World Oil Production and the November OPEC meeting

While everyone in the US was eating turkey and watching some really bad football games yesterday, OPEC was meeting to decide on their production levels.  Immediately after they announced their decision to continue current production levels, the oil futures markets began to drop like a rock in water.  Following the announcement Brent crude hit its lowest point since August 2010, falling below $72 a barrel, before settling at $72.82, 5% drop on the day. As I write this BRENT is trading at $73.19 and trending down, but has been jumping up and down all morning.  The US based WTI dropped $4.64 to $69.05 a barrel, although market business slowed by midday in thinning Thanksgiving holiday business.  It is trading at just under $69.40 right now and has been remarkably stable all morning trading between $68.75 and $69.40.

What is not shown or known by the average citizen is the Kurdish Regional Government completed it's first of two new pipelines and an agreement with the Iraqi government in Baghdad has been completed allowing the KRG to independently sell more than 50% of it's current and future output on the open market. When the second pipeline is completed and begins lifting oil early next year, the daily delivery rates coming out of the KRG will be more than a 1/2 to a million barrels.  This will be a long term production increase as the known and easily extractable fields in the KRG exceed 45 BILLION barrels at lift costs as low as anywhere in the world.

When considering that the steep rise in oil prices during the summer of 2008 was due to a loss of production of approximately 2 Million barrels per day, an increase of a million from the KRG and the 1/2 to 3/4 million BPD from Libya which recently came back on line, combined with the fact that the domestic US production is at it's highest level since the mid 70's,  it is easy to see that oil prices will remain lower for the near term future.

Unfortunately, from a political standpoint, Obama will continue to Gruberize the American public taking credit for the resulting price drop on gas and heating oil in spite of the fact that he has been more of an impediment than a help.

The Ferguson non finding for Indictment

Let me begin by stating that I believe that Darren Wilson, the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) in Ferguson, Mo. should have been indicted for manslaughter in the Michael Brown incident.. I don't know if the officers actions were overly aggressive, but I know that the bar for finding probable cause  by a grand jury is much lower than an actual trail with rules of evidence and subject to testimony and cross examination. I think that in this case the bar may have been set too high and justice not served.  Were he indicted, would officer Wilson be convicted? We don't know and probably never will, but it does seem as though there was ample evidence to bind him over for trial where an examination of the evidence and cross examination of the witnesses would occur before a verdict would be reached by a jury.

This morning, in the wake of burnings throughout Ferguson, the great and compassionate Reverend Jessie Jackson was interviewed on CNN.  He made the statement that the pain felt by the oppressed population there culminated in the violence and is understandable.  He concluded with the statement, "No justice, no peace". When reminded that he marched with reverend King peacefully during the more turbulent 60's, the Reverend Jackson stated that there were riots, burnings and looting in many cities across America at this time as well, so the riots in Ferguson were to be expected. Obviously the good Reverend has selective memory as the riots didn't occur until after Dr. King was assassinated, not during the time when he was marching.  I honestly don't know how to respond to this mentality except to ask, what did the riots of the 60's and today in Ferguson accomplish? reverend Jackson, didn't you march with Dr. King to STOP the violence, not encourage it? Haven't you learned anything in the past 50 years or so?

In the same week that Michael Brown was killed, a black LEO responded to a call of suspicious kids in Utah, The officer pulled up to the scene, a 7/11 and encountered a 19 YO white kid matching the description coming out of the store. He ordered the youth to stop and kneel on the ground.  When the kid did not immediately respond, he was shot to death by the LEO. Did you hear anything about this shooting? Did you see a bunch of Utah residents rioting and looting the stores in and around the community where this kid was shot? Did you see President Obama send AG Holder to Utah to start an investigation of this shooting? Did anyone see the President go on national television and make a point of how the Utah youth was just an innocent unarmed kid? That if he had a son, this kid could have been that son? This is certainly and unequivocally wrong, But is it correct to make the claim that these are racial issues? I think not. To me, they are more indicative of overly aggressive police reacting to an aggressive society which seems to be suffering from  "diluted ethics", IMO.

During the same weekend that Michael Brown was killed, about a dozen black urban youth were killed in Chicago by other black urban youth. Did anyone see this on the national news? Did the President go on national television to condemn the actions of these "kids who could have been my son"? Did he send AG Holder to Chicago, his home town where his previous Chief of Staff is the Mayor, to start an investigation about violence and murders by blacks against blacks? The simple answer is no. The more complex answer is that the administration doesn't want to bring attention to the lawlessness which breeds outcomes like the Michael Brown incident and highlights the aggressive and lawless behaviour of black urban youth in America today?

More importantly, since 2009, when President came into office, approximately 795 Law Enforcement Officers have died in the line of duty.  This is a terrible statistic and we should certainly grieve the loss of our police officers lives and provide support to their families, Yet what very few realize is that for every LEO killed in the line of duty, according to the FBI crime statistics, more than 15 times that number of US citizens have been victims of police committed killings.  One can conclude from these statistics that LEO have become much more aggressive and are killing more of our citizens.  

The question I've been asking is: Why are the President and all the other "civil rights leaders" seemingly unconcerned about the core issue of the huge number of urban black youth killed every day in Chicago, Philly, south Central and other cities across America by other urban black youth? If there was actually some focus by the leaders on the root problem, perhaps young men like Michael Brown would learn respect for the rule of law our President is so quick to mention.  Unfortunately what they see coming out of the highest office in this country is a willingness to cast aside when it serves his purpose.  What they hear is a repeated claim that they are the aggrieved members of society and they are entitled to feel wronged.  Unfortunately this is an indication that they don't have to abide by the rule of law.  Itg this a cause of our LEO becoming more aggressive?  Possibly, but again, I think the root cause is more closely aligned with the dilution of ethics, by both the citizenry and the LEO across our country.  Perhaps it is due to outside influences such as our never ending war in the middle east, perhaps it is due to the hardships faced by the growth of our uneducated and entitled underclass who see no chance for improvement in their lives, perhaps it is due to a lack of strong leadership on the part of our elected officials. Regardless, we are facing a growing unrest across America and it is manifesting itself an increasingly violent society.

The Lie of Global Warming Exposed

Well, let's see, the global warming alarmists continue on their quest to destroy our industrial society because we burn fossil fuels which add carbon to the atmosphere.  They claim that this INDISPUTABLY causes the earth to warm and the warming, even if the effects are only going to occur gradually over 200 years, will be catastrophic.  Now while the first assertion is indisputable, the second, that the earth will warm as a result and third that the result will be catastrophic, is far from proven.  In fact, true temperature readings over the past 20 years show no acceleration in the earths temperature and in fact there is a cooling trend. Yet the climate change alarmists continue screaming like meme's hoping that their incessant whining will lead to a continuation of grant funding and further control of the worlds economy.

Let me offer an article by my friend, Peter Ferrara, who, while not a climate scientist, has studied the literature extensively and cites numerous studies and scientists in his expose on the flagrant falsehoods of the global warming alarmist scientists...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here

Gay marriage question

Opinions please.  Lately there has been quite the hulabaloo surrounding the provision of marriage ceremonies and wedding services for gay couples.  In a number of cases, those providing these services to the general public have chosen not to provide their services to gay couple.  A number of times this has resulted in the companies being sanctioned by the state for their refusal to provide the service and claiming they had the right because the companies were being discriminatory.  The companies have been fined and even threatened with jail for their actions. As a parallel, doctors have the right under the law to perform abortions, and they practice in the public domain, but doctors are not FORCED under threat of sanction by the state, to perform abortions if it is against their religious beliefs or if they just choose not to.  So how does the performance of a gay marriage differ? 

Now I know a marriage is a very personal undertaking and I know everyone wants it to be perfect with the right cake and the setting, but I also think there is the emotional side as well. Will the couple really feel their day is perfect if they know the person performing the ceremony, providing the setting  and the cake, etc...etc...etc...are only providing the service under threat of sanction by the state?  Wouldn't that make their "perfect day" rather imperfect?  Why would a couple want to have their marriage performed by someone who doesn't want to do it or have it held at an establishment where they are not welcome?

Should a private business be forced to provide it's products/services to any and everyone who asks for them?  Should they as a "public accommodation" be required, even if it violates their personal creed or religious beliefs, be required under threat of fine or jail, to provide their products/services to any and all?

I know this is an other point surrounding the gay marriage issue and you know, I could care less who lives with who if it makes them happy, but I think this has much broader implication. I think this is more a slippery slope issue with constitutional implications.  I think it goes to the question of individual rights over the rights of the collective.

So, what say you good folk out there?  What right does the state have?  what right does the private company hold?  Should people/private companies be forced against their wishes or should they have the right to choose with whom to conduct or not to conduct business?

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/

MILITARIZATION OF POLICE AND THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

I think there is ample evidence of the Police getting out of hand.  Especially in light of huge increase in the number of laws, many times contradictory, which are written at all levels of government and the extreme tactics which are being employed to enforce these laws.

Herewith is an article from the Washington Examiner which describes the militarization of our police forces: 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/23/police-militarizing-without-any-checks-power-exper/?page=all#pagebreak

How many of you live in small communities which have large and extremely fortified police forces?  How many of you even know how fortified your police force actually is?  Have we really reached the tipping point where the idea of justice is a police force which willingly uses force to strip us of our constitutional rights in an attempt to enforce the law?

How many of you remember the response to the Boston Marathon bombing when the police force cordoned off entire blocks of the city and forced the residents out of their homes as they searched their homes without a warrant?  Does anyone think that show of force was justified or constitutional?  Can you imagine what would occur if a home owner refused to willingly leave and allow police complete access to  their PRIVATE residence?  At the least they would be removed by force and charged criminally.  If they were the least resistant, they would be physically assaulted or worse by the officers who are supposed to "Protect and Serve".

Why do we need an NSA gathering spying on every citizen of the US?  why do we need the CIA, FBI, DIA, TSA, Homeland Security on the national level and State, city, local and sherriff departments on the state level?  all in the name of protecting us when in fact, they do not protect, but instead are in many cases a part of the problem?  Why do we need so many distinct forces, all becoming extremely militarized to protect our streets when they are never available when a crime occurs?

What ever happened to the concept of a police force which is there to "protect and serve" the community at large?  Does this protection extend to the killing of citizens without a trial by jury?  Is it right for the police force to in essence become the supreme law of the land wherein they become judge, jury and executioner with impunity?

Most people have heard about the shooting of unarmed Michael Brown by a white policeman in ferguson Missouri and the riots which occurred in response.  How many of you know about the shooting of an unarmed white young man in Utah by a black policeman a week earlier?  Not many, I'll wager and there was certainly no reaction by the president, US Attorney general and the race baiting Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to this incident.  Now assume that the evidence of the Black Utah cop shooting the unarmed white kid proves to be indictable while the White Fergusons cop shooting the young black man is found to have been in self defense and thereby not indictable.  I'm willing to wager that then you will see Jesse, Sharpton, Holder and need I say Obama leading the riots.

But I digress.  Is either incident right or warranted?  Is the use of extreme, ie... deadly force by police because a young man refuses to immediately honor the orders of a police officer acceptable in our country?  

Is it right that in America, where the violent crime rate has declined for the past 5 years we have seen a 3 fold increase in the average number of killings by police during this same period?  Prior to 2006, FBI statistics show the incidents of lethal force to number under ten a year nationwide.  From 2006 to 2009, they increased to an average of 50 per year.  From 2010 to the current they have averaged over 100 per year. This during a time when the incident of violent crime has been decreasing.

Certainly there is reason for the police to use deadly force in the most extreme cases, but why does it seem that the use of extreme force is occurring with more frequency at a time when the incidence of violent crime is decreasing?  Is this a result of the militarization of our police force?  Is it a result of attempts to enforce the plethora of laws which are overburdening our society?  Is it a case of the police becoming too arrogant? Or is it as simple as the police encountering violent criminals more often than in past years?

We will probably n ever be able to answer these questions to any degree of certainty, but we must look at what is happening in our country and how this country based on the ideals of self governance and personal responsibility has become a country wherein almost anything one does on a daily basis can be construed as being illegal in some manner, shape of form and might be met with lethal force for not complying immediately to one of the myriad "officials"ndemands.

Just something to think about.

Snowden Interview #2

I recently wrote a piece about the first Snowden interview.   after I posted it to a number of different sites, I was surprised to receive more than 2500 responses.  I was even  more amazed that the response was more than 90% in favor of snowden. 

Recently I was forwarded the second Snowden interview:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/17/edward-snowden-video-interview

Along with the link was the following comment by an admitted NEOCON (ie...one characterized by their support of extremely hawkish policies) who spent the final years of his career as a government service bureaucrat at one of the alphabet agencies:

"I couldn't watch this crap.  The guy is a criminal, a felon.  He stole info from his own country.  He is therefore guilty under the espionage act.  If he was such a GD patriot why didn't he just go to the media?  Hell's bells if Major Andrea was hanged on Washington's orders for carrying a letter in his boot, then why not hang Snowden for what he did?  The German-Americans who didn't even get off the beach in WWll were shot, then why don't we do the same with Snowden?  No matter what you may think of what he said he stole, he is still a traitor in any sense of the word.  He was evidently a low grade contract employee - probably a help desk weenie who wanted his 15 minutes of fame.  Even the Russians don't want him and are trying to get rid of him.  He could not have known too much or the Chinese and Russians would have wanted him to stay.  He is a liability to the Russians now.  He serves no useful or political purpose.  I say let the little bastard rot with Russian help."

So, I ask a few simple questions"

1, Is it wrong for a citizen to "steal" information about illegal government activities and make the citizenry aware of such actions or is it his responsibility as a citizen?  

2, is it OK for the government to steal from the citizenry, store the largess of said theft to use against us at a later date for other nefarious actions against its own citizens?  

3, Think they don't, that they are above board, honest and honorable men who are just trying to protect us?  Well, I have a "bridge to nowhere" I'm willing to sell you which was was built with Federal dollars. .

Read this and think again:  http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/whistleblower-irs-in-cahoots-with-nsa/

Personally, I think, as evidenced by the single largest building owned by the government being the NSA data gathering and storage facility and the second largest being the HSA campus, that  the intelligence gathering apparatus of the Federal government is completely out of hand and it is the ALPHABET agencies who are criminal.

Of course I have watched the interviews, I have thoroughly researched the "theft" and what was released. I have discussed the "theft" with a number of people with current "top secret" clearances, who also have the same knee jerk reaction expressed here and I have discussed the issue with a current congressman and a former US senator.  The most interesting take away is that all of the parties expressed anger, which is reasonable, but none have expressed any method that Snowden would be allowed to act as a whistleblower due to "national security" concerns, not one has been able to offer a single instance of released information which has compromised national security except the revelation that the NSA is tapping the German Prime Ministers phone, an admission which they agree she knew but was embarrassed to have publicized.

I believe those who claim that Snowden no longer has any value to the Russians, are correct, but not for the same reason.  As Snowden and his attorney both have stated unequivocally, he did not have the data when he traveled to Hong Kong and then through Russia where he was forced to remain due to the US state department revoking his passport. So he was not an asset to Russia because he had secrets to offer, he was an asset because Putin saw him and his temporary political asylum  as a black eye for Obama.  Now that Obama and Secretary of 

State Clinton were made to look the fools, Snowden has no more value to Putin.

The fact is that there have been no, I repeat, NO national secrets revealed except that the government is collecting information on it's own citizens in complete and total violation of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution.  And to those who suggest that Mr. Snowden be summarily executed, without a trial by a jury of his peers, are you not advocating another violation of the US Constitution?  Doesn't Due Process mean anything to you when you are offended by the actions of a fellow citizen?

I recently read a biography of a "low level" bureaucrat who served the Brits during World War I.  He admittedly gave away secrets he was entrusted with in direct violation of a superiors orders.  He did so as a matter of conscience, under the same condition for which Snowden is being excoriated.  Should this man have been defined as a traitor to his country especially considering his actions took place during a time of war no less?  Did his action harm England, some say yes, some say no.  Did it embarrass England?  Absolutely because they were exposed as underhanded double dealing. In the past, I have listened to the same neocon quoted above hail him as a hero.

That man was T.E. Lawrence, otherwise known as "Lawrence of Arabia".  As history shows, he was not tried for treason and in fact, as a man of good conscious, resigned his commission and reenlisted as a private doing the most menial work in an infantry regiment where he continued serving his country during the war.  Do people, his countrymen and history condemn him as a traitor?  Did his government try him as a traitor?  He admittedly gave away state secrets in violation of a direct order. Did they try to murder him without a trial?  No, they didn't, they gave him a stipend, wrote books about his heroic efforts and made an Oscar winning movie about his exploits.  In fact, today many historians opine that if the English government had listened to him rather than carry on their underhanded double dealing political land grab, we wouldn't be suffering the complete degeneration of the middle east we are currently experiencing.

So, ask yourselves. when the government runs amok and it's bureaucracies become so large and powerful that they can trample on the rights of the citizens is it wrong to make the citizenry aware?  Or should those who are aware of the egregious law breaking of the government use whatever means available to inform and educate, especially when all other means have been attempted and have been thwarted by the law breaking entities in control?  Those who have actually watched the interviews and reviewed the history of the Snowden issue, know that he tried to go through the channels but was told to keep quiet.  They also know that he didn't try to stop in Russia, but was forced there by US State department actions

Finally, a quick and simple study of the issue will inform those who are really interested that his attorneys have been negotiating with the government to have him return and stand trail, but will not be allowed to present evidence defend him in the interest of "National Security".  I try to keep an open mind about these things, but it seems pretty damn obvious that the government is gaming the system in order to avoid exposing the truth to the citizens it is supposed to represent.  Until further evidence is presented, at this point I agree with Snowden when he states that if he were allowed to come home, stand trial and present evidence to defend himself at trial, it is highly unlikely that a jury of 12 peers would convict him. 

VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO

Last weekend there was a protest on the southside of Chicago.  Interestingly, the residents were protesting the violence in their community and much of the anger was directed at President Obama and Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  Seems as though the bloom may finally be falling off the rose and the the thorny nature of our President is being exposed.

Some will claim it is due to the lax gun control, but we all know that Chicago has some of the most stringent gon control laws in the country.  Others will claim the source of the report is a conservative and therefore suspect, yet we know that this is nothing morte than a false flag effort to shoot the messenger for carrying the message.  Fact is, all of this can be traced directly back to President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" welfare program which has encouraged generations of single parent/female head of household/absent fathers in the urban black communities.  You may not want to accept this, but it remains the truth nonetheless.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/black-outrage-obamas-actions-spreads-chicago-video/

THE PRESIDENTS ATTEMPT TO REWRITE HISTORY

In an attempt to justify his violation of the requirement to inform Congress before undertaking any prisoner trades, President Obama and his syncopathic aides came up with numerous reasons why they were forced to undertake the trade without notification in spite of congress requiring  30 days notice and their approval.  when these feeble and spurious attempts were less than successful, Obama himself made the claim that this was an ordinary action by all past presidents at the end of wars in which America was involved.  He claimed that Washington, Lincoln and FDR had each used executive privilege to release POWs at the end of the wars in which they were president.

Well my friends, either the liberals "most brilliant man alive" is either really not very bright or he is so ignorant that he thinks the American public is so stupid that he can say anything and get away with it, no matter how false.  

As my friend Sheldon outlines below, even the president can't rewrite history when the facts don't add up.

  

You may recall that a few weeks ago, our illustrious president spoke of past presidents making prisoner swaps at the end of wars

that took place on their watch, much like his swap he said convincingly.  

 CNSNews.com carried this quote,  “This is what happens at the end of wars,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday when he was asked about swapping American Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban terrorists.  "That was true for George Washington, that was true for Abraham Lincoln, that was true for FDR. That’s been true of every combat situation, that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back.  And that’s the right thing to do.”

While that sounds good, let's check our historical facts- 

•     the Revolutionary War ended in 1783 and Washington did not become president until 1789. 
•     Lincoln was assassinated in mid April, 1865 and the war didn't end until May, the month following. 
•     As for FDR, he died of a stroke before the end of WWII. Truman was president when the war concluded.

    So there you have it, none of these presidents were in office at the ends of those wars, making it impossible for them to make any prisoner swaps.

    So much for our historically illiterate president.  You would think that someone on his staff would keep him from making these foolish blunders, but speaking half truths and telling whole lies has become his pattern of speech when it comes to the American public.

My overriding question, when will rank and file Democrats as well as those in the House and Senate call him out for his egregious abuse of the executive power and his outright lies?  My guess is never because they are afraid of being labeled as racist.  So, while America burns, Obama fiddles because he knows he has the Democratic party held hostage.  

WASHINGTON REDSKINS NAME CONTROVERSY

Ok, I am really getting tired of the whining about the name of the Washing NFL club.  The Redskins are a proud team with a very respectful name of which they are very respectful  So, let me add another example of the stupidity of brain dead Harry Reid and the concern about the naming of the Washington Football team the REDSKINS.

This was sent to me by someone who is sane enough to see through the garbage, but I added my own observation at the end. be sure to read through completely.

Incorrect Team Names

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.

Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians.

If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to the white folk.

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men’s lives.

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates! Don't forget the Oklahoma Sooners.

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

The Milwaukee Brewers---well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing congress loves.

With all of this in mind, it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic team to something other than "the Beavers.”

My observation: If anyone really wants to go in the direction of correcting politically sensitive names which are considered derogatory towards Native Americans, forget about the Oklahoma Sooners team name, eliminate the name of the state itself.for it, by the definition of the politically correct progressive name police, is more "racist" than the term Redskins and it is condoned by the Federal Government as well as brain dead Harry. Funny how we never hear brain dead Harry state that he will neither vist or pass through Oklahoma until they change their name. Funny how we don't hear from a group of Native Americans from upstate NY screaming about how offended they are by the name of one of our 50 states. Where is the class action lawsuit to change the name of Oklahoma? Where is the television commercial during a championship sporting event discussing the atrocity speaking the name of our 46th state? You see, Oklahoma is the Choctaw (a Native American tribe, in case you didn't know) word for "Red People", ie...Okla = people and humma = red, so if the politically correct progressive name police are going to get all bent over and claim racism in the name of a sports team, perhaps first they should sue the Federal government to change  the name of our 46th state.

Global Warming around the Globe

Did anyone see this Eugene Robinson editorial in the Post yesterday?  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-global-warmings-impact-cant-be-ignored/2014/01/27/b5917594-8792-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

He makes the claim that what global warming "deniers" are missing is that no matter how cold it is in one part of the world, the globe is much bigger and there are record heat waves in Australia right now so that proves human caused global warming.

Of course the "deniers" among us have been making the same point regarding the cooling trend for years.  He doesn't mention the fact that for every example of global warming, human caused or otherwise, there have been an equal number of record cold spells in other areas of the world.

I have been pointing this out for years, but it is only now when the sycophantic media has been totally embarrassed by algore's rant about how by this year we would experience a complete loss of all arctic ice and a sea level increase of about 3 inches, that they begin to make the global argument. 

I also find it interesting that Robinson uses Australia as his example. Australia is one of the most remote and relatively underdeveloped islands on the face of the earth.  Excepting perhaps Madasscar or and the Galapagos, Australia is just about the least likely place on earth to be directly affected by the human emissions of global warming.  And we certainly aren't seeing a rapid and increasing incidence of vegetation growth in Australia which would be indicative of the increasing CO2 emissions. Listening to Mr. Robinson you would think that the infusion of people from around the globe who are breathing while watching the Australian Open tennis tournament caused the extreme heat wave there.

The world we inhabit may, as some studies indicate, be warming.  As other studies indicate, it has been cooling for the past 15+ years, but there is no FACTUAL basis for the claim that the change in climate conditions is directly caused by humans. It truly would be nice if at some point, somewhere, some scientists would apply common sense and actual observation to reach conclusions rather than relying on staged computer models to develop their "Facts".

It would be equally refreshing if the editorial writers in the country's newspapers and even the President of the United States would be responsible enough to cut the demagoguery and speak the truth. 

The IRS and why we never see Tax Reform

There is little doubt that we in America, now have the most repressive and burdensome tax system in the world.  It is used by politicians to engineer social policy and as a Garrot around the necks of those who oppose their positions.  This is why there is so much resistance from politicians of both established parties to reforming it.  Question...Why do we need more than 70,000 pages of tax regulations in order to collect the FEDERAL income tax?  Does anyone doubt that it is necessary in order for politicians to punish those who oppose their pet projects and policies?  Senator Chuck Schumer stated, “It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies – we must redouble those efforts immediately.”

Schumer’s rant was centered on his war to annihilate the Tea Party. But here’s a thought provoking question from a friend, if there was never any IRS or government agency actions against conservative groups, what exactly is being redoubled?

Read more at:
http://allenbwest.com/2014/01/message-schumer-progressive-pals/#xz6MZ4JkYKOFUVH4.99

The State of Our Country

This morning I received two interesting emails.  The first included a one question survey from the political activists arm of the never ending Obama campaign.  The survey's only question was, What are the most important issues you would like to hear from the President when he makes his State of the Union Speech on Tuesday evening.

I doubt I will hear him discuss my two suggestions the first of which be an announcement that he use the "pen and executive power" that he holds and eliminate as many Federal Agencies as possible until we return to self governing principles which are allowed under the Constitution.  I can't imagine him doing this, but I also don't understand the need for agencies like the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, the EPA, etc...etc...etc...

My other suggestion, which I also do not expect to hear is that he admit to the complete and utter failure of ObamaCare and his longstanding economic policies and as a result he will be using the pen he holds to sign his letter of resignation from the podium.

Yes I know I am dreaming, but if there were a trace of honor or patriotism in the heart of our President, those would be the two points he would be making.

My second email of interest this morning discussed the failures of Speaker Boehner and his leadership of the "Peoples House".  I responded as follows:

Boehner is the defacto leader of the Republican party. As far as I'm concerned, and you know this, the entire Republican party is represented by their leaders and therefore, IMNSHO, the entire Republican party should be annihilated.  We need a real third party, regardless of what the whining naysayers preach about losing to the Dems.  What good does it do to win elections for the Republicans when it results in leadership such as Boehner, McConnell and their ilk?  What good does it do to support the Republican party when their leaders ridicule and minimize the likes of Cruz, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and anyone else who stands up for the constitution and true conservative American values?  Hell, we already have Obama,  his Sycophants and the fawning media to do this, why should we support the establishment Republican party who does the same and preaches a "go along to get along" mantra when the go along/get along strategy results in increased unemployment, economic morass and an overwhelming debt?  Why shoulod we support a party which accepts an increase in the national debt limit every 6 months so Obama cna use the executive office to increase the size and scope of the Federal government to the point that you can't even buy toilet paper to wipe your ass without it first being approved by the federal government?

The TEA Party stands for TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.  We are not only overly taxed already, but the Fed is spending well over and above that while the Republican party sits by with their respective thumbs stuck squarely up their backsides complaining about and criticizing the true patriots who are trying to rein in the FED.

SCREW THEM ALL!  I will not give one red cent to support the Republican party or anyone who runs on their ticket.

People, it is time for a real third party of patriotic Americans to rise up and make sure our voices are heard.  It truly is time to band together as a nation and make sure that the government understands that they answer to us, not the other way around.  They need to be given the message that we will not be spied upon, dictated to or regulated to the point that we are unable to operate successful businesses or taxed to the point that we become bankrupt.  If we are unwilling to act quickly to make our voices heard and see that our votes are counted, we will become a nation which kowtows to the bureaucrats sitting in their offices on high in Washington and our country will never again be the land of opportunity leading by example for every other freedom loving citizen of the world.

So, rise up America, make your voices heard, help lead the charge to return America to its self reliant rots before we lose it.