the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The November Surprise

Posted by Jeff Id on November 2, 2016

So each election for president in the last several cycles has include revelations by the liberal media that the conservative has done something bad— in the last 3 days.  Romney apparently hates dogs, Bush had a DUI etc…

You would think that they would bring this crap earlier but it isn’t as effective when a person can explain what actually happened.  I was expecting another rough Trump tape – nothing compared to William Clinton.  I was expecting some tax thing or whatever, what I wasn’t expecting was an immediate and unqualified exoneration from the FBI.

However, I just learned that the FBI has “chosen” people working in shifts to look through these NEW emails.

IMO, it, that, zhe, she, whatever, will be exonerated falsely again before Tuesday next week.    Comey is still clean in that case and Clinton gets the final push.

Why else would the FBI work in shifts?


Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments »

Donna Brazile’s Lies Continue… Clinton Corruption Also Continues

Posted by Jeff Id on October 31, 2016

It seems obvious that the data the FBI has from Weiner and Huma is absolutely damning.  Comey had to come out with it now or he would be culpable.  Otherwise he could just duck the issue until later.  It was already obvious and were WikiLeaks not releasing details behind the scenes, we wouldn’t have enough data to know how corrupt Hillary is and how corrupt the Democrat party is.

On that issue, I fully beleived that in the first debate Hillary was passed the question about cybersecurity.  She was too quick on the answer and her answer fit the question too perfectly considering the major criminal issues she faces already.   I literally cringed that the moderator asked something so biased in Hillary’s favor but it was the tailoring of the response that made me duck.

Then we had Democratic National Committee boss and former CNN contributor Donna Brazile’s name come out in the Wiki releases stating that she shared the questions.  She denied it 100%, then we learned that the checksum for the email was perfect so we know Donna is a liar!!  She made no comment but today, we find out that she did it another time and actually offered additional questions in the future.  Her email is here where she replies that she will send more along with the death penalty question already discussed.

Hillary’s group could have denied the questions being offered.  They could have responded that it wasn’t fair to the other candidates.  Hill is in on this one too, not just crazy Donna.  CNN is also guilty because they were intentionally sharing questions with what we know was their favorite candidate.  I for one am certain that this behavior continued throughout the debate cycle — at least until Fox.

The renewed FBI investigation couldn’t happen to a nicer person.   If she gets elected, we could go right into an actual constitutional crisis but that doesn’t stop the nut-jobs I heard on the radio claiming that climate change was so dangerous we HAVE to vote for a crook.    They literally claimed that climate change was more important than criminality of the candidate.

Love it!




Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »


Posted by Jeff Id on October 28, 2016

So yeah…  I wrote in no uncertain terms that Hillary was a crook.  I wrote that Mann was a crook. I wrote that Lewandowski is a liar and crook.   I wrote that tree ring hockey sticks are nonsense. Yes I know it doesn’t make me Nostradamaus because — those of you born with common sense already saw the same thing. I do get points becaue I took the time to drive a stake in the ground and wrote it down.  Had I been wrong, I would be called out on it.

I also titled the last post in the terms that “SHE” was getting away with it……

So I will give you some additional common sense from the matter, because we are being led by the nose BY the media.  I’m unwilling to participate in the nonsense.  Hillary is alreayd 100% guilty of crimes NONE of us could possibly survive prosecution from.  The evidence is in and she IS guilty.

She is in fact— so effing guilty that the director of the FBI has re-opened investigation of her emails.

Comey, the same asshole who let her go just week ago despite the fact that she had her people DELETE subpoenaed evidence using server-wipe software, had preferential destruction of computer evidence IN A NOW RE-OPENED CASE!  The evidence has been wiped, her closest people protected by writ.

It’s nonsense to protect a heavily entrenched politician.


She was blatantly and illegally protected by those charged with following law.   Comey literally threw out a case so obviously and easily prosecutable that it was impossible to defend their rejection.  He literally stated that the problem existed, but he couldn’t show “intent”.    hehe. The mainstream media allowed it to happen with no critique.

SOO,  I keep being right folks.  I really do.  It is what we used to call— common sense.  Today it’s called ‘conservative’.

I’ll leave you with a quote from a comment here a couple of days ago.


Just to send a little cold air into this echo chamber of hot vented air — a few words from the best of the MSM: Read it and think!

So while I’m THINKING perhaps Sirioso, might want to re-think ZHE’s own position.

Read the link at your own risk.

Image result

Smarter, you will not be.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Getting Away With It

Posted by Jeff Id on October 27, 2016

My bold below.  Clintons folk could even figure out why she did it.

From Fox News today and the department of – you couldn’t make this stuff up:


Podesta also wrote to Tanden airing his concerns on March 2, the day the story about Clinton’s private email account broke.

“Speaking of transparency, our friends [attorney David] Kendall, Cheryl and Phillipe [Reines] sure weren’t forthcoming on the facts here,” Podesta wrote.

Tanden replied, implying that keeping the email setup a secret was likely Mills’ doing.

“This is a Cheryl special,” Tanden wrote. “Know you love her, but this stuff is like her Achilles heel. Or kryptonite. She just can’t say no to this s—. Why didn’t they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy.”

Tanden added: “I guess I know the answer they wanted to get away with it.



Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Donna Brazile on CheckSums

Posted by Jeff Id on October 24, 2016

Since the beginning of digital transmission, something I call checksums have been used.  We used to get them with downloads to correct EXE files before they were run and unexpectedly crashed. Today we use them to write to hard drives because 1 in 10^15 bytes is wrong or some crap like that, even when the drives are good, stuff goes wrong and checks are used to retry data transmission.  In the electrical engineering world, things aren’t perfect and a bad EE doesn’t recognize this, a good one spends her or his life looking out for the problems.

Transmission of 1’s or 0’s or whatever base is being used needs to accurately differentiate between states.  If you want to maximize your transmission rate, an absolute law of physics for return on investment of data transmission — is that you push it to its absolute limit of resolution.  And you then provide a checksum- for each packet of information transmitted.  The check could be very simple, add the digital value of each byte and transmit that.   Take the lowest order of the added value of each byte…  Sounds complex but it isn’t.  Take the highest order of each byte value – same result…. But Donna is a moron and that is what she gets.

The bottom line is that the checksum doesn’t contain the full information of the email and it is impossible to put together a readable combination of characters which would lead to the same checksum.  If you put a single extra space…..  An extra period… delete a character, change an apostrophe, let alone a changed idea,  the checksum doesn’t agree anymore.

So since nobody but Donna disagreed, Donna didn’t like her own emails. She was embarrassed by what she wrote!  Enough to lie about it, or all of the hacked email folk would have disagreed.

Pay attention folks, it’s just the data.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Media Corruption Impacts Election

Posted by Jeff Id on October 23, 2016

Update:  Reader Lynn Clark added this link to the comments– along with a fair critique of my post.   I rarely watch video to get information because it comes to slowly.   In this case, I watched the whole thing.  The title is stupid, the rest is not.


The media is more than stinking up the joint this election.  Even the pseudo-conservative Fox news has made it clear that they will not back a political outsider.  I seriously wonder how many people are aware that Hillary has been caught (smoking gun) trading American interests for her own personal gain.   Do voters even know that she sold 20 percent of Amercian Uranium directly to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions to her charity, the one she claimed contributed 90% of its money to good causes — a complete fabrication at the last debate which went largely unchallenged.  The media not only didn’t question her once during the entire campaign about this quid-pro-quo Uranium deal but didn’t even bring it up in the debates.   In addition to the millions, Bill Clinton was given another half million right after the deal for a ‘speaking’ engagement.  Instead of talking about Hillary helping to arm a totalitarian superpower in exchange for money for herself, they talk about Trump being unstable.

You probably don’t even know that Podesta owned huge amount of stock in a Russian business, only that Russia hacked the emails and Trump must be their friend.  Of course  you also don’t know that there is no actual evidence on public record that Russia had a thing to do with the hacked emails?

Do you even know that the Hillary campaign and the DNC have been caught red handed in video and documents using illegal aliens to vote in multiple states to RIG the election?   The media has only brushed this point but long time activists with strong contacts to the white house have been forced to resign.   All that people could ask about the incident, and all that was news, was to ask Trump if he would support the election results.  No mention made of WHY the results would be questioned by anyone.  No reporting of the seriousness of the wide spread allegations and video evidence of election tampering by the Democrat party.  It’s as though discussion of such things is a Lewandowsky-like conspiracy, BUT WE HAVE IT ON TAPE!!  It isn’t a stretch to imagine why they would ask the question and then act like Trump is crazy when he doesn’t give in to their stupid reaction.   It was a scam folks and it worked because you probably don’t even know about what caused it.

Are you aware that there are literally dozens of quid pro quo examples released in the Wiki emails, including the use of the actual words by Clinton’s own confidants in reference to foreign and other money.  This is the biggest story of corruption in the history of America, and the media only wants to talk about women Trump is accused of — well I’m not sure how to describe it.  Did you hear that the King of Morocco spent 12 million for access to Hillary. Did you hear when the media asked her what the King expected to receive in return for that cash payment? — No you didn’t, because they didn’t ask!

You may say the latest porn star sex accuser is fair game, but are you even aware that Bill Clinton has been accused of rape and Hillary accused of threatening her to silence.  Did you know that a new women came forward and accused Bill of forcibly using the back of her head as a rubbing post.  The detail she used was completely disgusting and I couldn’t finish the video, but the MEDIA won’t report it.  Actual rape and actual assault, while the accuser actually pleaded with him to stop which he did NOT do.   Instead we have BOLD HEADLINES that a porn star was offered money for sex with Trump and she said no.   A claim Trump denies of course, but the two events are orders of magnitude different from a moral perspective.

Did you know that Clinton attempted to give the FBI significant support that they wanted in important positions, in exchange for changing the ‘classified’ status of a critical email right at the time she was telling the public that there WERE NO CLASSIFIED emails.

Do you even understand that the REASON for the private server was to hide the quid pro quo Hillary was working as Secretary of State, from the public eye and government control.   Without a private server, her crimes would be totally visible.  That is what the scandal is about, it had little to do with protecting confidential information — as the media keeps telling you. Hell, conservatives were talking about the reason for the servers existence well before the ‘classified email’ problem was discussed.  It’s like climategate, they got the public focused on the wrong issue entirely avoiding the real problem.  That is the purpose of controlling information, but it is impossibly hard for the general public to figure out these things if the MEDIA won’t report them.

Did anyone even tell you that the Podesta emails were not disclosed to the FBI for the investigation.  These were held back by Hillary, even though they were highly related to classified emails as they included discussion with the FBI about classified emails.   Yes this means that the FBI had emails in their possession which proved Hillary did not comply with their discovery order.  Instead, these same emails were instead deleted and scrubbed from her server using Bit Bleach, a program which overwrites the same area of the harddrive until the data cannot be forensically recovered.   How would you know if ABC,CBS,CNN, NBC and even Fox don’t report it as part of their normal news.  There was 10X more evidence of Hillary quid pro quo in Podesta’s emails sent to Hillary’s server.  YOU and I should have no doubt as to why she destroyed the other 30,000.

Even the fact that she deleted emails protected under subpoena was lied about.  The podesta emails have recently proven that she was completely guilty of the charges and the coverup and the content of the emails demonstrates the INTENT in their destruction.  She HAD previously claimed her lawyers only deleted personal emails, but we only have seen a section of the Podesta thread which proves that she was bribing the FBI to remove classified emails while simultaneously lying to them about the emails existence, and at the same point in time her team was actively deleting  incriminating emails.   Did you know any of that?

Were you aware that the FBI gave immunity to the key people involved in the quid pro quo scam.  The one in front of them that they were NOT investigating, instead focusing on the obviously mishandled classified emails.   That’s not the half of it though, they actually agreed to DESTROY THE COMPUTERS of the people who had been given immunity.   I know CNN didn’t bother to report any of that.  Why would the FBI agree to destroy the evidence of what we now KNOW for an absolute FACT from the Podesta email release was felony level criminal activity by these people.  What power and money were they offered in exchange for the destruction of those computers.

And the media didn’t report that either.   In fact the only way to find these things out is search the internet endlessly and piece the bits together.  A bit of talk radio doesn’t hurt either.

Did you know that the majority if not all of the contributions from the Clinton foundation have been to her husband’s other foundations as well as to grease palms of people allegedly helping other countries.   This hundreds of millions of dollars is not for Charity — instead we get news of a Trump foundation exceeding a paltry 25,000 limit and not filing correctly in New York.  Well done MEDIA, well done indeed!  The two issues are again, not comparable in magnitude or criminality but you probably heard about Trump, did you hear about what Clinton really did?!!

Have you understood that the Democratic party is funding violence at Trump rallies such that the media can paint Trump as violent.   Did you know that was Clintons intent when she spoke of the violence during her campaign and the media was instructed to pile on?  It was a setup that some of us believed, but now we have video and written proof.   The individuals were literally paid and trained to go to these events and try to get in fights.   They were also paid to incite violence at the anti-police demonstrations.  People are being injured and even killed and the Democrats are caught red handed on video funding and training people to make the situation worse.  That has to be a felony of some sort, but you sure don’t hear of it from CNN do you..?

Are you aware that the media has been caught red handed organizing, approving and delivering scripted messages for the Hillary campaign for this entire election cycle.  Smoking gun, red handed crooked collusion, just like climategate, — which incidentally they also did a horrible job covering and most people aren’t aware of that event either.  Her fits of rage with them when they ask her questions she didn’t like.  Did you know she was fed questions before the democratic debates by CNN?   Before proof of that became public, I watched the first presidential debate between her and Trump and my friends will tell you I fully believed Clinton was fed the cyber security question which quite transparently avoided the FBI investigation of her now proven CRIMINAL activities.

These emails, videos and other evidence have proven beyond a doubt how corrupt Clinton and the Democrat party are.  No I’m sure that the Republicans do some bad things but we all know there is no equivalent on the other side of the fence.  In fact, you can tell which Republicans like power more than doing the right thing, because they know all of these facts SO they are likely the ones attacking Trump as well.   In the greatest magnitude, one party owns this mess, the authoritarian faux-Democrat, vote-stealing party is following the exact pattern that the conservatives have warned you of for decades.  They are stealing your votes, they are stealing your money and property, they are giving away your children’s future, and you know damned well, once you’ve given you aren’t getting it back from Hillary.  If you can’t figure her personality out from her other actions, you can tell that by how her ‘foundation’ gives back alone.

So do you know what I think when I see people supporting Hillary, I think they are morons.  I think that in many cases, their ideals of government have corrupted their own thought processes to the point that they cannot see truth.  I also see tremendous ignorance of what is going on due to concerted efforts by liberal media groups.   I’m afraid of what it means for America to support this evil person, and the evil totalitarian organization she represents.

The government-media complex has grown the critical mass the founding fathers warned you of.   Mind control is completely unnecessary when you have full complicity and collusion of the media.   There are very big stories in this election that are not being covered, and very small stories being painted as big events.  America is being attacked on all fronts, the elections are being rigged, non-citizen undocumented voters are being allowed to vote with only a drivers license, video and written evidence has shown that they are being funded by the Democratic party to provide fake jobs, transportation and registration to vote in multiple states – with full knowledge of the Clintons and whitehouse.

Again, I know I’m not changing anyone’s vote, but you at least owe it to yourselves to be informed by something other than the canned bullshit being peddled by the networks.   Try Breitbart for a start but there are a lot of other sources as well.  Today we learn that Trumps latest accuser — a porn star mentioned above — is launching her new on line sex company at the same moment she accused Trump of an unverifiable claim that she was offered money for sex with Trump by a third party.  Free advertising?  Noooo!, couldn’t be true.  She claims she said no and instead got money for sex with other people.  I bet you won’t learn about the timing related to her company on other networks though, only the big HEADLINE of the accusation.  You have to come to an old climate blog to even find out about it.  Where was the headline for Clinton’s use the back of an unwilling woman’s head as an orgasm post.

Did you know that several of the Trump accusers accounts have been rejected by witnesses?   Probably not because MSNBC doesn’t want to tell you about that.

I’m not buying any of the bullshit from the networks, and I am buying that Bill Clinton did assault the woman on the tape recently because her story was disgustingly detailed, and unlike Trump, Clinton has a history of rape and sexual assault (dramatically immoral) and unlike Trump, Clinton has been forced to pay hundreds of thousands to get out of trouble with women.   See — not the same thing at all!! and NBC doesn’t even talk about it, only accusations of Trump chasing ladies are news.

All of that, and I’m still not a huge Trump fan.   He will negotiate a better deal for the US and you cannot buy him with a few million bucks because he flatly doesn’t need it.  He lacks detail and doesn’t communicate well.  Still, the prospect of an outsider in the job is one which I am very much interested in at this point.  These corrupt bastards in the FBI and all across our government need to be purged with extreme prejudice.   We could probably kick out all of the drug addicts from our jails and refill the whole things up again with Washington insiders and be a hell of a lot better off.

Pay attention folks, because you are about to get horrifically screwed by the media and the Clintons.   Juanita Broaddrick can tell you personally from her own experience that it’s not fun to be forcibly screwed by either of them and she was by both.


Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

Selection 2016

Posted by Jeff Id on October 17, 2016

So the Air Vent has been radio silent for a long time.   This blog was born during the first Obama election.   My very first article was to point out the Russian reaction to missile defense in Poland had nothing to do with the actual missiles but rather the range of the insanely powerful radar system on their border.  I was proven right over time.

I spent most of the blogs formative years on climate change.  Climate Audit, WUWT and the Blackboard blogs were key drivers in my writings.   I am extremely grateful for those blog owners direction and trust.   This blog grew steadily for years until Climategate broke in 2009 with the Air Vent at ground zero.  I was at about 5000 views per day and when that hit, it jumped to 35,000.  Probably a normal day at WUWT but it dwarfed my hometown newspapers views at the time.

Today we are faced with a new election and I have to say, an easier choice has never been possible.  We have one candidate who is inarticulate, a billionaire, no criminal history, no known acceptance of foreign money for political favors,  no driving record problems, a non-drinker, didn’t want the Iraq war, and is not part of the political class.  We have a second candidate who is known to take money from foreign countries for undisclosed reasons, who has dealt in classified information on unsecured computer systems, who is known to have attempted quid-pro-quo negotiations with the FBI to change classification of emails, who has attacked the women her husband has been involved with, while vigorously prosecuting her husband’s victims, who has disallowed help to Americans in life ENDING situations ” ‘what at this point does it matter’ “, who has taken millions in speech money from every world-class business,  who has been protected by a compliant media, who was fed debate questions from CNN, who was given a pass from the FBI through obviously corrupt governmental agencies for uniquely poor handling of government documents-which was being done for the reasons of HIDING THE OPERATIONS of HER TAX FREE fake “non-profit” organization which happens to be set up in a manner in which the FOREIGN donors are not disclosed to the US tax payers.

See, the scam is easy, you set up a non-profit in Canada which at this point has not been required to disclose its donors to public, and then you set up a non-profit in the US who is required to show its donors – who are the Clinton group.  What is she going to ‘give’ for the money.   Why are these also rich people, willing to cough up millions?  The answer is as obvious as the response, the Clinton foundation stated that they will stop taking foreign money AFTER she is elected.  In other words, if you want access—– Pay now!

I can’t wright enough to cover her sins.  My fingers will fall off.  She is as guilty as Mann.  She makes hide-the-decline look like girl scout cookie price inflation!!

None of these people are perfect, none of them are my choice.  I liked Fiorina and Carson, yes I am an evil Conservative — because I do understand business and those of you who aren’t…. don’t.  It’s not my fault that you haven’t handled US taxes.  When you wonder where manufacturing went, I told you already so it is your fault for thinking you understand it better than me.

Other countries citizens are exempt from my critique because you cannot understand what we face.  For the rest of you, if you were paying those taxes, you would likely understand the damage to our economy and likely change your mind.

Especially the readers of this blog.

Trump is inarticulate, which doesn’t work well for conservatives.   Bush was quite articulate, despite his gaffes, in case you don’t recall.   He was easy to tease for the left media but much sharper than he was ever given credit for – by the left.  I doubt any of my normal readers could handle the rigors of the daily microphone as well as he.  I couldn’t.  I was one of the few conservatives in my circle who didn’t like the 2nd Iraq war.  I din’t want it, but as is often the case, Nobody asked me.   — I don’t feel sorry for them though.  War is evil, but so is extreme Muslim.  Yup, it is – sorry Brandon.   But that lack of quality Trumpian prose is an easy to slam problem.

So today, we have an incredibly successful businessman, being played by the media as an apparent accidental idiot billionaire.  He speaks of lower taxes, reduced regulation, proper energy production, WINNING DEALS with other countries, directing, controlling and TEACHING the world what it means to be free.   It sounds like cheer-leading, but I’m not there.  Fiorina is much better, but Trump will win the stupid deals because with the right leader, we hold the cards.   Unfortunately, he is in competition with a blatantly corrupt politician being bought out at every possible corner.  Even the RINO’s like her over the un-buyable Trump.  Money from every country for her campaign.  Even Iran.   Even UAE.  Muslim Brotherhood.  Hell the communist party of the united states has endorsed the monster over their own.

Ask yourself why Iraq, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Libya, the United Arab Emirates or Libya would pay money to the Clinton campaign?  Why would any foreign government be allowed whatsoever. What do they want in return.   It USED to be a crime.  Apparently it is all good when you are  a liberal.   Imagine the uproar if roles were reversed.

Tough call?

You will vote as you do no matter what I write.   I know that.  We don’t get the choice for what we actually want in a candidate, but I have to say that this is literally the easiest election decision I’ve ever made.


Posted in Uncategorized | 35 Comments »

Tax Thought Inversion

Posted by Jeff Id on August 8, 2016

So here is another example of wrongthink so actively promoted by the inappropriately self-titled ‘progressives’.

Advocates cite health benefits in pushing the proposals. “The goal of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages is to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which science has proven to be directly correlated to detrimental health impacts such as diabetes, obesity and heart diseases,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Malia Cohen told — source

Clearly this statement is accurate.  If we tax something, we increase its cost and across a broad spectrum of personal economic decisions, reduce the likelihood of its consumption.  The tiny tax also primarily reduces its availability to the most impoverished section of the public rather than equally distributing the reductions in consumption but that is also a progressive talking point.

Let’s see this other concept though:

Indeed, Clinton’s proposals call for $2.2 trillion in new spending over a 10-year period, with plans that would allow in about a million more immigrants a year. She’s looking to boost spending on infrastructure and education, as well as providing paid family and medical leave, increasing the minimum wage, and investing in economic development and research.

To pay for her proposals, she’s calling for a near-equal amount of taxation, with the burden placed primarily on the shoulders of corporations and those making more than $300,000 a year. Clinton’s plans rely primarily on Keynesian demand-side solutions, while Trumps’ are more focused on supply-side tax cuts. — from the ever-left CNBC

And Moody’s, using economist Mark Zandi decided that somehow leveling a 2.2 trillion dollar new CORPORATE tax would create more JOBS!  YES, if we take the company money, they will invest more money for more employees! See!!   If stupid capitalist CEO monkey has less money for bannanas, he will buy more bannanas! But if citizen monkey has less money for soda, he will buy less soda………  It doesn’t make sense even on a 4th grade level.  Increase business tax on the highest taxed country in the world means less business for that country… Easy!  The only way I see this econoschill coming up with these conclusions is a lot like Michael Mann, Zandi has tweaked parameters with a high economic feedback rate that grows corporate prosperity by unrealistic and probably non-linear amounts —- like climate science this is for a purpose folks.  Pay attention here.

Our business hasn’t even finished experiencing the full increases from Obama tax hikes -because they were delayed until after the election and now they want more!!!

Zandi had already contributed the maximum allowed amount to Hillaries primary campaign by one report.  On another topic, Hillary has also received 40 million from the severely undertaxed hedge-fund managers who’s personal profit is massive, yet they are taxed at capital gains which is well under half the true rate of manufacturing in this country.  One of the biggest left-wing talking points is hedge fund managers paying capital gains on their own income.  This subject is an absolute easy call for either party which should have been fixed decades ago but they continue to rake in the dough because they contribute to buyable crooked politicians -like Hillary.   Ever wonder why we have fund managers doing well and manufacturing going away?

Taxes folks, we have the highest business tax in the world.  Why should I keep jobs here if the taxation rates are so high.  Why not ship them to where we make more money?

Another example of inverted thought is that Hillary will punish corporations for ‘inversion’, or sending work overseas.  She and the rest of her ilk know we are overtaxed and that we would succeed more in another country.  It is EXTREMELY expensive to relocate a company to another country, especially in personnel, so the payback in taxes is obviously very large.  Yet companies in the US are investing in that exact move! We in the US are so overtaxed, that businesses are intentionally leaving to other countries, shouldn’t we look more closely at the ‘tax rate’?  Or should we just add another punishment tax for a US company trying to remain competitive in the world?   Yet the public is so ignorant of economics, they can’t parse the obvious.  For the US to be globally competitive, we need lower tax rates and less regulation, not more.

This is common sense folks, and it ain’t rocket science.  Zandi is an insider shill and he is selling an ass-over-head economic model to get Hillary elected, IMO likely for some form of personal benefit of which I have no idea.  The US manufacturing sector has continued to wilt under the massive limitation based policies of the last 20 years.   Just as you were told it would.

Let’s keep it simple though.   We all want opportunity for people.  I see these personal business numbers on a daily basis, I know them, I understand them.   I understand what yet another 2% or 5% tax increase does to available cash and investment and it is not pretty.  I understand what a 10% percent reduction does as well, and I have to tell you that we would be working very hard to keep employees with a 10% reduction in total income tax percentage because everyone would be investing violently in growth — that would drive wages up very strongly.

If you want new jobs, a massive removal of money from the corporate bank accounts is not rational on any level.  Don’t let others steal the bananas if you want some for yourself.  BUT—-if you actually want less jobs, you should tax the people who create jobs more.

Simple —-see. Easy call.



Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »

Obama Wins the Prize or Political Climate Change — Recession Baby!

Posted by Jeff Id on August 4, 2016

Well folks, we have started a new recession.   It look pretty deep this time, rather like 2008.  Maybe not though as reductions in gas price will moderate the problem but it isn’t looking pretty.  Very fast decline in production across a wide variety of markets.

What Id?  Have you lost your mind….   CNN didn’t report that.  Is this another Lewandowsky paper setup?

Well, turns out I don’t need CNN or MSNBC to know what is going on with the economy.   I have another way.  I have the advantage of owning a large enough company which is well distributed across America which provides me the truly awesome opportunity to talk to other businesses leaders.

It could still turn around in which case I will post a different story — god I hope to write that one next week…  but I waited for over a month prior to posting and it does not look good. More to come from our crack network news outlets — after the election of course and then we will have — BREAKING NEWS!!!!

So if you want less cigarettes — tax the hell out of em!  — everyone gets that — totally makes sense.

If you want less guns — tax them to bejesus!  — got that too.

If you want less soda pop — tax it — everyone knows that!

We have the highest business tax in the world and it is primarily taxed at a personal income tax rate.    Yet we mouth the words “we want more jobs” while at the same time support even higher taxes – for business owners.

It is the height of ignorance to be angry at business when jobs move overseas.

It is the height of stupidity to expect them to stay.

Like it or not, Liberals and RINO’s own this one.  They will blame the election, others who are actually producers will recognize that the instability of the business environment in a financially stressed economy is the real issue.



Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments »

Climate Science Industry — Negotiation

Posted by Jeff Id on June 7, 2016

I don’t have much time as the company continues to grow.  This article is about the fact that the field called Climate Science has changed in a manner which is not openly recognized by those who have not been immersed in the papers.  Global warming is real, but it is absolutely not dangerous.   It is not a problem, and there is no evidence that it will be anytime in the foreseeable future.  Yes I’m that tired of it, but there is an interesting aspect to the changes in the climate discussion.

I’m tired of the climate BLOG pedantary. That’s what the Sci3nc3 discussion has turned into.   It is hard to be concerned with the nonsensical details of too many government-funded climate doom papers.  I likely am not going to live long enough to see Gavin Schmidt et whomever to be internationally recognized as serial climate exaggerators, and were I to live for those several decades, the now overly obvious proof of such would not bring me greater happiness.  These morons will continue to scream at the top of their lungs no matter which observation proves their inaccuracy or more succinctly — confederation.  ——Queue international conspiracy paper in a psychology journal…

The world of business is far quicker to resolution and it picks winners with rather colder equations than present day government science.  Business is far from easy, despite the popular imagination.  It’s the modern idea that business is something given rather than earned.  That it is friends or gifts or whatever that makes sales, profit margins or results.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, but the concept that our “Bernie” might potentially be someone who could run something as grandiose as a hotdog stand, is beyond reason.  Not that it matters what I write, after all, liberals know that I’m no Bernie.

I’m trying to be interested as to whether north pole sea ice will re-continue to melt, or whether the atmosphere will show enough warming for any reasonable person to see it as a problem.   It is really a hard sell in comparison to things like the economy, which actually feed us, clothe us, warm us, heal us, etc.. (well used to heal us, now it is the government)  Our public has decided to shut down a huge fraction of our power grid this summer in the US.  Maybe not enough to see brownouts, but quite possibly enough.  We shall see.  Certainly if warmists are right, we have SIMULTENEOUS unprecedented AIR-CONDITIONING doom!, but again —- whatever.  I’m going to buy 4 generators that burn coal, wood or dung in them 24/7 so that I can remain comfortable.

Then there are the Losers in their loser suits, telling us how to be more like them, and using their lawsuits to make it happen.  All in the name of freedom.   Sounds incredibly familiar and is a hallmark distinguishing attribute of deployed socialism, although it is most often discussed in opposite terms.

Our company is constructing a new building and I’m not sure that it is a good idea before the election.   It is a tiny thing though, not even a few acres, but I learned last week that we are NOT allowed to use Light Switches, we must use motion sensors.  It’s a good thing I’m not a lighting expert who built energy efficient lighting or I would explain to the morons with the laws how little difference that their ordinances make or how inconvenient we find them but again, we should bow to the Schmidt’s and Mann’s of the world who hold the true knowledge.

Doom and disaster of the sandwich board folk aside, I simply don’t have any excitement about our atmosphere.  Still love a good storm.  Still enjoy the SAME weather I had as a kid, despite the imaginations of the new generation of emotionally educated Illuminati.  It would actually be nice to have an interesting bit of science to bite on but “cover up the model problem” seems to be the idea in climate science these days.  Meh..  It simply isn’t interesting to be continually arguing with climatologists when the side you are arguing against is nothing but paid shills.

Well, unfortunately for me, I’m an engineer and an entrepreneur and I suppose even a reluctant businessman.  In other words, pure evil, or for the more pragmatic, a producer of services.  One thing I recognize in this world is a negotiation, and these people are not scientists at this point, on the whole they don’t really understand yet that they are not scientists anymore, but in a transition phase.  They have entered a pre-negotiated settlement between models and observation.

This is not a scientific negotiation.

Some in the climate science industry have understood.  Some are in the process of reducing model trends, and increasing observed temperature trends. All the while emphasizing uncertainty.  In climate science, and often in business, uncertainty is the moderating unknown factor.   Uncertainty is the heralded helper.  The cover for incoming reason and the industries only remaining protection from common sense. Barrages of questions as to why the ice caps have not melted, and extreme weather has not increased have only uncertainty as an answer.  Yet the pragmatic among us must realize that after decades of extreme doom climate science, we have been surprisingly left ONLY with — uncertainty.

This is a business transaction, and their side has the money, the power, the influence.  The skeptics have the science which is not an insignificant card.

Keep in mind, in business, the middle ground has nothing to do with the correct ground.  It has to do with value and result, and eventual cash in the negotiating players pockets.

We just have to be smart enough to recognize when the negotiations begin.  They are coming whether either side likes it or not.  What is worse is that no matter the outcome, the lawyers will without doubt win this transaction. The governments of the world literally cannot lose — they can only gain more or less.  The tobacco industry has proven quite well how hard it is to kill a multi-hundred billion dollar industry and the negative effects of climate science industry are far less personal.








Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments »

Nearly Two Teams of Hockey Sticks used in Massive Wilson Super Reconstruction

Posted by Jeff Id on January 16, 2016

So a Willis Eschenbach article at WUWT caught my attention this afternoon and cost me several hours. It is basically an average of 54 different tree ring reconstructions around the world. The sheer volume of data which went into each hockey stick and then was processed into the final hockeystick is huge.  Willis demonstrated the indescribable method used to combine the data turned out to be equivalent to a simple average. The result: Hockeystick!


Graph per Willis Eschenbach — WUWT article linked above

Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings:
Rob Wilson a, b, *, Kevin Anchukaitis b, c, Keith R. Briffa d, Ulf Büntgen e, g, h, Edward Cook b,
Rosanne D’Arrigo b, Nicole Davi b, i, Jan Esper j, Dave Frank e, Bj€orn Gunnarson k,
Gabi Hegerl l, Samuli Helama m, Stefan Klesse e, Paul J. Krusic f, k, Hans W. Linderholm n,
Vladimir Myglan o, Timothy J. Osborn d, Milos Rydval a, p, Lea Schneider j,
Andrew Schurer l, Greg Wiles b, q, Peng Zhang n, Eduardo Zorita

The data and articles are fully available on line here.

So knowing just enough about dendrochronology to actually produce work equal to those in publication, I must be an expert dendroclimatologist! Collect tree ring data, density, MXD, blue etc… Detrend by some random form of curve fit. Average or regress and compare to temp. If the comparison is not statistically significant, the bag of accepted statistical shenanigans is wide and nearly unbounded. You can correlate raw data with temp and discard data which isn’t strongly correlated. You can keep all data and use any number of multivariate regressions which functionally eliminate bad non-hockeystick data and amplify the “good”. You can use a huge variety of standardization curves and sorting criteria to create a hockey stick upslope at the recent end of the curve. You can select regions with trees of known warming signal and ignore adjacent trees to create the blade. You can even cut off data which doesn’t work out for you and paste temperature data right on the end. In short — guaranteed success every single time!!

So of course having 23 dendroclimatologists who take 54 separate tree ring reconstructions and put them all together with a nonsensical unjustifiable method that breaks down to a simple average is just par for the course and no surprise to anyone. In their minds, and the minds of various other dimwits, it is absolute proof of the robustness of their field.

D’Arrigo published a ridiculous comment which makes my point perfectly:

Several recent opponents of anthropogenically-forced global warming are familiar with statistics
but have not personally developed tree-ring or other proxy data or reconstructions themselves.
They claim that there are methodological artifacts that could bias, in particular, the Mann et al.
(1999) “hockey stick” reconstruction, and by inference, other reconstructions as well. Attempts
to refute this claim have been published by several authors (e.g. Mann et al. 2005, Rutherford et
al. 2005, Wahl and Ammann in press). However, the methods utilized by the various other studies
are often quite different and most are derived in a more straightforward manner than the much cited
“hockey stick” method (Mann et al. 1999). For example, the D’Arrigo et al. (2006)
reconstruction was developed using simple averaging of tree-ring records (after accounting for
differences in mean and variance over time), followed by linear regression. Care was taken to
evaluate the robust nature of the reconstructions developed in this case, rigorously testing for
model validity and potential bias. Thus, for the D’Arrigo et al. (2006) study and likely others,
there exists no “methodological artifact” which might have biased results in favor of a conclusion
of unusual recent large-scale warming. Therefore, we find the concern that there is “some kind of
methodological artifact that somehow reverberates throughout nearly all of the reconstructions
and that has gone unappreciated by people in the field” to be unfounded.
There has also been accusation of bias in site selection or so-called “cherry picking”, in which it
has been argued that dendrochronologists only include those sites that show global warming for
use in the tree-ring reconstructions. Instead, we maintain that we purposely select those trees and
sites which portray low-frequency information. Coherent trends between some tree-ring records
are indicative of a common response to large-scale temperature changes. We also pre-screened
the tree-ring records used in our reconstruction against individual station records and gridded
climate data, to evaluate their more localized response to temperature (D’Arrigo et al. 2006).
Only certain types of sites (e.g. due to their ecological characteristics) can provide large-scale
temperature information. This is by its very nature a subjective, non-quantifiable process and we
make no apologies for selecting these kinds of trees and sites to reconstruct temperature
variability. Such a signal can often be readily observed by examining core samples in the field (e.g.
increased growth in the 20th century, decreased growth during cold periods of the so-called Little
Ice Age, etc), or in tree-ring chronologies even prior to any calibration or modeling with
instrumental temperatures.

Right in the middle of the thing our resident genius admits to throwing out data which goes against the theory that the trees are measuring temperature. Those trees that DO correlate to temp, have some magic and unknowable property which binds them inextricably to temperature for all time.  Somehow this magic also doesn’t allow them to be identified any other way than after looking at the data.  Really old trees that exist prior to the temperature record are usually left unsorted.  We readers of such drek, typically have no idea how many trees must be examined before a magic ‘thermometertree’ is selected because the expert scientists don’t bother to tell us.  Now the sets are so predetermined that experts don’t even look at non-sanctioned data so we have a functional presort as a defacto standard.  D’Aroigo may make no apologies for the statistical scatology being peddled but it doesn’t mean that it is defensible or even remotely scientific. In fact, were the ‘scientists’ to do the job correctly the rejection vs acceptance of trees during sorting IS quantifiable and can be used to statistically determine if the trees have a valid signal, but a far less biased and more scientific person than Rosanne D’Arrigo is clearly required.

We have repeatedly covered how there is an infinite variety of variance amplification math available to dendroclimatology. The argument to the validity of hockeysticks due to the numerous methods are used to the same conclusion is complete nonsense for this reason. So in the superstick of Wilson 2016, I wanted to know what methods were used to create the curves eventually averaged together in our brand new Wilson 2016 hockeystick.

To that end, I took my time and read the method used in ALL papers used to create the 54 series in Wilson 2016. It took me all afternoon. I put the methods used by the authors in each series, in the table below so that readers could see the distribution of nonsense making up this new and improved hockey stick.  For each reviewed method, I determined if it was remotely reasonable. As you may know, there are plenty of hidden details in the dendroclimatology world that can only be uncovered by replication – and luck. SO…..If it even had a tiny chance of being the simple average suggested by D’Arrigo in the quote above, I put a resounding YES in the column with the heading “Statistically defensible”. If I couldn’t tell due to paper access or difficulty in understanding what was going on – I put a Maybe. Of the 54 series used in this hockey stick, that left an insane 43 big, fat, NO’s.

No way they could be defensible.

No way they would pass muster in a rational field.

No possible way that the series at the end of the paper has any use whatsoever. Yet our nearly two dozen ‘experts’ were perfectly happy to average them out just to show the world the robustness and amazingness of their cutting-edge field.

I had 4 yesses, 7 maybes and 43 No’s. If I was wrong on the No’s half the time, which I am not, that would leave 21.5 bad series still used. But the real answer is 43 or 80% of the data is complete and utter garbage having hockey stick blades created by mathematical artifact rather than actual data.


Article referenced Method used Statistically defensible method
D’Arrigo et al. (2004) linear regresssion produced hockey stick blade No
Wiles et al. (2014) regression analysis No
Davi et al. (2003); principal componenets — paywalled No
Anchukaitis et al. (2013) inverse linear regression No
Youngblut and Luckman (2008); paywalled Maybe
Szeicz and MacDonald [1995]; linear regression paywalled No
Wilson et al. (2014) regression analysis – paywalled No
Luckman and Wilson (2005) rcs and curve fit with average – no real hs Yes
Biondi et al., [1999]; curve fit to series and average — no hs Yes
Anchukaitis et al. (2013) inverse linear regression No
Anchukaitis et al. (2013) inverse linear regression No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Gennaretti et al. (2014) linear scaling to local temperature No
Payette (2007); paywalled Maybe
D’Arrigo et al. (2003 (RW) and 2013 arstan RCS and average Yes
Rydval et al. (in preparation) not pubished Maybe
Dorado-Linan et al. (2012) regression and variance matching No
Buentgen et al. (2006). mean and SD scaling during temperature calibration period prior to reconstruction Maybe
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Zhang et al. (2015) RCS and something else — not sure exact method Maybe
Linderholm et al. (2014) linear regression No
Esper et al. (2014) and RCS and average -no hs apparent No
McCarroll et al. (2013) regression and variance matching – paywalled No
Büntgen et al. (2013) mean and SD scaling during temperature calibration period prior to reconstruction No
Klesse et al. (2014) paywalled Maybe
Helama et al. (2014) A unique intermixing of temperature information onto proxy data – ugly No
McCarroll et al. (2013) regression and variance matching – paywalled No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Briffa et al. (2013) RCS and average — yamal HS, others not Yes
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Wilson et al. (2007) only use proxies which correlate to temperature others removed from usage – big joke No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Schneider et al. (2015) ad hoc regression:calculating weighted composites based on moving correlations with local temperature; extremely poor No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Davi et al. (2015) principal componenets — paywalled No
Jacoby et al. (2000); RCS averaging, PCA first eigenvector only shows decline in warming years no HS No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
Cook et al. (2012) statistical screening based on correlation to temperature No
D’Arrigo et al. (2014) select region of positive correlation to temp, principal components regression of 6 favorite series with temp No
Hughes et al. (1999); paywalled Maybe

So instead of a validation of the robustness of the data, or the robustness of the field, what we have is is a paper demonstrating the robust willingness of climate scientists to sell trickery as science for both money and for the cause. These authors should be ashamed but even when caught truncating series, they simply push on producing ever more garbage for the small brained sheep in the media, politics and the public to use as propaganda for the government agenda.


Posted in Uncategorized | 70 Comments »

Yet Another Blog Kerfuffle

Posted by Jeff Id on December 15, 2015

Blogging is about connection to your readers.  In my heyday, this blog had 15000 views per day.   This was due in large part to climategate emails being discovered right here, despite some revisionist history still in process. This blog was in the middle of some fairly controversial climate blog issues at the time and became a second (and more open) choice for those people who risked so much to release the emails.  My willingness to take risks and say truth attracted the link.  It also attracted TWO psychology studies on different continents alleging that someone called ‘Condon’ (some guy with a lot of patents, numerous technical achievements and a fair sized company) couldn’t be scientifically objective.  I may not be Einstein but it is hard to dismiss success.

Keep in mind that Climategate exposed scientists lying to make a case. It isn’t our fault that climate scientists lie – they are being very well paid to do so and the stars of the field really believe that shutting down industry is for your own good.

Prior to climategate, this blog had 5000 views per day and was growing fast. That readership level exceeded my hometown newspaper at the time.   So what causes that sort of readership.  Certainly informational posting activity on the blog is #1, but equally a mutual understanding is a second factor.   People need information, a different viewpoint, and this did NOT come from me.  It came from commenters, blog readers, seeking a more intellectual outlet for their thoughts.  I learned more than I wrote because that is what smart people do.  Many attached themselves to this blog because of my willingness to admit error-  something I’ve seen far too little of on other blogs.   To those unwilling bloggers — It really doesn’t hurt as bad as it sounds.  Some attached here for the purpose of critiquing skeptics, climate scientists came here because of the open atmosphere.

I miss those days because of the fun.  Unfortunately, I have far less time for such nonsense these days.  Far less being greater than zero, I’ve decided to post today.

I left a comment a Lucias blog about Muslims.   I’m not a fan of Muslim culture and I knew it would be controversial.   I despise beyond reason the oppression of women.  I literally hate it.   I despise the vocal intolerance of Muslim countries toward other religions.   There is simply no soft way to put it.  I am intolerant of intolerance.  The fact that women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia, that they need 4 male witnesses to prove rape,  they need men to accompany them in public.   The boys love their culture and it is easy to see why but it is quite archaic and notwithstanding its existence, unacceptable in modern life.

The problem with Muslims is that far too many of them wish to use the Koran to justify taking away the rights of other people.  To force them into believing in an illogical and impossible god and then to murder them if they don’t agree.  This isn’t a fringe opinion of their culture, as much as we would like to imagine otherwise.  Pew research has a poll which found that 1 percent of American Muslims believe that suicide bombing and other extreme violence is often necessary – to protect Islam.  Worse, 7 percent believe it is sometimes necessary.  Here is the quote:

In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.

The article seemed to focus more on the moderate statements of most Muslims in the survey but that 7 and 1 percent are horribly alarming.  There are different stats on the population of Muslims in the United states, but a census in 2010 showed 2.6 million.   If these numbers are accurate that means we have at least 26,000 muslims in the US who believe that suicide bombing is often necessary to protect Islam.   Worse yet, 182,000 believe that these tactics should be used sometimes.

These are not small numbers and the poll showed that they were far greater overseas.

Unfortunately for us all, this is not a healthy culture.   When such huge fractions of American Muslims see murder of children as excusable for their invisible man in the sky, I am simply not ok with it.  I don’t know about you, but my little boys deserve a full and free life devoid of senseless murder.   The problem runs very deep in their culture when you can produce such high rates of evil beliefs.

This whole thing started when I read an entire thread of commentary at The Blackboard climate blog. I saw several people comparing Christian evils with Muslim ones, an opinion which is so inaccurate it had to be replied to.

Some quotes from the thread:

“How about militant Christian violence? How many mass shootings and individual assassinations do we have to cite before we agree that this religion, with such a bloody and violent history, is a threat to our society”

“Calling people hypocrites because they apply different standards to Muslims than other groups such as Christians is not resorting to a tu quoque fallacy. It’s not saying their logic is wrong because of the double standards; it’s saying they’re hypocrites because of the double standards.And in my case, it’s saying those double standards make them look like bigots, because there is no logical or moral reason for using double standards. The only reason to apply different logical arguments based solely upon which group is being considered is bias. Biased treatment of people based upon their ethnicity or religion is bigotry.”

And this quote which really set the wheel in motion:

DeWitt, hopefully you aren’t totally oblivious to reality.

For example, we have a supposedly Christian man attack and kill 9 people in a black Church.

Response from the right: “He’s crazy obviously.”

Another supposedly Christian man attacks and kills 6 people at a Sikh temple.

Response from the right “The guy’s obviously insane”.

We have two supposedly Muslim people attack and kill 14.

Response from the right: “Obviously this is Islamic terrorism. ”

In alternative universe where a Muslim walked into a church and killed 9 people, a Muslim goes in and kills 6 more at another church and a Christian couple killed 14 co-workers, I don’t have any doubt which ones of these you guys would be discussing.

It went on and on — 500 plus comments.   Eventually I replied with this apparent smoker….

I’ve read this entire thread today and am surprised by many of the opinions here. A bit of common sense seems in order.

One problem Americans and modern westerners have is the fact that we have all been taught to accept all religion as though all religion is equal. The comments by several comparing Christian evils to those of Islam are so fantastically deluded I can’t even begin. Yes there are bad people of all relgions, but the reality of Islam as it is practiced can be seen across the cultures of the middle east. The repression of women legally and physically is rather hard to miss, as is what happens to those who wish to leave Islam. Then there is the blatantly obvious cries of god is great while committing mass murder as is vociferously advocated by their religious leaders. Which modern Christian religious leaders are calling for mass murder in exchange for going to heaven?

Almost to damned ignorant to discuss.

These are distinctly anti-western values. These values are things I want no part of in my country. Despite the demands of the intolerant left, I see no reason why I should accept these ignorant views as equal to my own. Like religion, or ridiculous political opinion, or Sharia law, all views are not created equal. There are many here who have already called this intolerance, I call it common sense.

There are plenty of muslims who act moderate and therefore see islam as good, but there are plenty of liberals who think what Obama has done to America is good too. I watched a video of a few guys with Jesus loves shirts be attacked physically and verbally by a crowd of hundreds of muslims in Dearborn Michigan. I was born in that area and much of my family grew up there. The influx of Muslims to that region has now almost fully displaced Christians and despite there being plenty of opportunities for the ‘peaceful’ muslims to speak out against intolerance, there was nothing but middle east style culture in evidence. Like the European no-go zones, the police refused to intervene.

No common sense moderate Muslims in sight. None of the outrage at how these Christians were being treated that you would expect from modern moderate muslims. I’m sure there was some outrage actually, but the religion as practiced doesn’t allow dissent and those who would speak out in that crowd would likely be punished.

Note that these United States muslims aren’t the ones being bombed. They aren’t the ones being persecuted. The only thing they have in common with the middle east muslims is their religion – and apparently their intolerance of any other religion.

We certainly don’t need more of that in the US or anywhere else in the world. I’m no fan of Trump either because it doesn’t make sense to me to trade one narcissist for another, but I certainly wouldn’t mind stopping all muslim immigration for a period of time. I’ve seen enough of it and want no part of their archaic lifestyle, belief system, repression of women, nor do we need to add another layer of nonsensical Sharia law. It certainly wouldn’t harm the US to say no to Syrian immigrants either. The very slight additional risk of bringing any of these people over is not worth it in my opinion, but compared to the rest of the nightmare this nonsensical world is, the issue barely makes the radar.

I don’t have any real answers to any of this but when faced with a group which behaves in a manner incompatible with freedom, we must see it with clear eyes. We cannot pretend that evils by individual Christians are equal to Imams demanding self-sacrifice against innocent people so their followers can go to heaven. It’s simply not a reasonable opinion to hold.

Definitely a strong comment, which I do believe is accurate.   The evidence of the video however, caused Brandon Shollenberger to go off the deep end and post a blog using the video part of my comment only and left the rest of the context out.   I’m rather pissed at him for his mischaracterizations and hadn’t realized just how far some people would go to defend evil behaviors but the internet never seems to have a lower bound.

I know there are moderate Muslims who are also offended by the behaviors of some in their religion, but I do not believe they see the impact of Islam with clear eyes.   There is beauty in religion, however, the dark side of Islam is far stronger than Christianity has ever been.  That is not to say that the old testament is not full of evils as well, but the evils are not preached to the masses as the way to heaven, nor are they practiced by Christians anywhere in the world.   It is not written or taught in that manner currently.   In Islam, the threats to destroy all of Israel, America, Christians come right from their leaders.   Right from those in charge, to the masses of believers, and that is a major difference.   If you can’t see it, I cannot help you.

In the interest of full disclosure, as a decent undergraduate engineering student, I was tasked with guiding two masters electrical engineers through their final theses, as they had failed at getting their projects done.   I was near graduation and was about to start my own masters ME degree but the level of trust from my professors was quite high at that time looking back.   One student was Palestinian and the other a Muslim Pakistani.   The Muslim would stop and pray during his intervals right in the middle of experiments and seemed very devout.   One day he told me that he wanted to kill a Christian for Allah.   It was right out of the blue, an engineering student being helped through his degree by a young man raised Catholic.  I told him I was Christian and asked if he would kill me.  He replied that he would.  This was back in about 1992 and well before the extremism became big news. The conversation ended when I told him good luck with that and we never spoke of it again.   They both graduated with my help.

My uncle was a lawyer who worked in the world trade center.   He was out of the office when the first bombings took place and he was at a dentists appointment when the planes hit.  Two attacks on a member of my family whom these people had never met also color my views, I think in a reasonable and cautious way, but you may not.

So I will leave it here with a couple of questions:

Considering the level of extremism in Islam as it is currently practiced, what is wrong with a temporary ban on immigration of Muslims?  There are no constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion for non-citizens.  No guarantee of immigration rights.  Even if we don’t hit one of the 8% who believe suicide bombing is a good thing for Islam, there is definitely an increased risk that the person we are accepting into America will want to replace our laws with archaic and evil Sharia law.   The individuals are more likely to have a distaste for our freedoms and want to return half our population to servitude.  Sure we most often will find a moderate with respect to terrorism, but not always, and that is no guarantee on their political views.

The second question I ask is whether it is bigotry or intolerant to have my opinions as expressed above when it is my personal and family safety as well as our way of life I am protecting?  It seems reasonable that when people are being killed in the name of a belief system where leaders demand that their followers murder for god, a certain pragmatism should take effect.  At what point is common sense outweighed by the need to be fair to other beliefs?


Warning to commenters.  This is an inflammatory topic by its nature so the thread will be moderated.   Lets avoid name calling and stick to the topic.



Posted in Uncategorized | 328 Comments »


Posted by Jeff Id on November 7, 2015

I haven’t been blogging much obviously.  Life is more than a little busy these days.  The boys are getting older and work is getting busier.  With the continuing climate mantra of ridiculous papers studying asinine things like kangaroo farts, calls for cow methane regulation, and the continued failure of the sea ice to melt, climate science has gotten so literally stupid I don’t want to waste my mind on it.   We don’t live forever after all and it seems that skeptical bloggers are hardly required to point out the political idiocy so rampant in the field.  I’m living a rather unusual experience these days as we have made the transition from a startup to a smallish company and now growing to a larger more profitable organization.   Every entrepreneur I’ve met seems to take a different path.  Nearly all larger success stories are generous folks with big hearts who thrive on honesty and doing what you say you will.  I have also noticed that beginning an organization from a cashless unfunded start up gives us a perspective on business that is considerably different from the executives we deal with in large organizations.  On the journey, my partners and I have learned a great deal about regulations, taxation, costs, and unique legal liabilities for others actions afforded today’s business owners.   As you may guess, a lot of it is not good for proper function of a business.

I just watched most of the show Inequality for All by Robert Reich, Bill Clintons labor secretary.  It attempts to make a compelling argument that income inequality is the key problem America faces.   Robert Reich is certainly a good speaker and he had several CEO’s and wealthy investors who were also well spoken on the subject.  I do agree with him that Americans should make more in their jobs, however Robert blamed the discrepancy on low top income tax rates, globalization, technology and too little government investment in education.  While he discusses other pressures he sort of brushes them to the side without much additional comment and instead income tax and education were keys for him.

I can’t really claim the political credentials of a man who spent the majority of his career in politics or making speeches, but I can claim to know what happens in our world, and in our actual functioning business – and I think our reality should carry a bit more weight than a man who has spent his entire life as a professional speaker who has not created jobs or products.

First, lets talk about higher education because America’s once great higher education system has completely lost its way.   I’m not talking the costs right now, but rather the institutions themselves have become centers for the lazy.   They have less to do with transferring knowledge to students (the product) and more to do with grant taking and (everyone gets a ribbon) self-congradulatory accolades for the anointed.   Even worse, they have devolved into political indoctrination farms for the economically radical left-wing folk.

Now with respect to cost, the subsidized University of Michigan costs $30,000 US per year to attend.  The student might have 12 classes during that period so in an undergraduate class size of say 40 students, the total income from students per class taught is $100,000 for a class that meets perhaps three times a week.  This does not include the massive grants colleges receive which in many cases bring that number up to perhaps 150,000 per class if you divide it out that way.  As costs to attend college have risen, the ever compliant federal government doesn’t allow competition for students to take over, they have simply made student loans ridiculously easy to get, such that students are now spending hundreds of thousands on degrees which often times have no real function.   There even seems to be a new push to recognize some of the more useless and easy degrees by giving reduced payback requirements.  At some point we have to begin to question what is a reasonable cost for education, how much teaching should a professor actually do for his or her income.   For instance, the six figure income of Michael Mann is supported through ridiculously oversized grants for his sophomoric work, and he apparently is actually teaching for just 3 days per week and only for two semesters per year.  Yet the unreasonable people in politics continue to claim we don’t “invest” enough in education rather than noticing we are becoming dramatically less efficient at education.   The federal government is feeding both ends of the problem- loans and costs.

It seems cranially inverted to me, but then I’m not living in the shockingly sheltered world of infinite money in a US government university.  I live in the world of business where our products must provide a service, we must compete for that product to be accepted, and if we don’t provide more value than our cost, we go out of business.   Every minute of every day we work to provide our products and services at a better cost to more people.

The entire world is driven by incentivizations.   What I mean is that when you want less of something, you tax it and across the bulk of decision making made by the taxed, you get less of it.  When you want more of something you subsidize or cut taxes, and across the bulk of decision making you get more of it.  This applies on non-cost based decisions as well where positive and negative incentives drive decisions.  When the federal government provides large money to students with no assets that makes it easier to go into debt, they will carry more debt.  When universities raise tuition today due to incredibly lazy work environments, the federal government simply supports what would otherwise be a reduction in student attendance or pay cuts for professors with easier access to loans.  The problem is so severe that it is blatantly clear that the system has created a left-wing pro-government culture with massively overpriced services and equally massively underworked professors.  You get what you incentivize.

So I suppose Reich and I disagree on that but I’m off track a bit.  The movie was about the problem of income inequality, which itself is a false issue.  In the movie, Robert used the very poor unskilled workers and the very wealthy business investors as his examples, claiming that inequality is a huge issue.   The problems poor people in this movie face were obviously not due to the fact that the famous left-wing Warren Buffet made billions whatsoever.   You can redistribute all of the rich people’s money as China did, and the people who are poor will remain so, because there simply isn’t enough value to pass around. The problems the example individuals in the movie faced were not Buffets wealth but rather that they had too little money to have any visible opportunity for savings or any reasonable opportunity for a better life.   I’ve lived that way in the past myself where you must choose between food or new shoes and the $30 you have is all you are going to have for a long while.     When I hear about inequality, it makes me cringe because it has nothing to do with how much a CEO gets paid, it has to do with the VALUE of peoples time.    What does it cost to buy an hour of someones service on the open market. 

While there are plenty of things I can list that affect the cost of labor, the following major factors in the market are keeping the cost of our labor down:

  • Despite marginal economic improvement, supply of labor is still high relative to demand.
  • Working age people not contributing to availability of product and services.
  • Low cost of foreign labor.

These factors all affect the VALUE of a persons hour of work.

What happens to price of a good or service when supply goes up or demand goes down is something everyone knows, you get lower prices.   When supply is lower and demand is higher, prices go up.   The problem of wages is quite simple, supply and demand.   If you have excess labor in the workforce, real wages drop.

The second item above is a little more complex as a huge fraction of working age people in the US are not in or attempting to be in the workforce.  These people are typically not producing anything of value and are supported by government checks.  therefore do not contribute in a positive way to the economy, they become net drains and their negative influence keeps the availability of goods down and costs of goods higher while simultaneously consuming less themselves.  The available goods per functional employee must be a net positive as their consumption of goods is paid for by a fraction of what they produce.   In other words,  they must produce more value than they consume so non-working people are a net negative on the availability of goods driving up cost.

When we can purchase long term foreign labor for $3/hr and minimum real US labor cost of about $17, businesses must absolutely take advantage of this or the competitors will take you right out of the market.   This is not an effect of EVIL businessmen being greedy.  If the bottom line goes negative while trying to maintain competitive pricing, businesses are not governments, and they go bankrupt.   Often fairly quickly and with little fanfare.   In fact, businesses who do not seek out nearly every advantage go bankrupt all the time, and I have to tell you that this particular government with this president don’t give a fart what happens to my business or any other non-campaign contributing entity.   Our bankruptcy, which thankfully we are quite successful currently, wouldn’t even make the radar.

So this inequality the liberals are pounding on about is nothing but a recycled regressive Marxist redistribution style argument, that the poor people who work are not making enough and the rich make too much and it is the fault of the rich.   It is completely unfair and ridiculous to blame those like myself who work every weekend, evenings and early mornings, who are vastly more productive, create products of real value, should somehow not be compensated lavishly for successful results.   My partners and I certainly won’t be well compensated if we fail, hell we aren’t even allowed unemployment checks and we are the ones taking the risk.  Our employees won’t be terribly happy if we fail either.

But what about the ultra-wealthy.  The Trumps, Bloombergs and the Buffets of the world.   Certainly they hold too much value.   Robert Reich is of the opinion that they don’t spend enough.  They hold their money and THAT is somehow the problem with the world.   If they spent more (or perhaps were forced to spend or had their money taxed away), the money would flow more and the non-productive or low productivity people would be better off.   The false argument was made repeatedly that their tax rates were lower than any time in history, that despite their massive incomes, the taxes they paid were in the sub 15% range.   There is a lot to discuss about holding up the circulation of money, but it isn’t a zero net for the economy when it is stuck in a bank or re-invested in the stock market.  The argument Reich makes for taking money from the wealthy was incredibly oversimplified and completely wrongheaded.  Were releasing the cash such a big requirement for the economy, the giant piles of printed economic stimulus money which has never made it into the economy would be a solution rather than an inflationary ax waiting to fall on our economic necks.

While it is true that the wealthiest of investors reported taxes are that low, they are making the taxes through investment in corporations.  This gives the corporations operating cash to grow larger and these corporations gain value through various maneuvers which create profits.  Those profits are taxed at what I believe is the highest actual rate in the world today and any value remaining after tax causes the value of shares of the company to fluctuate up or down.  I’ll do some research on that rate and see if our tax leadership status has changed.   If profit goes down or negative news occurs, the investor loses their money, if it goes up, they gain value which if they are successful enough, and the stock prices perform, they can sell the stock for a profit on the corporations previously taxed profit and they receive a SECOND tax called capital gains — currently 20% of the amount gained.

Now think about this.  The money is taxed twice and only reported on the investors personal income FORM once, the rest of the influence of the invested money is taxed on the corporations tax return.  It makes the effective government tax collection rate on Warren Buffets money, higher than it appears to be on the investors balance sheet — but there is more.   Building a manufacturing company is difficult.  Our tax rate approaches 60% because of the dozens of layers of tax, our high growth, and the fact that certain things must be capitalized and depreciated.  In a growing company, the tax depreciation system creates a continuously increasing zero interest loan to the state and federal government based on unrealized income.  Despite the happy feelings that gives the high tax folk, you typically don’t get it back either as the company eventually will fail or be sold and fail later and there is no income against which you can depreciate the expense.  The result is simply that we have a tax rate which is much higher than is reported to the public.

More importantly, the capital gains tax is what is applied to a business being sold.   If the business gains value from the time of purchase to the time of sale, you pay capital gains on that increased value.  Keep in mind that the business has been paying at a 60% rate all along and then when sold, if it has anything of value to sell for, you are taxed a second time on the value of that sale.  Again, it is a second tax and certainly a large one considering what odds we face to keep a business from failing.

What does it do to the true stock value of a business if capital gains taxes on the sale of that stock are doubled? 

Will an increased capital gains tax encourage or discourage investment in US businesses?

Will reduced investment levels and the subsequent growth create more demand for employees?

Will income of the poorest people increase or decrease when there is less investment in the production of goods and services and less demand for jobs?

The answers to these questions are very clear, yet Robert Reich and many on the left don’t seem to want to grasp the situation.  Instead they attack a few high visibility billionaires ridiculous pay levels, or the fact that hedge fund managers are taxed on their income for other peoples investments at capital gains rates (the left is correct on fixing this item), but none of that IS the problem with the poor.  Nor will it make one scrap of positive help on the actual issue of the low end worker not having enough money.  Artificially propping up the bottom of the pay scale by minimum wage laws to levels almost nobody pays anyway, marginally decreases demand and subsequently marginally reduces the value of an employee’s time.  You get the opposite of the higher wages we all want.  It is also a non-solution to the real issue which is one of supply and demand for the low-skill employee.

Now we know from the cigarette and carbon tax fiasco’s that if we want more of something we tax it less or subsidize it (reduce the cost of the good or service) and if we want less, we tax it more (increase the cost of goods or services).  If you want to solve the low income problem (again the problem is not inequality), we need to as a country, commit to a stable pro-business reduced cost, tax, and regulation environment, such that people like myself (or perhaps you) who are crazy enough to take a ridiculous chance on starting a business, succeed at our efforts more often than we currently do.   What is better than that, and we see from the fact that the dollar continues to be reasonably strong, is that we don’t even have to be ACTUALLY good for business.  We just have to be better than much of the rest of the world, and the money will flow in to America in literal droves.   Demand for workers (especially skilled workers) will skyrocket.  Employers like myself will be forced by supply and demand to pay higher wages to keep our trained people.  The poor in America will continue to operate well above the median income of most of the rest of the world.

Now note, I said reduced cost and mentioned both tax and regulation.   Regulation favors the large company.  We struggled mightily with regulation when we were at the 20ish person employee level.   We are much larger now and can afford some of the additional costs of regulatory compliance but navigation of the rules is a massive burden on a corporation and this administration has added a very large additional burden for reporting, compliance, liability and necessary insurances to cover ourselves.  We talk regularly with 4 lawyers, and have multiple others we deal with.  All of these are costs, and while some is necessary, all costs are reductions in the  success level of American business and these costs often DO make the difference between success and failure.

Finally, the movie makes the point that we are at one of the lowest tax rates in the century.  Robert Reich put up a graph of the percentage paid by top earners for his proof.   The commentary which went with his graph can only be described as dishonest.   When deductions, and expenses are taken into consideration, America is at or near the highest percentage of collection rate our government has achieved.  I will take time before the election cycle to plot this again for people as I expect the lies on this subject to continue growing.  Taxes on the wealthy are currently high as deductions of expenses such as state tax or home interest are actually considered income on the federal tax. The situation is ridiculously convoluted and Reich owes his audience an apology for that dishonesty. The second tax reported on Warren Buffets personal return is not high, but again, it is not the whole story of taxes he contributes to our government by any means, the rest of his tax just lands on a different piece of paper.

This post has grown much longer than I intended but there is a lot of real information here.  I can write on about how regulation favors the ultra-wealthy and even high taxes on business capital gains favors billionaires who would definitely pay more.   The points I make above are facts as I know them.   It is extremely clear what it would take to increase the wages of the lowest earners, and it has not one thing to do with Marxist style redistribution.  We need more demand for employment and less strong government incentives for functional individuals to stay home and not contribute their available productivity.  Reduce some of the regulation on businesses, i.e. healthcare, environmental, employment liability, reporting requirements, tax complexity, capitalization taxes, and stop the added cost of insane EPA regulation on the energy industry —  and of course restructure taxes such that Americans get the best value for their money by investing here rather than holding money unused in other countries.










Posted in Uncategorized | 49 Comments »

Fox article on RICO

Posted by Jeff Id on September 29, 2015

Fox news has a good opinion piece by Judith Curry on the recent call by 20 fake scientists for criminalization of activities by people and organizations who can still objectively read a graph which shows climate models are complete failures.

See article here.

Two of many graphs of climate model failures are below:

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1] CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS[1]Advocates like to say that these graphs are unfair due to baselining, then those same advocates publish work which uses the confidence interval of an absolute temperature at a single point to claim they are in the bottom edge of the CI rather than the model trend which has failed miserably.  In other words, they are gaming the plot to maximize their match and intentionally ignoring the elephant in the room.  Some of these papers have even gone through the fake peer review processes and reached publication.  It is truly a shame that climate science has stooped to this level.

In the meantime, those of us with the now criminal skill to read a graph and objectively interpret it, have been told we should be forced surrender our assets and be sent to prison by the always tolerant liberal left.  The models failed en masse and anyone who claims otherwise is simply pretending to know science and acting as a political advocate.

But where would punishment of skeptics be without religious involvement.  Skeptics have been accused of Galileo syndrome, I found it particularly ironic that the pope himself went to US congress to repeat these same sorts of establishment climate science falsehoods just last week.   Like Germans with politics, Catholic leaders seem to work hard to continue to maintain their dismal scientific record.


Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »

Trenberth – (edited) Skeptics need to shut up or be shot.

Posted by Jeff Id on September 19, 2015

Judith Curry called attention to a fairly important event in climate science.  A number of scientists are calling for the government to prosecute criminally, corporations and individuals who will not agree with the extrapolated gloom and doom conclusions by fake scientists who base their opinions on failed climate models.   These fake government funded scientists have written a letter asking for the senate to use RICO law as a mechanism to prosecute normal scientists, institutions and businesses who won’t agree with their draconian, self-destructive behaviors.

Copied from Judith’s post:

In case you don’t know what RICO is (Wikipedia):

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

The letter to congress is as follows:

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.


Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

Every name on this list is essentially a modern day Nazi.   These are evil people who have no idea the damage they do NOR DO THEY CARE.   They are small minded morons who think with their feelings instead of their minds.  This is a blatant call for the might of government to suppress not only free speech but correct speech.

I and others have written this so many times but it seems that people never learn.   When you vote for more government, you give up your choices for personal rational decision making, in favor of loss of personal freedom.   The corporations, organizations and ultimately individuals, whom are all already under numerous forms of government attack, will continue to be forced into compliance and will be rewarded financially if they capitulate.  The carrot and stick are both in full visibility. In exchange, the liberal politicians collect money in the form of personal campaign contributions, business favors, and new politically controlled ‘problems’ to discuss on the political trail.   This mechanism extends through both parties but primarily exists in the democrat party as they are able to OPENLY demand more government whereas faux conservatives must pretend to not notice the governmental creep.

I’ve written it before, and will  continue to write it again as we come closer to a serious election cycle.   Judith (and plenty of other people) deserves what she gets because she was duped into voting for it.   I just hope that people wake up and realize that we already have far too much government for our small population before we lose the last pieces of our freedom as we slide into the ugly morass of socialism.  It is late in the game though for America, and pseudo-intellectuals like the moronic signators on this letter deserve to go down first.  In fact, loss of their government jobs is what they deserve for suggesting using a legal loophole for the unconstitutional suppression of reasoned dissent.   Of course they will continue to receive that same government money as they nearly all have university jobs from which they cannot be fired.  They can rest comfortably knowing that it won’t be any of them who suffers the consequences of their economic ignorance.

It will be us.

These same fools have been predicting starvation and doom from population growth for decades.  When we suddenly have starvation again, you can bet the same morons who are currently demanding by legal fiat, that we create intentional economic productivity loss to save humanity, will then blame the very thing they intentionally destroyed for the problems the destruction creates.  The industry which would have otherwise fed them, saved them from war, helped their children grow and learn, provide world class health care, gave them homes and leisure time beyond imagination — free market businesses built by individuals and optimized for best output — will be a shell of its former self.  The reality will be that socialism and the high load of massive government will have been the cause, they will have the power, control of the media, and the universities, and through those mechanisms free market will continue to be assigned the blame.


Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »