WEALTH CREATION/FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE = JOB CREATION & GIVING BACK • IMMIGRANTS WELCOME • SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

American Exceptionalism Defined - Part 2

KISS on stage - honoring our troops!! - no matter how many times you have seen this - it is always worth another look!!


Thursday, April 3, 2014

EPA Regs Aimed At Eliminating Coal-Fired Power Plants: Real World Impact On Consumers -

This notice received today from our local electrical power provider:

"As member–owners of your electric cooperative, your help is needed in sending a message to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington to reconsider regulations that they are proposing to eliminate coal as a generation fuel. Coal is the most economical source of power for South Carolina and many other states.

If Santee Cooper, our power supplier, were forced to close ALL of their coal-fired plants and replace them with a mix of nuclear and natural gas, the average monthly cooperative electric bill would increase 54%. For the average electric bill that would mean a $79 increase."


Editor's note: PLEASE - PLEASE - WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!

Obama's Friends - Beginning To Articulate What Has Been Obvious To The Entire World



http://eaglerising.com/5468/top-democrat-calls-obama-delusional-liar/

Saturday, March 22, 2014

American Physical Society Panel - Balanced View - Climate Change

Investors Business Daily - "Junk Science"
\
 
Climate change "deniers," as global warm-mongers call those who think empirical evidence is more reliable than computer models, may soon count among their number a 50,000-strong body of physicists.
At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive.
Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and was a lead author of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT from 1983 to 2013, is currently a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?
The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"
In a nod to the likelihood that nature, not man, calls the shots, another APS audit question asks the panel: "What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (i.e., sunspot activity) in about a century?"
The other three American Physical Society members, reports Quadrant Online, maintain that climate change is real, disaster is imminent and man is at fault. They are long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who in 1996 drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a "discernible" influence of man-made CO2 on climate), IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.
The APS, to its credit, is addressing the chasm between computer models that cannot even predict the past and actual observations suggesting that warming is on hold and largely influenced by natural factors.
Computer models are simply not adequate to address the infinite number of variables, natural and man-made, that contribute to climate, often leading to wild-eyed predictions.
One such prediction noted that summer in the North Pole could be "ice-free by 2013." That was what former Vice President Al Gore insisted in his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, a call that was off by about 920,000 square miles of ice.
In an article on the website Hockey Schtick, APS panelist Christy says he analyzed the "tropical atmospheric temperature change in 102 of the latest climate-model simulations covering the past 35 years" and found that "102 model runs overshot the actual temperature change on average by a factor of three."
Panelist Curry thinks computer models place too much emphasis on current CO2 levels and not enough on long-term cycles in ocean temperature that have a huge influence on climate. She suspects we may be approaching a period similar to 1965-1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.
Climate is affected by an infinite number of variables, the relative importance — and complexity of their interactions — of which aren't fully understood.
Put too much weight on one and not enough on the other, and you have the computer phenomenon known as GIGO — garbage in, garbage out.
The American Physical Society hopes to take out the garbage. If it succeeds, climate alarmism and its mythical consensus, not the ice caps, will melt away.

Friday, March 21, 2014

America and Sweden - On Different Paths

 By David L. Goetsch  March 20, 2014
Perhaps President Obama and liberals in Congress should pay better attention to what is happening in Europe.  Interesting things are happening in Sweden, things that have a direct bearing on the direction Obama and his minions have set for the United States. Following World War II, Western European countries set themselves on the path of socialism.  By the 1960s, they had arrived.  Western Europe quickly recovered from World War II, but not because of socialism.  France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the other war-ravaged countries of Western Europe were able to quickly recover from World War II because of the foresight and generosity of the United States in implementing the Marshall Plan.  In other words, the shattered nations of Western Europe accepted $billions from a free-market nation that, at the time, steadfastly rejected socialism.  These countries then used the money to transform themselves into bastions of socialism.  And so things have remained since the 1960s.  However, change is in the air.
Sweden has become the first of the Western European nations to take a major step away from socialism. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), “Sweden spent years as a statist economy, with marginal tax rates above 90 percent.  With nationalized healthcare and welfare programs, Sweden had a budget deficit worth 13 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 1993 and a government debt at 71 percent of its national output.”  These deficit and debt levels should sound familiar to anyone paying attention to what has happened to America’s economy over the last several decades and particularly during the first six years of the Obama administration.
In the 1990s Swedes began to realize what socialism and statism were doing to the quality of life in their country.  As a result, they elected Sweden’s first conservative government since the end of World War II.  Knowing precisely what needed to be done to pull their nation back from the abyss of economic ruin, Sweden’s new conservative government quickly went to work cutting taxes on businesses and individuals.  Things began to change for the better almost immediately.  Consider the following improvements Sweden has enjoyed since beginning the long, hard road back from socialism and statism (data provided by the NCPA):
  • Between 1993 and 2010, Sweden’s GDP growth exceeded that of the rest of Europe by one full percentage point.  Further, by 2010 public debt had dropped to 37 percent of GDP and taxes on businesses had been decreased to 22 percent (compare this with the 36 percent rate in the United States).
  • Sweden’s political leaders transformed the nation’s retirement pension system from a defined-benefit system into a defined contribution system, thereby saving it from inevitable insolvency.
  • The Swedish Fiscal Policy Council was established and empowered to independently monitor and evaluate government fiscal policy.  The Council’s most current recommendation is that Sweden raise its retirement age to protect the long-term solvency of the nation’s retirement system.
These and other free-market initiatives have resulted in an upturn in entrepreneurship in Sweden.  For example, Skype (the VolP service) and Spotify (the music streaming program) both got their starts in Sweden.  Saab, best known as an automaker, is also excelling in the aerospace and aviation industries.  In fact, according to the NCPA Saab has beaten out Boeing for aviation contracts in the past several years.  In a move that should be watched closely by America’s airlines, automakers, and other unionized industries, SAS—the Scandinavian airline—finally posted a profit after six straight years of losses by negotiating with its union to cut pay and retirement benefits.  The rationale of SAS executives in asking for the cuts and the rationale of union leaders in accepting them was simple:  It is better to get a little less than you want than to get nothing when the airline goes bankrupt.
Sweden has not yet weaned itself completely from socialism, but it has made excellent progress.  Socio-economic change is difficult in a democracy.  It typically happens in fits and starts, but as Sweden has shown, it can happen.  What Sweden began in the 1990s is what America will need to begin in 2016.  But, as it did in Sweden, this will require electing a conservative government.  Let us hope and pray that the American electorate will show the good sense shown by its counterpart in Sweden.
Editor's Note: Sweden's Maximum Corporate Tax Rate - 22%: USA 38%; Sweden's Individual Maximum Marginal Tax Rate; 57%; USA - 56% (Federal and State); Sweden Minimum Individual Tax Rate: 29%; USA: 0% 
Every American who earns income should pay some income tax - how about 1%!!
 
 

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Two Americas - Income Inequality: The Real World!!


January 2014 - Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM 

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.  The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.  It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t.  That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.

It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.

It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.  That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.”   He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery.  The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.  Vote Democrat.

That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.   It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.   Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.   Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course;  you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.

Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do.  There is significant income inequality between us.  Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort.   While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes.  His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth?  No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom.  The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. 

There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.

Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing.  Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get."  Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way.   He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.   America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.   It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism.  He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit.  That’s what socialists offer.  Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Obama's Disdain For The Wealthy - This Can Happen In America




Saturday, March 1, 2014

Facts: The Counter Argument Re Global Warming

Excerpts: Forbes August 21, 2013
What Evidence Exists of Unnatural Recent Global Warming?
While global warming has been trumpeted as an epic climate change crisis with human-produced CO2, a trace atmospheric “greenhouse gas” branded as a primary culprit and endangering “pollutant,” remember that throughout earlier periods of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been between four and eighteen times higher than now, with temperature changes preceding, not following atmospheric CO2 changes.
It’s also worth remembering that about half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred prior to the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels. Also consider that, even today, about 97% of all current atmospheric CO2 derives from natural sources.
Has there been “recent” warming?
Yes, the global climate has definitely warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period.
Although temperatures have been generally mild over the past 500 years, we should remember that significant fluctuations are normal. The past century alone witnessed two distinct periods of warming. The first occurred between 1900 and 1945, and the second, following a slight cool-down began quite abruptly in 1975. That second period rose at very modest rate, if at all, until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after reaching a high of 1.16ºF above the average global mean temperature. There hasn’t been any warming for at least a decade and a half, and possibly, considerably longer.
 What Evidence Exists of Human CO2 Influences on Climate? (Inter-government Panel On Climate Change is the self appointed "expert")
So where does the evidence needed to support the IPCC’s 95 percent certainty claim come from? The true answer is that there simply isn’t any. None at all. There never was…only totally unproven theoretical climate models.
When the U.N. Environment Programme’s spokesman, Tim Higham, was asked by New Scientist about the scientific background for this change, his answer was honest: “There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers.”
IPCC: Politically Motivated - Many Scientists Are Critical Of Their Work

The IPCC asserted in its 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would likely melt by 2035 due to global warming, prompting great alarm across southern and eastern Asia, where glaciers feed major rivers. As it turned out, that prediction was traced to a speculative magazine article authored by an Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, which had absolutely no supporting science behind it. Hasnain worked for a research company headed by the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. IPCC’s report author, Marari Lai, later admitted to London’s Daily Mail, “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.”
These cherry-picked items are assembled, condensed and highlighted in the Summaries for Policymakers which are calibrated to get prime-time and front page attention.
IPCC’s 1996 report used selective data, a doctored graph, and featured changes in text that were made after the reviewing scientists approved it and before it was printed. The many irregularities provoked Dr. Frederick Seitz, a world-famous physicist and former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University, to write ( in August 1996) in the Wall Street Journal: “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report.”
Several tens of thousands of scientists have lodged formal protests regarding unscientific IPCC practices. Some critics include former supporters. One of them is Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, a socialist founder of Germany’s environmental movement, who headed the renewable energy division of the country’s second largest utility company. His recent coauthored book titled “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen,” charges the IPCC with gross incompetence and dishonesty, most particularly regardingfear-mongering exaggeration of known climate influence of human CO2 emissions.
As IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
What Evidence Exists of a Climate Problem At All?
Speaking at his State of the Union address, President Obama said:  Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense.”
But there’s a big disconnect from facts here. In reality, there has been no increase in the strength or frequency of landfall hurricanes in the world’s five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years; there has been no increase in the strength or frequency in tropical Atlantic hurricane development during the past 370 years; the U.S. is currently enjoying the longest period ever recorded without intense Category 3-5 hurricane landfall; there has been no trend since 1950 evidencing any increased frequency of strong (F3-F-5) U.S. tornadoes; there has been no increase in U.S. flood magnitudes over the past 85 years; and long-term sea level rise is not accelerating.
 As Steven Goddard summarized some results in an August 10, article he posted on Real Science, we are currently witnessing:
*     Coldest summer on record at the North Pole
*     Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006

*     Record high August Antarctic ice extent
*     No major hurricane strikes for eight years
*     Slowest tornado season on record
*     No global warming for 17 years
*     Second slowest fire season on record
*     Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2000
Regarding those pending IPCC predictions that sea levels will accelerate, William Happer, a Princeton physics professor who has researched ocean physics for the U.S. Air Force, notes that “The sea level has been rising since 1800, at the end of the Little Ice Age.” Isn’t that to be expected? In fact even the IPCC admitted in its most recent report that “no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone.”
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, the former chair of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, has been studying sea level and its effects on coastal areas for more than 35 years. He observes that “…sea level was indeed rising from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year.” He scorns the IPCC’s claim to “know” the facts about sea level rise, noting that real scientists “are searching for the answer” by continuing to collect data “because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!”
What Evidence Exists that Continued U.S. Funding for IPCC Propaganda Is Sane?
Following President Obama’s State of the Union pledge to double down on his frenetic “green” war to prevent climate change, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) has introduced legislation to discontinue any more taxpayer green from being used to advance the U.N.’s economy-ravaging agendas. The proposed bill would prohibit future U.S. funding for the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and also for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a scam devoted to redistributing American wealth in penance for our unfair capitalist free market prosperity.
Congressman Luetkemeyer strongly objects to the UNFCC’s use of IPCC’s suggestions and faulty data to implement a job-killing agenda here in America. He argues: “The American people should not have to foot the bill for an international organization that is fraught with waste, engaged in dubious science, and is promoting an agenda that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of energy in the United States."
Under the Obama administration, UNFCC and IPCC together have received a total average of $10.25 million annually, which will be upped to $13 million under a FY 13 budget request. The George W. Bush administration previously provided about $5.7 million each year. While those amounts may seem like a pittance in the realm of government spending largesse, it’s important to realize that the true costs of that folly amount to countless billions in disastrous policy and regulatory impacts. And that, dear readers, is exactly the U.N.’s intent.
Read the complete article: