Sunday, August 31, 2014

Donational Influence

Soros Clones: 5 Liberal Mega-Donors Nearly as Dangerous as George Soros

From Buffett to Bloomberg, top left-wing supporters give $2.7 billion to push a liberal agenda.

As the 2014 midterm elections approached, the media were quick to criticize conservative donors like the Koch brothers for backing issues important to them. But journalists largely ignored the incredible financial power being used to promote the liberal agenda.
Five top donors – Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Pierre Omidyar, Tom Steyer and George Soros’s own son, Jonathan – are major funders of the left. Together, they have contributed at least $2.7 billion since 2000 to groups pushing abortion, gun control, climate change alarmism and liberal candidates.
That’s not how major media depicted them. Broadcast networks applauded when billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer promised $100 million to influence environmental policy. CBS News praised Steyer for “giving back” and ABC News called the billionaire an “everyman.”
Steyer wasn’t alone. Buffett has donated more than $1.2 billion to the abortion industry, with contributions stretching back until at least 1989. Yet, since 2001, ABC, CBS and NBC have only mentioned Buffett’s abortion funding once, out of 545 stories about him or interviews with him. And when former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg promised to devote $50 million to limit American gun rights, the networks praised his efforts as “grassroots” and as a way to “combat gun violence.”
All five donors were also actively involved with media. Collectively they either supported or owned 88 separate media outlets. Those organizations had a combined print circulation of 3.6 million and a digital circulation several times larger.
The Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute thoroughly researched these five top liberal donors. The findings included:
  • 46 Newspapers in Swing States, 88 Total Media Outlets: Soros and his allies learned long ago that those who control the media control the national conversation. Buffett made headlines, in more ways than one, when he began buying up 75 small and mid-sized newspapers throughout the country. Bloomberg and Omidyar also own small media empires in their own right, while Steyer and the younger Soros have poured millions into liberal media outlets including Mother Jones, Media Matters and Think Progress.
  • $2.7 Billion to Push Liberal Causes: Tom Steyer promised to spend $100 million to “make climate change a top-tier issue” in the 2014 election, and donated at least $20 million to political campaigns in 2012 alone. Buffett gave more than $1.2 billion to pro-abortion groups. Bloomberg pledged $50 million to campaign against gun rights and Omidyar donated a whopping $286 million to his favorite liberal causes. Meanwhile, George Soros’ son, Jonathan, is funneling millions through his Friends of Democracy PAC to unseat conservative politicians.
  • No Negative Network Coverage: Although ABC, CBS and NBC have mentioned Buffett in 545 stories since January 2001, the three broadcast networks only once alluded to his connection with abortion during their morning and evening news shows. These same three networks praised Bloomberg for his $50 million “grassroots” effort to fight the NRA, and dubbed Steyer and Jonathan Soros an antidote to the “secretive” Koch brothers. Omidyar hasn’t even been mentioned by the networks since 2011.
Recommendations for Journalists
The Business and Media Institute has the following recommendations for journalists who are reporting on political organizations, donors and funding.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Human CO2 , the %? does it not flow with the natural carbon cycle"

An Unsettling Climate
Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate.
Summer 2014

Scientist Murry Salby argues that a key factor behind rising temperatures is heat exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean.
Climate-change science is “settled,” say proponents of anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming, or AGW: the earth is getting warmer, and human activities are the reason. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the United Nations in 1988, has issued five assessment reports since its founding. In its most recent, in 2013, the IPCC stated that it was now “95 to 100 percent certain” that human activities—especially fossil-fuel emissions—are the primary drivers of planetary warming. Frequent news reports—such as the story of the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a process that some scientists say is irreversible—seemingly confirm these conclusions.
And yet, highly credentialed scientists, including Nobel Prize–winning physicist Ivar Giaever, reject what is often called the “climate consensus.” Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of the group’s statement that evidence of global warming was “incontrovertible” and that governments needed to move immediately to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Sixteen distinguished scientists signed a 2012 Wall Street Journal article, in which they argued that taking drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy—an effort that would have major effects on economic growth and quality of life, especially in the developing world—was not justified by observable scientific evidence. And, like Giaever, they objected to the notion of a climate consensus—and to the unscientific shutting down of inquiry and the marginalization of dissenters as “heretics.” Most recently, renowned climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson stepped down from his post at a climate-skeptic think tank after he received hundreds of angry e-mails from scientists. He called the pressure “virtually unbearable.”
Another dissenter, the American atmospheric physicist Murry Salby, has produced a serious analysis that undermines key assumptions underpinning the AGW worldview. His work and its reception illustrate just how unsettled climate science remains—and how determined AGW proponents are to enforce consensus on one of the great questions of our age.
In April 2013, concluding a European tour to present his research, Salby arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris for a flight back to Australia, where he was a professor of climate science at Macquarie University. He discovered, to his dismay, that the university had canceled the return leg of his nonrefundable ticket. With Salby stranded, Macquarie then undertook misconduct proceedings against him that swiftly culminated in his dismissal. The university claimed that it did not sack Salby for his climate views but rather because he failed to “fulfill his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach” and because he violated “University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.”
Salby and his supporters find it hard to believe the school’s claims. Salby’s detractors point to reports of his investigation by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for alleged ethical improprieties, claims surrounding which surfaced on an anti-climate-skeptic blog, along with court papers relating to his divorce. Salby has indeed been embroiled in conflicts with the NSF—the organization debarred him from receiving research grants for three years, even though, teaching in Australia, he wasn’t eligible, anyway—and with the University of Colorado, where he taught previously and was involved in a decade-long dispute with another academic. At one point, the NSF investigated the disappearance of $100,000 in Salby’s research funds, which, in the wake of the investigation, was returned to Salby’s group. However, all these matters have involved bureaucratic rights and wrongs. They have no bearing on his science, just as Antoine Lavoisier’s being a tax farmer had no bearing on his demolition of the phlogiston theory of combustion. And Salby had earned high marks as a scientist. He originally trained as an aerospace engineer before switching to atmospheric physics and building a distinguished career. He taught at Georgia Tech, Princeton, Hebrew, and Stockholm Universities before coming to the University of Colorado, and he was involved as a reviewer in the IPCC’s first two assessment reports.
Starting in the late 1990s, Salby began a project to analyze changes in atmospheric ozone. His research found evidence of systematic recovery in ozone, validating the science behind the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which introduced specific steps for curtailing ozone-depleting gases. Preparing to write a graduate-level textbook, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, later published by Cambridge University Press and praised by one reviewer as “unequalled in breadth, depth and lucidity,” Salby then undertook a methodical examination of AGW. What he found left him “absolutely surprised.”
Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place—the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities—is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose.
The IPCC estimates that, since the Industrial Revolution, humans have released 365 billion tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels. Annual emissions, including those from deforestation and cement production, are less than 9 billion tons. Yet natural carbon cycles involve annual exchanges of carbon between the atmosphere, the land, and the oceans many times greater than emissions from human activities. The IPCC estimates that 118.7 billion tons of carbon per year is emitted from land and 78.4 billion tons from oceans. Thus, the human contribution of 9 billion tons annually accounts for less than 5 percent of the total gross emissions. The AGW hypothesis, as well as all the climate-change policies that depend on it, assumes that the human 5 percent drives the overall change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere—and that the other 95 percent, comprising natural emissions, is counterbalanced by absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes. Summing it up, the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.”
Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. Scientists’ understanding of the complex climate dynamics is undeveloped, not least because the ocean’s heat capacity is a thousand times greater than that of the atmosphere and relevant physical observations of the oceans are so sparse. Until this is remedied, the science cannot be settled. In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first—and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2, with changes in soil-moisture conditions explaining most of the rest. Furthermore, these two factors also explain changes in net methane emission, the second-most important “human” greenhouse gas. As for what causes global temperatures to rise, Salby says that one of the most important factors influencing temperature is heat exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

sustainable continued borrowing (in your name)

This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nation’s Brundtland Report, which defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." But aristocratic socialists have corrupted the sustainable development movement into a vehicle to achieve vast administrative power for themselves. Nations that adopt Sustainable Development are doomed to fail at meeting the needs of the present generation and through debt accumulation from deficit spending will consign future generations to a life as debt slaves.

Through the early 1980s, socialist Latin American economies powered growth by quadrupling their indebtedness from $75 billion to $315 billion. With aristocrats controlling government, while the poor had no voice in these loan matters, nor did they benefit from them as most of the loan proceeds were siphoned off to benefit the aristocrats and their crony amigos.
When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, the U.S. economy had suffered a decade of stagflation, turning our Midwest manufacturing base into the Rust Belt. Reagan was determined to regain international economic dominance by reasserting our Founding Father’s demand for limited government and maximum personal liberty. Reagan viscerally believed what John Adams wrote:
“ the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”
Reagan’s relentless focus overcame the bi-partisan drumbeat to continue the socialist expansion of the money supply to promote growth. He then leveraged monetary restraint with the largest income tax cut in American history to power the American economy to sustained growth with low inflation.

The inflated prices of raw material exports that Latin American socialists relied upon to pay their inflated debts, plunged by 40%. Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina became insolvent as per capita GDP fell by 9% between 1980 and 1985 and 50% of their people fell into poverty. Popular uprisings drove Brazil's military junta and Argentine’s authoritarian regime, from power. In desperation, Latin nations turned to the U.S. dominated International Monetary Fund as lender-of- last-resort. But IMF support came with mandatory demands for austerity budget cuts, public industry privatizations, and elimination of trade barriers to shrink socialist power. By 1987, the capitalist U.S. economy was the world’s growth engine and a tidal wave of foreign investment was pouring into capitalist friendly Latin economies. World socialism was in shambles as the Soviet Union disintegrated and China embraced the market economy. The release of the Brundtland Report was seen as recognition of the burgeoning capitalist globalized economy.
By 1992 memories of the pain of the Latin American Debt Crisis were fading. Aristocrats repackaged socialist plans to again usurp economic power into Agenda 21 and introduced this socialist manifesto at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Agenda 21 envisioned bestowing the UN, government bureaucracies, and major interest groups the power to suspend the rights of property under law regarding all global, national and local human economic and social interaction that might affect the environment.
Agenda 21’s four main pillars of action are (1) combating poverty, promoting health, making consumption sustainable (2) assuring atmospheric protection, protecting fragile environments, conserving biodiversity, preventing pollution and regulating biotechnology (3) strengthening the roles of children, youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, workers and indigenous peoples (4) through science, technology transfer, education, international financial mechanisms.”
European aristocrats also quietly embedded Agenda 21 powers into the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which united 17 sovereign nations under the three pillar structure of the European Union (1) prevent sovereign debt from exceed 60% of GDP (2) delegate authority to supranational decision makers authority to regulate all human economic and social interaction that might affect the environment (3) embrace the euro as their supranational currency.
With aristocratic socialists in control of supranational economic decision making, deficit spending became the preferred stimulus for European economic growth. From 1999 to 2008, the average debt to GDP for Eurozone nations grew from 50% to 70%. But as the Reinhart and Rogoff’s book: “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” famously warned in early 2009; “once a nation’s debt rises above the threshold of 90%, then growth rates fall.”
When Greece hit over 100% of debt to GDP later that year, rumors swirled the nation would default. Greek GDP shriveled and panicked depositors across Europe pulled their cash out of banks and the European Debt Crisis exploded. Total Eurozone debt now stands at a dangerous 87% of GDP and Greek short term interest rates are at 1400%. Supranational committees are enforcing austerity spending cuts, but the unemployment rate is at a depression level of 20% in Greece and 23% in Spain.
There is no Reaganesque figure today in Europe willing to battle entrenched aristocratic socialists in support of limited government and maximum personal liberty. Instead, the “present” generation of Europeans will continue to be impoverished until a future generation becomes unwilling to endure life of a debt slaves and violently over-throws their aristocratic masters.
Feel free to forward this Op Ed and or follow our Blog at

Friday, August 22, 2014

Google censorship ‘right to be forgotten’
A news report about the conversion of George Osborne’s brother to Islam has been hidden by Google.
The article, published five years ago and detailing the conversion of Dr Adam Osborne to Islam in preparation for his marriage to a Bangladeshi-born plastic surgeon, was removed from search listings by the internet giant.
The original story, on a British newspaper website, remains online.
It revealed how Dr Osborne had been studying the Koran and given the name Mohammed for the ceremony.
Dr Osborne was later suspended from practice by the General Medical Council for six months after being found guilty “serious misconduct” when he falsified a prescription for drugs for an escort.
The removal from listings came after a request to Google from an unknown person.
It follows a highly controversial ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling in the European Court of Justice last month which gave people the right to have “inadequate”, “irrelevant” or “no longer relevant” search results removed from internet searches.
Critics have denounced the ruling as an assault on free speech that will allow criminals and disgraced politicians to hide their past from the public.
Today two links to about Dougie McDonald, a Scottish referee who admitted lying about a penalty decision in a Celtic game, were reinstated.
However, links to a Telegraph report on claims Robert Sayer, the former Law Society chief, faked complaints against his Asian deputy remain hidden. A hearing refused to refer the allegations to the police.
Over 70,000 requests have been made in total to the search engine asking for 250,000 links to information be removed from Google's European site branches. The search enginee is receiving 1,000 requests per day, each of which has to be evaluated by lawyers.
Individuals can only apply for the removal of a link to an article or picture, rather than the deletion of the information itself.
The message 'Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe' is displayed at the bottom of search results
The EU ruling was a result of a case brought by Spaniard Mario Costeja González, who requested the deletion of a link to a newspaper article detailing the repossession of his home after he hit financial difficulty in 1998.
Peter Barron, a Google spokesman, said the ruling was “not something we welcome, that we wanted.”
“But it is now the law and we’re obliged to comply with the law.” Asked whether he considered the law workable, he said: “It’s early days.”
It has also emerged that Google is also blurring the homes of famous people including Sir Paul McCartney, Tony Blair and disgraced banker Fred Goodwin on the Street View website, in response to homeowners’ requests.

Monday, August 18, 2014

The impossible fact

Morgenstern, Christian: The Impossible Fact (Die unmögliche Tatsache in English)

Source of the quotation
The Impossible Fact (English)

Palmstroem, old, an aimless rover,

walking in the wrong direction

at a busy intersection

is run over.

"How," he says, his life restoring

and with pluck his death ignoring,

"can an accident like this

ever happen? What's amiss?

"Did the state administration

fail in motor transportation?

Did police ignore the need

for reducing driving speed?

"Isn't there a prohibition,

barring motorized transmission

of the living to the dead?

Was the driver right who sped…?"

Tightly swathed in dampened tissues

he explores the legal issues,

and it soon is clear as air:

Cars were not permitted there!

And he comes to the conclusion:

His mishap was an illusion,

for, he reasons pointedly,

that which must not, can not be.

Knight, Max

Uploaded by P. T.
Source of the quotation
Portre of Morgenstern, Christian
Morgenstern, Christian
Die unmögliche Tatsache (German)

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Deathly 20th century

ShawnLH (3,931 comments) says: 

Atheist Governments of the 20th Century: The Death Toll of Godless Goodness.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
The Worldviews of Destruction in the 20th Century
“The 20th Century is history. It is a history of incredible advances in many areas (inventions, computer chips, medical science, technologies, transportation, communications, expansion of the Christian Gospel), living standards, free states), but devolution in other areas (dictatorships, poverty, illegal drugs, pornography, homosexuality, venereal diseases, AIDS, lawlessness, immorality, teenage pregnancy, abortions). But most important for our study it is a century of mass murders and killings unheard of in human history. The 20th Century is the century of slaughter. More human beings have been killed in the 20th Century than in all previous centuries combined.
When we put the human cost of war and genocide together, says Rummel, “Power has killed over 203 million people in this century.”[4] And this figure does not include the slaughter of the innocent (abortion) — a foundation stone of the Secular Humanist worldview.
These millions died, not because of James Orr’s Christian worldview. Most of these millions died at the hands of the three men and one woman whose worldviews were inflicted on the world (and in many ways continue to be so).
The three men are Benito Mussolini (b. 1883), Adolph Hitler (b. 1889) and Joseph Stalin (b. 1879). The woman is Margaret Sanger (b. 1879).
Mussolini and Hitler represent the 20th Century’s Fascist/Nazi worldviews. Stalin represents the Marxist/Leninist worldview. Margaret Sanger represents the Secular Humanist worldview.
These are the worldviews primarily responsible for the millions of human beings slaughtered on the altars of atheism, naturalism, dialectical materialism, ethical relativism, beyond good and evil, libertinism, class morality, biological evolution, social darwinianism, euthanasia, sterilization, infanticide, eugenics, abortion, collectivism, statism, dictatorship, new Fascist man, new Aryan man, new Soviet man, new Humanist man, new international child of the future, new social order, new world order, socialism (national and international), positive law or sociological jurisprudence and other ideas “chemically and physically” exploding from the fevered brows of the intelligentsia.
Whoever said ideas have consequences summarized the 20th Century. The ideas that moved across and out of the 19th Century were fleshed out in the 20th Century and the results are obvious for all to see — death, destruction, devastation, heartache, misery — all words and nuances that portray a century ripe for a judgement grade.
As we begin Century 21 we have yet to admit a deep, dark secret — the ideas that brought us a century of terror and slaughter are still being taught in our public institutions of higher education. Ironically, the only worldview not responsible for the slaughter is the only worldview proscribed viz., Biblical Christianity. All other worldviews have their voices and defenders in our colleges and universities.”

Saturday, August 9, 2014

A culture is not a civilization

hj (6,486 comments) says: 

David Round
Why is it, I cannot but wonder, that gangs and Maoris just seem to go together? I cannot believe that it is all injustice and oppression, I’m sorry. Plenty of other people are also poor and oppressed. Maori are not the only victims. I am forced to conclude that it is some aspect of the Maori cultural inheritance, some lingering atavistic tribal residue, which makes the criminal or marginal gang such a natural fit for so many Maori. You may reply that the arrangement is not much different from, say, that of the house-carles who followed their Anglo-Saxon lord, ate their bread at his table and supported him with their spears in his feuds; but our civilisation has developed since those magnificent but savage days. Maori culture, it seems, has not. It is still ~ as we are regularly officially reminded ~ a ‘warrior culture’. A warrior ~ as opposed to a soldier ~ is of his nature a gang-member.
And a culture is not a civilisation.