What's up with the prices at the pump?

By Marita Noon

First, Saudi Arabia drove down the price of oil by increasing its production, which gave Americans a welcome drop in prices at the pump. Could the kingdom now be pushing them back up?

Prices at the pump have gone up nearly 40 cents a gallon from the January low--60 cents in California. They will continue to rise while the price of crude oil remains low. Based on explanations, the jump was expected. Every year, at this time, refineries shut down to make adjustments from the "winter blend" to the "summer blend." It is "refinery maintenance season."

However this year, the increase is exacerbated.

The unexpected extreme weather in the south, Patrick Dehaan, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy, explained: "caused some of the refineries in the south to shut and restart, resulting in disruption for a couple of days."

The February 19 explosion at an ExxonMobil refinery in California, that supplied 10 percent of California's gasoline, has driven the state's extreme uptick. Reports indicate months could pass before it the plant is back to full production.

Then we have is the expanding steelworker's strike that began on February 1--the first in 35 years. Because of refinery automation, the impact to date has been minor. Michael Noel, an associate economic professor at Texas Tech who specializes in oil and gas, told me the strike causes about 10 cents a gallon of the current price increase. However, if the strike actually shuts down operations, the Washington Post (WP) states: "the impact on gas prices could be swift."

Opinions vary on why the United Steelworks chose now to strike-especially in a time when labor unions, according to the WP, "rarely exercise that right." The WP explains: "There were only 11 strikes involving more than 1,000 workers last year, down from hundreds annually in the 1970s."

Energy economist Tim Snyder sees that big refiners lose their incentive to bargain when crude oil prices fall to low levels. He told me: "The strike helps raise prices so the longer the strike goes on, the more profits they can recover. It appears for the next couple of weeks, oil and gasoline prices will go in opposite directions, due to supplies continuing to build in crude and supplies drying up in gasoline."

In contrast, energy market analyst Phil Flynn explains: "I think the Union is striking now because refining margins have been good and they want some of that benefit."

Whatever the reason, the WP quotes Jim Savage, leader of the United Steelworkers Local 10-1, as saying: "We picked a fight with the wealthiest, most powerful people in the history of the world. So we're either very courageous, or the stupidest people walking."

But what if the union workers chose this time to strike because of outside influence--specifically Saudi Arabia? There are many coincidences that seem too obvious to ignore.

First, the last time refinery workers went on strike was 35 years ago--about the same time as the oil crisis of 1979. Then, after the Iranian Revolution caused an oil shortage resulting in a catastrophic spike in the price of oil that drove other countries to expand production, it is reported that "to gain back market share, [Saudi Arabia] increased production and caused downward pressure on prices, making high-cost oil production facilities less profitable or even unprofitable."

Now, increased Saudi production, once again, has driven the price drop, and, it, too, that is about maintaining market share and driving out higher-cost U.S. shale production.

But there's more.

We think of Saudi Arabia as producing crude oil. However, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the kingdom "plans to become the world's second largest [behind the U.S.] exporter of refined oil products in 2017 as part of its drive to diversify its economy and increase its share of the global crude and petroleum products markets."

The Financial Post (FP) takes it further: "Saudi Arabia and its OPEC cohorts may have abandoned their role as market stabilisers, but they are taking the fight with their rivals downstream." The FP adds: "The push downstream comes as OPEC's strategy to maintain production and push out expensive non-OPEC producers is working."

So, while the U.S. hasn't built a new refinery in decades, Saudi Arabia has two new refineries--with a third planned. One of the new refineries started output last year and the other last month.

The WSJ reports: "Planning for refineries in Saudi Arabia began around a decade ago to meet growing domestic fuel demand as well as to provide jobs. Domestic demand hasn't grown as fast as expected, but as prices for Saudi Arabia's unprocessed oil have slumped--crude prices have more than halved internationally since last summer--the refineries could offer a profitable alternative source of income."

Note this key line from the WSJ: "Domestic demand hasn't grown as fast as expected, but as prices for Saudi Arabia's unprocessed oil have slumped..." This means that the kingdom has excess capacity at a time that it needs extra income. Economists say Saudi Arabia needs tough economic reform. The Financial Times states: "The IMF wants the government to reduce the growth in spending still further, especially on wages and subsidies, and focus on infrastructure investment. But economists also worry that lower oil prices will hit the government's capital spending, which could depress economic activity in the coming years."

The WSJ points out: "the refineries could offer a profitable alternative source of income." But first, the kingdom needs outside customers-and the Steelworkers' strike could help the Saudis.

The U.S. is the number one global exporter of refined petroleum products. Saudi Arabia aims to capture some of that market share to become number two. We know that, when to its advantage, the kingdom thinks nothing of hurting its ally--but not friend--the United States.

When I ran my strike-influence theory by Gregg Lakoski, a Senior Petroleum Analyst with GasBuddy, he replied: "All I can say is it makes sense for any supplier to try to 'influence' commodity prices for the world's largest purchaser of that commodity. Saudi Arabia, as the de facto leader of OPEC, manipulates OPEC and non-OPEC oil prices in a variety of ways, some more obvious than others."

Announcing the first shipment of gasoline from the new Saudi refinery on February 6, the Middle East North Africa Financial Network states: "The refinery is expected to reach full capacity in mid-February. A source close to the company said most of the middle distillates volumes coming out of Yasref would be heading to Europe for now as the East-West spread is currently favorable. He said European demand was good due to worries about the refinery strike in the United States which could reduce the amount of U.S. diesel heading to Europe."

So a refinery strike in the U.S. helps establish a foothold for Saudi Arabia's plans to "diversify its economy" by handing them customers. And, perhaps, this creates the how and why, after dropping oil prices, the kingdom has begun to drive up gasoline prices.

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations' combined efforts serve as America's voice for energy.

A note from Marita: Please call or email The House Representatives Judiciary Committee

Members:

Paul Pacheco (505-986-4242, paul.pacheco@nmlegis.gov),

Terry McMillan (505-986-4327, docmcmillan@gmail.com) and,

Jim Dines (505-986-4242, jim.dines@nmlegis.gov).

(You can find contact information for the entire committee here.)

Simply tell them; "I support the study committee bill to consider alternatives to the current federal land management."

They may shut the door on the idea of a commission to study alternatives to the current federal lands (mis)management (a topic I have addressed many times such as this one from 2011, and this one from last year) that is destroying our watersheds, killing our wildlife, and depriving our economy of much needed jobs because a small vocal minority is screaming misinformation at them. (Rep. Pacheco is complaining that he has had 150 calls against and 0 for). We need to inundate House Judiciary with calls and emails to ensure that this bill passes so that we at least have the discussion.

This is study committee bill and nobody should be afraid to vote to study the facts. Please put out the call far and wide otherwise we no one to blame but ourselves for not making the effort to improve our lot. House Judiciary will vote on the bill first thing today. Let's keep the door open on the dialogue!!

Please forward this request to everyone on your email list!

Your voice for energy,

Marita Noon

Executive Director

Press Release From the 1851 Center For Constitutional Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 2, 2015

MEDIA CONTACT

Maurice A . Thompson

(614) 340-9817

MThompson@OhioConstitution.org

 

Obamacare in Ohio:

Outcome of Wednesday's Supreme Court Argument Will Be Pivotal

Columbus, OH - On Wednesday March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act - - this time a challenge to how the President and the IRS are enforcing the law. If that challenge prevails, both the ACA's employer mandate and tax credits to individuals will be forbidden in Ohio, because Ohio's Health Care Freedom Amendment prohibits the state from establishing a state exchange.

Should Governor Kasich still move to establish a state based Obamacare exchange, the 1851 Center is prepared to take legal action to stop it.

 

The Lawsuit: King v. Burwell

The lawsuit, King v. Burwell, addresses one of the ACA's cornerstones: the insurance exchanges created by Obamacare. More specifically, the questions revolves around the IRS's interpretation of a provision of the law that authorizes tax credits for health insurance purchased through an exchange "established by the state."

Section 1401 of the ACA offers health-insurance "tax credits" to certain taxpayers who enroll in a qualified health plan "through an Exchange established by the State."

Pursuant to this Section, Obamacare creates "premium assistance," taxes credits and subsidies, to offset the costs of health insurance premiums that all agree Obamacare causes. Essentially, these tax credits and subsidies were designed to mask the full extent of outlandish cost increases imposed on health insurance producers and consumers by the Act. However, they also comprise the bulk of the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending triggered by Obamacare.

When 36 states chose not to establish their own exchanges, the federal government stepped in and created federally run exchanges in those states. The IRS then extended the tax credits for insurance purchased through the federally run exchanges - an interpretation that directly violates the plain language of the law, and subjects employers in these states to the "employer mandate" - - a $3,000 penalty that is assessed each time one of its employees purchases subsidized health insurance through an exchange.

The challengers argue, quite reasonably, that the statute limits the tax credits and subsidies to

state established Exchanges in a manner that is plain and unambiguous, and that the remainder of the ACA and its legislative history are fully consistent with those provisions. The Obama administration responds that the phrase "through an Exchange established by the State" includes federally established exchanges and, alternatively, that the statute is vague enough to allow the executive branch to decide whether (or not) to offer subsidies in federal exchanges.

The challengers have a high likelihood of prevailing, given the Administration's weak arguments. If they do, insofar as the IRS has sought to provide tax credits for the purchase of health insurance in federally established Exchanges such as Ohio, its actions are contrary to law and must be set aside. This means subsidies for those using the ACA exchange would be unavailable to Ohioans, but also that Ohio employers would not be sanctioned.

A State Based Exchange: Forbidden in Ohio

On February 19, Governor Kasich indicated to Bloomberg that he was "open to" establishing an Ohio-based ACA exchange. Such an exchange would cost Ohioans millions, while spending billions to subsidize purchases of health insurance pursuant to the ACA, and imposing the otherwise-forbidden ACA employer mandate on Ohio employers.

However, with the overwhelming passage of Issue 3 in November of 2011, Ohioans created a likely-insurmountable legal hurdle to state officials implementing Obamacare in Ohio through a state-based ACA exchange.

As the 1851 Center explained in March of 2012, Ohio's Health Care Freedom Amendment forbids the state from establishing a state-based ACA exchange. Under the Amendment, the state of Ohio may not (1) indirectly compel participation in a health care system; (2) prohibit the purchase or sale of health insurance; or (3) impose a penalty for the sale or purchase of health insurance.

Under implementation of an ACA exchange, the state would be voluntarily using state resources to attempt to do all three. For example:

·         Though establishing an exchange, Ohio would be voluntarily assuming responsibility for enforcing the individual mandate, volunteering to use state officials and resources to turn in those who may not have "minimum essential coverage" to the federal government as defined by HHS. This indirectly compels Ohioans to participate in ACA, in violation of Section (A) of the Health Care Freedom Amendment.

·         Though establishing an exchange, Ohio would be imposing the "employer mandate," a penalty of up to $3,000 per employee that must otherwise be paid to the federal government by Ohio employers who do not provide government-approved health care insurance for their employees.

In November of 2012, Cato Institute health care policy expert Michael Cannon echoed the 1851 Center's findings:

"operating an Obamacare exchange would violate the state's constitution . . . In order to operate an exchange, Ohio employees would have to determine eligibility for ObamaCare's "premium assistance tax credits." Those tax credits trigger penalties against employers (under the employer mandate) and residents (under the individual mandate). In addition, Ohio employees would have to determine whether employers' health benefits are "affordable." A negative determination results in fines against the employer. These are key functions of an exchange. Ergo, if Ohio passes a law establishing an exchange, then that law would violate the state's constitution by indirectly compelling employers and individual residents to participate in a health care system. That sort of law seems precisely what Section 21 exists to prevent."

Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler concurred, responding to news that Governor Kasich may attempt a state-based exchange to salvage the ACA in Ohio by explaining "tax credit eligibility triggers employer mandate and slides more people to individual mandate penalty."

This would also be true in, at minimum, all states with a Health Care Freedom Amendment or Act (including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia).

Without State-Based Exchanges in Ohio and Other States: Collapse or Reform

Without state-based exchanges, Obamacare will be significantly more difficult to enforce, dramatically enhancing the probability that the Act will be "re-opened" to debate amendment or repeal.

In the interim, Ohioans who sign up through the federal Obamacare exchange would lose "premium assistance," a taxpayer-funded subsidy/tax credit to individuals that masks the true increased costs of health insurance premiums imposed by Obamacare. Without tax credits to support the ACA's inflated insurance costs, there may be some initial disarray for the roughly 234,000 Ohioans who have purchased subsidized health insurance through the federal exchange. (These are Ohioans who are not eligible for Medicaid, with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.)

However, this federal spending will be blocked, and the clamor for repeal will be immediate if states refuse to establish exchanges. (This is because Americans would be threatened with experiencing the full effect of the cost increases imposed by Obamacare.)

Further, Ohio employers will be exempt from the damaging employer mandate.

According to 1851 Center Director Maurice Thompson, "Any state that creates an Obamacare exchange is ultimately voluntarily choosing to enforce Obamacare and its mandates and restrictions on freedom of choice, while simultaneously reducing the chance that Obamacare will repealed or rewritten."

Thompson suggests that legal action would be appropriate to stop the exchange, should Governor Kasich move to establish one, and that the 1851 Center is prepared to take it.

Read the entire report: Does Ohio's Health Care Freedom Amendment Prohibit it from Imposing an Obamacare Exchange?

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

 

 

Plenty of Wiggle Room in Scientific Certainty

By Mike Kimmitt February 28, 2015

Recently I stumbled across an Internet site that displayed stunning photographs of 10 animals whose existence, until recently, had been totally unknown to our highly educated scientific community.

I must admit that my confidence is shaken in these same scientists when they for so long have overlooked a spider large enough to eat birds and venomous snakes, a monkey that looks like a cast member of Monster, Inc. (the Lesula), and a Louisiana Pancake Batfish that appears already to have been rolled around in Zatarain's Creole Seasoning mix by an overzealous Cajun chef.

These aren't exactly one-celled bacteria that are crawling around under our toenails -- they're pretty big dudes. And yet biologists who didn't have a clue they exist will tell us with certainty how many species become extinct each day – and it’s your fault……. They can prove that point with certainty by first demonstrating how little they know. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), there are between 1.4 million and 1.8 million unique species that have been “scientifically documented.” (Assuming university-trained biologists can count and they actually have documented their findings, do they really need wiggle-room on the order of 400,000 species, more or less?) They also are confident more than ten million unknown species are yet to be encountered. How the heck do they know, or even assume, that?.....To Read More….

My Take - I have the answer to that last question. It's based on 'faith'! It would be a really good idea if more people became aware that many  of the things these people promote is just a little bit short of neo-pagan mysticism. Once we grasp that it's easy to understand how they arrive at their conclusions.  They’re just “faith based initiatives”.

Black Privilege: Students Get SAT Bonus Points for Being Black or Hispanic – Asians Are Penalized

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, February 25, 2015

A report in the LA Times revealed that blacks and Hispanics get bonus SAT points at elite universities based on their race. Asian students however are penalized 50 points due to their race. The LA Times reported, via DownTrend:

Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth.

 

She points to the first column.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.

She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says. “Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?

Downtrend also noted that college athletes also receive bonus points during the application process.....This Appeared Here…..

 

 

Face to Face With Race: Part V

Integration at its Worst

Prison life for white men.

by Howard Scott Lacy

I am an indigent prisoner and cannot afford a subscription to American Renaissance, but I did see the July issue. I laughed out loud reading Christopher Jackson’s article, “A White Teacher Speaks Out.” His portrayal of black students was spot-on, and compelled me to write this account of my own experiences with blacks in prison. Of course, there is no real humor in Mr. Jackson’s portrayal; the truth is tragic. The impact of blacks on the larger society and especially on the white children caught in the surroundings Mr. Jackson describes is nothing less than devastating.

What made me laugh was Mr. Jackson’s portrayal of the way black students speak. The guards here say such things as “Who you be?” and “Where it be at?” It’s deeply insensitive of us, no doubt, but white prisoners entertain each other by mimicking the unique forms of black speech. Mr. Jackson’s description of his students applies to a great many black adults as well.

As an inmate in a Texas prison, I am surrounded by blacks and people of other races and must deal with them every day. I have become intimately aware of their traits and mannerisms. I’m sure my experiences are paralleled in many other prisons, and are a precursor of what the country as a whole can expect if we continue down the road on which we are traveling…..To Read More…..

Face to Face With Race: Part I
Face to Face With Race: Part II

Face To Face With Race: Part III

Face to Face With Race: Part IV

Climatist Jihad?

Climate Crisis extremists attack experts who challenge claims of imminent climate Armageddon

Paul Driessen

ISIL and other Islamist jihad movements continue to round up and silence all who oppose them or refuse to convert to their extreme religious tenets. They are inspiring thousands to join them. Their intolerance, vicious tactics and growing power seem to have inspired others, as well.

After years of claiming the science is settled and unprecedented manmade catastrophes are occurring right now, Climate Crisis, Inc. is increasingly desperate. Polls put climate change at the bottom of every list of public concerns. China and India refuse to cut energy production or emissions. Real-world weather and climate totally contradict their dire models and forecasts. Expensive, subsidized, environmentally harmful renewable energy makes little sense in world freshly awash in cheap, accessible oil, gas and coal.

Perhaps worse, Congress is in Republican control, and in 23 months the White House and Executive Branch could also shift dramatically away from the Freezing-Jobless-in-the-Dark Side of the Force.

Climate Crisis industrialists are also fed up with constant carping, criticism and questions from growing numbers of experts who will not kowtow to their End of Days theology. Once seemingly near, their dream of ruling a hydrocarbon-free world of “sustainably” lower living standards become more remote every week. Extremist factions had dreamed of a global climatist caliphate and want vengeance.

So borrowing from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mentor Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, they have gone on the attack: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. A good tactic is one your people enjoy. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions. They’ve also borrowed from the Islamic State playbook: Silence your enemies.

Led by Greenpeace associate Kert Davies, this Climatist Jihad wing of the climate chaos movement has launched a well funded, carefully choreographed vendetta of character assassination and destruction, vilifying dangerous manmade climate change “deniers” and trying to destroy their careers. Their Big Green, Big Government and media allies are either actively complicit, rooting from the sidelines or silent.

Instead of bullets, bombs and beheadings, they use double standards, Greenpeace FOIA demands, letters from Senator Ed Markey and Congressman Raul Grijalva, threats of lost funding and jobs, and constant intimidation and harassment. Submit, recant, admit your guilt, renounce your nature-rules-climate faith, Climatist Jihadis tell climate realists. Or suffer the consequences, which might even include IRS, EPA and Fish & Wildlife Service swat teams bursting through your doors, as they did with Gibson Guitars.

Their first target was Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon. Working closely with Greenpeace’s Climate Investigations Center, the Boston Globe and New York Times alleged that Dr. Soon received $1.25 million from the fossil fuel industry, but failed to disclose those funds when his scientific papers were published and falsely claimed he had no conflict of interest.

The charges are bogus. Harvard had full knowledge of Dr. Soon’s research financing and took 40% of the grant money off the top: some $500,000! The details are all public records, and Dr. Soon has a solid track record of going where his careful and extensive research takes him – regardless of where the money comes from. Not a scrap of evidence suggests that he falsified or fabricated data or conclusions, or twisted his science to satisfy research sponsors, on any of the numerous topics he has studied.

He has received incredible flak from environmentalist pressure groups, media outlets and even his own university – and has courageously stood behind his research, analyses and findings, which continue to withstand intense scientific scrutiny. Harvard-Smithsonian recently said it “does not support Dr. Soon’s conclusions on climate change,” and Harvard Earth and Planetary Sciences Professor Daniel Schrag averred that Soon’s approach to finding global average temperatures was perhaps not “as honest as other approaches.” But they offer not a scintilla of evidence to support their allegations of inaccuracy and dishonesty, and give him no opportunity to respond.

Indeed, one of the most prominent aspects of the climate imbroglio is the steadfast refusal of alarmist scientists to discuss or debate their findings with experts who argue that extensive, powerful natural forces – not human carbon dioxide emissions – drive Earth’s climate and weather. “Manmade disaster” proponents also refuse to divulge raw data, computer codes and other secretive work that is often paid for with taxpayer money and is always used to justify laws, treaties, regulations, mandates and subsidies that stifle economic growth, kill jobs and reduce living standards.

Dr. Soon is not the only target. The Climate Jihadists are also going after Robert Balling, Matt Briggs, John Christy, Judith Curry, Tom Harris, Steven Hayward, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Jr. More are sure to follow, because their work eviscerates climate cataclysm claims and raises serious questions about the accuracy, credibility, integrity and sanctity of alarmist science.

Climate Crisis, Inc. wants a monopoly over the issue. Its members focus almost exclusively on alleged human causes of climate change and extreme weather events – and would love to see skeptics silenced. Crisis proponents will not even attend scientific conferences where skeptics discuss natural causes and alarmists have opportunities to defend their hypotheses, models and evidence. (Perhaps the FCC needs to investigate this monopoly and issue “climate neutrality” rules, to ensure honest and balanced discussion.)

It fits a depressing pattern: of the White House, Democrats and liberals shutting down debate, permitting no amendments, conducting business behind closed doors, not allowing anyone to read proposed laws and regulations, rarely even recognizing that there are differing views – on ObamaCare, ObamaNetCare, IRS harassment of conservative donors and groups, PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, or climate change.

The Climate Crisis industry thrives on tens of billions of dollars annually, for one-sided climate research, drilling and fracking studies, renewable energy projects and other programs, all based on dubious claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions threaten climate stability and planetary survival.

Businesses, job holders and consumers pay the huge costs of complying with the resultant regulations and soaring energy costs. Taxpayers pay for much of the research and propaganda that drives the rulemaking. Russia and hard-left foundations have also contributed billions to the process; and government unions, environmental pressure groups and renewable energy companies give generously to researchers and to politicians who keep the alarmist research programs, regulatory processes, mandates and subsidies alive.

All of this raises another elephantine issue. If a couple million dollars over a decade’s time creates near-criminal conflict-of-interest and disclosure problems for skeptic/realist scientists, what effects do billions of dollars in research money have on alarmist researchers and their universities and institutions?

Few, if any, alarmist researchers have disclosed that their work was funded by government agencies, companies, foundations and others with enormous financial, policy, political and other interests in their work, ensuring that their conclusions support manmade factors and debunk natural causes. Many of those researchers have signed statements that their research and papers involved no conflicts, knowing they would not get these grants, if their outcomes did not reflect the sponsors’ interests and perspectives.

Moreover, ClimateGate, IPCC revelations and other investigations have revealed extensive and troubling incidents of manipulated data, faulty models, wild exaggerations, broken hockey sticks, and completely baseless claims about hottest years, disappearing glaciers, coastal flooding and other “crises.” And those claims severely impact our energy costs, jobs, living standards, economic growth and freedoms.

We need to end the double standard – and investigate the alarmist researchers and institutions.

Or better yet, let us instead have that all-out, open, robust debate that climate realists have long sought – and alarmists have refused to join. Equal government and other money for all research. All cards and evidence on the table. No more hiding data and codes. Answer all questions, no matter how tough or inconvenient. And let honest science decide what our energy and economic futures will be.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

 

Greece may still leave the euro

Matt Ridley

If it won't reform, then it should devalue

For an expert on game theory, Yanis Varoufakis, the Essex University-trained economics professor turned Greek finance minister, does not seem very good at negotiating. His style reminds me of the old joke about playing chess with a pigeon: it knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and struts about claiming it won.

Mr Varoufakis and his prime ministerial colleague, Alexis Tsipras, have annoyed the Germans, accepted a new four-month bailout and agreed, as they said they would not, to supervision of economic reforms by the same old Troika of the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund. And yet Mr Tsipras claims that they have won “a battle, not the war”.

It is still just possible that today’s deadline for the Greek government to come up with a fresh list of reforms may vindicate Syriza, because they have at least won a single big concession: that the Greeks get to propose a different set of reforms this time. Syriza’s case is that it can come up with a restructuring of the Greek economy that would work better than the disastrous austerity-to-no-purpose that has happened so far…….Ireland, for instance, cut civil servants’ pay by 5 per cent for the low-paid and 20 per cent for the high paid, slashed spending and is now growing so strongly its economy will soon be larger than it was in 2008......To Read More....... 

 

My Take -There're three things that are "always" inevitable in these situations if they are to attain economic success. First – recognition that socialism is a failure, always has been a failure, is always rife with corruption and has to be abandoned forever. Second - capitalism based on the rule of law - with all its flaws - is the only thing that has worked to end poverty, misery, squalor, suffering, disease and early death. Third - public service unions have to be eliminated before any of the first two can be implemented.

Since none of that will ever really happen willingly in Europe –the riots in Greece and France demonstrates the dire lack understanding of economic reality by Europeans. They’re socialists by virtue of culture. They will never adopt American style capitalism because they had kings as their central planners, and now they have socialists to think for them. Socialism isn’t culturally natural for Americans, although America has fallen deep into this abyss over the last few decades, but we can thank Obama for showing America the light – that central planners always end up corrupt to the core and must be blithering idiots because everything they do, and everything they promote eventually leads to economic disaster. And when you add multiculturalism to the mix there’s only one conclusion - Europe is doomed!  If the EU was a stock – fund managers would be selling it short.

Prey of A Foul Command Part 1: ERCP Patients And Superbug Infections

By Michael D. Shaw, Contributing Columnist -
This was posted on Feb. 28, 2104 @ HealthNewsDigest.com

(HealthNewsDigest.com) - The title of this piece is taken from a mordant lyric in Richard Fariña's 1966 folkie love song "Children of Darkness."

Yet another stake has pierced the heart of the ridiculous meme that the biggest problem in American health care is getting everyone insured. I'm talking about the recent highly publicized case at UCLA's Ronald Reagan Medical Center in which 179 patients may have been exposed to Carbapenem resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE), resulting in two deaths. So far, seven UCLA patients are confirmed to have been infected with CRE--a dreaded superbug that it is fatal in up to 50 percent of those it infects.

Infection control guru Lawrence Muscarella notes that since 2012, there have been at least six other instances of similar CRE outbreaks, most of which were caused by contaminated duodenoscopes, used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). No doubt, ERCP is a lifesaving procedure, whereby many diseases of the pancreas and biliary system can be treated. Prior to ERCP, if treatment were even possible, open surgery was the only method.

However, sterilization or high level disinfection of these duodenoscopes can be difficult. The well-known adage that a device first has to be clean to be sterile applies, and attention has been focused on a component of the scope called the "elevator forceps."

Not surprisingly, in every case of CRE infection, hospitals insisted that they were following the scope manufacturer's reprocessing instructions. "Reprocessing" is a curious term used in the industry referring to the validated process of cleaning, disinfecting, or sterilizing endoscopes and accessories. Inasmuch as there is an immense difference between cleaning, disinfection and sterilization, such a collective term seems, at best, counterproductive.

Reaction of officialdom--our "foul command" if you will--to these CRE outbreaks has been disheartening--if not depressing. The American Gastroenterological Association blames the scope manufacturers...

"The problem of infection transmission lies in the complex design of duodenoscopes where the elevator channel can allow bacteria to remain after cleansing, even if reprocessing follows accepted procedures." (from a February 20, 2015 press release)

"Consider taking a duodenoscope out of service until it has been verified to be free of pathogens if a patient develops an infection with a multidrug-resistant organism following ERCP, and you suspect that there may be a link between the duodenoscope and the infection." Consider taking it out of service? (from a February 19, 2015 press release)

And how's this for world class detachment, courtesy of John Allen, MD, the Association's president: "This problem (superbug-contaminated duodeonoscopes) has been known since at least 1987. It certainly is disturbing that a fundamental design issue with these scopes would cause problems for this long." Amazingly, the docs who garner big bucks using these scopes assume zero ownership regarding their problems. Apparently, it's up to those underpaid basement dwellers in the hospital (Sterile Processing Departments) to sort all this out.

How well would society tolerate a celebrity chef who showed a similar reaction, if food-borne illnesses at his restaurant were traced to improper food handling procedures?

Regular readers of this column are aware that I am no fan of the FDA. Sadly enough, the agency's posture in this affair confirms my assessment, despite a host of relevant journal articles and adverse event reports dating back nearly 30 years--for these and similar scopes. According to William Maisel, MD, MPH, Chief Scientist and Deputy Center Director for Science at FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH): FDA did not recognize the potential problems with contamination with the scopes until September 2013, when officials were contacted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with information about infections. Right, Bill.

But, it gets worse.

UCLA and other affected hospitals have turned to true sterilization of the duodeonoscopes with ethylene oxide (EtO). UCLA has been cooperating with Olympus, the scope manufacturer, who endorses the use of EtO in its reprocessing manual for the scopes in question. Experts in EtO sterilization tell me that pre-cleaning of the scope would have to be woefully inadequate to allow bacterial contamination to survive the process.

In a safety communication entitled Design of ERCP Duodenoscopes May Impede Effective Cleaning issued by FDA on February 19, 2015, it is stated in bold letters to "Follow closely all manufacturer instructions for cleaning and processing." Fair enough.

Then why is Maisel quoted in the LA Times on February 23rd as being against the use of EtO? Although gas treatment "has helped in some cases where there have been outbreaks," Maisel said, "there can be ethylene oxide residual levels on the products that can be harmful to patients." An additional problem, he said, is that using gas "can damage the scopes themselves. And so we are not, at this time, recommending routine ethylene oxide sterilization."

These statements are so outrageously stupid as to beggar belief. Residual levels of EtO are removed during the FDA-required aeration process, and if the gas damages the scopes, why would Olympus be recommending it?

Insiders have given me all sorts of reasons why Maisel said what he did. Regardless, the long-troubled CDRH shows no signs of improvement. On the bright side, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) called on Congress to investigate what the FDA and device makers are doing to protect patients from the spread of deadly bacteria. "For the life of me, I don't understand why the FDA didn't issue this advice until now," he said. "I want to know what the FDA knew and when did they know it."

Don't we all, Congressman, don't we all.

Michael D. Shaw

Exec VP

Interscan Corporation

Face to Face With Race: Part IV

White Man in a Texas Prison

Forced integration works no better in prison than it does anywhere else.

by D. Zatukel

Demographers predict that some time in the next century whites will become a racial minority in the United States. This status has already arrived for many of the several hundred thousand whites who have the least control over their lives: prisoners. They are forced to live in the most intimate relations with a class of blacks and Hispanics whom most whites have carefully arranged their lives so as to avoid completely. Forced integration has produced racial animosity in society at large; the even more intensive integration in prisons creates even greater animosity.

Prison administration is also a classic example of judicial dictatorship. [Editor’s note: See review of Judicial Dictatorship in Sept. issue.] At least in Texas, prisons are operated according to the desires of liberal judges, desires that would never be ratified by voters…..To Read More….

Face to Face With Race: Part I
Face to Face With Race: Part II

Face To Face With Race: Part III

From Freedom Outpost

TIME Magazine’s Tyrant of the Year - "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." -Winston Churchill

In 1917, Congressman Oscar Callaway entered some disturbing information into the congressional record. J.P. Morgan, a banker and a steel tycoon (February 29, 1929 Time's man of the year), hired 12 high-ranking newspapers and asked them to determine America's most influential newspapers. J.P. Morgan wanted to know how many newspapers that it would take to control the policy of the daily press of the United States. The 12 found that it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, and an editor of their choice was placed at each paper to ensure that all published information was in keeping of the new policy, their policy.

Today, there are: 1,500 newspapers, 1,100 magazines, 9,000 radio stations, 2,400 publishers.All of these are owned and operated by only 6 corporations.
Often, we see people who are put in front of our faces as being just and upright. However, when you pull the curtain back, you find that the opposite......

The Power to Educate Is the Power to Indoctrinate - The power to educate is the power to indoctrinate. When governments instead of teachers and parents take over an educational system, they start with the money. Once they get the district and local school systems used to feeding on Federal money, they start to feed curriculum down the food chain, as well, dictating what should be taught to children as a condition for receiving that Federal money.....

The Poo Generation- Ayn Rand said, "There are two aspects of man's existence which are the special province and expression of his sense of life: love and art." Both of which have all but been extinguished in the era of amoralism – reflected in cultural rot and the exaltation of the crank.

CONFIRMED: Lois Lerner Sent Email About her Hard Drive Crashing Three Days AFTER Backdating Tax-Exempt Status of Barack H. Obama Foundation 38 Months, on a Sunday

Pastors to Help DHS in Arrests and Detention of Americans in FEMA Camps

Obama’s Stealth AR-15 Gun Ban Targets Ammo: No One Can Import, Sell or Even Produce It

The War On Preppers: Obama Bans Ammo For The Most Popular Rifle In America

Putin Political Rival Boris Nemstov Shot Dead at Kremlin “Putin Assumes Personal Control” of the Investigation

PCUSA Fully Apostatizes from Christian Faith in Redefining of Marriage

Former Breitbart Reporter: Why Did Obama Join he Gay Club at Occidental College?

Courageous Christian Woman Interrupts Muslim Prayer inside State Capitol Building with Lord's Prayer - Police Turn Backs on God and Throw Her Out

VIDEO EVIDENCE: Moderate Muslim Who Sits on Islamic Tribunal in Dallas Supports Muslim Brotherhood Terrorists and Prays for Victory for Muslims in Somalia, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, et. al.

The Odds Of A War Between Israel And Iran Just Went Way Up

Jeopardy: What Does a Liberal Look Like When Confronted on Net Neutrality?

 

 

 

Reversing course in Illinois

George Will | Thursday Feb 26, 2015 10:36 AM

The most portentous election of 2014, which gave the worst-governed state its first Republican governor in 12 years, has initiated this century’s most intriguing political experiment. Illinois has favored Democratic presidential candidates by an average of 16 points in the last six elections. But by electing businessman Bruce Rauner, it initiated a process that might dismantle a form of governance that afflicts many states and municipalities. Rauner, 58, won his first elective office by promising to change Illinois’ political culture of one-party rule by entrenched politicians subservient to public-sector unions. This culture’s consequences include:…..To Read More…..

Green Slander

By Alan Caruba  posted on February 28, 2015 @ Warning Signs

It is a sure sign that the advocates of the “global warming” and “climate change” hoaxes know that the public no longer believes that the former is occurring or that the latter represents an immediate, global threat.

Even though the “climate skeptics”, scientists who have produced research proving false methodology and the conclusions based on it are quite few in number, an effort to silence them by smearing their reputations and denying funding for their work has been launched and it is based entirely on a lie.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, not only of other scientist’s findings, but their own. Good science must be able to reproduce the results of published research. In the case of the many computer models cited as proof that global warming was occurring or would, the passing years have demonstrated that none were accurate.

As Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and Joseph A. Morris, an attorney who has fought in several countries to defend free speech, wrote in a February 24 commentary, “The Crucifixion of Dr. Wei-Hock Soon”, of an article co-authored with Christopher Monckton, Matt Briggs, and David Legates, and published in the Science Bulletin, a publication of the Chinese Academy of Sciences “The article reveals what appears to be an error in the computer models used to predict global warming that leads models to over-estimate future warming by a factor of three.” (Emphasis added) Their commentary has been downloaded more than 10,000 times!

“If the work of Soon et al is confirmed by other scientists, the ‘global warming crisis’ may need to be cancelled and we can all enjoy lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more personal freedom.” However, “having failed to refute the article, environmentalists turned to smearing the authors.”

Little wonder the “Warmists” are worried; the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since 1996. People are noticing just how cold this record-breaking and record-setting winter is.

The attack on Dr. Soon began with a Greenpeace news release that was republished on the front page of The New York Times on February 22^nd. Despite its august reputation, The Times' coverage of climate issues has been an utter disgrace for decades. As public interest waned, it eliminated its staff of reporters exclusively devoted to writing about the “environment.”

Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic and director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted on February 27^th that the Greenpeace attack on Dr. Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics claimed they had secured $1.2 million in funding for his research over the past decade and that it came from energy corporations, electric utilities, and charitable foundations related to those companies. The truth, however, is “that the grants were made not to Dr. Soon but to the Smithsonian, which never complained while taking its sizable cut off the top.”

Columnist Larry Bell who is also an endowed professor at the University of Houston, disputed the Greenpeace claim, saying, “First, let’s recognize that the supporting FOIA documents referred to an agreement between the Smithsonian (not Dr. Soon) and Southern Company Services, Inc., whereby 40 percent of that more than $1.2 million went directly to the Smithsonian” leaving “an average funding of $71,000 a year for the past eleven years to support the actual research activities.”

Focusing on Greenpeace and its Climate Investigations Center which describes itself as “a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change”, Bell asked “Do these activist organizations make their estimated $360,000,000 annual funding publicly available?” Bell said “Ad hominem assaults disparaging the integrity of this leading authority on relationships between solar phenomena and global climate are unconscionable.”

In his article, “Vilifying realist science—and scientists”, Paul Driessen, a policy advisor to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), noted that in 2012 Greenpeace USA was the recipient of $32,791,149 and that this is true of other environmental pressure groups that in 2012 secured $111,915.138 for the Environmental Defense Fund, $98,701,707 for the Natural Resources Defense Council, $97,757,678 for the Sierra Club, and, for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, $19,150,215.

“All told,” noted Driessen, “more than 16,000 American environmental groups collect(ed) total annual revenues of over $13.4 billion (2009 figures). Only a small part of that comes from membership dues and individual contributions.” With that kind of money you can do a lot of damage to scientist’s reputation.

They fear that the public may actually learn the truth about “global warming” and the fear-mongering claims about “climate change” does not stop with just the environmental organizations. At the same time The New York Times was printing the Greenpeace lies, U.S. Senators Ed Market (D-Mass), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) joined together on February 25^th to send letters to 107 companies, trade associations, and non-profit groups demanding comprehensive information about all funding of research on climate or related issues.

Among the groups receiving the letter were two for whom I am a policy advisor, The Heartland Institute and CFACT, but others include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the American Energy Alliance.

Following The New York Times article, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent letters to the presidents of seven universities asking them to provide details about seven professors who are either prominent global warming skeptics.

As Rich Lowrey, editor of the National Review, pointed out on February 27th, that "Science as an enterprise usually doesn't need political enforcers. But proponents of a climate alarmism that demands immediate action to avert worldwide catastrophe won't and can't simply let the science speak for itself."

This is not fact-finding. It is an act of intimidation.

And it looks like a carefully organized effort to quash any research that might dispute “global warming” or “climate change” as defined by the Greens and by both the President and the Secretary of State as the greatest threat we and the rest of the world faces.

The greatest threat is the scores of environmental organizations that have been exaggerating and distorting their alleged “science” in order to thwart development here and around the world that would enhance everyone’s life. Now they are attacking real scientists, those who are skeptical of their claims, to silence them.

This is what fascists do.