Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Sea level in Stockholm, Sweden has dropped 1.25 ft. in last 100 yrs., Naples, Florida sea level only rose 2mm per yr. in past 100 yrs., NOAA data

Update: Since I posted this, the links seem to be inactive.

7/31/13, "Tides and currents, Sea level trends,"

Stockholm, Sweden, "The mean sea level trend is -3.81 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.32 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1889 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of -1.25 feet in 100 years.

Naples, Florida, "The mean sea level trend is 2.02 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.60 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1965 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.66 feet in 100 years,"


"Sea level measurements have yet to prove any meaningful rise" but who cares. Global profiteers say sea level "is a number which will ultimately establish how billions in taxpayer money will be spent."

7/15/2011, "Contradictory Studies: UN Climate Body Struggling to Pinpoint Rising Sea Levels," Der Spiegel, Axel Bojanowski

"The United Nations' forecast of how quickly global sea levels will rise this century is vital in determining how much money might be needed to combat the phenomenon. But predictions by researchers

  • vary wildly, and the attempt to find consensus has become fractious.
It is a number which will ultimately establish how billions in taxpayer money will be spent -- and it is one which is the subject of heated debate, both among politicians and scientists.

When the next report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is issued in two years, it will include a forecast for how high the world's oceans might rise by 2100. With 146 million people in the world currently living less than one meter above sea level, the forecast will be vital in determining how much money governments must spend on measures to protect people from the rising waters and to resettle those in the most acute danger.

Eighteen scientists from 10 countries are involved in the task, and their first step is to determine which of the myriad studies relating to climate change's effect on ocean levels to consider. In the end, they are to establish a possible range, with the maximum being the most decisive -- and most contested -- number. Even more challenging, the estimates currently differ by almost five meters (16.5 feet).

The last IPCC report, which was issued in 2007, forecast an ocean level rise of up to 59 centimeters by the end of the century. Now, the UN experts must once again sift through hundreds of reports, and the haggling over their findings is not unlike the bargaining for the best price at the bazaar. On the one hand, researchers have published forecasts that are far higher than the result reported in the last IPCC report. On the other, sea level measurements have yet to prove any meaningful rise though there is agreement that they are, on global average, rising. "...


Comment: Amazing how unelected, unaccountable profiteers have all the power now.


Scary Reuters sea level report in UK Guardian based on 'new PNAS study' doesn't mention the study was about sea level estimates in the year 4013

A 7/15/13 Reuters article in the UK Guardian has a scary sounding headline about "sea level" rise "per degree of global warming" citing a new PNAS study. The article even quotes the lead author of the PNAS study saying how confident he is of his study's conclusions, that his results are a break from the "uncertainty" of the past, and provide a "robust" number. The author doesn't mention nor is it stated in the Reuters article that the study was an estimate of what things might be like 2000 years from now. You don't find this out unless you read the Abstract of the linked study. The article also doesn't note the overwhelming scientific consensus that global temperatures have been flat for at least 15 years, and that they may or may not rise appreciably in coming decades.

7/15/13, "Sea levels may rise 2.3 metres per degree of global warming, report says," Reuters, via UK Guardian (2.3 meters is approx. 7.5 feet)

Subhead: "Seas will remain high for centuries after temperatures have risen, with the likelihood of more frequent and damaging storms"

(parag. 7): ""In the past there was some uncertainty and people haven't known by how much," Levermann said. "We're saying now, taking everything we know, that we've got a robust estimate of 2.3 meters of rising sea per degree of warming.""....

The next sentence in the article says 2 meter high sea level flooding could wipe away large parts of Bangladesh and Florida within 86 years. It doesn't say that the 2.3 meters expressed confidently in the preceding sentence referred to 2000 years from now:

"Some scientific studies have projected sea level rise of up to 2 metres by 2100, a figure that would swamp large tracts of land from Bangladesh to Florida."...


Following is PNAS Abstract linked in Reuters article, citation for 2000 years is near the end:

7/15/13, "The multimillennial sea-level commitment of global warming," PNAS, Levermann, Potsdam, et al.


"Global mean sea level has been steadily rising over the last century, is projected to increase by the end of this century, and will continue to rise beyond the year 2100 unless the current global mean temperature trend is reversed. Inertia in the climate and global carbon system, however, causes the global mean temperature to decline slowly even after greenhouse gas emissions have ceased, raising the question of how much sea-level commitment is expected for different levels of global mean temperature increase above preindustrial levels. Although sea-level rise over the last century has been dominated by ocean warming and loss of glaciers, the sensitivity suggested from records of past sea levels indicates important contributions should also be expected from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. Uncertainties in the paleo-reconstructions, however, necessitate additional strategies to better constrain the sea-level commitment. Here we combine paleo-evidence with simulations from physical models to estimate the future sea-level commitment on a multimillennial time scale and compute associated regional sea-level patterns. Oceanic thermal expansion and the Antarctic Ice Sheet contribute quasi-linearly, with 0.4 m °C−1 and 1.2 m °C−1 of warming, respectively. The saturation of the contribution from glaciers is overcompensated by the nonlinear response of the Greenland Ice Sheet. As a consequence we are committed to a sea-level rise of approximately 2.3 m °C−1 within the next 2,000 y. Considering the lifetime of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, this imposes the need for fundamental adaptation strategies on multicentennial time scales." 
4/25/2013 Congressional testimony citing 15 year global warming pause:

Dr. Judith Curry, 4/25/13, "STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on “Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context," 25 April 2013, Judith A. Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology:

page 3, "Since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature. While many engaged in the public discourse on this topic dismiss the significance of a hiatus in increasing global temperatures because of expected variations associated with natural variability, analyses of climate model simulations find very unlikely a plateau or period of cooling that extends beyond 17 years in the presence of human-induced global warming....Others have suggested that the pause could last up to two decades (11) or even longer, owing to the transition to the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is associated with a predominance of La Nina (cool) events."...footnote 11, Aug.-Sept. 2009, "Advancing Climate Prediction Science," WMO, Geneva (p. 3 graph shows cooling in early 2000's)


UN IPCC Chief notes 17 year pause in global warming:

2/21/13, IPCC Head Pachauri Acknowledges Global Warming Standstill,” The Australian, Graham Lloyd
"The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office."...


UK Met Office notes pause in global warming since 1998:

1/18/13,Climate change: scientists puzzle over halt in global warming,” Der Spiegel, by Axel Bojanowski (translation from German)

"The British Met Office forecast even more recently that the temperature interval could continue at a high level until the end of 2017 - despite the rapidly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases . Then global warming would pause 20 years."..."The exact reasons of the temperature standstill since 1998, are not yet understood, says climate researcher Doug Smith of the Met Office."...


UK Met Office chart via Der Spiegel   


Comment: Reuters and UK Guardian articles citing new studies of alleged CO2 terror can trigger billions of dollars changing hands. It's important the articles not be grossly misleading. 


To relieve its welfare crisis, Hawaii to offer its 17,000 homeless people 1 way airfare back to home states

7/30/13, "Hawaii sets aside $100,000 to offer its 17,000 homeless people one-way airfare back to their home states," UK Daily Mail

"Supporters hope to take some weight off an overburdened shelter system.

Detractors say the costs and man hours aren't worth it"

image, "A man sleeps near Waikiki Beach, in 2011 in Honolulu," ap

via Free Republic

Home ownership at 18 yr. low. It's mean and not 'inclusive' not to let everyone have a dream house, so US to ease mortgage qualifying again, which is what created the subprime crisis and current depression

"So the question now is do we want to do this again?”" former Deutsche Bank mortgage exec asks.

7/30/13, "American Dream Slipping as Homeownership at 18-Year Low," Bloomberg, Gopal, Benson

"The U.S. homeownership rate, which soared to a record high 69.2 percent in 2004, is back where it was two decades ago, before the housing bubble inflated, busted and ripped more than 7 million Americans from their homes.

With ownership at 65 percent and home values rising, housing industry and consumer groups are pressing lawmakers to make the American Dream more inclusive by ensuring new mortgage standards designed to prevent another crash are flexible enough that more families can benefit from the recovery. Regulators are close to proposing a softened version of a rule requiring banks to keep a stake in risky mortgages they securitize, according to five people familiar with the discussions.

Lawmakers currently shaping housing finance are seeking to reduce the government’s role in keeping rates affordable for riskier borrowers while ensuring homeownership is within reach of minorities and first-time buyers who could be needed to sustain the housing recovery as borrowing costs rise from record lows. Who will be able to buy property depends on the balance they reach, according to Anthony Sanders, a professor of real estate finance at George Mason University in Fairfax Virginia.

Low down-payment loans coupled with exotic adjustable rate mortgages helped fuel a massive housing bubble, which ultimately burst and took down the financial sector,said Sanders, who was the former head of mortgage-bond research at Deutsche Bank AG. “So the question now is do we want to do this again?” 

The homeownership rate in the second quarter was unchanged from the prior three month period, according to Census Bureau data released today. It will hit bottom at about 64 percent in the next year as families leave the foreclosure pipeline and enter rental homes, according to a May analysis by London-based Capital Economics Inc. It’s currently the lowest in almost 18 years after averaging about 64 percent for 30 years through 1995.

First-time buyers and minorities are among the groups that have seen the sharpest declines since the crash. While property ownership among senior citizens was little changed at about 81 percent, the share below age 35 that own a home fell to about 37 percent from almost 42 percent five years earlier.

The rate for blacks reached almost 50 percent in the second quarter of 2004 from about 43 percent in 1995, Census Bureau data show. By the second quarter of this year, it had dropped to 42.9 percent. The rate for whites fell to 73.3 percent in the second quarter, from 76.2 percent in 2004.

In the midst of a new economic push, President Barack Obama, who spent much of his first term managing the foreclosure fallout, is now turning to buying homes. ...

Presidents have been promoting homeownership at least since the Federal Housing Administration was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934 to insure mortgages so more borrowers could qualify. Over more than 50 years, administrations touted property buying as a way to put lower-income families on a path to social and financial stability by forcing savings and making for a more involved citizenry.

Successive Clinton and Bush administrations unleashed ambitious programs to widen buying. Clinton’s “National Homeownership Strategy” in 1995 set a goal of allowing millions of families to own homes, in part, by making financing “more available, affordable, and flexible.”

President Bush credited his policies with homeownership reaching an all-time high after he set a goal in 2002 of allowing 5.5 million poor and moderate-income and minority families to buy homes so that “everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so.

At the center of these efforts were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which financed mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers according to goals set by the federal government that steadily increased until 2008.

As Wall Street helped create subprime and riskier mortgages for borrowers with low credit scores and zero down payments, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought more of the loans to meet those targets.

After house prices peaked in 2006 and then fell as much as 35 percent, defaults surged and the companies required a $187.5 billion bailout from the taxpayer."...via Drudge


Comment: The left is realizing George Bush was one of them. He's grouped here with FDR and Clinton to sell the idea that even though the US is in a permanent depression because of subprime borrowing, Obama should be able to encourage risky loans again without criticism because others like FDR, Clinton, and Bush did.


1122 record cold temps last week of July 2013 in US

7/30/13, "1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week," Robert

"Here it is, from July 23 to July 29 (1 week) in the U.S.. 1,122 Record Cold Temps, 173 Record
 Warm temps. View this map interactively. Click on any of the 1,122 dots and see the details, including new record, old record, and date of the old record.,mintemp,snow,lowmax,highmin". via Climate Depot


Obama isn't out of 'bold' ideas, they're just too controversial for him, his GOP pals, and his media pals to discuss-Regionalism, Plan Bay Area. et al.

Both political parties like this because it crushes the individual. "Regional" governments have been forming for decades. Rosa Koire knows more about this and especially Plan Bay Area than most.

7/30/13, "Regionalism: Obama’s Quiet Anti-Suburban Revolution," NRO, Stanley Kurtz

"Early but unmistakable signs indicate that Obama’s regionalist push is well underway. Yet the president doesn’t discuss his regionalist moves and the press does not report them.

The most obvious new element of the president’s regionalist policy initiative is the July 19 publication of a Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation broadening the obligation of recipients of federal aid to “affirmatively further fair housing.” The apparent purpose of this rule change is to force suburban neighborhoods with no record of housing discrimination to build more public housing targeted to ethnic and racial minorities....

Yet even critics have missed the real thrust of HUD’s revolutionary rule change. That’s understandable, since the Obama administration is at pains to downplay the regionalist philosophy behind its new directive. The truth is, HUD’s new rule is about a great deal more than forcing racial and ethnic diversity on the suburbs. (Regionalism, by the way, is actually highly controversial among minority groups. There are many ways in which both middle-class minorities in suburbs, and less well-off minorities in cities, can be hurt by regionalist policies–another reason those plans are seldom discussed.)

The new HUD rule is really about changing the way Americans live. It is part of a broader suite of initiatives designed to block suburban development, press Americans into hyper-dense cities, and force us out of our cars. Government-mandated ethnic and racial diversification plays a role in this scheme, yet the broader goal is forced “economic integration.” The ultimate vision is to make all neighborhoods more or less alike, turning traditional cities into ultra-dense Manhattans, while making suburbs look more like cities do now. In this centrally-planned utopia, steadily increasing numbers will live cheek-by-jowl in “stack and pack” high-rises close to public transportation, while automobiles fall into relative disuse. To understand how HUD’s new rule will help enact this vision, we need to turn to a less-well-known example of the Obama administration’s regionalist interventionism.

In the face of heated public protest, on July 18, two local agencies in metropolitan San Francisco approved “Plan Bay Area,” a region-wide blueprint designed to control development in the nine-county, 101-town region around San Francisco for the next 30 years. The creation of a region-wide development plan–although it flies in the face of America’s core democratic commitment to local control–is mandated by California’s SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. The ostensible purpose of this law is to combat global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That is supposedly why California’s legislature empowered regional planning commissions to override local governments and press development away from suburbs into densely-packed urban areas. In fact, the reduction of greenhouse gases (which Plan Bay Area does little to secure) largely serves as a pretext for undercutting the political and economic independence of California suburbs.

Essentially, Plan Bay Area attempts to block the development of any new suburbs, forcing all population growth over the next three decades into the existing “urban footprint” of the region. The plan presses 70-80 percent of all new housing and 66 percent of all business expansion into 150 or so “priority development areas” (PDAs), select neighborhoods near subway stations and other public transportation facilities. This scheme will turn up to a quarter of the region’s existing neighborhoods–many now dotted with San Francisco’s famously picturesque, Victorian-style single-family homes–into mini-Manhattans jammed with high-rises and tiny apartments. The densest PDAs will be many times denser than Manhattan. (See the powerful ten-minute audio-visual assault on Plan Bay Area at the 45-55 minute mark of this debate.)

In effect, by preventing the development of new suburbs, and reducing traditional single-family home development in existing suburbs, Plan Bay Area will squeeze 30 years worth of in-migrating population into a few small urban enclaves, and force most new businesses into the same tight quarters. The result will be a steep increase in the Bay Area’s already out-of-control housing prices. This will hit the poor and middle class the hardest. While some poor and minority families will receive tiny subsidized apartments in the high-rise PDAs, many others will find themselves displaced by the new development, or priced out of the local housing market altogether.

A regional plan that blocks traditional suburban development, densifies cities, and urbanizes suburbs on this scale is virtually unprecedented. That’s why the Obama administration awarded the agencies behind Plan Bay Area its second-highest “Sustainable Communities Grant” in 2012. Indeed, the terms of the administration’s grant reinforce the pressure for density. The official rationale behind the federal award is “encouraging connections” between jobs, housing, and transportation.

That sounds like a directive to locate new residents–poor and minorities included–in existing prosperous communities. In fact, HUD’s new emphasis on “connecting” jobs housing and transportation does more. In practice, bland bureaucratic language about blending jobs, housing, and transportation pressures localities to create Manhattan-style “priority development areas.” The San Francisco case reveals the administration’s broader intentions. Soon HUD and other agencies will begin to press localities directly, rather than through the medium of California’s new regionalist scheme. Replicating Plan Bay Area nationwide is the Obama administration’s goal.

The Enactment of Plan Bay Area was wildly controversial among those who managed to learn about it, yet went largely unnoticed in the region as a whole. One of the chief complaints of the plan’s opponents was the relative lack of publicity accorded a decision with such transformative implications. Critics called for a public vote, and complained that the bureaucrats in charge hadn’t been elected.

Another theme of critics was that “the fix” seemed to be in from the start. Input was largely ignored, opponents claimed, and public forums offered only the illusion of consultation. Although it’s gone largely unreported, that accusation is far truer than even the opponents of Plan Bay Area realize.

Here’s where the Obama administration comes in. Not only does acceptance of the administration’s $5 million grant make it next-to-impossible to de-densify Plan Bay Area, but the grant itself helps to fund “grassroots” supporters of the plan–leftist groups dedicated to radicalizing the scheme still further.

The administration’s “sustainable communities” grants generally require recipients to “partner” with local leftist community organizations. Opponents of Plan Bay Area often outnumber supporters at public meetings. Yet such supporters as are present–groups like TransForm, the Greenbelt Alliance, Marin Grassroots, and East Bay Housing Organization–are funded (or slated to be funded) with the help of the same federal grant that backs up the bureaucrats in charge.

Press accounts of the Plan Bay Area controversy generally say nothing about the financial interest that “non-profit” “grassroots” organizations have in passage of the plan, or about pressures on the bureaucrats in charge to maintain their government-mandated “partnerships” with these community organizations. So when opponents of Plan Bay Area complain about officials simply going through the motions of public consultation, they’re right. The deck is stacked, the fix is in. By way of the federal grant, many of the “grassroots” groups that support Plan Bay Area are actually partners of the decision makers (the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments). The Obama administration’s role in all this, while generally unnoticed, is substantial.

If you complain that the regional bureaucracy behind Plan Bay Area undercuts democracy and local control, you’ll be told that local governments retain full authority over land-use within their jurisdictions. In reality, Plan Bay Area subverts that control, and the Obama administration plays a role here as well....Now that Plan Bay Area has been formally approved, MTC can withhold billions of dollars in federal aid from suburban jurisdictions that refuse to densify, leaving local bridges and highways in disrepair. One of the core goals of the Obama administration’s Sustainable Communities Initiative is to use federal transportation aid as a stick to force regionalist planning on unwilling suburbs.

Recalcitrant suburbs can also be brought to heel by lawsuits claiming violations of federal fair housing law. California’s SB375 facilitates such suits by placing the burden of proof on local jurisdictions accused of housing discrimination. Such legal claims are often brought by leftist community organizations of the type currently funded through the Obama administration’s grant....

All of which returns us to HUD’s controversial new regulation expanding the obligation of recipients of federal aid to “affirmatively further fair housing.” When HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan announced that rule change, he acknowledged that it wasn’t really focused on preventing “outright discrimination and access to the housing itself.” The Obama administration is using traditional anti-discrimination language as a cover for a re-engineering the way we live. The real goal is to Manhattanize America, and force us out of our cars....

With the new HUD rule in place, municipalities will be under heavy pressure to allow multifamily developments in areas previously zoned for single-family housing. The new counting scheme, which measures access to housing, jobs, and transportation, will simultaneously create pressures to push businesses into the newly densified areas, and to locate those centers near transportation hubs.

In effect, HUD’s new rule gives the federal government a tool to press ultra-dense Plan Bay Area-style “priority development areas” on regions across the country.

HUD’s new rule also allows the creation of regional housing consortia. Although the choice to join such regional housing partnerships would technically be voluntary, the administration will be able to use the same combination of legal threats and funding leverage we’ve seen in San Francisco to pressure municipalities to join the consortia.

Over the next few years, select Regional Planning Grants funded under the Obama administration’s Sustainable Communities Initiative will be issuing regional development plans guided by the same philosophy that informs Plan Bay Area. So even in states without California-style regionalist legislation in place, a federally-funded structure with the potential to override local control, block suburban development, and force densification will be created. The Obama administration’s goal is to use legal and financial carrots and sticks to press Plan Bay Area clones on regions across the country through its federally-funded Regional Planning Grant program. The new HUD rule will be folded into this broader strategy. (I lay out the structure, philosophy, and history of that strategy in Spreading the Wealth.)

When Secretary Donovan announced the sweeping new HUD rule, he said: “Make no mistake: this is a big deal.” He’s right. Yet the mainstream press has ignored the change, as well as the broader story behind it. Recognizing the politically explosive nature of its regionalist plans, the Obama administration does little to connect the dots for the public at large. Above all, the president himself avoids this issue, although it’s deeply embedded in his administration’s policies.

Obama isn’t actually out of bold ideas. They’re simply too controversial for him to discuss. The time has come for a national debate on the Obama administration’s regionalist policies." via Atlas Shrugs


Comment: I appreciate the great article, but the last sentence didn't fit. National debate? By whom and via what outlet? Good grief. It's all over. Rosa Koire is making as much difference as one person can.


Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Five reasons UK Conservatives deserve to lose the next election-James Delingpole

7/30/13, "Five reasons why the Conservatives deserve to lose the next election," UK Telegraph, James Delingpole

"1. Cowardice. Whose bright idea was it to ban Nigel Farage from speaking at the Tory conference in Manchester? And what kind of signal does this send out to all those waverers in the party wondering whether or not to transfer the allegiances to UKIP?

"We're so concerned that Nigel Farage might tell you stuff that you want to hear that we've decided not to let you hear it."

2. Spinelessness. Remember all that talk about the importance of localism? Remember all those principled-sounding statements we've had from the likes of John Hayes and Eric Pickles that in future if communities don't want wind turbines imposed on them then they won't have to? Well, it seems all that has gone by the board. No doubt under combined pressure from all the energy companies (whose beneficiaries range from the deputy prime minister's wife to the prime minister's father in law) and the ideological greens at DECC, Cameron's faux-conservatives have caved yet again. I'm told by planning experts that Eric Pickles's vaunted amendments will make not the blindest bit of difference to communities trying to fight wind turbines. So this betrayal of their natural constituency in the shires will help the Conservatives how, exactly?

3.Dishonesty. Immigration, the Conservatives have twigged, is a key issue to many voters. Hence those crass, ugly billboards. Hence scary Immigration Minister Mark Harper's tough-sounding statements about how the Coalition is really on top of the problem. Except as Andrew Gilligan revealed in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph it's all a nonsense. Our statistics on immigration are so unreliable as to be meaningless. I don't know about you but I don't like being taken for a fool by a party angling for my vote.

4. Cynicism. Much sense has been talked by those who understand the internet – among them, Mic Wright and Willard Foxton, both of this parish – about the illiberalism and counterproductivity of Cameron's grandstanding crusade against all manner of online pornography. If it makes no sense, why is he doing it? Why out of a cynical attempt to win the approval of the leftist harpies at MumsNet, of course. Sorry but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that government policy should be based on high principle and sound evidence, not on cheap, cynical bids to appeal to socialistic control freaks outside your natural constituency. But then, Dave does think of himself as the "heir to Blair" doesn't he?

5. Incompetence. Do you know what, though? I think I could still forgive the Tories all of the above if they'd at least managed to do the one thing Tories are always supposed to be good at: undoing the economic mess created by the previous socialist administration.

But this "economic recovery" we're allegedly experiencing is, like "green jobs", a chimera. Liam Halligan doesn't believe in it.

(Nor, suspects Rob Tyler, is it any different in the US.)

And no, this isn't just a cyclical thing or a world-economy thing. It's a direct consequence of Cameron's and Osborne's failure to acknowledge the scale of the problem and deal with it.

"The framework required to support meaningful growth is simply not there. We are still spending beyond our means, the national debt is still ruinous, we still have a massive balance of trade deficit, and the government seems in no hurry to do anything about it. A wrecking ball should have been taken to New Labour’s policies by now, given that they’re largely responsible for the mess we’re in. Instead, David Cameron is like a man who’s been put in charge of the family Christmas and doesn’t want to upset the old’uns by changing too much. Apart from walnuts in the sprouts and a new board game for after dinner, it’s the same as it ever was.""


Comment: Sounds familiar. Their country is the farthest thing from their mind.

Thanks to ObamaCare Detroit's inability to pay for yesterday's party will be forgiven by you and your next door neighbor. The same is expected in Chicago and other places

7/29/13, "Detroit Shows How ObamaCare Will Bankrupt the Country," IBD Editorial

"Looks like Detroit might get a federal bailout after all, by offloading its retiree health costs onto federal taxpayers via ObamaCare. It's a window into why Obama-Care costs will quickly spiral out of control. 
On Sunday, the New York Times noted that Detroit hopes to push its younger retirees who aren't yet eligible for Medicare into the ObamaCare exchanges, where many will be eligible for subsidized insurance. Federal tax payers will pick up the tab, rather than those in Detroit. (IBD's Jed Grahamfirst wrote about this last month.)

One of the first to suggest this clever cost-shifting idea was Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who was in the Obama administration while it was putting ObamaCare together. In May, he revealed plans to save about $108 million a year by tossing 30,000 retirees into the ObamaCare exchanges.

If Detroit and Chicago get away with this, you can bet other cities will try, too. The U.S.' 61 largest cities have more than $118 billion in unfunded retiree health care liabilities, the Pew Charitable Trusts estimates.

And the National League of Cities is practically drooling over the opportunity to shift as much as possible onto ObamaCare.

"It offers a very high-quality, potentially very affordable way to get people into health care without the burden falling back on to the city and town," NLC's program head Neil Bomberg told the New York Times.

Cities aren't the only ones to realize this ObamaCare opportunity. The Congressional Budget Office figures that private companies will dump millions of workers into the exchanges, either by eliminating jobs, cutting hours or dropping benefits.

A recent example is Wegmans, a Northeast-based upscale grocery chain that used to offer health benefits to part-time workers who put in as few as 20 hours a week. Come next year, those workers will have to buy their coverage in the ObamaCare exchanges instead.

Brian Murphy, a partner at a Buffalo, N.Y., insurance brokerage firm, called Wegmans' move "a win-win" because "the employee gets subsidized coverage, and the employer gets to lower costs."

To be sure, these cities and companies are merely responding to the perverse incentives that were, either accidentally or by design, built into ObamaCare. But this is only a "win-win" if you ignore the fact that someone has to pay. And that someone is federal taxpayers.

ObamaCare costs are already running ahead of plan, and as more cities and businesses try to dump their health care problems into it, ObamaCare's costs will explode. That, in turn, will force additional rounds of massive tax hikes, or trillions more in federal debt.

Either way, economic growth will be stunted, making ObamaCare a lose-lose for everyone."

Ed. note: Please excuse bright white background behind this post. It was put there by google hackers.


Beltway political class is now a seething criminal mob that views an advanced society of 300 million people as dirty urchins who have no choice but to submit. GOP will love Obama's Ron Binz for FERC. Binz sees 'broad societal benefits' of no CO2, 'natural gas a dead end' v CO2. This is genocide.

"Mr. Binz assured Xcel that it could pass on to rate payers, with a guaranteed return, whatever capital investment was necessary to replace the working coal assets."

7/29/13, "Ron Binz's Rules for Radicals," Wall St. Journal Editorial

"President Obama's rule-makers have amped up major regulators like the Environmental Protection Agency and now they're turning to more obscure outposts. Take the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, which oversees electric transmission and interstate pipelines. Or used to.

Now FERC has deputized itself as a Wall Street regulator. This month the commission squeezed Barclays BARC.LN -0.50% for $435 million for alleged energy-market manipulation, the largest penalty in FERC's history and more than all of its previous fines combined. Another $410 million fine will soon hit J.P. Morgan, according to a Journal scoop.

Yet that will seem minor if the next FERC chairman is Ron Binz—the most important and radical Obama nominee you've never heard of. An electric regulator in Colorado from 2007 to 2011, Mr. Binz is the latest Presidential nominee who doesn't understand the difference between making laws and enforcing them.

No, that's unfair. Mr. Binz doesn't care about the difference. In a recent interview with the Association for the Demand Response and Smart Grid trade group, reflecting on the lessons of his Colorado job, he nodded at the "judicial role" of regulators. But then he mused about their "legislative role" too: "I saw the commission not simply as an umpire calling balls and strikes, but also as a leader on policy implementation."

This philosophy is especially troubling for a commission like FERC, which is supposed to be an even-handed arbitrator independent of the executive branch. FERC's narrow legal obligations include protecting the affordability and reliability of the U.S. power supply and electric grid—goals that are in more than a little tension with Mr. Obama's anticarbon program. The law is a nuisance when you think you're saving the planet.

Mr. Binz was supposed to fill a similarly neutral role in Colorado when then Democratic Governor Bill Ritter appointed him chairman of the public utility commission. Prior to his tenure, that job consisted of consumer protection and ensuring that electricity was low-cost. But Mr. Ritter wanted to do something about climate change, and Mr. Binz told the Denver Post in 2007 (using the third person) that "There's an expectation that the chair will carry a banner for the new administration."
Mr. Binz became the point man for legislation that would all but force several Denver-area coal plants to convert to natural gas though they weren't slated for retirement. He even negotiated terms directly with the Colorado power company that it was his responsibility to regulate, Xcel Energy XEL +0.40% .

Mr. Binz assured Xcel that it could pass on to rate payers, with a guaranteed return, whatever capital investment was necessary to replace the working coal assets. Documents obtained by the Colorado Mining Association under a state open records law show that Mr. Binz promised "extraordinary cost recovery." In a March 2010 email, he wrote that "I think it's more nearly a self-fulfilling prophecy—the larger (and faster) the cost burden in the Company's approved plan, the stronger the basis for the Commission to adopt extraordinary regulatory measures to assure the Company's financial health." 

In other words, the more Xcel spent in the name of the Ritter-Binz political agenda, the more Mr. Binz would use the discretion he gave himself in the law he wrote to give Xcel favorable treatment. When Stockholm syndrome set in with Xcel and the company took the deal, Mr. Binz exulted that "the eagle has landed." It was great for everyone except the consumers involuntarily funding it.

Mr. Binz would almost certainly commander the same extralegal powers at FERC to perpetrate similar abuses, regardless of congressional intent. "Regulation needs to shift from its backward-looking focus on costs, to a forward-looking emphasis on value and desired societal outcomes," he says. In a 2012 report for the consultant Ceres subtitled "What Every State Regulator Needs to Know," Mr. Binz added that "Both regulators and utilities need to evolve beyond historical practice," and he encouraged utility commissioners to expand their mandates to include his subjective conception of the "broad societal benefits" of low- or no-carbon power.

FERC was a sleepy regulator until the Obama Presidency, but it has statutory powers that could be turned into anticarbon weapons, such as the authority to impose fines of up $1 million per day for what it claims are violations. They also include the power to block energy mergers and the construction of terminals, pipelines and transmission.

You can bet that Mr. Binz will be creative and political, and don't be so sure his only target is coal. At an Edison Foundation panel this March, he called natural gas a "dead end" technology because "on the carbon basis, you hit the wall in 2035 or so." He added that "We have to do better on carbon than even natural gas will allow us to do." This is unusual in that the greens usually pretend to support gas to make outlawing coal seem more reasonable. Mr. Binz let the mask slip.

Mr. Binz is part of the White House's damn-the-voters strategy of imposing through regulation what Congress won't pass, and now he wants to glide into FERC without protest. But the Senate's advice-and-consent role is especially important because a FERC chairman has broad powers, much like a CEO's, even if other commissioners dissent—and the chairman is not supposed to carry Mr. Obama's banner. Mr. Binz's record and methods deserve far more scrutiny than they have received."


Comment: The problem is that the GOP agrees with Obama's 'damn the voter strategy.' The American public has no one to protect it from a genocidal executive branch.


3/27/13, "Is the Republican Party America's Achilles Heel?" American Thinker, Steve McCann


 "Obama re-election helped GOP House Speaker Boehner": NPR

12/8/12, "Once Boxed-In, Boehner May Finally Be Master Of The House," NPR, Frank James


2/20/13, "As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned," Angelo Codevilla, Forbes 


10/20/11, "The lost decade," Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Inst.

"America's current ruling class, the people who lost the War on Terror, monopolizes the upper reaches of American public life, the ranks of those who make foreign and domestic policy, including the leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties. It is more or less homogeneous socially and intellectually."...


It's not the 'phony scandals,' it's the phony investigations into them by the GOP

7/29/13, "‘Phony Scandals’? No, Phony Investigations,", B. Fawstin

"“Phony scandals,” Mr. President? No, your scandals are as real as can be, it’s the GOP’s investigations into them that are phony. Speaker of the House John Boehner has refused to appoint a special prosecutor to the Benghazi massacre investigation. Why? Because he made a deal with Obama? Because he simply doesn’t give a damn? Whatever the reason, he’s obstructing the ability to get to the bottom of it once and for all. When the IRS scandal hit, Boehner came out to the media and burped out, “Who’s going to jail?He’s done nothing to answer his own question. Who has paid a price for Obama’s scandals? Can you name one individual? What has Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, done about these scandals? Has he even said anything of note about them? Now, the IRS’s profiling of Tea Party groups was a terrible thing to learn about for Americans, but for politicians in both parties, they could care less, since the Tea Party isn’t only a threat to the Democrats, but to the Republicans as well.

Not only do we have the most lawless administration in American history at this moment in time, but we have the most gutless opposition a party in power has ever had. The only way we can get to the bottom of these scandals is if the next midterms replace the current Republican leadership with those who understand what’s at stake and who are willing to fight the bastards in both parties, tooth and nail. No more phony leadership." via Free Republic


If Eric Cantor had relatives, they might be illegal Jewish immigrants who were strangers in a strange land, homeless, and needing amnesty

7/29/13, "SCHMUCK: Eric Cantor Pimps Judaism for Immigration Amnesty,", By Debbie Schlussel

 "It’s official: Eric Cantor is a pimp. He’s pimping my religion to push immigration amnesty and the further destruction of America. Cantor is yet another RINO-JINO (Republican In Name Only-Jew In Name Only) who needs to drink a nice tall glass of STFU juice. 

Speaking to a typical liberal Jewish group, Cantor ingratiated himself by using the embarrassing, fallacious, tired, old, hackneyed BS constantly spouted by only the most far-left, self-hating “rabbis” in pushing amnesty: that the Jews were strangers in a strange land (something constantly pushed by Islamo-pandering Rabbi David Nelson of Detroit), that they were homeless and stateless from the land of Israel while they were slaves in Egypt. Blah. Blah. Blah. STFU. (I hate linking to or using anything from the liars at Breitfraud, but in this case, they are the only source.)

I am both a first-generation Jewish American and a fourth-generation Jewish American. On my father’s side, my great-grandparents and grandfather (and his two brothers) came to America around the turn of the century to escape a life of anti-Semitic persecution in Poland. My paternal grandmother came here to escape a life of poverty on a rural Polish farm so she could be raised like a daughter by my retired, successful shoe store entrepreneur great-uncle Chaim and his wife, my great-aunt Rose, who could not have children. On my mother’s side, she and my grandparents came to America after my grandparents survived the Holocaust and she was born in Bergen Belsen, which was then a displaced person’s camp. Every single one of my relatives who came to America did it the right way.

All of my relatives came here legally. They did not sneak in through desert borders or waterways or someone’s ranch in the shadow of night. They came here with papers and went through immigration personnel and authorities. My relatives–once they were here–did not go on public assistance, demand bilingual education, ask America to pay for them to give birth to and then feed their kids. They didn’t ask for free healthcare and portable phones on everyone else’s dime, either. Nope. My family members, who spoke no English, had no money, and came here with nothing, went to work. They taught themselves to read and write and they attained skills and created businesses. They became productive and educated Americans, all legally and all without taking a dime from Uncle Sam.

How dare that jerk, Eric Cantor, compare my family’s hard work and sacrifices, my family’s complete abidance by the law, their legal entrance, with some scumbag named Mohammed whose parents came here illegally on a visitor’s visa and never left. How dare he. But he did it. Like a typical liberal Jew–and make no mistake about the phony “R” after his name; Eric Cantor is a liberal–he actually compared productive generations of great American Jews who came here the right way, the proper way, the hard way, who contributed great things to America . . . to drug smugglers, terrorist wannabes, welfare queens, and other malefactor illegal aliens....

American Jewish immigrants who–throughout American history–made this country great are nothing like the lowlife criminals to whom you now want to open the floodgates of America.

With “Jews” like Eric Cantor, who needs Muslims?" image of Eric Cantor from

Professor Jacobson sends pictures from the Golan Heights including fences and land mine warnings for those who couldn't make it to Israel this summer

7/29/13, "On the Golan Heights – The Battle of Tel Saki," Legal Insurrection, William a. Jacobson

"Another in my ongoing posts from Israel:

We spent the day on the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border near Metula.  We were accompanied by my good friend from Moscow days who I mentioned in a prior post. We were led by Hadar Sela of BBC Watch blog, who lives on the Golan and has an amazing knowledge of the topography, history, people, and politics.

I had intended to do one blog post — but soon realized there was just too much to cover so I’ll break it down into three posts to run on separate days – The Battle of Tel Saki, The Valley of Tears, and The Lebanese Border.  The blog posts will track our journey from the southern to northern Golan, then down to Metula in Israel proper.

We started the day where we stayed overnight last night, Kibbutz Sha’ar HaGolan to the south of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), in the shadow of the Golan Heights:...

We then drove on the snake-like Highway 98 up the side of the Golan Heights facing Jordan across a deep ravine The border fence along the road is shown in this photo — my reaction was the same as yours probably is — that’s the border fence!  We were assured that the Jordanian policing of its side of the border together with the topography was sufficient.

(Highway 98, Israel, climbing Golan Heights – Jordan Border Fence)

Note also the red triangle signifying a minefield — something we would see repeatedly throughout the Golan even away from the border.  Vigorous warning signs not to leave the established roads and pathways were everywhere. We then reached Kibbutz Kfar Haruv:"...(much more and more photos at site)


Monday, July 29, 2013

Senator Mike Lee on Mark Levin show, mentions petition site for those who want to support defunding ObamaCare

7/29/13, Senator Mike Lee on Mark Levin show, mentions website to sign petition to stop funding for ObamaCare


Sen. Mike Lee was on Mark's show Monday night between 7:15-7:30pm Eastern. He explained that ObamaCare is simply Washington DC vs the rest of the country. The people don't want it. Senator Lee is trying to give a voice to the people. His effort is to keep funding government with the exception of ObamaCare. He mentioned a website for those who'd like to sign a petition to stop funding ObamaCare. I signed it. At least 1000 more people have signed the petition in the past half hour:


or Don'


Added: It's now 12:28AM, Tues. am. When I signed the petition around 8pm Monday night, there were 54,000+ signatures. Now there are 67,000+. In case anyone is on the fence, this is how I explain ObamaCare: George Bush and his crowd for 8 years cavalierly destroyed both the Republican Party and the country. After the 2008 elections, there were almost no Republicans left in the House. And deservedly so. This freak occurrence in the House allowed a freak voting procedure that enabled ObamaCare to pass even though it really wasn't about health care and the American people didn't want it. People joke about things being "Bush's fault" and ObamaCare really was. Then came the Nov. 2010 elections in which we gave the GOP House all it needed to defund ObamaCare. This didn't mean taking an up or down vote on the whole bill, it meant defunding it. The House has 100% discretion to do this--not half of one third or the like. Guess what? GOP leadership wouldn't allow the subject to be mentioned on the floor, still hasn't. Boehner put an ObamaCare defunding measure in the GOP controlled House Appropriations committee where it was "deadlocked" for over a year. Right. That's how much the GOP establishment including the Bush crowd, Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, hates this country and ordinary Americans. This doesn't even get into the details of ObamaCare. We're an advanced nation of 300 million people being treated like unwashed street urchins. It's got to stop. Bankers,  lobbyists, and EuroTrash now control this country. We need to get it back.


In June 2007,  Peggy Noonan said George Bush #1 and #2 had destroyed the Republican Party, and since at least 2004 the grassroots had more than ample reason to leave the Bush crowd. Her own separation from the Bush admin. began in Jan. 2005:

6/2/2007, "Too bad," Wall St. Journal column by Peggy Noonan:

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker -- "At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base."...  


To protect ObamaCare from being defunded, the House GOP establishment stuck the defunding bill in a GOP controlled committee and wouldn't let it out. The only reason we gave them the majority in Nov. 2010 was so they could defund ObamaCare. And they laughed in our face:

9/29/11, "Draft spending bill would defund Obama healthcare law," The Hill, Sam Baker

"House Republicans released a draft spending bill Thursday that would cut off funding for many parts of the healthcare reform law, though the bill remains deadlocked in the Appropriations Committee."...



Anthony Weiner told sext-mate he wanted to get her a job at Politico

7/29/13, "WEINER EXCLUSIVE - 'I'm huge, I can help you': Anthony Weiner bragged that he'd use his influence to help sexting partner get condo in Chicago where they could secretly meet up for sex," UK Daily Mail, Nathan and Daniel
"Bragging about his influence, Weiner also claimed that he wanted to get Sydney a pass to the Democratic National Convention last year – as well as a job at the Politico website."...via Lucianne