The inexcusable tragedy that faces the American Public
The National Debt of the United States cannot be excused away. That it has risen to the unbelievable sum of 36+ trillion dollars is a national disgrace that can be placed squarely on the US Congress and several administrations.
A trillion is an unimaginable figure; to put it in some perspective, the figure of one trillion is followed by 11 zeros; two zeros for the cents or portions of a dollar, followed by three zeros of the hundreds, three zeros for the thousands, three zeros for the millions, three zeros for the billions and finally three zeros for the trillion. This is then multiplied by 36+ for the grand total of 36+ trillion dollars and growing!!
John Adams, the second president of the US, feared debt. I cannot remember the exact quote, but he said that there are two ways to conquer a nation; one is by the sword, the other by debt. Is this to be the future of our Republic? Driven to ruin by Debt???
I find this to be a tragedy that cannot continue, but we have elected officials that simply wave a hand as if it is a trifling thought. It is no wonder that the American public has so little faith in Congress. It may very well be that the Congress has doomed our Republic to utter failure!!! I for one find this attitude to be TREASONOUS to the point that some need to be tried and convicted for this lawless and reckless failure!!!
Debt by the US government started with the Revolutionary War; it continued to be part and parcel of the government until The Jackson administration. It was paid off during his administration in the years of 1835-1836. That is the only time in our 248 years of existence as a nation that our national debt was paid off!! The national debt as of January 1, 1790 totaled $75, 463, 476.52, a miniscule amount when compared with the awful burden we now face!! To put all this into perspective, the national debt as of January 1, 1836 was $37,000 dollars and has never been zero since.
At the beginning of the Civil War the national debt was about $65 million but ballooned to $2.7 billion by the end of the war. World War 1 increased the debt to approximately $25.5 billion by the end of World War1.
During the Harding administration, government spending declined from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $3.3 billion in 1922. Public debt was $15.05 billion when Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed office of US President in 1933 but increased to $39.65 billion by 1939. The Second World War would drive the debt to $251.43 billion at the end of the war, but had risen to $260 billion by 1950.
Budget reforms (The Congressional budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974) allowed Congress to challenge Presidential budgets thereby allowing Congressional members more say in budgetary issues. The intervening 50 years, in my simple estimation have not only driven the debt to astronomical highs, but was instrumental in the US credit rating to fall from a triple AAA rating to AA+, (a rating that may not truly reflect the value of the US credit rating)driving a higher interest rate the country has had to assume in order to finance the federal government’s debt. True, not all the blame for this mess can be laid at the feet of Congress, administrations most assuredly have had a hand in the fiasco the national debt has become. But the lack of fiscal control has led to this profligate spending spree that has allowed the national debt to go from $260 billion in 1950 to the frightening $36+ trillion that we see today.
It is my considered opinion that this tragedy will never be resolved without an outcry by the citizens of our Republic. Public pressure can and does move Congress to action, but it is never going to do anything unless forced to. We the People must act, our Republic is of far greater value than any politician, of this we can be sure!!!
The difference between retribution and justice can be argued and most likely will be. For my money, the difference is whether or not the rule of law is followed. The left has opted to use the law when it suits their aims and abandoned it when it conflicts with their agenda. This creates a conflict for those who see the rule of law as the Gold Standard of official conduct.
Although we won the initial battle, (AKA the election), to think that this war of differences is over is delusional. The left has already begun to look to avenues to thwart President elect Trump’s agenda. This goes against the standards of official conduct setting up what is looking to be a major conflict between the left and Trump’s supporters.
Our system of government is set up to be governed by “We the People” under the auspices of a representative Republic, but this does not comport with the aims of the left. They see this as a reason to try to subvert and deny the wishes of the electorate if it does not agree with their twisted agenda.
To say that we are headed for a conflict is an understatement as this will end up being a rough and tumble contest of wills. That unlawful acts have been perpetrated against the American public is not up for discussion, what is up for discussion is whether we citizens are willing to act as lawless as the left, or whether or not we will adhere to the rule of law and civil discourse rather than a tit for tat response. I for one am not amenable to a tit for tat response as it leaves us as vulnerable as the left and its lawless acts.
Rudy Giuliani said that our system of justice uses retribution as a deterrent to unlawful action. To excuse, or otherwise allow egregious acts to go unpunished will only embolden the left to more vicious and unlawful acts. Trey Gowdy has recommended that Trump pardon Hunter Biden when he enters office. To this I say NO!!! The rule of law must apply equally to ALL citizens, regardless of their affiliations or station in life.
The list of miscreants that have abused and or subverted the rule of law is long, but if we are to see our Republic restored to its promise of equality under the law, we must be vigilant and willing to be fair but harsh.
On August 12, 2024, current governor of Minnesota, Timothy James Walz signed a bill that called for the placement of sanitary napkins in boys public school bathrooms for grades 4 through 12. Although I do not live in Minnesota, it goes against my upbringing for government officials to mandate what I believe should the proper domain of parents. But to be fair, I ask this simple question, was this done by the governor as a result of his own moral judgement, or due to political pressure. By either standard, I feel it reeks of moral decay and brings to mind whether this was a personal opinion or a forced moral judgement by members of the state government.
To more clearly understand the question of Judgement or Opinion, I referred to a book titled “Useful Quotations, a cyclopedia of Quotations” copyright 1933 by Orsamus Turner Harris.
I first looked at two quotes about Judgement:
It is a maxim received in life that, in general, we can determine more wisely for others than for ourselves. – The reason of it is so clear in argument that it hardly wants the confirmation of experience.
“Junius” The pseudonym of an unknown political writer in England (1769 -1772)
Human nature is so constituted, that all see and judge better in the affairs of other men than in our own,
“Terence” Roman poet (190 – 150 B. C.)
I followed this with a look at two quotes about Opinion:
Our opinions on all subjects are more largely formed by our sympathies than by skillfully sifted evidence.
“Tyron Edwards” American theologian and editor (1809 – 1892).
Public opinion cannot do for virtue what it does for vice. It is the essence of virtue to look above opinion. Vice is consistent with, and very often strengthened by, entire subserviency to it.
“Benjamin Franklin” American statesman, inventor and editor (1706 – 1790)
Human nature being what it is, our opinion often render judgement, therefore, is judgement a function of opinion, or is opinion the driver of judgement?
A thorny question fraught with danger as we are admonished to not judge, for that is the domain of the Lord.
‘Our corrupt leadership’: Vance tries to tether Harris to Biden during Michigan rally
That misleading and somewhat humorous headline was written by Mia Camille McCarthy, who covers politics for Politico. What McCarthy fails to note, either in the headline or the actual article is the fact that Kamala Harris IS tied to Joe Biden. She’s been his VP for the last 3 1/2 years. There is a proposed community note for the tweet above. It looks like this:
Not to be outdone, The Hill dropped this headline:
Former President Trump sidesteps his role in Afghanistan exit in trying to link Vice President Harris to chaos
Sidesteps. Yeah. I’d bet you made the same face I did when I first read that. Remind me of who was President on 26 AUG 2021. It sure as hell was not Donald John Trump.
Biden, Harris and the rest of the mid-wits in that administration were all for getting out of Afghanistan, consequences be damned. Well, they got their wish, and it had nothing to do with anything Trump did. Now the regime media is doing all it can to tie Trump to that particular shit sandwich.
I was going to leave this one alone, but – alas – it seems I cannot.
On Sunday, February 25th, 25-year-old Airman Aaron Bushnell doused himself in gasoline and lit himself alight in front of the Israeli embassy in DC. He live-streamed the event on Twitch.
During the livestream, he said “Hi, my name is Aaron Bushnell, I am an active-duty member of the United States Air Force, and I will no longer be complicit in genocide,’’ as he made his way to the embassy. “I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.’’
“I will no longer be complicit in genocide.” he said before dousing himself and lighting the gas.“I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest,” he added before repeatedly screaming, “Free Palestine!’’ as fire engulfed him and he eventually collapsed. He was taken to the hospital in critical condition and died several hours later.
Now that we’ve covered the basics, lets get into why I decided to weigh in.
Since the USAF admitted this person was an active-duty Airman later that same day, both sides of the political divide have been making disgusting noises about Aaron and his suicide.
And be clear, that’s exactly what this was: a suicide.
I am going to digress here for a minute and rant about the Air Force and the DOD in general. It wasn’t that long ago that SecDef Lloyd Austin ordered a ‘right-wing extremism‘ stand-down. The stand-down – and the subsequent report – was supposed to help root out extremism in the ranks. That report, however, seemed to refute the idea that there was a right wing extremism problem in the ranks; it did seem, however, to reveal a left-wing extremism problem.
It wasn’t that long ago that Spenser Rapone was outed as an outright Communist – you may remember the commie cadet at West Point. His career ended ignominiously: he was relieved for cause at his very first duty station, FT Drum, and separated from the Army shortly afterwards. His highly visible example is one of hundreds, if not potentially thousands, of left wing extremists in the military.
Those on the pro-Palestinian side are holding this clearly mentally ill individual up as some sort of hero, while some on the other side are celebrating his death.
I want to be perfectly clear here; Aaron Bushnell is not a hero, nor is his death anything to celebrate. His self-immolation is the result of both mental illness and a weak mind succumbing to internet propaganda.
According to all the reports I’ve been reading, Aaron grew up in a sheltered environment. He was at least partially homeschooled. His parents are active in a Christian sect called the Community of Jesus.
Aaron was also an ‘anarchist’. Or at least subscribed to that general point of view politically. His social media was filled with anarchist propaganda. Some of his last social media interactions were with an anarchist group based in Palestine, which advocated for responses to the Israeli-Hamas war in the US.
This ‘protest’ isn’t going to change a damned thing – it certainly won’t affect the conflict he was intending to protest with it. This poor kid died one of the most horrific deaths imaginable for no reason. Unfortunately, he may inspire other mentally unstable people to do the same thing or worse.
Please do not lionize this act. Please do not use it to score political points. And please do not make fun of the mentally ill individual who did this.
If you or someone you know is having a mental health crisis including suicidal ideation call the Veterans Crisis Line at 988 then press 1. They are there 24/7 ready to help.
We continue to hear that MAGA is trying to destroy democracy. Not being a true democracy this is nothing more than rhetoric. The fact that we are a Republic seems to totally escape the left, but delusionary thinking rules within the confines of the left’s mind.
The following definitions are from “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary”, copyright 1949. The quotes are from “Useful Quotations; a Cyclopedia of Quotations” copyright 1933.
Democracy:
1. Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (absolute or pure democracy), or indirectly (representative democracy) through a system of representation.
If there were a people consisting of gods, they would be governed democratically; so perfect a government is not suitable to men. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778)
The devil was the first democrat. George Gordon Noel Byron (1788 – 1824)
Republic:
A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives selected by, and responsible to, the electorate.
Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. – On the contrary, under no form of government are laws better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind. George Washington (1732 – 1799)
Republics come to an end by luxurious habits; monarchies by poverty. Charles de Secondat Montesquieu (1680 – 1755)
Author’s Note – This nation is a Republic governed by an elected body; therefore a Representative Democracy. The demise of our Republic will only happen when our elected officials are no longer responsible to, and or responsive to the electorate. If we are to retain our Republic, it is incumbent on every citizen to elect officials who respond to and listen to “We the People”; not to a bunch of oligarchs and charlatans who feel they are there to rule over us; and certainly not to the unelected bureaucrats that dominate the federal agencies and write rules and regulations and then declare said rules and regulations are the “Law of the Land”!!! Nothing could be further from the truth!!!
Our elections have become more akin to Beauty Contests rather than the responsible actions of an electorate that is both educated in the issues of the day and willing to put aside personal feelings and elect officials who have the best interests of the country at heart.
Sadly, I do not feel that is what is currently happening. Too many are looking for a handout from the government with little regard for the consequences of such actions or have no idea what the person they have voted for believes and or stands for!! Unfortunately, responsible citizenship is no longer in vogue and may indeed drive our Republic to ruin.
Igor Girkin, aka Strelkov, delivers a press conference on 28 July 2014 in Donetsk. (Source: BULENT KILIC/AFP via Getty Images)
Lawrence Freedman is the Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London who wrote the best assessment of where Russia is in the Ukrainian war (as of March 31st, where Russia has been and what the future might look like that I have seen so far. The original link to the article is here:
Article in full:
In 2014 Igor Girkin, aka ‘Strelkov’ (the shooter), became the face of the rebellion in Ukraine’s Donbas region against the new government in Kyiv. He was not actually Ukrainian, but a Russian with strong nationalist views, who enjoyed historical re-enactments of past Russian wars, and had worked for the FSB (the successor to the KGB). He was a veteran of the conflicts that erupted in the former Soviet Union after its collapse, including in Chechnya. In February 2014, after a popular movement had led the pro-Russian president Yanukovych to flee, Girkin helped to create the conditions for the annexation of Crimea before moving on to the supposedly Russophile Donbas, becoming the Defence Minister of the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk Peoples Republic’.
He did enough to help turn what might have been patchy unrest into a violent conflict but then fell out with Moscow for two reasons. First he was attracting too much attention, especially after he was implicated in the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner – MH17 – for which he is now being tried (in absentia) in the Netherlands. Second, he disagreed over political objectives. He wanted the territory of the Donbas (and more if possible) to follow Crimea into becoming part of the Russian Federation. But then Putin held back. Militarily this would certainly have been easier for Russia then than it is now, but Putin’s preferred strategy then was to integrate the Donbas back into Ukraine under a new constitution that would guarantee it extra rights and an ability to influence Kyiv’s future political direction. Girkin thought this was a lost opportunity. His readiness to speak his mind, and the publicity surrounding him, irritated Moscow, and so he was told to get back to Russia and shut up.
Putin’s Donbas Dilemma
To follow his preferred strategy Putin first had to stop the separatists losing to Ukrainian forces. He did this in August 2014 by inserting Russian regular forces into the battle. Then, having inflicted some heavy blows on Ukrainian forces, he agreed to ceasefire talks, which led to the Minsk agreements of September, which were revised slightly after more fighting the next February. In principle these agreements achieved his objectives but in practice they failed because they were never implemented. He was stuck with subsidising the two enclaves of Donetsk and Luhansk, who were left in limbo, while Ukraine continued, from Putin’s perspective, on its alarmingly pro-Western course.
Accepting that his plan from 2014 was not working, Putin either had to accept an increasingly unsatisfactory frozen conflict or take his chances and resolve the matter once and for all, turning Ukraine into a client state with a compliant government. There are many explanations for why he embarked on this war, including the role of NATO and demands for a new security order, but at its heart this was always about Ukraine, and Putin’s inability to accept it as an independent state that was escaping from its historic ties to Russia as it turned to the West.
As Putin was developing his plans, a disenchanted Girkin, having failed to make a mark in Russian politics as a neo-imperialist, kept up a grumpy commentary on events. He declared his former enclave to be a ‘dump’, with its inhabitants worse off than they would have been in either Russia or Ukraine. Even when Putin ordered a massive build-up of forces around Ukraine he was sceptical. Earlier this year, he noted – correctly – that there were insufficient troops mobilised to complete a full invasion of Ukraine, suspecting at most Putin would try a limited operation in the Donbas.
After a month of war he observed that a ‘catastrophically incorrect assessment’ of Ukraine’s forces had been made, and that there was now a risk of a long and debilitating war – ‘a bloody push and pull’. Now he views the conflict in even more apocalyptic terms. His reaction to the war going badly, however, is not to advise abandoning it but instead doubling down, generating more reserves from within Russia; putting the whole economy on a war footing; breaking off all negotiations with Kyiv; and seeking to ‘liberate’ more territory for incorporation into Russia. The war, he insists, must either be won completely or it will be lost completely. Losing he acknowledges as a distinct possibility. As things stand there are only a few weeks left before the forces in the Donbas will be unable to function.
Avoiding Defeat
Girkin himself now is a figure of little importance, but the line he is taking, and the impossible advice he is giving, indicates just how high the stakes are for Putin. Western attention is naturally drawn to those brave souls protesting a cruel and catastrophic war on Russian streets. Hope for some sort of regime change in Moscow, however it might be organised, conveys a desire for a more reasonable and less obsessive figure to take Putin’s place, ready to end the war and restore amicable relations with the rest of the world so that sanctions can be ended and the massive task of reconstructing Ukraine begin.
But for the moment it is important to note that Putin may be as vulnerable to his critics among the hawkish nationalists as to those from more technocratic circles alarmed at the path now taken. It is the nationalists who have been energised by Putin’s aggression and will be most distressed should he fail. As cracks start to appear in the state-controlled media, challenging the view that the military campaign is going well and on schedule, those sounding the alarm warn of the consequences should the multitude of Russia’s enemies, from Americans to the ‘Nazis’ in Kyiv, triumph. They want to move beyond the limited operation that Putin claimed to have set in motion to something more absolutist. Ukraine must be defeated, and seen to be defeated, no matter what the costs. Perhaps because he is aware of this, Putin shows no sign of relenting on any of his core demands. He dare not confirm the weakness in his position.
This needs to be kept in mind when considering the evident uncertainty in Moscow about how to bring this war to a moderately satisfactory conclusion. There has been particular interest in the statement of 25 March from Russia’s Deputy Minister of Defence who announced that the first stage of the operation had been successfully concluded, with extensive damage to the Ukrainian military machine, and that they would now focus on the main objective, which was the Donbas. This appeared to let Kyiv off the hook, which meant, however this was dressed up, some retreat both from Moscow’s original objectives and its current offensive.
A few days later the Foreign Ministry announced, ostensibly as a gesture of ‘de-escalation’ to support the Istanbul peace talks, that the Russians were going to wind down their attacks on Kyiv and the northern city of Chernihiv. This was then followed by limited signs of troop movements, with some units moving back into Belarus. This has led to intense debate about whether the Russians are really serious about this shift in objectives. They are not known for honest portrayals of their policies. Every gesture has to be scrutinised for deception and tricks. Perhaps the real purpose is to regroup to prepare for new offensives? How does this new focus square with the missiles and shells that continued to fly at all types of targets, civilian as much as military, in Chernihiv and elsewhere? There has yet to be much concrete progress at the talks. President Macron, who puts more store in keeping up communications with Putin than most, was rebuffed in his latest efforts to establish a humanitarian corridor to Mariupol, to bring relief and to allow more civilians to escape.
The state of the war will become clearer over the current days but there is no reason to doubt that a degree of focus has been forced on the Russian military. Not because they have achieved their first set of objectives, let alone because they wish to give a boost to negotiations, but because they are, one could say, in a bit of a pickle. The vast armies assembled to invade Ukraine have been frustrated and now largely exhausted, both literally in terms of fatigue as well as in their supplies. Logistics and morale are pressing issues along with casualties and lost equipment. They simply cannot hold all their current positions beyond the Donbas region, as has been demonstrated in a number of successful Ukrainian counter-offensives. To keep these troops going in defensive positions, say close to Kyiv, so that they can keep Ukrainian forces tied down still requires supply lines for they must remain strong enough to avoid conspicuous and embarrassing defeats. Withdrawal carries its own hazards but the advantage of redeployment is that these forces can be used to achieve what is now the main objective. Reinforcements will arrive but, on the evidence so far, few will be elite units, many will involve unwilling troops dragooned into service, and the equipment taken from the reserves will often be obsolete and even less well maintained than that which it is replacing.
All this means that it makes some sort of sense for the Russians to concentrate on the Donbas. There is even still a line of commentary that urges President Zelensky to see in this an opportunity to end the war and give Putin something that he wants in order to bring this terrible war to an end. Others wonder why Putin did not simply make the Donbas his sole objective from the start instead of seeking to subjugate all of Ukraine and install a new government in Kyiv.
A Consolation Prize?
This is a question worth addressing because it takes us back to the role of the Donbas in this whole sorry story. It reminds us why political and military objectives cannot be discussed in isolation from each other.
Recall the days before the invasion. Then the Russian narrative was about the ‘genocidal’ threat Ukraine posed to the Donbas. The separatists encouraged this with an elaborate rigmarole about how they were being shelled from Ukrainian positions and so must evacuate civilians into Russia for their own safety. On 21 February, when Putin convened that odd and stilted meeting of his Security Council, the question on the table was should Russia recognise (but not annex) the independent statelets of Donetsk and Luhansk. At the end of the day, after a long speech, so full of grievances and angry assertions that it seemed to be building up to much more, Putin announced, somewhat anti-climactically, that indeed Russia would recognise these statelets.
This was curious given the Russian line up to this point that these enclaves should be part of Ukraine, who should pay for their upkeep, but allow them more self-government and influence over Kyiv’s policies. The claim at the Security Council meeting was that the Minsk agreements were dead because Ukraine clearly did not want these territories anymore. That left another puzzle. The enclaves only constituted about a third of the total territory of the two provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. It soon became apparent that the separatists would lay claim to all this territory. The next day the recognition of these statelets was put into law in Moscow, followed by the inevitably staged ‘provocation’ that required Russia to act to protect their security. On 24 February when Putin announced his objectives of the invasion that was then underway he explained:
“We will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.”
Thus the rapid escalation of Russian concerns led to the dramatic conclusion that only with regime change in Kyiv could the security of these territories be guaranteed.
Take away all the dissembling and the make-believe and one can see the policy dilemma that has been present from 2014 which the invasion was intended to solve. The starting point then may well have been Putin’s belief that Russia had some responsibility to protect the population of the Donbas after the unfortunate turn of events in Kyiv and the flight of Yanukovych. The main concern, however, was that this would lead to Ukraine drifting away even more from Russia despite the historic connections between the two countries. Although Putin’s actions in 2014 accelerated the detachment he hoped, somehow, to use the Minsk agreements to pull it back. This effort has proved to be futile which is why he really did want to achieve regime change in Kyiv as the only way to reconstitute this lost unity.
This partly explains why he held back from taking the Donbas in 2014 when he had the chance to do so. But it was not the only reason. There were three others. First, he was aware that there was no real clamour in this territory to join Russia. It would be challenging and costly to govern them. Second, there would be far more severe Western sanctions imposed on Russia than those following the annexation of Crimea. And third, a new border would be created between Russia and Ukraine that would then have to be defended against an angry Ukraine that would get increased backing from the West.
All those considerations still apply except more so. So long as Putin stays in power the alienation of Ukraine from Russia is complete and it will integrate more with the West. So long as Ukrainian territory is occupied severe sanctions will stay in place and the Ukrainians will keep up the pressure on any new cease-fire line that leaves their territory under Russian control. Their army is no longer one that Russia dare underestimate. The problems of governing and controlling this territory will be immense. They have destroyed those they were going to save. Their prize from the war will be shattered and depopulated town and cities, with those still in residence sullen and hostile, ready to resist and support insurgencies. This is why taking Donbas is not a satisfactory consolation prize for Putin, let alone for those hardliners demanding that he stick to his maximalist objectives. It is simply a recipe for continued instability, turning Putin’s folly of 2014 into an even greater catastrophe, serving as a continuing drain on Russia’s dwindling economic and military resources.
In all the searches for a peace settlement it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there are no good outcomes for Russia from this war. It has inflicted massive human, political, and economic costs on itself, as well as on Ukraine. Nothing that Moscow can now achieve can outweigh those costs. If he is unable to muster a final offensive to achieve his original aims there is no formula that will enable Putin to pretend that this has all been worthwhile and he has achieved exactly what was intended. As Igor Girkin has observed, he will have lost as completely as he once hoped to win.
End of article.
Some of you are asking…what the (explicative)…the Russian military is “in a bit of a pickle?”…Russia is “avoiding defeat”…Russia is being forced to a “consolation prize”… how is it possible for any of these things to be true? How is it that the second largest military in the world did not conquer the Ukraine in days (as the US and German predicted it would happen…they were objectively wrong as this is day 40 of the war) and how is it that Russia won’t get exactly what they want? We will begin to discuss the reality behind those statements in The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III entitled “A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War”
Just when you think there can’t possibly be more governmental insanity, the Department of Energy posts warnings of methane pollution due to “Pumpkins”.
While there may be a scientific basis for some concern about anthropogenic methane production; what with all the organic materials that are interred in our landfills; that pumpkins should be maligned as a major contributor of methane is another one of those theories that cannot be truly quantified. While we can laugh at this “Significant” news flash from the fall of 2015, in retrospect it gives us an insight into a governmental agency’s grasping efforts at control.
Then there is this Dust-up between Lamar Smith, R-Texas, Chairman of the Committee of Science, Space and Technology and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
Lamar Alexander
Changes made to data by the agency with no explanation show an increase in surface temperatures that does not comport with previously published temperature data. Foot dragging by the agency only intensifies the suspicion that the data change was done to help the administration’s Climate Change Agenda. This has forced the committee to issue a subpoena on Oct. 13 2015 to force compliance with committee requests for documents that explain agency actions. This shows a deliberate denial of the right of congressional oversight forcing a subpoena to be issued. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith finally subpoenaed a June study and intra agency employee e-mails about the study in October, the committee began receiving documents and emails from NOAA officials on December 16, 2015
The EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” mandates a 32% reduction in emissions by existing power plants by 2030.
This will kill coal fired power generation as the rules are so stringent that existing technology can’t build a new generating station that can meet the emission standards, much less an existing plant. 24 states have filed a motion to hold the EPA’s new rules in abeyance until such time as a court can rule on the validity of the rules. 26 state attorney general associations and numerous business groups have also filed a brief seeking delay until the legal issues are settled. Reversal of this egregious act by the Trump administration brought some sanity into the regulation of power plants and was a welcome relief to electrical ratepayers. Sadly, the return of these rules by the Biden administration leads us back into the prospect of devastating electrical rates and possible brown/blackouts as electrical generation is turning to renewables, principally wind and solar that cannot reliably fulfill electrical demands.
This is government overreach on a scale not seen before. When you combine all the rules the Obama administration has promulgated and enacted without due process, the result is breath-taking in its scope.
Note: The current cabal orchestrated by AOC is pushing the same kind of fertilizer that was being conveyed during the Obama administration.
A mismanaged congress has to bear some of the blame just as the policy wonks that continually shovel more of this Climate Change manure. The fact that agencies can delay and act with disdain and belligerence to congressional requests for documents is outside the pale of law. A complicit DOJ makes the task of correction even harder.
Under the Trump administration, rule making has taken a sharp turn; for every new regulation the agency must retire two old regulations. Couple that with a congress that has shown a desire to rein in these small fiefdoms the agencies have become, progress is achievable.
Note: The Biden administration (aka Obama II) has gutted the majority of the moves made by the Trump administration and is strongly supporting the “New Green Deal” which will gut the American economy.
Walt Mow
You can find the previous installments of this series here, here, here and here.
Science is an ever changing discipline that is forced to re-evaluate and adapt as new evidence is advanced. Just as Ptolemy’s geocentric theory was supplanted by the Copernican heliocentric model; so too must the non-working models of Climate Change adapt to the realities of proven scientific investigation.
According to the theory of Global Warming, GHGs are trapping heat that would be radiated back into space. Thankfully the earth does not release significant amounts of heat from its molten core. Simple math dictates that the earth cannot produce more heat than it receives from the sun. This brings us to the main point of dissent, that man is the primary cause of Global Warming.
The Kyoto Protocol calls for a mandatory 30% reduction in CO2 emissions in all industrialized nations. Currently, man made CO2 emissions total 3.5%. Even the most optimistic predictions forecast a miniscule 1/20th of a degree in warming by 2050. This is touted as real progress???
“Water Vapor”, classified as a “GreenHouse Gas”, is the most significant of all GHGs; it contributes from 60 to 95% of the entire “GreenHouse Effect” and is the most abundant gas in earth’s atmosphere. The fact that 99.999% of all water vapor is naturally occurring is far too often overlooked.
A good third of the globe’s oceans lie in the tropics; this is where a significant majority of the water vapor that ends up in the atmosphere is generated. Lesser amounts do enter the equation with even solid ice releasing water vapor through a process known as sublimation. In other words, the entire planet contributes to atmospheric water content.
Saline waters make up some 96% of all water on the planet. Fresh water breaks down thus: 68% is locked up in ice and glaciers, 30% in ground water and just 2% for the rest of all water usage. Of this 70% is used in irrigation, 20% in industrial applications with a scant 10% for human consumption.
It takes approximately 2.5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of biofuel. Again, this is touted as real progress in the overall effort to control man made GHGs. With this kind of wasteful allocation of water, is there no honesty to be found in the Liberal/Progressive argument? NO, but that sure isn’t going to deter the likes of Herr Gore from pushing this convoluted agenda or their insisting we make sacrifices to bolster this flawed theory.
Water, that most critical ingredient to life on this planet, is under attack by a Liberal/Progressive agenda that seeks to control not only the waters of this nation, but our very freedom as well. Is water the culprit here, or is it the proponents of a system that seeks control of all we see, hear and do???
After all my remonstrations about things not holding water, I must eat my words and tell you, our atmosphere, among other things, DOES hold water!!!
It seems our betters in government are making up new rules. Again. What’s worse, there isn’t any scientific basis to do so. That puts me in mind of Calvinball.
The only permanent rule of Calvinball is you can’t play the same way twice.
I suppose I need to do an explainer of what exactly Calvinball is. Ther name stems from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes created by Bill Watterson. The strip was centered on the adventures of six year old Calvin and his stuffed tiger Hobbes. Calvinball has no rules; the players make up their own rules as they go along, so that no Calvinball game is like another. Rules cannot be used twice (except for the rule that rules cannot be used twice), and any plays made in one game may not be made again in any future games.
The CDC just issued new masking guidance. The new guidance says vaccinated people should still wear masks. In that guidance they cited a study that stated vaccinated individuals had a high viral load in their sinuses as support for the new guidance. Unfortunately for the CDC, the article they used has a couple of problems.
First, it was based on an Indian study of those dosed with the Astra-Zenica vax. And that vaccine is not approved here in the US. Second, and frankly more worrisome, that article had been initially rejected by the journals it had been submitted to. I say initially because since the citation by the CDC the status of the article has changed from rejected to under review.
Honestly, at this point if the CDC said that the sky was blue or the grass was green I’d go out to check. The US governmental health agencies have all but destroyed their credibility in the last 15 or so months.
I see that Eva Peron, err, Nancy Pelosi has told the Capitol Police to arrest anyone violating her mask mandates. It seems the arrest order does not apply to Members of the House, but if you are a visitor or staffer not wearing a mask, be prepared to be hauled off in cuffs.
OK Nan. It will be nice to see you hand over the gavel in 2022.
The entire response to this outbreak has played out as one giant game of Calvinball, rules made up on the spot, goalposts moved whenever it’s expedient.
