Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The Promise of the Trump Presidency

The Promise of the Trump Presidency

Part 1.  The Trump Promise: Response to Orlando Massacre

The highest goal of the Federal Government is to survive and grow.  In keeping with that theme, the official Department of Homeland Security Response to Massacre in Orlando is no surprise.  The DHS Secretary is proposing His department be in charge of Gun Control.

This department, created in response to 9/11, is now threatening to impose Gun Control as a means of combatting terrorism.  Here is the DHS Secretary on CBS This Morning:
“We have to face the fact that meaningful, responsible gun control has to be part of homeland security as well, given the prospect of homegrown, home-born violent extremism in this country,” Johnson said.  This brazen attempt, besides subverting the constitution, is the next step in the Socialists Playbook for taking over a country.

Here is the totally serious amazing logic the DHS Secretary uses: “We need to do something to minimize the opportunities for terrorists to get a gun in this country, and this is now something that is critical to homeland security as well as public safety,” 

Trump vs. DHS on the Orlando Massacre and Immigration

In contrast, Trump's response to Orlando Massacre is to keep the terrorists out of the country in the first place.  He details his plan in a few short words:

"The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place, was because we allowed his family to come here" Trump said.  "The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons. Now, any class — it really is determined and to be determined by the president for the interests of the United States. And it’s as he or she deems appropriate. Hopefully it’s he in this case... I will use this power to protect the American people. When I’m elected I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats....And by the way we have no choice. After a full and partial and long — really long overdue security assessment we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America."

That's it, stop bringing people here from states that sponsor terrorism for the time being.  Which, I agree with, for the following reasons:

Reason Number One: Keeping out Terrorists is out Number One Defense.  There is no better way to keep terrorists from getting a gun in this country than to keep them out in the first place.  Terrorists don't need guns.  They use knives, bombs, acid, whatever.  They don't care.  The nastier the better.  Countries with very low terrorism like New Zealand and Japan have strict immigration laws.  What Trump is proposing is not very different.

Reason Number Two:  Three is no reason number two.  Reason number one is good enough.

The fact is, Israel implemented strict border controls and reduced terrorism dramatically.

The DHS (Obama, Clinton) Response is to impose a police state.  The Trump Response is to keep bad guys out.  I vote for Trump.  

So the promise of a Trump Presidency is not only to keep out the terrorists,there is the added bonus of stopping the Feds from imposing the Police State via Gun Control, and prevent the slippery slide into Socialism or a civil war.

Thursday, June 09, 2016

Don’t Count Trump Out, the Fight Hasn’t even Started

A number of pundits, along with the betting odds, major newspapers, and pretty much everyone that makes a prediction, with few exceptions, say variously that Trump is an Underdog, he has zero chance and has already lost, or present demographics, electoral maps or polls, and ask, “how can Trump win?”

Fact:  In the last election, 20% of voters made up their mind less than two months before the election

For that reason, counting Trump out now is premature.

Fact:  Trump just destroyed a field of 17 tough competitors.

Trumps attack on Hillary will be more severe than those he made on the other republican candidates, as he has one opponent, not 16.  At the same time, Hillary, for her part, has never won a tough election.  She beat out a nobody to gain a senate seat, she lost to Obama after a huge head start, and she barely beat Bernie Sanders, a complete nobody from New England. 

Theory:  Hillary has never faced anyone like Trump, and neither have her advisers.

Hillary is more likely the underdog, not Trump. 

Theory:  Trump Gets His Message Out

He is so incredibly effective in getting his message out through the media, and especially the press.  The press can neither muzzle him, nor can they create a false image of him.  He creates his own image daily.  He appears to be more effective than any other presidential candidate, ever.  This has to be worth 5% in the vote. 

Theory:  There has never been an election like this one, it is different this time. 

Will this contest between Trump and Clinton be the dirtiest political fight ever, or just a spectacle not to be missed?

You Decide, but don’t count Trump out yet. He’s not a loser.


Seven Ways Donald can become president.

T. Boone Pickens hedging all bets.

Trump will Beat Hillary in Landslide


Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Trump's Threat to the Status Quo

Looking at the headline of a recent Vox article touting Sanders Plan, it could easily be read as 95% of us gang up on the top 5%, so we let's raise taxes that way.  

 Sure, well, it's either that, or, we gang up on the middle class, or that fellow behind the tree.  The politics as usual is to raise taxes.   

Raising taxes any amount always has the same effect: it grows the size of the government.  Any job the government does, the job costs money. 

But a simple question: What is the number one mission of any government agency?  Is the FBI's primary concern justice, or is the FBI more interested in its own survival? 

It is the latter.  Preservation and Growth of the Agency.  The number one mission of the Federal Government, like all governmental entities, is to grow itself.  Even Reagan, the great conservative, could not shrink government. 

Our federal government is already so strong it controls half the world with its military, and about half the economy of the U.S. 

To give you an idea of its reach, most of the stock market public companies success rides on its good graces with the government.  It's control of the market is so broad, it's no longer wise to invest in market, in the face of an arbitrary and capricious decision of appointed cronies.  Isn't half the world enough? No, the behemoth will devour everything in its path on the way to socialism.  So big, that, there will come a time to leave the US to escape it, before it becomes oppressive.  Perhaps in our lifetime. 

Then there will be an overthrow of the government,  that is the only way to shrink it. Alternatively, at some point the federal behemoth might self destruct through sheer bloating.  Hopefully, we are still a ways away from that, yet it is possible.

Federal Government Behemoth
Democrats and Republicans alike, they all understand the behemoth concept. 

They compete to see who is is "at the helm" of the behemoth, how much to feed it (in taxes) with full knowledge it will devour anything in its path. The differences in Democrats and Republicans is pretty much nil considering the damage the behemoth does devouring the economy.   They all compete and collaborate on who will get the choicest federal contracts, jobs and authority. 

It's a big comfortable ship, full of do-nothing jobs, the government is.  From politicians down to lunch ladies, everyone in it rides a gravy train of benefits. 

Yet, Trump threatens this backscratching status quo.  He threatens to start holding people accountable.  That's what he does.  He holds people accountable. 

The Feds have taken notice of Trump, and fed employees, politicians, contractors of all kinds, are dependent on the gravy train.  So please excuse them in this election.  There's something more at stake here, besides socialism.  Peoples phony-baloney Jobs are Threatened! Nothing brings the full might and weight of the federal government at you than threatening a government job, as this Mel Brooks bit from Blazing Saddles illustrates

While Trump isn't afraid to fire people, he threatens the behemoth.  And it is turning its full weight against Trump now.  
Which explains in part why so many Republican Insiders are now, all of a sudden, coming out against Trump.  These people are part of the Behemoth, they depend on it for their livelihood.  As such, they might actually prefer Hillary, because, at least with HRC, they know what they will get.  
A bigger behemoth.  Much bigger.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Bumped to stay on top.

Still posting on Twitter:  @nooil4pacifists  See you there!

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Searching for the Elusive Extreme Weather

The previous post raised -- again -- the issue of whether global warming (ahem, climate change) causes more extreme weather.  The US Environmental Protection Agency says "no"; indeed, in the lower 48 states, the greatest concentration of "heat waves" was in the 1930s:

If anything, global warming has created more pleasant summers:

"But what about storms?", I hear you say.  There's been no increased precipitation in the U.K., and storms haven't gotten stronger. Now comes a new study in the Hydrological Sciences Journal confirming the obvious (citations omitted): 
[R]eporting on hydro-meteorological disasters has improved significantly because of a denser satellite network, the Internet and international media, whereas earthquakes were recorded globally from terrestrial stations.  These improvements have introduced a bias in information access through time, which need to be addressed in trend analysis.  
Sure, property losses from floods and hurricanes have increased dramatically.  But that's because of ever denser lowland and sea-coast building, and near-free flood insuranceIn sum, the study concludes, "The scientific community needs to emphasize that the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape and that will be the case for decades to come."  In other words, stop trying to "cure" natural climate variability and focus on amelioration or adaptation.

Tuesday, January 07, 2014

Monday, January 06, 2014

What, Me Worry?

U.S. Temps, 1895-2012 (lower 48), from the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Data Center, plotting data from 1895-2012, with a trend line from 1922 to 2012:

Result:  warming of +1.26 degrees F per century.  That's +0.13 degrees F per decade.  And close to the revised IPCC predicted increases of around +0.4 degrees C (0.7 degrees F) over 30 years, which -- if constant until 2010 -- means global warming could be as little as 1.3 degrees C (2.3 degrees F) over this century.

Chill baby.


Recent trends from Anthony Watts's continuously updated Global Temperature Page:

More & More:

Remember: don't believe the temperatures you read from some scientists--they adjust older weather data to make it seem as if recent warming is more severe and ignore the "urban heat island" effect.  And you needn't merely rely on me--look at the record.  And check the facts on claims of increased precipitation or extreme weather events.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

The way Chris Matthews sees racism everywhere, you've got to wonder if the guy's nuts

This is a guest post by reader Morgan:

To remove any doubt, here are the results of a Rorschach test the MSNBC "Hardball" host took this past summer: 

Two Tea Party members attacking an African-American

Six Tea Party members attacking a Black man

Two Tea Party members talking about how they just beat up some Black guy

Ted Cruz with puffy sleeves about to steal candy from a Black baby

A Tea Party member trick-or-treating as a six-armed monster who beats up Black guys

John Boehner racist devil-bat

White woman laughing at Puerto Ricans


          Two White bigots with AR-15s 

Ok, Matthews didn't really take that inkblot test.  We're just fooling with you.  No one's that crazy.  But then again, he compared Obama to Jesus Christ.  And there's the business with "I felt this thrill going up my leg."  Plus he admitted his job was to help Obama succeed.  That's a crazy thing for a journalist to say. 

Oh, and there's all the stuff below.  Let's face it; the guy's not right in the head.

Monday, September 30, 2013

Now on Twitter!

Bumped to stay on top.

For the moment, I'm posting occasionally on Twitter:  @nooil4pacifists  Follow me there!

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Is Europe Falling Out of Love?

According to a just-released survey by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, President Obama's popularity is dropping in the EU (except, oddly, in Poland):

The survey pre-dated Obama naming Vladimir Putin as Secretary of State. As Cubs fans say, "Wait 'till next year. . ."

Monday, September 17, 2012

When Bill Clinton points his finger, looks you in the eye and says, "Listen to me," watch out.

This is a guest post by reader Morgan

White House press conference, January 26, 1998. Text. Video (Fast forward to 06:25):
“... I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.”
Democratic National Convention, September 5th, 2012. Text. Video (Fast forward to 20:00):
“... Listen to me now. No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years. (APPLAUSE) Now -- but he has -- he has laid the foundations for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity. And if you will renew the president’s contract, you will feel it. You will feel it (APPLAUSE) Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it. (APPLAUSE)”

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Top 10 things to tell President Obama to get him to read Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations"

This is a guest post by reader Morgan.

After listening to President Obama’s litany of economic excuses, Michael J. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and past chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, suggests that our President read Adam Smith’s masterwork.

Good luck with that. The leader of the free world is way too busy campaigning to govern, much less read a book on classical economics. Boskin would have to resort to subterfuge. Here are some suggestions:

Top 10 things to tell President Obama to get him to read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations

10. The original title was Adam Smith's "Rules for Radicals"

9. It's mandatory reading for the Miami Heats

8. Next to your two books and possibly the Bible, Adam’s Smith’s masterpiece is the fourth best book ever written

7. "The Wealth of Nations" was secretly written by your good pal Billy Ayers

6. Reggie Love gives it A Big Thumbs Up

5. Your old buddy Rashid Khalidi, former spokesperson for the PLO, has discussed the book at his dinner table and loves it to death

4. Jimmy Carter wrote the forward

3. Rev. Wright once delivered it as a sermon

2. It's on that fake list of books Sarah Palin wanted to ban

1. It’ll improve your golf game

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Charts of the Day

Remember the bogus "Hockey Stick" climate model, which predicted rapid, and seemingly irreversible, global temperature increases? At one point, Dr. Michael Mann, the model's creator-in-chief, appeared to back away from some of his model's notions. Possibly because the science underlying the model -- particularly the tree ring data used as proxies for historical temperatures -- appeared suspect.

Thanks to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, strike the word "appeared." With tree ring proxy models, some data likely are outliers and should be excluded. There's nothing unscientific about the process, so long as it is transparent. McIntyre now has received the complete "Yamal" dataset (through 2005), calculated temperature proxies, and compared the results to the "Climate Research Unit" 2008 supposed Hockey Stick measurements:

source: Climate Audit

Not quite the same Hockey Stick, is it? Or, if so, it's flipped, un-threateningly, sideways. Anthony Watts both explains and poses a question to Dr Hockey Stick:
This graph demonstrates how trees simply don’t show a hockey stick shape when all of the data is used.

In MBH98, your paper Dr. Mann, has a similar problem to the Briffa data. Your solution was to not use tree core data after 1960 and to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.

How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result, and that Mr. McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all of the data is used?
Of course, Dr Mann ducked the question, calling it "specious." Similarly, Myles Allen thinks it "sad for democracy that so much energy in the debate on climate change has been expended on pseudo-debates about the science, leaving no room for public debate about the policy response." Allen goes on to say that his "fear is that by keeping the public focused on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change." In other words, the science is settled.

Except -- whoops! -- it isn't. RealClimate -- the blog that brags to be "Climate science from climate scientists" -- just had to revise its ocean heat content graphs for prior years. It blamed the mistake on "incorrect scaling." Strange language for an error us "pseudo-debate[rs]" have known of for years. With the correction, by the way, the ocean heat rise (for 2010) looks to have flatlined a while back:

source: RealClimate


Post-modernists are skeptical about everything except skepticism. I don't know whether the earth actually is cooling. But the alarmist sure haven't shown it's worth spending hundreds of trillions against the small risk the planet might be warming. All they've proved -- again -- is that greens are crazy.

Thursday, May 24, 2012


Economist Thomas Sowell in the May 22nd Townhall:
Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can supply the people with things they want but cannot afford. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government. . .

After the Constitution of the United States was amended to permit a federal income tax, in 1916, the number of people reporting taxable incomes of $300,000 a year or more fell from well over a thousand to fewer than three hundred by 1921.

Were the rich all getting poorer? Not at all. They were investing huge sums of money in tax-exempt securities. The amount of money invested in tax-exempt securities was larger than the federal budget, and nearly half as large as the national debt.

This was not unique to the United States or to that era. After the British government raised their income tax on the top income earners in 2010, they discovered that they collected less tax revenue than before. Other countries have had similar experiences. Apparently the rich are not all fools, after all.

In today's globalized world economy, the rich can simply invest their money in countries where tax rates are lower.

So, if you cannot rely on "the rich" to pick up the slack, what can you rely on? Lies.

Nothing is easier for a politician than promising government benefits that cannot be delivered. Pensions such as Social Security are perfect for this role. The promises that are made are for money to be paid many years from now -- and somebody else will be in power then, left with the job of figuring out what to say and do when the money runs out and the riots start.

There are all sorts of ways of postponing the day of reckoning. The government can refuse to pay what it costs to get things done. Cutting what doctors are paid for treating Medicare patients is one obvious example.

That of course leads some doctors to refuse to take on new Medicare patients. But this process takes time to really make its full impact felt -- and elections are held in the short run. This is another growing problem that can be left for someone else to try to cope with in future years.

Increasing amounts of paperwork for doctors in welfare states with government-run medical care, and reduced payments to those doctors, in order to stave off the day of bankruptcy, mean that the medical profession is likely to attract fewer of the brightest young people who have other occupations available to them -- paying more money and having fewer hassles. But this too is a long-run problem -- and elections are still held in the short run.

Eventually, all these long-run problems can catch up with the wonderful-sounding lies that are the lifeblood of welfare state politics. But there can be a lot of elections between now and eventually -- and those who are good at political lies can win a lot of those elections.