At a naturalization ceremony on July 4, President Obama vowed to do "everything I can" to pass amnesty legislation that would give a pathway to citizenship to all of the country's illegal immigrants. He apparently believes that he hasn't done enough to get out the word that he does not believe in border security or the enforcement of our current immigration law. With the invasion across our southern border by unaccompanied Central American minors, I conclude that the word is out.
Isn't it time to call out the National Guard to stem the invasion? Governor Perry is obviously right that it is. Which means that it won't be happening any time soon, if Obama has anything to say about it.
Neil Munro reports in the Daily Caller that the administration is delivering 290,000 illegals in the current invasion to homes in the United States. Munro links to New York Times articles.
Obama's behavior in the current crisis lends support to the most fevered interpretations of Obama's aims and motives. We are under invasion. A reasonable man might conclude that Obama supports it.
From PJ Tatler:
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen looks like he got the job atop the taxman agency the old fashioned way: He bought it.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Koskinen has donated about $100,000 to Democrat candidates and committees since his first donation in 1979. His donor recipients include the Democratic nominee in each presidential campaign since 1980. He most recently donated $2,500 to Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) in 2013.
He has given no money to Republicans. The taxman is a partisan Democrat.
When President Obama appointed Koskinen to take over the IRS, that decision came at the time the IRS was already under scrutiny for its partisan attacks on conservative groups.
Sen. Orin Hatch said that the appointment left him “more than a little mystified.”
There was nothing mystifying about it. President Obama had already declared that there was not a “smidgen of corruption” in the IRS scandal.
Appointing a partisan Democrat to head the IRS ensured that such smigdens would never get out. It was also an in-your-face move against Republicans, daring them to oppose the nomination.
By the way, it appears that Koskinen may have lied under oath to Congress in last week’s hearings both on the subject of the “lost” Lerner emails.
As if that’s anything unusual for Obama appointees.
Obama, Nov. 1, 2012:
"Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead."
Maybe I'm missing it but at the techcrunch website the graphic showing the important companies in the IOT doesn't show SWIR. The article is "Making sense of the internet of things".
Speech to the VFW:
We’re launching a new competition to capture the very best ideas of our VA employees who work with you every day.
We’re going to challenge each of our 57 regional VA offices to come up with the best ways of doing business, harnessing the best information technologies, breaking through the bureaucracy.
And then we’re going to fund the best ideas and put them into action. All with a simple mission—cut those backlogs, slash those wait times and deliver your benefits sooner. I know, you’ve heard this for years. But with the leadership and resources we’re providing, I know we can do this. And that is our mission.
Taken together, these investments represent an historic increase in our commitment to America’s veterans— the largest increase in the VA budget in more than 30 years. And over the next five years we’ll invest another $25 billion more.
"we have proposed cutting tens of billions of dollars in waste we don’t need."
"Hundreds of millions of dollars for an alternate second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter—when one reliable engine will do just fine. Nearly two billion dollars to buy more F-22 fighter jets when we can move ahead with a fleet of newer, more affordable aircraft. Tens of billions of dollars to put an anti-missile laser on a fleet of vulnerable 747s."
"And billions of dollars for a new presidential helicopter. Maybe you heard about this. Among other capabilities, it would let me cook a meal while under nuclear attack."
From May 9, 2014: Obama’s New Helicopter Fleet Could Cost $20 Billion
The Pentagon has awarded a contract to begin development of the most expensive helicopters ever made.
Each helicopter will probably cost at least $400 million.
The passengers for this enormously expensive helicopter fleet? The President of the United States and his entourage.
They must be “hardened” against the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear blast that could fry electronics and knock out everything from smartphones to helicopters.
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source is a 2004 essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article by Maggie Zimmerman, a student at the Univ of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree". The "97 percent" figure in the survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who...said they published more than half of their recent papers on climate change.
In 2013, John Cook reviewed abstracts of papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education, for example, David R. Legates - University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research - and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion - had been found to endorse" the claim. scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner whose research questions the alleged consensus, said that Cook ignored or misrepresent their work
Since Israel has free one man one vote elections (unlike virtually every Arab nation), it's a democracy. Period.
The 1.6 million Arab Israelis are more prosperous and free than Arabs in Arab countries. Some of those nations used to have significant Jewish populations and expelled them.
I already made a post explaining why there is this incessant focus on Israel, as opposed to the many other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, but it got removed. So I won't repeat the previous explanation, but it's obvious.
UBS said Splunk reported a solid Q1 but has fallen victim to multiple contraction like other high growth software companies. The analyst said fundamentals remain strong and that the magnitude of the Q1 beat was above its historical average. The firm reiterates its Buy rating but lowers its price target to $56 from $100 given multiple contraction.
NO SIGN OF A SLOWDOWN WHATSOEVER!!
Ron Paul's nonprofit Campaign for Liberty will fight the Internal Revenue Service's demand that it reveal its donor list to the agency, despite having already been fined for refusing to do so.
"There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty," Megan Stiles, the communications director, told the Washington Examiner. "We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way."
Ron Paul suggested that the group will refuse to pay the IRS fine in a fundraising email to supporters.
"Paying this outrageous extortionist fine — just to exercise our rights as American citizens to petition our government — may even be cheaper in the short run," he wrote. "But it'll just embolden an alphabet soup of other federal agencies to come after us." Paul's email said that the rule requiring that 501(c)(4)s list their donors is "rarely enforced."
Stiles accused the IRS of trying to silence her organization. "The IRS technically requires donor information from 501(c)(4) organizations and is forbidden by law from releasing it to the public, yet despite this they have 'mistakenly' released the information repeatedly over the years," she wrote. "Often these leaks have been made to political opponents of the conservative groups whose information was leaked. Leaking the donor information is intended to harass and to intimidate those donors from donating to political causes. Campaign for Liberty has refused to provide donor information to the IRS to protect the privacy of our members. Now the IRS has demanded the information and fined Campaign for Liberty for protecting its members' privacy."
I hope they do pull out of the West Bank completely, which I think they're planning to do. Then the Palestinian leadership can employ them. Course their wonderful leaders pocket most of the billions the west foolishly gives them, like Arafat did.
There is no apartheid in Israel. Are you the same lunatic who compared Gaza, which Israel totally vacated years ago, to the Warsaw ghetto? Probably yes.
John Hinderaker remarks about this:
As discussed in the Climategate emails, this is how Mann and his fellow alarmists "hi[d] the decline" in Briffa’s data. It is hard to imagine a worse case of scientific fraud, but the history of alarmist "climate science" is rife with this kind of misconduct. In my opinion, the systematic alteration of data by government agencies to make the past look cooler is just as bad. This is what happens when governments offer billions of dollars to scientists, but only if they come up with ever more alarming predictions of what will happen if we don’t give the political class more money and power.
John Christy was a Lead Author of the Third IPCC report in 2001. In Congressional testimony, he explained how a politically-motivated desire to promote the hockey stick caused Michael Mann and others to falsify data:
The Hockey Stick curve depicts a slightly meandering Northern Hemisphere cooling trend from 1000 A.D. through 1900, which then suddenly swings upward in the last 80 years to temperatures warmer than any of the millennium. To many, this appeared to be a "smoking gun" that the 20th century warming was unprecedented.
We were appointed L.A.s in 1998. The Hockey Stick was prominently featured during IPCC meetings from 1999 onward. Those not familiar with issues regarding reconstructions of this type were truly enamored by its depiction of temperature. Skepticism was virtually non-existent.
In our Sept. 1999 meeting we were shown more temperature curves including one that diverged significantly from the others, showing a sharp cooling trend after 1960. It raised the obvious problem that if tree rings were not detecting the modern warming trend, they might also have missed comparable warming episodes in the past. absence of the Medieval warming in the Hockey Stick might simply mean tree ring proxies are unreliable.
Mann remarked in emails that he did not want to cast "doubt on our ability to understand factors that influence these estimates" and thus, "undermine faith in paleoestimates" which would provide "fodder" to "skeptics". One may interpret this to imply that being open and honest about uncertainties was not the purpose of this IPCC section.
Between this email and the next draft sent out (Nov 1999) two things happened: (a) the email referring to a "trick" to "hide the decline" and (b) the cooling portion of Briffa’s curve had been truncated for the IPCC report.
When we met in February 2000, the one disagreeable curve had been modified and truncated around 1960.
Mann and his co-conspirators simply deleted the data that didn’t fit their theory.
What started the HadCRUT controversy was the release of internal emails from researchers there. One of the people at the center of the controversy, Phil Jones, suddenly announced after the controversy erupted, that, oddly, much of the data on which they base their calculations was missing, allegedly due to him not being a good record keeper.
HadCRUT is one of the primary sources of information used by the IPCC, the UN organization which is repeatedly portrayed by most of the media as representing the "consensus" on climate change.
For those who are not aware of the Climategate scandal of a few years ago. this is an example of what happened at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, England:
From Rionovosta: The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the HadCRUT survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
Unfortunately while there may be a one day pop, until small cap growth stocks resume an uptrend ADEP will just continue down with them.
The above statement by the White House was a response to a CBO analysis that 2 million workers will leave their jobs by 2017 as a result of Obamacare.
The Obama Administration’s latest argument for Obamacare is that some people don’t want to work, and Obamacare makes not working easier for those people.
Instead, the Obama administration says, the health care law will allow people to choose to work less.
Under Obamacare, "individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods, like retiring on time rather than working into their elderly years or choosing to spend more time with their families," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.
"At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams," Carney said in the statement. For good measure, he added that "the Republican plan to repeal the ACA would strip those hardworking Americans of that opportunity."