Monthly Archives: July 2017

Why Are Republicans So Spineless!! This is Scary.

Posted on by
1

Patricia McCarthy may have it right.

 

Why are most of the Republicans in Congress so spineless?

By Patricia McCarthy

Why indeed?  Obamacare was passed in 2009 without a single Republican vote.  Everyone who paid attention to its details knew it was designed to fail, miserably.  Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragged about how getting it passed depended on the stupidity of the American people.  But people would not be able to keep their own doctors as promised.   No one’s premiums went down by $2,500. They all went up and up and up.  Those who are paying for it cannot afford to use it because the deductibles are too high.  It is a monstrosity of catastrophic proportions.  The insurance companies were on board; they knew they would reap billions of taxpayer dollars and they have. They have been subsidized with billions in government largesse and still have jacked up the cost of premiums each year.  The insurance companies loved the plan despite the fact that it was built as well to be fraud-friendly, like Medicaid and Medicare.  It was and remains a giant boondoggle.  For eight years, Republicans have campaigned for office in order to repeal it.  The House voted repeatedly to repeal it.

Now they have the House, the Senate, and the White House and suddenly cannot do what they have promised to do all these years despite having all the power to do it.  The range of their fatuous excuses and infighting is too much to bear.  Suddenly, all those Republicans who once held conservative ideals are conservative no longer.  Medicaid, which provides little if any actual medical care,  now must be expanded, not cut!  Where does all that money go?  Not to doctors.  Not to care for the indigent.  Susan Collins, for example, should admit she is a give-it-all-away Democrat.  She does not advocate for personal responsibility or reducing government spending. Not one bit.  Every word out of her mouth is a statist, big-government mantra.

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania let the cat of the bag as to the Republicans’ pathetic inaction at a recent townhall; “We did not expect Trump to win.”  So, these Republicans who have been promising to repeal Obamacare once they achieved maximum power were just faking it.  They had no plan to actually repeal Obamacare and it appears now that they never had any intention to do it.  They did not really want to wield the power they now have!  They preferred being underdogs; they are, most of them, lazy.  The Democrats, statist scoundrels all, would never be so pathetically weak.  They have no power but are still running the show because the establishment Republicans are so infuriatingly inept.   Because Trump did win, the Republicans in Congress have been caught in a poisonous spider’s web of their own making.  Now we all know that they are weak, sycophantic do-nothings who would rather fight amongst themselves than solve a problem or actually legislate.  They are like a clan of meerkats staring vacantly in the same, unfocused direction.  Paul Ryan and  McConnell, the alleged miracle workers of vote-whipping, are failures.  On purpose?  Who knows.  Seems like it.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s idea that an Obamacare plan remain available to anyone who wants it is brilliant.  But no, can’t have that.  Direct care, the most obvious solution, is a non-starter with our cowardly representatives in Congress.  No, no, no.  We cannot possibly advocate for personal responsibility and affordable health care that allows individual Americans to choose their own doctors or their own insurance plans, according to their own needs.  There are so many ways to care for the truly needy, and for those with pre-existing conditions, without bankrupting the nation, but our wimpy Republicans are too scared to go there.  It is cowardice that characterizes the party; cowardice and contempt for their own president because he is not one of them.  To this day, they cannot accept that fact he won precisely because he is not one of them.  But can they learn and embrace the man? No. They are trying to sabotage him. And for this they are earning the contempt of the voters who put them in office.

They are cowards too when it comes to defending their president.  Like Toomey, none of them expected Trump to win, but he did.  But so afraid of actually supporting the man who is now the leader of their party, nearly all of them are cowering in the corners of Congress.  So afraid of the leftist media, they are trying to become a minority again themselves.  Who among them has passionately called out the nonsense that is the media’s obsession with Trump-colluded-with-Russia”?  Not even Cruz or Gowdy or Rubio or Lee!  What is wrong with these people?  What on earth has become of the Republican party?  If they do not begin to stand up to the vicious media and conspiratorial left, we will be left to the devices of shameless pols like Schumer, Adam Schiff,  Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc., etc.  There are too many Democrats who are non compos mentis yet the Republicans are letting them have their way with us all.

By now, eight months into the Trump administration, conservatives have to admit that their elected representatives in Congress do not actually represent them.  They are excellent at one thing, capitulation to the left.   These yellow-bellies who are pretend conservatives need to either step up to the plate or resign and let new and legitimate conservatives take their places.

 

What If Hillary Had Won? !!

Posted on by
Reply

Had Hillary Clinton Won the Election…

By Patricia McCarthy

To paraphrase Robert Frost, America has taken the road less traveled.  We elected a political outsider.  What might America look like today if Hillary had been elected?  Had she won we would not be hearing a single word about Russia.  Not a whisper.  It was not on the left’s radar at all.  Ms. Clinton had embarrassed herself with that inane Office Depot reset button while she was Secretary of State.  Obama had told Medvedev to tell “Vlad” he would have more flexibility after the election, presumably re: nuclear disarmament.  The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion.

Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose.  Besides, the Left has historically loved Russia and wanted to emulate its authoritarian governments.  They laughed when Mitt Romney, in 2012, named Russia as our most serious foreign policy problem.  And Obama, even when he knew/believed that Russia was attempting to meddle in the election, he did nothing.  They’ve done it for decades and so what?  Hillary was going to win.

Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before.  She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us.   She would be further eviscerating our military and she would be raising taxes to fund Obamacare even though it is a clear and present disaster.  Anyone who doubts that should look up Hillarycare, the monstrosity she designed behind closed doors when her husband was in the White House.  Her plan would dictate who could go to medical school, what specialty they would  “choose,”  and where they would be compelled to practice.  Her plan was the U.K.’s NHS on steroids.  Her plan was rationed care and death panels from hell.

Had HRC won, she would be implementing thousands of new regulations on businesses to further hamstring the economy.  She would let the fascist freaks at the Environmental Protection Agency have their way with every aspect of our daily lives:  Our cars, our showerheads, our toilets, our rainwater in our yards, etc.  She would, like the EPA under Obama, privilege any species, no matter how insignificant,  over humans.  Central California has been devastated by the environmentalists’ reverence for the delta smelt!  Thousands of farm workers lost their jobs thanks to this lefty decision, turning a lush agricultural valley into a brown wasteland in the name of “going green.”  This is the American left today.

Dr. Ben Carson, Trump’s Secretary of HUD has already uncovered $520 billion in fraud that occurred under Obama.  Two-thirds of the people who got Obamaphones at taxpayer expense lied.  That program was riddled with fraud.

Had Hillary been elected, the stock market would be tanking rather than booming.  Every one of her policies would have been an economic wet blanket.   She would have instituted a minimum wage by executive order and thousands of more small businesses would be closing.  Instead, the stock market has gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected.  Hillary would have already increased our $20 trillion in national debt; Trump reduced it by $100m in his first hundred days.  Job numbers would have fallen under Hillary; Trump added nearly 300k jobs in the first month after his inauguration.  Housing sales would have fallen under Hillary because even fewer people would have been able to afford to buy a home.  Under Trump, housing sales have increased for the first time since 2011.

Had Hillary won, she would, as promised, have increased the number of refugees from the  Middle East, Mexico and Central America.  There would be countless more potential terrorists in our midst, thousands more on public assistance on the taxpayer’s dime.  Under Trump, illegal immigration is down 67%.  The DOJ, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is rounding up criminal illegals, most of them gang members, many of them released from prisons by Obama to roam our streets with impunity.  Hopefully, the citizens of sanctuary cities will realize how much safer they and their children will be once this pathetic policy comes to an end.  Trump stands firmly behind our law enforcement officers; Hillary would be standing with Black Lives Matter and even more police would be sacrificing their lives to this domestic terrorist group and its anti-cop rhetoric.

Hillary, like the rest of the left, hates the Second Amendment.  Had she won,  it would likely have been abrogated out of existence.  Law-abiding citizens would be relegated to victim status by decree, no longer allowed to defend themselves from the always armed criminals while the likes of Hillary and her crowd live in gated mansion and have armed guards.  “For me but not for thee” is the mantra of the left.  She would be taking the nation in the direction of Oregon, which is fast becoming the fascist state the left so admires.

Trump was vilified throughout the campaign for repeatedly calling out NATO members for not paying their minimal fair share.  Since he won, allied spending is up $10 billion!    Then there is the Supreme Court. We now have another constitutional scholar, like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, on the bench who may just do Antonin Scalia proud.  Trump  will likely get the chance to appoint two more justices in the coming years.  Given the power our courts have grasped for themselves, his appointments of jurists who revere our founding documents may be the only path back to a Constitutional Republic.  Neil Gorsuch is the first step.

Trump took us out of the Paris Climate Accord, a $2.5 trillion economy killer.  He got us out of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that would have been great for the eleven other nations in it, and bad for America.  As he promised, he is putting America and American workers first.  The left and the media hate him for all this.  They have been rendered apoplectic and thoroughly irrational.  Their response to his glorious speech in Warsaw, was that it was racist, xenophobic, tribalist.  How dare he preference Western Civilization! They no longer hear actual words spoken. They hear what their radical ideology dictates they must hear when Trump speaks.  If he said it, it must be racist, it must be sexist, it must be nationalist, etc.  They are completely unable to grasp the meaning of Trump.  Had Hillary won, this miraculous nation would be continuing the death spiral Obama set in motion eight years ago.  It’s almost as though divine providence has rescued us once again as it has at so many crucial times over the past 241 years..

 

Climate Change’s Time Bomb Filed in British Columbia Court. This May be the End. Updated with Graphs

Posted on by
Reply

In 2011, Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame sued Dr. Timothy Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver) in 2011 for libel. Dr. Ball disagreed with Dr. Mann’s claim that recent warming is abnormal as Dr. Ball claims Mann is at variance with established temperature patterns for the last 1000 years. Dr. Ball is saying the “hockey stick” is a fraud.

Critics of the “hockey stick” have maintained that Dr. Mann ignored the Medieval Warm Period and eliminated the Little Ice Age that ended in about 1850. Both the Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are historical facts.
By basing the warming with the end of the Little Ice Age, alarmists made a safe bet that the world would warm up and it has warmed about 1 degree since 1880. By blaming the warming on co2, they could demand drastic changes to economies around the world. Critics disparagingly called “deniers,” have claimed that the warming was natural and nothing to be alarmed about. Asking scientists if the earth has warmed earned a huge majority (97%) who agreed about the warming. By saying they agreed to co2 as being the cause and that it was dangerous as well, was disingenuous.

NEW MATERIAL: The two graphs at the heart of the case are shown here.  It is clear that Dr. Ball’s graph represents historical accuracy while Dr. Mann’s graph omits the two major climate events of the last 1000 years. Dr. Mann has to prove the Warm Period and the Little Ice Age didn’t happen!!

Dr. Mann filed a lawsuit claiming Libel against his reputation and filed a lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia against Mark Steyn claiming the same sort of damage. Both cases are considered SLAPP cases, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Policy which are filed to suppress dissent. Dr. Mann may have erred hugely with these lawsuits. His contempt of court may cause the court to find that his “Hockey Stick” is false, will cause him to pay Dr. Ball’s costs, and because is climate fraud is the basis of the IPCC findings and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on research, he may be liable for that too.

The judge in British Columbia has now asked the question that should have been asked ten years ago. The is stated in paragraph 2 (of 2) that says:
2: The Plaintiff, Dr. Michael Mann, shall deliver any expert reports in response to the reports delivered by Defendants . . . on or before February 21, 2017.

So, the Judge has told Mann to prove the truth behind his “hockey stick.” The deadline was February 20 and it’s early July. Mann is in contempt of court. We’ll see how this plays out. It will be very interesting.

For those interested the case is Michael Mann v. Timothy “Tim” Ball and The Frontier Centre for Public Policy and John Doe. VLC-S-S0111913 (2011)

Court May Find Mann In Contempt

Posted on by
Reply

This may be the climate story of the ages. Read on!!
Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann

Published on July 4, 2017

Written by John O’Sullivan

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

Punishment for Civil Contempt

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making global warming scam in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.

In his books, articles, radio and television appearances, Dr. Ball has been resolute in his generation-long war against those who corrupted the field of science to which he had selflessly dedicated his life. Now aged 79, Ball is on the cusp of utter vindication. Despite the stresses and strains on himself and his family, Tim has stood at the forefront of those scientists demanding more openness and transparency from government-funded researchers.

As Ball explains:

“We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Likely Repercussions for Science & Climate Policy

A bitter and embarrassing defeat for the self-styled ‘Nobel Prize winner’ who acted as if he was the epitome of virtue, this outcome shames not only Michael Mann, but puts the climate science community in crisis. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked. Despite having deep-pocketed backers willing and able to feed his ego as a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics, Mann’s credibility as a champion of environmentalism is in tatters.

But it gets worse for the litigious Penn State professor. Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against another one of Mann’s SLAPP suits – this time in Washington DC. Steyn boldly claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann. The world can now see that his six-year legal gambit to silence his most effective critics and chill scientific debate has spectacularly backfired.

But at a time of much clamor about ‘fake news,’ it seems climate scare stories will have a new angle now that the United States has officially stepped back from the Paris Climate Treaty. President Trump was elected on a mandate to weed out climate fraud so his supporters will point to this legal outcome as vindication for a full purge. It makes a mockery of statements made by Mann last February when PSI’s Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan publicly backed their colleague, Dr Ball and endorsed the revelations in his book. Mann reacted by moaning:

“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”

The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr Mann, utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.

There can be little doubt that upon the BC Supreme Court ruling that Mann did commit data fraud, over in Washington DC, the EPA’s Scott Pruitt will feel intense pressure from skeptics to initiate a full investigation into Mann, his university and all those conspiring to perpetuate a trillion-dollar carbon tax-raising sting on taxpayers.

With the scent of courtroom victory invigorating pensioner Ball, he reveals he is determined to go for a second such court win this coming Fall. Then he defends a similar libel lawsuit in Vancouver, filed against him by fellow Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver.

On that case Tim reports:

“The second defamation lawsuit involves Andrew Weaver and is scheduled for court in October 2017. We are not sure what will happen as Weaver, who was a lead author for the computer model chapter of four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013), became a politician. He ran for and was elected leader of the British Columbia Green Party and is a sitting member of the provincial legislature. We must continue to prepare for the trial, but it is the prevailing view in the court system that if a scientist becomes a politician their scientific objectivity is compromised – it is considered the bias of a ’noble cause’.”

As a career-long defender of the scientific method, embracing open and transparent verification of important government research, Ball makes this promise to his loyal supporters:

“Regardless of the outcomes I am planning a major campaign to expose to the world how they used the court system to silence me because I dared to speak out against their claims and actions. I am not particularly bright but I had two major threats, I was qualified, and I had an ability to explain in a way the public could understand. These latter abilities were honed in teaching a science credit for arts students for 25 years.”

Saving a final word for his friends and colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) Dr Ball concluded:

“It goes without saying that I could not have done any of this without the support of people [like Gregg Thomspon] who gave money and John O’Sullivan who gave superb advice from a legal and life experience perspective.”

Dr Ball and his PSI colleagues are among those now calling for governments to set aside proper funding for ‘blue team’ scientists and experts skilled in critically examining claims made by so-called government ‘experts’ where they impact public policy. In the final outcome, these ‘devil’s advocates’ of science (or ‘skeptics’) are the best defense against waste and corruption.

To that end, Australian Astronomer and entrepreneur Gregg Thompson has been crucial in providing resources that helped establish PSI as a registered UK charity devoted to this public service. PSI is urging more charitable donations from ordinary citizens to help further the cause of creating more ‘blue team/red team’ initiatives devoted to monitoring government science and prepared to bravely expose negligence and intentional misconduct on the public dime.

Read more from Tim Ball at his website: drtimball.com. Buy on Amazon Tim’s ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘