ThoughtRogue:  Can we consider it outright TYRANNY, when federal legislators create legal Worm-Holes such as “[Section Reserved].” placeholders in bills, so that persons unknown can later insert unknown language into the bill AFTER IT HAS BEEN PASSED?   Fellow Americans, How bad are we going to allow this Federal Tyranny to get!?

Hat-tip Michelle Malkin

The excerpt below was contained in the ~300 new pages to be inserted into the bill, which were submitted by Demonrats at approximately 3:00am the night before the Friday vote (and which were never incorporated into a final bill before they actually voted on it).  Ask your friendly Congress-person exactly what is going to be inserted into Section 788, now that they have voted to pass this monstrous ‘Cap and Trade’ climate control bill.  Go ahead, ask them.

Section Reserved (to be written later, after passage)

Legislative Worm-Holes - aka TYRANNY.

“Never before have so few stolen so much from so many for so little.”  -Jefferson Paine

Exclusive to NoCompromiseMedia by Jefferson Paine

Open Letter to:

Mr. David Reichert

Republican Representative

Washington State Delegation

June 30^th, 2009

 

Dear Mr. Reichert,

Please, resign your seat in the U.S. House of Representatives because of your “Yes” vote in favor of the abominable “Cap and Trade” or “Climate Change” bill – and without having even read the final bill in its entirety before voting on it.  Your egregious voting record does not represent me, or of any Republican that I know.

 

Since your debut in Congress, I have been watching your sorry voting rating, from the American Conservative Union (ACU), steadily decline from a score of 64 (out of 100) in 2005, to a low, thus far, of 48 in 2007 – you have voted consistently with the fringe Left of the Republican party in the House – even more so the last two years under Speaker Pelosi.  Sir, you are a RINO’s RINO if there ever was one.

 

I knew something was drastically broken with your moral compass when, right out of the gate in 2005, on that Palm Sunday, when you voted against allowing a federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo state murder, where you helped deny her loving family from merely giving their daughter some comforting water, while she was slowly, and painfully starved to death.  Her cruel death at the hands of the State, would never, ever have been allowed to take place in such a manner if ending the life of the most monstrous inmate on death row.  Please, resign your seat, now.

 

Which segues us to your buddy, Gary Ridgeway – one of the most prolific serial killers of all time – who you have ridden to fame and power by single-handedly “apprehending” him!  How’s Mr. Ridgeway faring these days – continuing to fantasize until he dies of old age about his 50, 60, 70(?) horrific strangulations of beautiful, innocent girls?  Oh, and the necrophilia!  In your coming retirement, perhaps Gary can join you, on furloughs you have arranged, to mind the gift shop part-time at your Green River Killer Catcher museum?  Or, rather, how about giving Gary a little of the treatment you gave Terri?

 

I’ve observed your many, many votes in favor of prolific federal spending, especially for out-of-control social programs galore, your votes against curbs on pork and spending limits, your votes to continue a moratorium on domestic oil and gas drilling and exploration, in favor of Orwellian “hate-crime” laws, skyrocketing the federal minimum wage, expanding the laws for union bosses to continue their thuggery in the labor markets, and expansion of embryonic stem cell research.  Which planks of the Republican Platform do you actually believe in besides supporting our military personnel?  You even voted on a gigantic pork-filled bailout bill recently which you didn’t even read!  Please, resign, now.

 

On the eve of voting on the ridiculous “Cap and Trade” monster energy-tax bill, based on the most dubious “science” ever, I called your office in Washington, D.C.  I asked the girl who answered what your position was on the bill.  She said that you didn’t have one.  Really?  Just a few hours before the big vote?  I didn’t ask her how your were going to vote – just what your current position was.  I then asked her if you took an Oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution when you assumed your office.  She said she didn’t really know.  I asked if you, or she, knew anything about our Constitution, such as what the Amendment X actually means.  Again, she really couldn’t tell me anything.  Question:  Does your call answerer play with her Silky Pony and Barbie dolls when she’s not answering calls for you in the Big Office?  Funny, but I’m willing to bet anything, based on all of my observations, that you and she probably have the same depth of understanding of our Constitution – which now lies in tatters – precisely because power-hungry clowns such as yourself continue to violate it daily.

 

Case in point: You don’t even read the legislation in its final form, in its entirety before voting on it – such as was the case again with the “Cap and Trade” bill.  We can prove this in this case because at least three hundred pages of revisions were submitted at 3:00am last Friday morning, mere hours before the vote.  Making the final copy of the bill well over 1,200 pages – it was a physical impossibility for ANYONE in the House to have read a final copy of the bill, in its entirety, before voting on it.  And I watched the circus unfold on C-SPAN, and what I witnessed was not due process and proper deliberation – but an abomination.  But you, Sir, voted “Yes” on it anyway – screw the American People and the Citizens of the 8^th District of Washington and their ‘representation’ in Congress.

 

Mr. Reichert, resign your seat in Congress.  You now epitomize what is wrong with our system and why it is broken.  To paraphrase an American hero, Ronald Reagan, “You, Sir, are not a part of the solution – you are the problem.”  I am told I am to refer to you as “The Honorable” congressman, but your actions do not warrant it.  I will, continue to use ‘Sir’, as I would like to express just enough respect to encourage you to resign honorably.

 

Better yet, assuming you and your ilk want desperately to retain your power and perks, please consider defecting to the Demonrat party.  I’d be willing to bet they’d make a very cushy position for you in a heartbeat.  Turn in your tarnished star, empty holster, and empty suit to your nearest Republican office, and start walking toward enemy lines to be welcomed.  You are no longer welcome here.  We’ve had enough of you.  GO!!

 

Sincerely,

-Jefferson Paine, Constituent, 8^th-District, WA

TR:  Folks, NOW is the time for you to call your Congress-person and give them an earful.  Before Congress attempts to shove Socialized Medicine (ObamaCare) down your throat, they will very soon vote to first cram your gullet full of their disastrous “Cap and Trade” tax scheme – arguably the largest tax increase in American history – while their own climate “experts” acknowledge that it will accomplish next to nothing in regulating the Earth’s temperature.  Call your Congress-critter NOW and tell them “Hell, NO”.  The House switchboard is  202-224-3121.

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

By The Wall Street Journal, Opinion

Cap and Trade - Wealth Killer

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday [June 26th, 2009]. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

Henry "Nostrilitus" Waxman

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

by Alec Rawls

Only a couple more days to let the EPA know what you think of its proposed war against CO2. Just click on the little yellow “add comments” balloon. The following is a comment (ending at “sincerely”) that you can copy and paste. (If you choose to roll your own, feel free to leave it here too.)

Dear EPA:

There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the primary driver of natural temperature change is solar-magnetic activity, yet the solar flux is completely omitted as an influence on climate in all four IPCC assessments and in the Obama administration’s new “Climate Change Impacts in the United Sates” report. This omission is rationalized on grounds that the existing theories of how solar activity affects climate are still formative. The scientific method rejects this rationalization. Observational evidence is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa, but the IPCC is using theory (its distrust of existing theories of the mechanism by which solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature), as an excuse for ignoring the overwhelming evidence that solar-magnetic DOES drive global temperature. Not all religions are anti-scientific, but the demonstrably anti-scientific nature of CO2 alarmism proves that it IS religion, not science.

EPA regulations are supposed to be science based. Imposing restrictions based on an anti-scientific religious doctrine would not just violate the EPA’s mandate, but would violate the constitutional prohibition on state establishment of religion.

Solar-magnetic warming: theory and evidence

The sunspot-temperature theory is actually looking pretty solid. It is known that a strong solar-magnetic flux shields the earth from high energy cosmic rays which otherwise, according to the theory of Henrik Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, would ionize the atmosphere, seeding cloud formation. Thus the solar wind in effect blows the clouds away, giving the earth a sunburn.

Whatever the precise mechanism, researchers have found that solar-magnetic activity “explains” statistically about 60-80 percent of global temperature change on all time scales going back hundreds of millions of years. On the decadal time scale, see the seminal 1991 paper by Christensen and Lassen (“Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate”) and the 2003 isotope study by Usoskin et al (“Solar activity over the last 1150 yrs: does it correlate with climate?”), which found: “a correlation coefficient of about .7 – .8 at a 94% – 98% confidence level.”

For longer time scales, see the 2003 paper by Shaviv and Veiser (“Celestial driver of Phranerozoic climate?”), which found that found that the cosmic ray flux explains statistically about 75% of global temperature variation over the last 550 million years.

Omitted variable fraud

Solar activity was at “grand maximum” levels from 1940 and 2000 which, given the historical correlation between solar activity and temperature, could easily explain most or all late 20th century warming. When the IPCC and others omit the solar-magnetic variable from their models, any warming effect of solar activity gets misattributed to whatever correlated variables ARE included in their models.

By sheer coincidence, CO2 reached its own “grand maximum” levels (at least compared to the rest of the Holocene) in the second half of the 20th century. Thus in the alarmist models, whatever warming effect the omitted solar-magnetic variable is responsible for gets misattributed to CO2.

You can find rationalizations for this omitted-variable fraud in every IPCC report. For instance, section 6.11.2.2 of the Third Assessment Report does not question the correlation between solar activity and climate, but dismisses the cosmic-ray cloud THEORY as too speculative to include in their climate models:

At present there is insufficient evidence to confirm that cloud cover responds to solar variability.

But they don’t just leave solar-magnetic activity out of their models. Because their forecasts are based entirely on their climate models, they also leave solar magnetic effects completely out of their climate forecasts, despite knowing that there is SOME mechanism (even if the cosmic-ray/cloud theory turns out to be wrong) by which solar-magnetic activity is the primary driver of global temperature.

The only solar variable they do include is solar output or Total Solar Insolation (from long to short-wave radiation), which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. The Fourth Assessment Report does the same thing, looking only at TSI, as do all of the analyses that follow from these reports. For instance, if you look at he “Natural Influences” subsection of the Obama administration’s new report, you will see on page 16 that the only natural influence listed is “solar output’ (or TSI), which is why it is shown graphically to be so tiny.

Solar output is close to constant over the solar cycle (less than 0.1% variation), which is why it is called “the solar constant.” Because TSI is nearly constant, it cannot account for the many thousands of years of close correlation between solar activity and temperature. That must be coming from the one solar variable that DOES vary with solar activity: the solar magnetic flux. Every IPCC climate scientist knows this, yet they still omit the solar-magnetic variable.

Proof of omission: page 16 graphic from the June 2009 report by U.S. Global Change Research Program (in effect, the NOAA). The only natural warming effect listed is total solar output, which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. Similar graphics can be found in each of the IPCC’s assessment reports, where this analysis originates.

Religion, not science

When the alarmists omit solar-magnetic effects on the grounds that they are not satisfied with with existing theories of HOW these effects work, they are not just committing statistical fraud, but they are contradicting the very definition of science. Observation (the overwhelming correlation between solar activity and global temperature) is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa.

Consider an analogy. Until Einstein developed his theory of general relativity there was no good theory of gravity. Newton had a description of the gravitational force (that it diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance) but nobody had any sensible account for the mechanism by which massive objects were drawn to each other. Applying the standards of the IPCC, a pre-Einsteinian or pre-Newtonian scientist should have forecast that when a stone is released in the air, it would waft away on the breeze. After all, we understand the force that the breeze imparts on the stone, but we don’t understand this thing called gravity, so we should not include it, even though we observe that heavy objects fall.

That is not science, and neither is CO2 alarmism. Data is supposed to trump Theory. By using theory (the proclaimed insufficiency of solar-magnetic theory) as an excuse to ignore the evidence (where solar activity is known to somehow warm the climate), warming alarmism perverts the scientific method.

That makes it religion in the constitutionally barred sense. Not only is this belief system embraced by millions of people WITHOUT EVIDENCE, but it is embraced in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Alarmism about CO2 is not just a religion, it is a demonstrably irrational religion, equivalent to believing that rocks will waft away on the breeze.

EPA is supposed to make science-based rulings. If you regulate CO2 based on demonstrably anti-scientific ideology, it will be an unconstitutional state establishment of religion.

The current cooling trend fits the solar-magnetic theory, not the CO2 theory

All of the major temperature records show that the earth’s average temperature has been falling for ten years now (with the 21 year smoothed temperature falling for five). In this period, CO2 has continued to increase, while the sun has descended into a prolonged solar minimum. This turn in the sun (breaking the coincidental correlation between solar activity and CO2 that existed for the previous 70 years), is rapidly unmasking the hoax of anthropogenic global warming.

It should not take a rare astrological event to unmask an obvious statistical and scientific fraud. Will the EPA now destroy its reputation by codifying the “green” religion at the very moment when the heavens themselves are exposing its dishonesty? If you choose this course, you will be destroying the nation’s economy and the lives of your countrymen in the service of your own anti-scientific religious beliefs, in violation of your oath of office.

Sincerely,

On the subject of state established religion

This is also the subject of our blogbursts, trying to stop the Flight 93 Memorial Project from stamping a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the graves our murdered heroes:

A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shape, but the archetypical mihrab is crescent shaped.)

The Crescent of Embrace memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque, replete with a full complement of typical mosque features, like the minaret-like Tower of Voices that has an Islamic shaped crescent on top and turns out to be a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial.

Outcry over the apparent Islamic symbolism forced the Park Service to make changes. They promised that they would remove the Islamic symbol shapes, but they never did. They call it a broken circle now, but the circle is broken in the exact same places as before.

The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Read the rest of this entry »

TR:  I simply can’t wait to stand in line to get my ultra-sleek Pelosi GTxi SS/RT sport coupe. Who needs another facelift when they’ve got one of these Pelosi’s?

22.5 thundering ponies powering this stallion?!  If it had a power take-off, I could almost mow my lawn with the Pelosi GTxi SS/RT!

Just glancing at this bad boy, who could ever tell that it was designed by committee? – I just can’t wait for multiple colors!

-Congressional Motors is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM (government motors).

Ahhh, no ya don't! You're not THAT powerful!

NC puts it simple: Government’s natural tendency is to grow into a controlling leviathan. It order to maintain and feed that leviathan it has to come up with more and more reasons to sustain itself through taxing you!  If it complicates a situation to the point of confusing and scaring you,  then you will believe anything you are told. At least that’s what the gov’t is banking on.  

Al Gore said two years ago that in 10 years, Florida would drown in the ocean because of global warming melting the ice caps. I promise you that in eight years from now NOTHING will have changed off the shores of Florida,  or any other coastline.  When true scientists called him on that lie,  then the Orwellian Mind benders known as the lame stream media, said, “Let’s change the phrase ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’”  because they knew the lie was being exposed.

Let me ask  you this:  Does our climate change?  yes, or no?  Climate change has always been observed to occur naturally throughout the history of planet earth. Let me ask you another question:  Do you breathe?  Of course you do.  When you inhale, what are you inhaling?  When you exhale, what are you exhaling?  You are exhaling CO2, as does every animal. When trees and plants exhale they exhale O2, aka oxygen. During the day, when trees and plants breathe, they breathe in CO2, at night they breathe in O2.   If anything,  we want more plants and trees on planet earth,  which is a simple fix to most all problems.  This is God’s natural method of carbon sequestration. What is that you ask? It’s called photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is converted into simple sugars, more complex carbohydrates, and cellulose fiber.  These products are found in FOOD!  All of these natural products are essential for ordinary life on planet earth for all species. The attempt to reduce the levels of CO2,  or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause a drastic reduction in these three essential natural products and would endanger ALL LIFE on planet earth by starving all species including YOU! 

No carbon dioxide in the air means no carbohydrates, and no sugars being produced which means no food, which means you and all animal life starves!

 They didn’t tell you that little detail did they?

Gov’t is so desperate to take your hard earn money away from you (because gov’t can not make money like the rest of us, it can only take it.) that they are willing to tax YOU for exhaling,  and they want to tax farmers when their cows fart,  and they want to tax businessmen if they drive too much.  You would think that if the gov’t really cared about Planet Earth  they would give tons of tax breaks to anyone growing trees and plants!  But that’s too easy to a supposed problem, right?

Global warming, climate change, whether change, whatever you call it has been going on from the dawn of time,  and it will never change, Thank God! The gov’t is banking on you falling for this ridiculous LIE that the ice caps are melting,  and it’s YOUR FAULT just to get you to work harder (slave), and give up more of your hard earned money!  Will you let them?  Over a lie?  

By Dr. Tim Ball

Big lies to grab your hard earned money!

A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses: it is an idea that possesses the mind. Robert Bolton

The Possessive Belief 
CO2 (CARBON) IS NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE. I can’t say it more boldly but it doesn’t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create.

A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don’t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesn’t require understanding of the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.

Contradictory Evidence

The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90% certainty that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of globalwarming. But the evidence shows this can’t be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production and therefore all life on the planet.

Dr Ferenc Miskolczi provided the most recent scientific argument against CO2 as the cause of temperature change. Here is an explanation by Dr Miklos Zagoni.

Read the rest of this entry »

ThoughtRogue:  Folks, if you haven’t read George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel, 1984, it is a must read.  From it, our society has gained many useful yet sinister terms such as:  Big Brother is Watching You (which has been modernized to “Big Daddy is Watching ‘over’ You”), Room 101, Crimethink (thought crimes such as “Hate” crimes”, or conservative ideology), Doublethink (self-contradictory spin or rhetoric as ‘fact’), and literally controlling the future by the constant revision (often erasure) of history by those in control with totalitarian powers…  It’s up to you and me to stop this before we are all engulfed by the armies of Obots and their totalitarian drones.

Hat-tip:  HotAir

A timely, heart-warming rendition at this festive confluence of the Birth of Christ, an imminent fiery Revelation, and record-level snow drifts threatening to bury No Compromises National Headquarters here in the Soviet of Washington.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI&eurl=http://soundpolitics.com/public/2008/12/12_days_of_global_warming_1.html&feature=player_embedded]

By Michael Asher

Amateur team finds NASA error similar to one they discovered a year ago.

GISS’s October Data. The large reddish-brown area in Russia is actually September readings.

Russia is Melting!

NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world’s primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm– a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month’s data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA’s data didn’t agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

McIntyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS’s US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that worldwide, October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS’s data?

Read the rest of this entry »