Free Markets, Free People

Bruce McQuain

1 2 3 403

Stray Voltage

Heather Mac Donald explodes the “Black Lives Matter” myth – the myth the Democratic presidential candidates have decided to embrace:

For starters, fatal police shootings make up a much larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths than black homicide deaths. According to the Post database, in 2015 officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. (The overwhelming majority of all those police-shooting victims were attacking the officer, often with a gun.) Using the 2014 homicide numbers as an approximation of 2015’s, those 662 white and Hispanic victims of police shootings would make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths. That is three times the proportion of black deaths that result from police shootings.

The lower proportion of black deaths due to police shootings can be attributed to the lamentable black-on-black homicide rate. There were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014—the most recent year for which such data are available—compared with 5,397 homicide deaths for whites and Hispanics combined. Almost all of those black homicide victims had black killers.

Police officers—of all races—are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

Read the whole thing.  Again, as with global warming, the facts don’t fit the theory.  And, as usual, the facts don’t matter when they bump up against election year rhetoric, ideology and the need to pander for votes.

The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell has apparently noticed what’s going on at colleges and universities these days and has noticed a number of surveys which conclude:

Today’s students are indeed both more left wing and more openly hostile to free speech than earlier generations of collegians.

She notes that the surveys are mostly taken among incoming freshman and makes and interesting observation:

One parting observation: Remember that these survey questions were asked of newly matriculated college freshmen. That is, students are setting foot on campus already more liberal, more protest-happy and more amenable to speech restrictions than their predecessors.

Which suggests that colleges themselves are not wholly responsible for rising liberal and illiberal tendencies on campus — even if they do sometimes aid and abet both trends.

 Interesting point.

As for sources of indoctrination, how about this:

From the University of California, Irvine, “Teaching Climate and Sustainability: A Faculty Skills-Sharing Workshop”:

This workshop aims to engage, inspire, and support faculty members from across disciplines who are interested in voluntarily infusing relevant climate change and/or sustainability concepts into their courses. The overall goal of this curriculum program is to boost climate change/sustainability education at UCI, especially targeting those students for whom climate and sustainability may not be a focus.

Any guess as to what “theory” they’re pushing in terms of “climate change?”

Oh, and an incentive to indoctrinate.  You bet:

Incentive: Participating faculty members receive $1000 for completing the workshop and subsequent course revision. Faculty will also receive an additional $200 for attending a follow up Faculty Networking Event on Friday, November 4, 2016 to showcase their revised course material (note: revised courses do not need to be taught by November 4, 2016, however, course materials will need to be updated to include sustainability by this time).

Never mind that at a minimum, the AGW theory is controversial at best, here we have a ideological pressure group paying teachers to revise their courses and insert this controversial and obviously deeply flawed theory as “truth”.  It doesn’t get any more blatant than that.

In the “LOL, BS talks and money walks” department, the DNC comes through again … for Hillary.

The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.

With that and the Super Delegate game, they can now pretty much rig the game anyway they want too, can’t they?

Meanwhile, the war against CO2 is going … badly:

A new report by the oil giant BP shows CO2 emissions significantly growing, despite huge gains in energy efficiency and countries forcing more green energy onto the grid. It looks like economic growth in developing countries, like China and India, will overshadow global warming regulations in rich countries. “Despite the slowdown in emissions growth, the level of carbon emissions continues to grow, increasing by 20% between 2014 and 2035,” BP reported in its latest energy outlook.

That’s one reason these drastic rules in the US against CO2 are a fool’s game (yes, the one’s the Supreme Court issued a stay on).  Developing countries aren’t playing, and with them not playing, the desired result – less CO2 – isn’t happening.  What will happen though is economy strangling regulation if we allow it.

Have a great weekend!

~McQ

A couple of things for you to read today

Headed out on the road today, so a short post with a couple of things for you to read.  First, Camille Puglia commenting on Clinton, Steinem and Albright’s attempt to shame women into voting for Clinton:

Despite emergency efforts by Gloria Steinem, the crafty dowager empress of feminism, to push a faltering Hillary over the finish line, Sanders overwhelmingly won women’s votes in every category except senior citizens. Last week, when she told TV host Bill Maher that young women supporting the Sanders campaign are just in it to meet boys, Steinem managed not only to insult the intelligence and idealism of the young but to vaporize every lesbian Sanders fan into a spectral non-person.

Steinem’s polished humanitarian mask had slipped, revealing the mummified fascist within. I’m sure that my delight was shared by other dissident feminists everywhere. Never before has the general public, here or abroad, more clearly seen the arrogance and amoral manipulativeness of the power elite who hijacked and stunted second-wave feminism.

The next day, Hillary was accompanied on the campaign trail by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (a Bill Clinton appointee), who proclaimed, to Hillary’s laughter and applause, “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women.” Waspishly policing the earth was evidently insufficient for the feminist politburo, who are now barging into the salvation and damnation game.

Never mind that the woman elevated to Christ Redeemer status by Steinem and Albright has a stained and tattered rap sheet five miles long. What genuine principles does Hillary have left, after a public career so light on concrete achievement and so heavy with lies and greed? Yes, she’s been handed job after job, but primarily due to her very unfeminist association with a man. As a senator, she initiated nothing of substance, and as Secretary of State, she stumbled into one disastrous fiasco after another, escalating the destabilization of North Africa and the Mideast.

Read the whole thing.  Interestingly, she’s a Bernie Sanders supporter, much to her disgrace.  But what she says about this trio is dead on.

Then a Kevin Williamson article about the knee-jerk reaction by some on the right to oppose whatever side the left lines up on in an issue.

Why conservatives and Republicans should be defensive about the fact that Baltimore, Los Angeles, Cleveland, and Honolulu are misgoverned to various degrees of criminality is a mystery. Conservatives with real political power in those cities are as scarce as hen’s teeth. Could it really be something so simple as the fact that we do not feel comfortable standing on the same side of a bright red line as the malefactors in Ferguson and such opportunists as DeRay Mckesson, now a Baltimore mayoral candidate, and Al Sharpton?

As he points out, sometimes, like a stopped clock, they’re right a couple of times a day.  And he also points out that where most of the problems with law enforcement are to be found are in cities and locations with deep Democratic roots and years of their governance.  Take them case by case. Support those who deserve it, condemn those who don’t,  but remember  – sometimes, a corrupt policeman is just a corrupt policeman.

~McQ

New Hampshire

While the polls may not have been exact as concerns the numbers for each winner, they certainly did predict the winners for each party … or losers if you prefer.

Found a few things interesting.  This for instance:

Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals.

Even so, there were a few silver linings for Mrs. Clinton. While Mr. Sanders bested her among all age groups younger than 45, the two candidates polled evenly among voters aged 45 to 64. And Mrs. Clinton won the support of voters 65 and older. And, though Mrs. Clinton lost nearly every income group, she did carry voters in families earning over $200,000 per year.

So what’s Clinton’s answer?  A staff shakeup.  And remember, it’s not the candidate, it’s that they’re just not doing a good enough job getting their message out there.  Oh, and not enough pandering.  So that’s about to change:

Staffing and strategy will be reassessed. The message, which so spectacularly failed in New Hampshire, where she was trailing by 21 points when she appeared before her supporters to concede to Bernie Sanders, is also going to be reworked – with race at the center of it.

Clinton is set to campaign with the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner, unarmed African-Americans who died in incidents involving law enforcement officers and a neighborhood watch representative, respectively. And the campaign, sources said, is expected to push a new focus on systematic racism, criminal justice reform, voting rights and gun violence that will mitigate concerns about her lack of an inspirational message.

“The gun message went silent in New Hampshire,” remarked one ally close to the campaign. “Guns will come back in a strong way.” She is expected to highlight the problem of gun violence as the leading cause of death among African-American men as she campaigns in South Carolina on Friday.

Heh … so when in trouble, revert to racism and sexism.  Why now?  Two words “South Carolina” where 60 percent of Democratic voters are African American?

And guns!  Evil, nasty, terrible guns. Don’t forget guns. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

By the way, a quick read of Salon tends to solidify why the Queen is having problems among her own constituency (besides being a terrible candidate that is):

Only Bernie Sanders has harnessed the full power of an electorate disgusted with politicians yet to disclose the transcripts of million dollar speeches. Nothing defines establishment politics better than a Democrat who takes money from the same interest that harm core constituencies of the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has accepted campaign contributions from two major prison lobbyists, Wall Street, and the oil and gas industry, yet promises progressive stances against all these interests.

They’re not quite as stupid as Madam Clinton would like to believe.  And by that I mean they’re not buying the Clinton assertion that she’s not establishment and she is going to go after Wall Street.  Actions/words.  Guess which are highlighting the truth in the matter?  Just wait till Sanders names Elizabeth Warren as his running mate.

On the GOP side, the only surprise to me was Kasich.  As Real Clear Politics noted, it may have been his “back to the ’60s” message that resonated in New Hampshire:

In one sense, Kasich’s emergence from the pack was New Hampshire’s most interesting development. Objectively speaking, he may be the most qualified candidate on the Republican side. He’s in his second term as governor of Ohio, perhaps the GOP’s most crucial state, and is a former congressman who helped balance the federal books in Washington when he was chairman of the House Budget Committee.

At times, Kasich sounded like he was running for office as a 1960s Democrat — a Jack Kennedy Democrat — and he even quipped that maybe he should be running in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary. But his message resonates with a significant slice of working-class Republicans and crossover independents. He also talks about the obligation of his party to the poor and working class, using arguments that are both practical and faith-based.

“If you think about the American home, which is the family, we know the family is only strong when the foundation is strong,” he said. “That’s why we will wake up every single day to make sure that every American has a job in the United States of America to help their families and their neighbors.”

Or it could be that those who voted for Kasich weren’t very enamored with Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Trump.  We’ll see if this 2nd place finish has any legs in SC.

And how out of touch is the Republican establishment?  This out of touch:

In late January, the New Hampshire Republican Party held a gathering that attracted GOP officials, volunteers, activists, and various other members of the party elite from across the state. At the time, Donald Trump led the Republican presidential race in New Hampshire by nearly 20 points, and had been on top of the polls since July.

What was extraordinary about the gathering was that I talked to a lot of people there, politically active Republicans, and most of them told me they personally didn’t know anyone who supported Trump. Asked about the Trump lead, one very well-connected New Hampshire Republican told me, “I don’t see it. I don’t feel it. I don’t hear it, and I spend part of every day with Republican voters.”

Yes, friends, they’re still in the denial stage.  What is it they don’t seem to realize?

This:

“But this phenomena is the result of 25+ years of failed promises and lackluster leadership over multiple administrations from both parties. People have had it, and those in power don’t want to accept the reality they can no longer maintain the status quo.”

Chickens.  Home.  Roost.

As for the rest of the field?  Well, many of them are in the denial stage as well.  Time for them to shuffle off the stage.  Of course they can remain in the denial stage for as long as their money holds out, but then reality gives them a good slap and they’re gone.  I expect to see Christie, Carson, Fiorina, and yes, Jeb Bush, finally fold their tents in the next week or so.

There is a sort of political revolution in motion right now on both sides.  That’s because party politics in the last few decades has taken priority over the good of the country.  The two parties still haven’t figured that out.  So the voters are very pointedly making it clear they’re completely dissatisfied with the status quo even if they have to elect someone so bad that they may do worse harm to the country than one of the establishment candidates.  Apparently the voting public is tired of the bait and switch game the establishment has been playing for years.

Time to pay the piper I guess.

~McQ

The significance of NoKo’s “satellite” launch

Yes, yes, I know, I’m making some assumptions.  Assumption A) Noko was actually able to launch a “satellite”.  Assumption B) they’ve actually built a real nuclear device that works and downsized it enough to be launched.  And assumption C) they’d do what I think they would do for no other reason than they can.  See the link below:

‘For the Record’: Understanding the Threat of EMP

And what is our military being directed to do? Well they’ve been directed to  integrate women into combat jobs and prioritize “climate change” in all of our military operations.  Or said another way, its about ideology over national security.

EMP is a real threat, a cheap and easy way for those with low yield nuclear weapons to have a huge and potentially devastating effect on a large and more dangerous enemy.  But, instead of concentrating on real threats, we’re involved in potentially capability degrading social engineering and ideological masturbation.

Do I think the potential number of 300 million dead in the US is probable (as outlined in the clip)?  No. I don’t.  We have neighbors and allies (unless they too are all hit with the same sort of attack, which would be unlikely). But it would likely cost us millions of lives.  There’s no question the effect would be pretty devastating on the national infrastructure – something no one in government has addressed adequately.  In fact, preparation for EMP attacks is nonexistent.  And, in the case of such an attack, as a side effect, you can  expect the bad actors in the world to take advantage of the attack to advance their agendas as well.

Will NoKo do it?  Under the right circumstances (that means should it ever enter the whack-a-do leader’s head), yes.  Do I think it will happen?  Well it depends on assumptions A and B.  And the “experts” seem to think that they at least haven’t been able to do B.  I don’t disagree.

But NoKo isn’t the only rogue nation out there trying to develop this sort of capability.  The article above talks about “delivery” of nuclear weapons in a conventional sense, i.e. ground to ground.  And it claims NoKo has a long way to go to do that.  But, as I’m suggesting, do they really need to do that if they can set up the EMP attack?  Same with Iran?

Of course, should NoKo and/or Iran screw up such an attack, I’m sure they’re aware that they’d cease to exist as a functioning state as the retaliation from a real nuclear capable nation would be devastating.  And our biggest deterrent (besides the overwhelming ability to strike them) may be the fact that they are unsure of the effect or reliability of their technology.

That doesn’t change the fact that we’ve done nothing to prepare for a threat that a nations like NoKo or Iran (or any other nuclear capable nation) are building.  I’ve heard it discussed as a serious problem for decades and we’ve still done nothing about it.  If this crew in charge right now want to actually do something to benefit national security, they ought to knock off the social engineering and ideological nonsense and prepare the military and the nation’s infrastructure to resist an EMP attack.

That would actually be useful.

~McQ

Clinton and paving the “Road to Serfdom”

Sometimes you see a quote that just infuriates you, because it is so wrong.  It is wrong in substance, because this is not what our Founders believed at all.  And it is wrong in context, an implication that what you pay in taxes is due because you are renting something the government or others own.  Anyway, Kevin Williamson does a bang up job of making the point based off of this one liner from Hillary:

Terry Shumaker, former U.S. ambassador to Trinidad (I wonder what that gig cost him) and current abject minion in the service of Mrs. Clinton, quotes Herself telling an audience in New Hampshire: “Service is the rent we pay for living in this great country.”

You do not owe service to this country … at all.  This is the “Elizabeth Warren” school of lefty politics.  Living in this country and working our rear ends off to produce wealth is what makes this great.  The country is a creation of those who have done and are doing that now.  Government is the parasitic institution that likes to claim credit for what it has “done” when it doesn’t have nor has ever had the assets to do what it claims.  Government too is a creation of those living in the country and not the other way around.

Williamson likens what Clinton said to a very old age which I thought we’d gotten past:

There is a very old English word for people who are required to perform service as a rent for their existence, and that word is serf. Serfdom is a form of bondage.

Americans are not serfs. We are not sharecroppers on Herself’s farm or in vassalage to that smear of thieving nincompoopery in Washington that purports to rule us.

We don’t owe you any damned rent.

Nope.  And, in fact, the government and politicians “serve” at our sufferance.  But that sort of thinking, the thinking Clinton espoused in her quote, is why so many people refer to the “Democrat plantation”.  Because frankly, that’s precisely how the elite of that party view the citizens of this country … share croppers and plantation workers.   And we all know what the bulk of plantation workers were.

And make no mistake, the Clintons and even the Sanders of this world see themselves as members of the elite.  The plantation owners.  The Queen in her medieval castle who, unfortunately, must sally out every few years and be around the serfs long enough to garner the minimum support necessary to keep herself (themselves) in power.

The Nanny State is simply another name for the plantation or that feudal plot.  The serfs get the minimum shared equally while they “serve” to “earn” it.  Meanwhile the Queen and her court get whatever they want, to include umpteen million in speaking fees, ignoring laws that would put anyone else under the jail and pretending that the law is important to them, when, in fact, they see it as nothing to concern themselves with.

When they obviously break the law, meh.  When a serf does, the Red Queen yells, “off with his head”.

Back to the quote though.  That quote says so much about why we’re in the shape we’re in now.  And it reflects an attitude that bodes even more travail. Someone who actually believes that should be kept as far away from the Oval Office as is possible.

I suggest a max security jail somewhere in Colorado.  Or reopen Alcatraz.  Let the Queen rule there.

~McQ

Stray Voltage

Socialist Venezuela is dying:

The year 2015 was an annus horribilis in Venezuela with a 10 per cent decline in gross domestic product, following a 4 per cent fall in 2014. Inflation reached over 200 per cent. The fiscal deficit ballooned to 20 per cent of GDP, funded mainly by the printing press.

In the free market, the bolivar has lost 92 per cent of its value in the past 24 months, with the dollar costing 150 times the official rate: the largest exchange rate differential ever registered. Shortages and long queues in the shops have made daily life very difficult.

[…]

As bad as these numbers are, 2016 looks dramatically worse. Imports, which had already been compressed by 20 per cent in 2015 to $37bn, would have to fall by over 40 per cent, even if the country stopped servicing its debt.

Add to that the murder rate in Venezuela being the highest in the world (even with strict gun control) and you have a real “worker’s paradise” don’t you? I wonder if the Bernie bots are capable of learning anything from this? Yeah, no chance.

Speaking of Bernie and socialism, how about that red hot debate last night?  Laughed my keister off with this Hillary quote:

Hillary Clinton compensated for her complete lack of likability by falling back on playing the victim. She accused Bernie Sanders of ignoring feminism, black people and gay rights. She sputtered that, “Senator Sanders is the only one who would describe me, a woman running to be president, as exemplifying the establishment.” Somehow a fabulously wealthy woman who is backed by the entire Democratic political establishment isn’t the “establishment” because of her gender.

She had a tough time explaining her ties to Wall Street too, which I found hilarious.  If ever anyone defined “establishment” it would be Clinton.  And the irony of this supposedly “tough woman” playing the victim card shouldn’t be lost on anyone either.

Loved David Corn’s tweet.  He said his 14 year old daughter was watching the Democratic debate and remarked “it’s like watching my grandparents fight”.

Interesting:

Gallup’s analysis of political party affiliation at the state level in 2015 finds that 20 states are solidly Republican or leaning Republican, compared with 14 solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic states. The remaining 16 are competitive. This is the first time in Gallup’s eight years of tracking partisanship by state that there have been more Republican than Democratic states. It also marks a dramatic shift from 2008, when Democratic strength nationally was its greatest in recent decades.

It’s interesting because  I think it identifies a trend and a level of dissatisfaction with the current occupant of the White House.  And if true, I think it spells big trouble for the Democrats in a presidential election year.  And if the unlikable Hillary Clinton gets the nod for the Dems (a woman who has never polled over 45%), unless Trump GOP pick, the GOP wins.  If it ends up being Trump, then the GOP will again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Speaking of polls, is this indicative of reality or an outlier?

The Democratic race has dramatically tightened, according to a new Quinnipiac University national poll out Friday that shows Hillary Clinton with a razor-thin lead over Bernie Sanders.

Clinton leads Sanders 44 percent to 42 percent, well within the margin of error of the poll, which was conducted after the Iowa caucuses.

[…]

The picture of a neck-and-neck race is a huge change from Quinnipiac’s last national poll conducted Dec. 16-20 that showed Clinton with a massive lead over Sanders, 61 percent to 30 percent. It’s not clear yet whether other post-Iowa polls will also show Sanders surging ahead and catching up to Clinton.

Couple this with the fact that Bernie raised more campaign dough than Clinton in January and it should be setting off alarm bells in Clinton campaign headquarters.  And, in fact, it may explain a more combative Clinton last night.

On the special snowflake/SJW front, you know, those who unilaterally believe they get to decide what is or isn’t okay in today’s culture, it is now racist to wear a toe ring or bangle bracelet:

According to a piece in the totally logical social-justice blog “Everyday Feminism”, it is racist and offensive to wear toe rings or bangle bracelets in almost any situation.

Yep. According to the article’s author, Aarti Olivia, wearing these kinds of jewelry amounts to an appropriation of South Asian culture.  Olivia explains that in her culture, “it has been traditionally expected that married women wear bangles,” and that although that tradition is no longer “imposed upon women,” they do “wear them for religious or festive occasions.”

“In pop culture, you have probably seen the likes of Iggy Azalea and Selena Gomez wear them for music videos and performances,” Olivia writes. And that, she continues, is not okay.

I wonder if she knows that today’s music is mostly played on instruments invented by dead white guys from Western Europe.  So, using her logic, if she plays an instrument (violin, guitar, clarinet, saxophone, piano, etc.) is it “cultural appropriation”?  And if so, shouldn’t she stop right now and apologize?

Or does this nonsense only cut one way?

QOTD:

“If NASCAR embraced electric cars it could change the world…We could convert all of our racecars to electricity — right now — and show the public exactly what electrons can do,”

Yup, and the NASCAR track would be … a strangely quiet place during a race.  Kind of like Bill Nye’s brain.

Have a great weekend.

~McQ

 

 

 

 

You can’t make this stuff up

Guess who said this?

At the end of a get out the vote campaign event in New Hampshire on Wednesday, […] was asked about […] plans for protecting cyber security.

“It is one of the most important challenges the next president is going to face,” […] said.

[…] said that the technology offenses conducted by hostile states have become more advanced. […] named Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea as countries that are just going to accelerate their attacks on the cyber infrastructure of the United States.

“We first have to figure how to create what would be an understanding with these nations that we will not tolerate their cyber theft and their cyber evasiveness, and we certainly would never ever sit still for a cyber attack,” […] said.

No.  Instead we’ll  just put secret material on a private server located in a bathroom somewhere and you can just help yourself.

And yes, it was Hillary Clinton, the irony impaired candidate.

The AP reported that during Clinton’s time at the State Department that it was one of the worst agencies in the federal government at protecting its computer networks. The deteriorating situation continued well into when John Kerry took over.

Incredible.

~McQ

Quotes of the day – Climate Change and Science

Actually, we have a few QOTD and most come from Dr. John Cristy who recently gave testimony in a Congressional hearing to detail why satellite-derived temperatures are much more reliable indicators of warming than surface thermometers.  You can read his full testimony here.

The quote I’m referring too, however, goes to the heart of this matter like no other. It gets to the reason so many who are skeptical continue to doubt the validity of  the alarmist’s theory.

“It is a bold strategy in my view to actively promote the output of theoretical climate models while attacking the multiple lines of evidence from observations,” Christy wrote. “Note that none of the observational datasets are perfect and continued scrutiny is healthy, but when multiple, independent groups generate the datasets and then when the results for two completely independent systems (balloons and satellites) agree closely with each other and disagree with the model output, one is left scratching one’s head at the decision to launch an offensive against the data.”

Even more to the point was this:

“Following the scientific method of testing claims against data, we would conclude that the models do not accurately represent at least some of the important processes that impact the climate because they were unable to “predict” what has already occurred. In other words, these models failed at the simple test of telling us “what” has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to “what” may happen in the future and “why.” As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works.”

“Highly questionable value” is an understatement.

Christy

The predictions, as they’ve proven themselves, are useless for determining policy.  They. Are. Wrong! Christy has a number of other charts available at the “full testimony” link, which point out how wildly wrong the climate models are.  They’re not even close.  Meanwhile, the scientists who have based their science in data vs. obviously incorrect models are the one’s that are the one’s under fire, with alarmists going so far as to call for their jailing for disagreeing with them.

Bottom line, it all comes down to the Richard P. Feynman quote that’s been flying around the net lately – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”  And, as we’ve pointed out, the observable data simply doesn’t support the theory.

Not that it will stop particular ideologically driven politicians from doing what they want to do in this regard:

A few weeks ago, a group of 13 prominent environmental law professors and attorneys released a 91-page report outlining this new approach, which would allow EPA to use existing laws to quickly and efficiently regulate all pollution sources, in all states — not just power plants and cars. The experts concluded, “It could provide one of the most effective and efficient means to address climate change pollution in the United States.”

Or, put another way, one of the largest power grabs in US history and certainly nothing beyond the man in the White House.

But, you know, damn the facts, full ideological speed ahead for him.  It’s never been about science with him, it’s always been about ideology and power.

~McQ

Iowa

Some impressions.

While Hillary declared herself the winner in Iowa, her “victory” came down to winning 6 out of 6 coin tosses (@WikiLeaks Hillary Wins ‪#‎Iowa‬ over Sanders by ‘winning’ six coin tosses in a row. Odds this can happen randomly is 1 in 64.)  And even doing that, her “win” was a statistical tie (49.8%, Mr. Sanders’s at 49.6%). Or said another way, had Sanders won a couple of the coin flips, he’d be the “winner”.  And don’t forget, Hillary enjoyed a 50 point lead in June.

Hillary’s campaign staff apparently did what they were supposed to do with their ground game.  So why the almost “miss” in Iowa?  Maybe it’s Hillary.

On the GOP side, what can you say?  Pandemonium and hilarity.  Polls out to lunch and missed the final finish by miles.  I loved John Bambeck’s dig: “So all @realDonaldTrump does is win, but runs for President of the US and loses first caucus to a Canadian. ‪#‎SeemsLegit‬

Heh.  But in reality, Iowa essentially sets up a 3 person GOP race – Cruz, Trump and Rubio.  If anything it was a test of candidate viability.  And the down ticket for the GOP has been shown to be about as viable as  … Martin O’Malley.

Trump’s second place finish (barely) leaves a lot of questions to be answered.  Why were the polls so wrong?  Was it smart for him to skip the last debate or did it end up hurting him?  And what about Sarah Palin?

First Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump at a time she had negative 11% favorables with the GOP. Then she missed the first event of the day following her endorsement. Then she blamed her son being involved in a domestic incident on Barack Obama’s treatment of veterans, turning off a lot of veterans in the process by suggesting those who came back from overseas were no longer able to control themselves and were not culpable for their actions.

Hmmm.  If Trump thought getting her endorsement was a coup, what does that tell you about his political acumen?

As for Cruz and Rubio, Cruz won with a record turnout.  That was supposed to be a Trump trump.  So now the chattering class is wondering, “is Trump over”?  Well, we’ll see, but my guess is not and I’d also guess we’ll see a Trump that is toned down a bit and a little more careful about what he does or says during the campaign season.  Not that it really matters.  He is what he is and he’ll likely revert to that at some point

As for Cruz, obviously it surprised the establishment GOP.  If Donald Trump weren’t the bête noire of the establishment GOP, Ted Cruz would be.  And Cruz set much lower expectations for himself (as did Marco Rubio) in Iowa.  For Cruz to win it again sends a loud and clear signal to the establishment GOP.  But it must be like a dog whistle to humans, because they never seem to hear it.

Oh, and Jeb Bush?  Pack it in buddy.  You’re done.  And yes, you too are a part of that loud and clear signal.

Finally, what does Iowa mean for the GOP in terms of any significance?  Well, other than narrowing the field to three, not much.  A reminder:

1976- Gerald Ford (lost election)
1980- Bush (lost nomination)
1984- Reagan (unopossed)
1988- Dole (lost nomination)
1992- Bush (unopossed)
1996- Dole (lost election)
2000- Bush
2004- Bush (unopossed)
2008- Huckabee (lost nomination)
2012- Santorum (lost nomination)

So the circus moves on to New Hampshire, where it is likely that Bernie Sanders will bury Hillary Clinton.  To bad it won’t be for good.  And, we’ll see if the GOP has the same outcome as in Iowa.  If so then you can really begin to question Trump’s viability and how deep his appeal reaches.

~McQ

 

That ever changing Clinton email defense may be running out of excuses

Anyone who has ever worked in or around classified material understands how draconian the rules concerning their use are.  If revealed to unfriendly eyes, it could mean lives.  Namely the lives of sources or their handlers.  And, not only that, it would likely give those who oppose us a look at the means and methods by which we gather intelligence.

Hillary Clinton threw that all out the window when she made a decision, at the beginning of her term as Secretary of State, to use a private server located in a bathroom somewhere outside the government’s secure nets.  There was no gradual migration to that server for “convenience” (something she first tried to claim), but instead a very deliberate act and decision to circumvent the restrictions she’d face within such a government net.  Oh, and to be able to dodge accountability.

So then she dropped back to another excuse.  No classified material was ever sent to that server.  When that one blew up, the next excuse was that no material “marked” classified was ever sent.

Here’s the thing, however.  Unless you’re a complete idiot, you know what does or doesn’t fall within the realm of classified … especially if you’re the Secretary of State.  And its not like this was all new to her.  She’d served as a US Senator and been privy to classified material before and was certainly briefed on how to handle it.  One can’t imagine, given the stringent rules surrounding the handling of classified material, that she didn’t receive additional briefings when she took State.

She chose to ignore them all.

And her latest excuse?  Well, Chris Cillizza pretty much declares it dead:

That defense hit a major snag on Friday when the State Department announced that it, too, had found “top secret” information on Clinton’s server — 22 emails across seven separate emails chains. The information, the State Department said, was so secret that those emails would never be released to the public.

The Clintonian response?  Well, it’s classic, you have to say that:

The Clinton team quickly pivoted. “After a process that has been dominated by bureaucratic infighting that has too often played out in public view, the loudest and leakiest participants in this interagency dispute have now prevailed in blocking any release of these emails,” said campaign spokesman Brian Fallon.

Calling for the release of the allegedly top secret emails is a smart gambit by the Clinton folks since it makes them look as if they have nothing to hide while being protected by the near-certainty that the State Department won’t simply change its mind on the release because the Clinton team asked them to.

That’s right, ask for the emails to be released and when they’re not, for obvious reasons, claim someone (VRWC) is trying to smear you.

But what were in those emails? John Schindler says it’s pretty volatile stuff … something anyone would know, markings or not, was very highly classified:

Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.

Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.

You probably recall  Valerie Plame was a NOC and the stink her supposed exposure brought.   The media was all over that … but this?  Yeah, they’ve mostly been forced to report on it, but not very enthusiastically.

If this is the case, Ms. Clinton has committed a very serious breach of security that is and should be punishable by conviction and jail time.

The problem, as has been stated recently, is she’s a powerful politician … not one of the little people.  And we’re becoming more and more acquainted with how the “law” works now for the powerful among us, aren’t we?

Interesting times.

~McQ

1 2 3 403