and told the World Health Organization that climate change was on a par with the outbreak of Ebola as a public health emergency.

It was big news on November 11 when The Wall Street Journal’s lead story on its front page reported that “The U.S. and China unveiled long-term plans to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, a surprise move aimed at kick-starting a new round of international climate negotiations and blunting domestic opposition to cuts in both countries.”

Someone needs to tell the Wall Street Journal there is no “climate change” that is not entirely NATURAL and unrelated to anything humans are doing.

The announcement plays into the longtime efforts of the environmental movement to impose energy limits on the world’s population. Similar limits will be called for when climate talks are launched in December by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Lima, Peru.

Why the leaders of nations keep calling for limits that can only result in the reduction of energy production, the loss of economic benefits from industrial activity and the jobs it provides, and the modern lifestyle of advanced nations is one of life’s great mysteries.

If you really disliked America, you would no doubt pursue President Obama’s anti-energy agenda. That agenda is expressed by a series of climate and pollution measures that an article in Politico.com says “rivals any presidential environmental actions of the past quarter-century—a reality check for Republicans who think last week’s election gave them a mandate to end what they call the White House’s ‘War on Coal.’”

AA - Cold WeekendThe authors of the Politico.com article, Andrew Restuccia and Erica Martinson, note that Obama’s assault on the nation is “Tied to court-ordered deadlines, legal mandates and international climate talks” over the next two months, all in the name of a climate change “And incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have few options for stopping the onslaught, though Republicans may be able to slow pieces of it.”

“The coming rollout includes a Dec. 1 proposal by EPA to tighten limits on smog-causing ozone, which business groups say could be the costliest federal regulation of all time; a final rule Dec. 19 for clamping down on disposal of power plants’ toxic coal cash; the Jan. 1 start date for a long-debated rule prohibiting states from polluting the air of their downwind neighbors; and a Jan. 8 deadline for issuing a final rule restricting greenhouse gas emissions from future power plants. That last rule is a centerpiece of Obama’s most ambitious environmental effort, the big plan for combating climate change that he announced at Georgetown University in June 2013.”

This vile assault flies in the face of actual climate trends: record low tornadoes record low hurricanes, record gain in Arctic ice, record amount of Antarctic ice, no change in the rate of sea level rise, no evidence of a Greenland meltdown, and again no warming for 19 years.

As this and future winters turn colder, arrive sooner and stay around longer, Americans will be affected by the reduction of coal-fired plants that generate electrical power. The nation will encounter blizzards that will leave some homeowners and apartment dwellers without heat. It is predictable that some will die.

A cruel and costly climate hoax is being perpetrated by President Obama and, in particular, by the Environmental Protection Agency. The new Congress must take whatever action it can to reverse and stop the harm that it represents; people’s jobs and lives depend on it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Pledges $3 Billion to Aid… Climate Change

Welcome to EbolaCare — but the Website is Down

A well known phenomenon in the animal kingdom is that when taking over a new pride, a lion will sometimes kill all the cubs. We don’t know exactly what kind of feeling drives him in this bloody act, but there’s obviously a lack of attachment. Suffice it to say the problem can be summed up thus: it’s not his family.

America’s pride is falling. And few things illustrate this better than the open-borders mentality that has allowed foreigners to bring diseases — most notably Ebola but also EV-D68 and others — into our country.

There was a time when a threat such as Ebola would have inspired travel bans reflexively. Not today. In this enlightened age, Barack Obama and underlings such as CDC director Tom Frieden tell us, with a straight face, that such measures just wouldn’t work. They also claim that banning commercial flights would frustrate efforts to aid Ebola-affected nations and thus increase the long-term chances of an epidemic in the U.S.

Space constraints preclude me from exploring every detail of their argument, but the bottom line is that it’s fallacious. A travel ban combined with a policy of issuing no visas to citizens from affected nations, a prohibition against entry by any foreign national holding a passport with a stamp from one of them, and a mandatory quarantine for Americans returning from such countries absolutely would work. No, it wouldn’t reduce the chances of more Ebola cases reaching our shores to zero, but such a requirement is unreasonable. We can’t eliminate all murder, but we still see fit to minimize it by having necessary laws, police and a criminal-justice system.

As for aid, it goes without saying that medical professionals and other emergency workers would be granted travel clearance and that charter and military planes could ferry them where they needed to go. Moreover, we’ve isolated Americans who contracted Ebola, and no one claims it prevented us from giving them sufficient treatment.

In fact, the arguments against common sense and the common good are so obviously flawed that it’s clear they are not reasons, but rationalizations. So what really explains our leaders’ common senselessness? National Review’s Mark Krikorian put it well last month:

Much of our political class is simply uncomfortable with the idea that border and immigration controls should be used vigorously and unapologetically to protect Americans. You can hear the objections now: It would be xenophobic, it might stigmatize West Africans, those countries will object to our State Department that they’re being discriminated against.

This is what it boils down to. And there’s a reason why people such as Barack Obama don’t believe in using immigration controls “vigorously and unapologetically to protect Americans.”

People such as Obama are not American.

This has nothing to do with theories about where Obama was born; as Thomas Sowell recently pointed out, native American Benedict Arnold is one of our most infamous traitors, while people born overseas have sometimes risked their necks to defend America. Nor does it even just concern Obama, as the phenomenon in question is exhibited by millions. What it has to do with is attitude.

This brings me to an October Forbes article by evolutionary biologist J.V. Chamary in which he inveighs against travel bans, calling the desire for them understandable but “selfish.” Born in France to parents from Mauritius and now living in the U.K., Chamary is the epitome of the attitude in question; he’s an internationalist, a philanderer of nations and a citizen of the world. And the thinking goes like this: we’re all just people, whether in Sacramento or Sierra Leone, Livermore or Liberia. Why should “my” country’s needs be elevated above another’s? This is the “intellectual” point of view, the conclusion someone arrives at upon thinking deeply and recognizing the truth of George Bernard Shaw’s statement, “Patriotism is the belief your country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”

Of course, it warrants noting that the affected West African nations have behaved just as “selfishly,” sometimes quarantining large areas within their borders to contain the Ebola. And neighboring African countries have been “selfish” enough to completely isolate the affected nations. We also might wonder how selfish it actually is if our concern is for others, our fellow Americans. But, no matter, Chamary has a point.

Not a good point — but a point.

Now let’s see if he actually believes it.

An easy way to find out is to ask: would you apply the same unselfish standard to your home? Would you temporarily house a couple of the people from affected nations who’ve been allowed to enter the U.S., thus exposing your children to them on a long-term basis?

When I briefly corresponded with Chamary and asked the above, his said it was a false dilemma that he was “unwilling to waste time addressing.” But it’s sufficiently analogous. Everything said about foreigners relative to Americans applies to outsiders relative to family members. We’re all just people; “undocumented family members” are children of God just like your documented family members. And what is God’s perspective (atheists can view this as a thought exercise), which is the highest perspective? He doesn’t gaze upon our blue orb and deem the Smiths more important than the Johnsons. Why, we could even say that “family patriotism is the belief your family should be prioritized over all other families because you were born in it,” couldn’t we, Mr. Barack Bernard Chamary? So why subordinate outsiders’ needs to your family’s?

This analogy is especially apt because a nation is an extension of the tribe, which in turn is an extension of the family. Yet it’s safe to say that Chamary, Obama and their fellow travelers would not endanger their families as they have the country. Why the different standards?

I suggest that their “enlightened,” citizen-of-the-world perspective isn’t the fruits of intellectualism at all, but is merely what feels right. The difference is that they’re emotionally attached to their families.

They’re not emotionally attached to America.

This is for a simple reason.

America is not their family.

Their pride lies elsewhere

Such people are not just internationalists; they sometimes feel more of a kinship with foreign nations than the one whose passport they happen to carry. And in the case of Obama, the antipathy for his passport place is so profound that he aims to eat the cubs. Or, at least, replace them via immigration.

This is why, even though a nation without secure borders is like a house without walls, Obama will keep his walls and open our borders. For some Americans this will mean death from disease and at the hands of illegal-alien criminals, but Obama doesn’t care. Lions, even cowardly ones, do what they do. And we’re not his family.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

The New Frontier: Peer technologies are enabling self-government in the cloud by Max Borders

Today there is no territory left to settle, but human freedom is about to enjoy a renaissance.

Imagine we’re standing on a ridge. We look out on a valley awash in sunlight — surveyors contemplating a new city. We squint and ask: What will it look like? Will it have its own rules, culture, and commercial life? Will it be a bustling metropolis or a constellation of villages?

The Internet has only been with us for about 20 years. If the Northwest Ordinance and the Homestead Acts were legal sanction for expansion across the American continent, networking technologies are invitations for people both to spread out and to connect with others in novel ways. This opportunity has important implications.

For much of history, we have thought of the law and the land as being inseparable, particularly as the conquerors were so often the lawgivers. Not anymore. For the first time, jurisdiction and territory can be separated to a great degree thanks to innovation.

So many of the administrative functions of jurisdiction can increasingly be found in the cloud. It’s early, yes. The network is fragile. But we will soon be able to pass in and out of legal systems, selecting those that benefit us, employing true self-government. It is time to follow Thoreau, who in Civil Disobedience asked, “Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?”

Already, we can buy and sell using cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. We can take Lyft downtown, bypassing obsolete local ordinances on the way. Google and Apple are selling us privacy again. These are just the first brushfires of a new form of social coordination in which technology itself makes it possible to upgrade our social operating systems.

Peer-to-peer interaction means we’re a nation of joiners again — on steroids. It seemed for a while we had lost the republic to special interests. But the hopeless calculus of cronyism — concentrated benefits and dispersed costs — is being flipped on its head. Internetworking makes it so we’re enjoying the fruits of the sharing economy — quite rapidly, in fact. Cronies and officials are finding it hard to play catch up.

New constituencies are forming around these new benefits. Special interests that once squeaked to get oil are confronted by battalions bearing smart phones. Citizens are voting more with their dollars and their devices, fed up with leaving prayers in the voting booth. Free association is now ensured by design, not by statute.

Technology that changes the incentives can change the institutions. The rules and regulations we currently live under came out of our democratic operating system (DOS). It used to be that these institutions shaped our incentives to a great degree. Now we have ways of coordinating our activities that go right around state intermediaries, corporate parasites, and moribund laws.

The incentives for social change are strong, so strong that the gales of creative destruction can finally blow apart much of the state apparatus, which seemed impervious to reform. And that’s a good thing for a self-governing people.

That celebrated old historian Frederick Jackson Turner summed up his famous treatise on the American West, agreeing — perhaps despite himself — that the people of the frontier had been moving away from hierarchy:

In spite of environment, and in spite of custom, each frontier did indeed furnish a new field of opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past; and freshness, and confidence, and scorn of older society, impatience of its restraints and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have accompanied the frontier.

But in 1893, as Turner wrote that passage, the frontier had already closed.

Today, the seekers and strivers have reopened the frontier, no longer a peculiarly American terrain. It’s a space beyond nation or territory — without end and without the need for Caesar’s imprimatur. As people start to gather there, there will be every form of vice, as in the past. But there will also be rapid advance and innovative wonders. Everything will be subject to continuous trial, error, and revision. And paradoxically, that infinite space in which we can spread out and try new things allows us to be closer than ever before.

We’re becoming cultural cosmopolitans, radical communitarians, and standard bearers for a right of exit. Most importantly, we’re freer than ever before. As my colleague Jeffrey Tucker writes on the workers’ revolution, “This whole approach might be considered a very advanced stage of capitalism in which third parties exercise ever less power over who can and cannot participate.”

In this infinite space, there will be little room for political progressives with big plans. They’ll find it difficult to impose hierarchy on the new frontier folk who will run among network nodes. The progressive program, as such, will dwindle down to what Steven B. Johnson calls “peer progressivism.”

Rejecting the dirigisme of today’s progressives, Johnson writes:

We don’t think that everything in modern life should be re-engineered to follow the “logic of the Internet.” We just think that society has long benefited from non-market forms of open collaboration, and that there aren’t enough voices in the current political conversation reminding us of those benefits.

Tocqueville couldn’t have said it any better. If such becomes the sum of tomorrow’s progressivism, we might all be headed for a great convergence, where once we were as stark and separate as red and blue.

MaxBordersVEsmlABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also co-founder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

High school students fight back against culture of death: Bold challenge at abortion clinic!

When it comes to standing up to the culture of death, a lot of people have given up on the youth of America. But don’t believe it!

The students at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School in Still River, MA, out-perform most adult groups. They take activism right to the streets!


VIDEO of students and their “Prayer Vigil Challenge”. You can also see it on Vimeo HERE.

As a conservative Catholic school, they are determined to confront the horrific scourge of abortion. Unlike many pro-life groups, they don’t just hold meetings, put out literature, give some speeches, hold banquets, and raise money. They actually go to the abortion clinics. The older kids help counsel women who would otherwise make a deadly “choice” — and they all use the power of prayer. They make a difference!

In this wonderful video – made outside of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic featuring the students themselves – they are challenging students from nearby schools to join them on the front lines.

In this video the students are right on the front lines!

These kids are very inspiring. They really get it. They are not afraid to talk about God and the religious basis of why they’re there. And they clearly understand the terrible things that secularism has done to society.

Prayer vigil near entrance of the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.

That’s not all. For the last 25 years the school has provided what has become themost memorable float in the annual South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade – St. Patrick blessing the crowds — and the school band has also marched in the parade.

As we all know, in recent years many homosexual activist groups and liberal politicians have tried to intimidate schools, businesses, and others from participating in the parade. The liberal establishment is angry because the parade leaders have held fast to their Catholic beliefs and kept it a “family friendly” parade that excludes openly homosexual groups.

The annual Parade wouldn’t be the same without the school’s memorable float! [MassResistance photo]

They’re the real thing. The school even has a special dispensation from Rome to hold a daily Latin Mass!

A big part of this, of course, is the school’s principal, Br. Thomas Augustine. He is a pillar of strength and moral leadership in a time of unfortunate religious and cultural weakness. We wish there were a thousand more like him!

And like all moral heroes, Br. Thomas is hated by the Left. Earlier this year, the Boston Globe published an editorial personally attacking Br. Thomas after he wrote a letter to the editor taking an uncompromising stand supporting the Parade organizers’ right to hold their parade with real Catholic values.

We would encourage you to watch the video. The Resistance movement is alive and well!

P.S. – Br. Thomas reported to us that the video brought a great response to their challenge!

Voters Reject the Green Political Agenda

What the midterm voters wanted was an economy that returned to its average 3.3% annual growth since the end of World War II. For six years of the Obama presidency, growth has all but disappeared. In 2013, as measured by the World Bank, it was barely 1.9% That translated into a lack of jobs, stagnant middle class income, and what Obama correctly called the Great Recession, but could not end.

Instead, in the lead-up to the midterm elections, he was still talking about “climate change” as the greatest threat to the nation and the world. For the voters, however, climate change wasn’t even on its list of priorities and with good reason, there is nothing anyone or any nation can or should do about the great forces of nature that determine what the Earth’s climate will be; starting with the Sun.

The day after the elections two major environmental organizations, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth (FOE), wrote to their members. Their message was similar and their conclusions were absurd.

“The election’s over and the planet lost,” wrote Erich Pica, FOE president. “The next Congress will be controlled by politicians elected with millions of dollars of the Koch brothers’ oil money—putting at risk the vital environmental protections we’ve fought so hard to achieve.” FOE has more than 2 million activists in 75 nations including the U.S.

What Pica does not mention in his letter is the estimated $85 million spent on six Senate races by what The Hill described as “the nation’s top environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate…”

So the Koch brother’s money is evil, but environmental organizations’ money is okay?

As far as FOE’s Pica is concerned, “The truth is, President Obama hasn’t always done the right thing for the environment. He should have denied the Keystone Pipeline years ago, he should be rolling back unchecked fracking, and he should have taken stronger action on climate both at home and in international negotiations.”

FOE could care less about the thousands of jobs the Keystone pipeline would create, plus the revenue from refining the oil it would transport to the Gulf States. As for fracking, it is not “unchecked.” It has to be done within the context of safety and environmental laws. As for the climate, China and India are just two nations increasing the use of coal to generate the electrical power they need to stimulate industrialization and improve the lives of their citizens by bringing power where he has never been before.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, wrote that “Friends of Big Oil have taken control of the Senate” claiming they have “a 100-day action plan that reads like Big Oil’s wish list. Our opposition is about to have free reign to implement their anti-environment agenda. And approving the Keystone XL pipeline and destroying proposed environmental regulations top their list.”

Oh, really? If the polls and elections are any indicator, a lot of Americans want to see the pipeline construction. As for the “anti-environment agenda”, that too is pure fiction. What Americans oppose is the forced closure of electricity generation plants in the name of a global warming that is not happening. Or a climate change over which no government has any role or control.

To drive home his doom-and-gloom message, Brune added that “Rare species of wildlife already hanging by a threat will not survive this onslaught.” Consider the absurdity of the claim that a Republican controlled Congress will be responsible for species extinction. For good measure, Brune, like the FOE, mentioned the Koch brothers, labeling them “big polluters.” Since when is drilling for oil and providing it to a world that runs on it “pollution”? It’s not. It’s progress that benefits humanity.

Commenting on the elections, Dr. Jay Lehr, the Science Director of The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, characterized them as “the repudiation of the President’s policies” and the nation’s political pundits all agree. Dr. Lehr called for “a bill to require the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline which has bipartisan support and has passed every environmental test.”

Dr. Lehr called on Congress to “require the government to open up public lands to environmentally safe mineral and energy exploration as well as speed up approval of permits to drill and mine for resources on already approved lands. This will ensure our resource independence in both areas for centuries to come.”

High on my list of priorities was reflected by Dr. Lehr’s call for Congress “to take charge of the funding of the Environmental Protection Agency which has gone rogue in efforts to impede virtually all economic development in our nation, and eventually phase out the EPA, passing on its responsibilities to a committee of the whole of our fifty state environmental protection agencies.”

A November 6 article, “Climate change supporters suffer losses”, published in The Hill, reported that “Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.” Even so, the Sierra Club’s Brune was quoted saying, “Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader.” NOT!

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed Brune’s empty boasts. “Whatever may have driven individual races, the American people want action on climate change.” NOT!

As far as the environment is concerned, it is way down on the list of the voter’s priorities and the change of leadership and control of Congress reflects that. The voters don’t want a lot of vapid, idiotic talk of climate change and other environmental fantasies. They want jobs. They want an economy that will provide them. They want a better future for themselves and their children. And whether they know it or not, they want a conservative approach to government.

© Alan Caruba, 2014