Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Professor raised under communism explains academics' love of socialism – and why they're wrong
Professor raised under communism explains academics' love of socialism – and why they're wrong
The difference between ideas and facts is lost on leftist scholars
Today Professor Florin Curta is a professor in medieval history and
archaeology at the University of Florida, but his road to the sunny
vistas of north-central Florida came by way of communist-controlled
Romania, where growing up he grappled with empty grocery stores, power
outages, and an oppressive government that discouraged creativity and
free enterprise.
Curta grew up under the iron-fisted regime of Romanian President
Nicolae Ceaușescu, a dictatorship characterized by unrelenting
state-control, extreme poverty and widespread dilapidation and
deprivation. Ceaușescu was overthrown and executed by firing squad in
1989, leaving his country in shambles.
Curta, meanwhile, managed to earn his bachelor’s degree from the
University of Bucharest in 1988, and left his country in 1993, having
been invited to pursue a Ph.D. at Western Michigan University after delivering a speech before the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Mich.
He hasn’t looked back. Discovering academic and personal freedom
unlike anything he could have in post-Communist Romania, Curta
permanently relocated to America.
“There’s a certain atmosphere in which scholarly thinking can grow in
the United States that it cannot grow in any European country,” Curta
said. “I left after communism collapsed, but it was a regime that left a
deep, deep imprint on people’s minds. Even though there was no official
communism in the government, a lot of people continued to think in
communist ways, specifically in the academic world.”
Curta is one of the world’s most distinguished scholars
in medieval history and archaeology – and is co-founder of the
University of Florida’s medieval and early modern studies center, where
he directs its certificate program.
He recently shared his experience growing up under a communist regime
and discussed the rise of socialism in America during a phone interview
with The College Fix:
Tell us about growing up in communist Romania. What was the quality of life?
Curta: Stores were completely empty. There was no food. There was a
black market where you could buy some things, but obviously at much
higher prices. Besides the fact that there was no food, every now and
then electricity would be cut off in the apartment, at a sudden moment
in time. You would not know when and for how long. Sometimes there was
no running water at all, and there was no warm water at all. We’re
talking about life in an urban environment, we’re talking about an
apartment, not one or two, but thousands in which people lived in such
conditions. I was in college in that time, and I remember actually
studying in the library with gloves on my hands because it was so cold.
So not a happy place.
Socialism appears to be a popularly embraced ideology in American
academia. Why do you think this is? What is so tempting about this
mindset?
Curta:
I think that there’s an idealism that most people in academia,
specifically in the humanities, share. We live in an era of ideological
morass, especially with the collapse of communism that has left no room
for those idealists in the academic world. No matter how you can prove
that system doesn’t work, with an inclination to go that way perhaps
because most people associate socialism with social justice, while the
former is an ideology with concrete ideas and concrete historical
experiences, while social justice is a very vague abstract notion.
You have to understand, the difference between ideas and facts is
what is of major concern here. As my father used to say, it is so much
easier to be a Marxist when you sip your coffee in Rive Gauche,
left-bank Paris, than when living in an apartment under Ceaușescu,
especially in the 1980s.
Why do you think socialist ideology has been gaining popularity
with some Americans? Why do you think Democrat presidential candidate
Bernie
Sanders, whose platform is based-off of socialist ideas, gained such traction with the electorate, especially millennials?
Curta: First of all, I would not be willing to put a blanket on all
of the population that is drawn toward that idea. It’s a matter of
certain segments of that population, especially the young ones, and I
think that has something to do with two factors, one of which is the
distance in time between the real experience, the historical
significance of communism. In other words, the parents of those young
people who are now very enthusiastic about socialism and Bernie Sanders
were those lived during the Cold War. So to them, socialism, or even
more so communism, was a real threat. And they could see under their own
eyes how that form of living was out there.
Also
the lack of historical knowledge. I would say the school system is
responsible for that. You get courses at the university on the
Holocaust, but you don’t get courses on the history of communism. Last
time I checked, [it was estimated] 100 million people were killed under
communism by various regimes in various parts of the world. That seems
to have passed without a note in the academic world. I think that lack
of prominence in the curriculum, in other words, not teaching what
really happened, and the sheer ignorance about the disaster in terms of
human cost, economic cost, in tragedy in general is responsible for this
rosy picture of socialism.
And so what can be done to counteract this misperception or perhaps even incorrect view of history?
Curta: Education. But also the willingness to know about this. Just
by ignoring those factors a dialogue is not possible… Bringing up the
truth in what happened is of crucial value. Ignoring what happened will
lead to similar mistakes.
But what about “free college education for everyone,” which is
one of Sanders’ campaign promises? Shouldn’t people have access to free
higher education?
Curta: My answer to that is very simple. I went through 20-plus years
of school in the old country, under communism, for free, but I had no
food on the table.
Bearing all of this in mind, what would you say to a millennial who wants to vote for Sanders?
Curta: First of all, I would say that you are free to vote for
whomever you want. That’s the principle in which this country is based
on, unlike the one from which I was coming from. You have options. You
also have options to educate yourself and to answer questions that might
arise from an investigation of that candidate’s points of view and so
forth. Don’t try to push them down my throat though because indeed I
know a lot more about where these ideas can go because I experienced
them not from reading books, but from living under it.
Do you think socialist ideas could ever actually be implemented here in the U.S.?
Curta: To tell it frankly, I think this is a philosophical question
and I can answer it by giving my take on this… Let’s take an invention,
for example, an invention that really changes the lives of hundred,
thousands, millions of people. From the moment that invention is drawn
up on a piece of paper by the inventor, from the moment it actually
gains social application, to change the lives of people, it takes very
little under the capitalist system. That is because of the profit. It
takes a very long while under socialism because it needs to be approved.
Originality and creation and creativity, those forms of freedom that
most Americans don’t think much about are discouraged under socialism.
You have to stay in your line, not get out of your line.
Professor raised under communism explains academics’ love of socialism – and why they’re wrong
The difference between ideas and facts is lost on leftist scholars Today Professor Florin Curta is a professor in medieval history and
archaeology at the University of Florida, but his road to the sunny
vistas of north-central Florida came by way of communist-controlled
Romania, where growing up he grappled with empty grocery stores, power
outages, and an oppressive government that discouraged creativity and
free enterprise.
Curta grew up under the iron-fisted regime of Romanian President
Nicolae Ceaușescu, a dictatorship characterized by unrelenting
state-control, extreme poverty and widespread dilapidation and
deprivation. Ceaușescu was overthrown and executed by firing squad in
1989, leaving his country in shambles.
Curta, meanwhile, managed to earn his bachelor’s degree from the
University of Bucharest in 1988, and left his country in 1993, having
been invited to pursue a Ph.D. at Western Michigan University after delivering a speech before the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Mich.
He hasn’t looked back. Discovering academic and personal freedom
unlike anything he could have in post-Communist Romania, Curta
permanently relocated to America.
“There’s a certain atmosphere in which scholarly thinking can grow in
the United States that it cannot grow in any European country,” Curta
said. “I left after communism collapsed, but it was a regime that left a
deep, deep imprint on people’s minds. Even though there was no official
communism in the government, a lot of people continued to think in
communist ways, specifically in the academic world.”
Curta is one of the world’s most distinguished scholars
in medieval history and archaeology – and is co-founder of the
University of Florida’s medieval and early modern studies center, where
he directs its certificate program.
He recently shared his experience growing up under a communist regime
and discussed the rise of socialism in America during a phone interview
with The College Fix:
Tell us about growing up in communist Romania. What was the quality of life?
Curta: Stores were completely empty. There was no food. There was a
black market where you could buy some things, but obviously at much
higher prices. Besides the fact that there was no food, every now and
then electricity would be cut off in the apartment, at a sudden moment
in time. You would not know when and for how long. Sometimes there was
no running water at all, and there was no warm water at all. We’re
talking about life in an urban environment, we’re talking about an
apartment, not one or two, but thousands in which people lived in such
conditions. I was in college in that time, and I remember actually
studying in the library with gloves on my hands because it was so cold.
So not a happy place.
Socialism appears to be a popularly embraced ideology in American
academia. Why do you think this is? What is so tempting about this
mindset?
Curta:
I think that there’s an idealism that most people in academia,
specifically in the humanities, share. We live in an era of ideological
morass, especially with the collapse of communism that has left no room
for those idealists in the academic world. No matter how you can prove
that system doesn’t work, with an inclination to go that way perhaps
because most people associate socialism with social justice, while the
former is an ideology with concrete ideas and concrete historical
experiences, while social justice is a very vague abstract notion.
You have to understand, the difference between ideas and facts is
what is of major concern here. As my father used to say, it is so much
easier to be a Marxist when you sip your coffee in Rive Gauche,
left-bank Paris, than when living in an apartment under Ceaușescu,
especially in the 1980s.
Why do you think socialist ideology has been gaining popularity
with some Americans? Why do you think Democrat presidential candidate
Bernie
Sanders, whose platform is based-off of socialist ideas, gained such traction with the electorate, especially millennials?
Curta: First of all, I would not be willing to put a blanket on all
of the population that is drawn toward that idea. It’s a matter of
certain segments of that population, especially the young ones, and I
think that has something to do with two factors, one of which is the
distance in time between the real experience, the historical
significance of communism. In other words, the parents of those young
people who are now very enthusiastic about socialism and Bernie Sanders
were those lived during the Cold War. So to them, socialism, or even
more so communism, was a real threat. And they could see under their own
eyes how that form of living was out there.
Also
the lack of historical knowledge. I would say the school system is
responsible for that. You get courses at the university on the
Holocaust, but you don’t get courses on the history of communism. Last
time I checked, [it was estimated] 100 million people were killed under
communism by various regimes in various parts of the world. That seems
to have passed without a note in the academic world. I think that lack
of prominence in the curriculum, in other words, not teaching what
really happened, and the sheer ignorance about the disaster in terms of
human cost, economic cost, in tragedy in general is responsible for this
rosy picture of socialism.
And so what can be done to counteract this misperception or perhaps even incorrect view of history?
Curta: Education. But also the willingness to know about this. Just
by ignoring those factors a dialogue is not possible… Bringing up the
truth in what happened is of crucial value. Ignoring what happened will
lead to similar mistakes.
But what about “free college education for everyone,” which is
one of Sanders’ campaign promises? Shouldn’t people have access to free
higher education?
Curta: My answer to that is very simple. I went through 20-plus years
of school in the old country, under communism, for free, but I had no
food on the table.
Bearing all of this in mind, what would you say to a millennial who wants to vote for Sanders?
Curta: First of all, I would say that you are free to vote for
whomever you want. That’s the principle in which this country is based
on, unlike the one from which I was coming from. You have options. You
also have options to educate yourself and to answer questions that might
arise from an investigation of that candidate’s points of view and so
forth. Don’t try to push them down my throat though because indeed I
know a lot more about where these ideas can go because I experienced
them not from reading books, but from living under it.
Do you think socialist ideas could ever actually be implemented here in the U.S.?
Curta: To tell it frankly, I think this is a philosophical question
and I can answer it by giving my take on this… Let’s take an invention,
for example, an invention that really changes the lives of hundred,
thousands, millions of people. From the moment that invention is drawn
up on a piece of paper by the inventor, from the moment it actually
gains social application, to change the lives of people, it takes very
little under the capitalist system. That is because of the profit. It
takes a very long while under socialism because it needs to be approved.
Originality and creation and creativity, those forms of freedom that
most Americans don’t think much about are discouraged under socialism.
You have to stay in your line, not get out of your line.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Levin: Cuomo Interpretation of the Origin of Rights ‘the Definition of Tyranny’
Levin: Cuomo Interpretation of the Origin of Rights ‘the Definition of Tyranny’
Earlier on Thursday,
CNN “New Day” co-host Chris Cuomo debated Alabama Supreme Court Chief
Justice Roy Moore on the issue of the Alabama courts’ ruling versus a
federal court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.
Ultimately, the discussion led to a debate about as to where citizens
get their rights, with Cuomo insisting that rights are not from God.
On his Thursday radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin challenged
that premise and argued that Cuomo’s interpretation is the definition
of tyranny.
“The idea that we get our rights – our fundamental human rights from
government or any collection of our citizens is the definition of
tyranny, is the definition of totalitarianism,” Levin explained. “That’s
not where we get our rights from. They come from a higher authority.
And those of you who do not believe in a God, aren’t sure you believe in
a God – believe whatever you want or don’t believe whatever you want …
you cannot have a republic if you have no civil society. You cannot have
a republic if you believe rights come from man. Justice Moore was
correct. Chris Cuomo was not. And yet, Chris Cuomo speaks for millions
and millions of people who have no idea what their country stands for or
why they’re free.”
Levin: Cuomo Interpretation of the Origin of Rights ‘the Definition of Tyranny’
Earlier on Thursday,
CNN “New Day” co-host Chris Cuomo debated Alabama Supreme Court Chief
Justice Roy Moore on the issue of the Alabama courts’ ruling versus a
federal court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.
Ultimately, the discussion led to a debate about as to where citizens
get their rights, with Cuomo insisting that rights are not from God.
On his Thursday radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin challenged
that premise and argued that Cuomo’s interpretation is the definition
of tyranny.
“The idea that we get our rights – our fundamental human rights from
government or any collection of our citizens is the definition of
tyranny, is the definition of totalitarianism,” Levin explained. “That’s
not where we get our rights from. They come from a higher authority.
And those of you who do not believe in a God, aren’t sure you believe in
a God – believe whatever you want or don’t believe whatever you want …
you cannot have a republic if you have no civil society. You cannot have
a republic if you believe rights come from man. Justice Moore was
correct. Chris Cuomo was not. And yet, Chris Cuomo speaks for millions
and millions of people who have no idea what their country stands for or
why they’re free.”
Cosmic Cycles, not Carbon Dioxide, Control Climate
Cosmic Cycles, not Carbon Dioxide, Control Climate
Those who think the political war on carbon will cool the globe or keep climate stable need to study climate history.
Temperatures on Earth dance to a cyclic rhythm every hour, every day,
every month, every season, every year, and to every beat of the
sun-spot and glacial cycles.
The daily solar cycle causes continual changes in temperature for
every spot on Earth. It produces the frosts at dawn, the mid-day heat
and the cooling at sunset. It is regulated by rotation of the Earth.
Superimposed on the daily solar cycle is the monthly lunar cycle,
driven by the orbit of the Moon around the Earth. These two cycles
interact to produce variations in atmospheric pressure and tides, and
currents in the oceans and the atmosphere. These are the daily weather
makers.
The yearly seasonal cycle is caused as the tilted axis of Earth’s
rotation affects the intensity of solar energy received by each
hemisphere. This produces spring, summer, autumn and winter for every
spot on Earth.
Then there is the 22 year sun-spot cycle, which correlates with
cycles of floods and droughts. Sunspot cycles are indicators of solar
activity which causes periods of global warming and cooling.
Earth’s climate is also disrupted periodically by the effects of
changing winds, ocean hot spots and submarine volcanism that produce the
El Nino Southern Oscillation.
The least recognised but most dangerous climate cycle is the glacial
cycle. We live in the Holocene Epoch, the latest brief warm phase of the
Pleistocene Ice Age. The climate history of the Holocene, and its
predecessor the Eemian, are well documented in ice core logs and other
records in the rocks. Each cycle consists of a glacial age of about
80,000 years followed by a warmer age of about 20,000 years, with peak
warming occurring over about 12,000 years. Our modern warm era commenced
12,000 years ago, so it is probably nearing its end.
There have been eight warm eras separated by long glacial winters
over the last 800,000 years of the Pleistocene. In every beat of this
cycle, the vast ice sheets melt, sea levels rise dramatically, coral
reefs and coastal settlements are drowned, and forests and animals
re-colonise the higher land released from the ice. Warm climate animals
such as hippos, water buffaloes and elephants got as far north as
Germany in the last warm era. Then suddenly the ice returned, covering
the northern hemisphere as far south as Chicago and London, destroying
the forests, lowering the seas, stranding the relocated coral reefs and
eliminating unprepared species. (Some dopey grizzly bears got stranded
in the Arctic Ice and the most enterprising of them survived to evolve
into white grizzlies now called polar bears.)
This regular repetition of natural climate change is partially
explained by the Milankovitch cycles relating to changes in Earth’s
precession, orbit and tilt. These drive variations in solar energy
received by Earth and have the greatest temperature effect on the large
land masses of the Northern Hemisphere.
On an even longer time scale, oscillation of the solar system through
the plane of the Galaxy seems to trigger magnetic reversals and violent
spasms of volcanism, crustal movements glaciation and species
extinction. Earth is never still for long.
What about the role of carbon dioxide in climate? Al Gore did a great
job to dramatise the recurring glacial cycles in his widely acclaimed
work of science fiction. But he missed two inconvenient truths.
First, ice cores show that in the glacial spring-time the temperature rose BEFORE the CO2 levels rose. Therefore the rising CO2 cannot be a CAUSE of the warming – it is a RESULT of CO2 being expelled from the warming oceans.
Second, at the top of every summer-time in the glacial cycle, the
high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were unable to prevent the cooling
into the next cycle of ice.
We are already in the autumn of the current glacial cycle and nothing
man can do will change that. Global temperatures today are lower than
they were in Roman and Medieval times. They will still fluctuate with
the effects of daily, lunar, yearly and sun-spot cycles, but the
long-term trend of maximum and minimum temperatures will continue
drifting downwards. Once summer temperatures in places like Siberia are
unable to melt last winter’s snow, the already growing glaciers will
join to form ice sheets and Earth will once again be gripped by another
long Glacial Winter.
The transition from Greenhouse Earth to Icehouse Earth always occurs
suddenly. Once our verdant greenhouse is gone, life of Earth will never
be the same again.
The warm days, seasons, years and epochs have never been a deadly
threat to life on Earth. Frost, snow, hail and ice are the killers. If
our descendants do not have the energy, resources and wisdom to keep
their people warm and fed through the coming glacial epoch, humans may
follow our Neanderthal cousins who perished in the last glacial winter,
just 20,000 years ago.
It is a wonder of the modern era that people who cannot accurately
forecast next weekend’s weather claim they can regulate the temperature
of the whole globe by bashing industry and taxing carbon.
There is NO evidence in climate history that carbon dioxide has a
detectable effect on global temperatures. However if our continued use
of cheap reliable hydro-carbon energy does slightly delay the onset of
the next glacial winter, we and all life on Earth should count ourselves
extremely lucky.
Cosmic Cycles, not Carbon Dioxide, Control Climate
Those who think the political war on carbon will cool the globe or keep climate stable need to study climate history.
Temperatures on Earth dance to a cyclic rhythm every hour, every day,
every month, every season, every year, and to every beat of the
sun-spot and glacial cycles.
The daily solar cycle causes continual changes in temperature for
every spot on Earth. It produces the frosts at dawn, the mid-day heat
and the cooling at sunset. It is regulated by rotation of the Earth.
Superimposed on the daily solar cycle is the monthly lunar cycle,
driven by the orbit of the Moon around the Earth. These two cycles
interact to produce variations in atmospheric pressure and tides, and
currents in the oceans and the atmosphere. These are the daily weather
makers.
The yearly seasonal cycle is caused as the tilted axis of Earth’s
rotation affects the intensity of solar energy received by each
hemisphere. This produces spring, summer, autumn and winter for every
spot on Earth.
Then there is the 22 year sun-spot cycle, which correlates with
cycles of floods and droughts. Sunspot cycles are indicators of solar
activity which causes periods of global warming and cooling.
Earth’s climate is also disrupted periodically by the effects of
changing winds, ocean hot spots and submarine volcanism that produce the
El Nino Southern Oscillation.
The least recognised but most dangerous climate cycle is the glacial
cycle. We live in the Holocene Epoch, the latest brief warm phase of the
Pleistocene Ice Age. The climate history of the Holocene, and its
predecessor the Eemian, are well documented in ice core logs and other
records in the rocks. Each cycle consists of a glacial age of about
80,000 years followed by a warmer age of about 20,000 years, with peak
warming occurring over about 12,000 years. Our modern warm era commenced
12,000 years ago, so it is probably nearing its end.
There have been eight warm eras separated by long glacial winters
over the last 800,000 years of the Pleistocene. In every beat of this
cycle, the vast ice sheets melt, sea levels rise dramatically, coral
reefs and coastal settlements are drowned, and forests and animals
re-colonise the higher land released from the ice. Warm climate animals
such as hippos, water buffaloes and elephants got as far north as
Germany in the last warm era. Then suddenly the ice returned, covering
the northern hemisphere as far south as Chicago and London, destroying
the forests, lowering the seas, stranding the relocated coral reefs and
eliminating unprepared species. (Some dopey grizzly bears got stranded
in the Arctic Ice and the most enterprising of them survived to evolve
into white grizzlies now called polar bears.)
This regular repetition of natural climate change is partially
explained by the Milankovitch cycles relating to changes in Earth’s
precession, orbit and tilt. These drive variations in solar energy
received by Earth and have the greatest temperature effect on the large
land masses of the Northern Hemisphere.
On an even longer time scale, oscillation of the solar system through
the plane of the Galaxy seems to trigger magnetic reversals and violent
spasms of volcanism, crustal movements glaciation and species
extinction. Earth is never still for long.
What about the role of carbon dioxide in climate? Al Gore did a great
job to dramatise the recurring glacial cycles in his widely acclaimed
work of science fiction. But he missed two inconvenient truths.
First, ice cores show that in the glacial spring-time the temperature rose BEFORE the CO2 levels rose. Therefore the rising CO2 cannot be a CAUSE of the warming – it is a RESULT of CO2 being expelled from the warming oceans.
Second, at the top of every summer-time in the glacial cycle, the
high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were unable to prevent the cooling
into the next cycle of ice.
We are already in the autumn of the current glacial cycle and nothing
man can do will change that. Global temperatures today are lower than
they were in Roman and Medieval times. They will still fluctuate with
the effects of daily, lunar, yearly and sun-spot cycles, but the
long-term trend of maximum and minimum temperatures will continue
drifting downwards. Once summer temperatures in places like Siberia are
unable to melt last winter’s snow, the already growing glaciers will
join to form ice sheets and Earth will once again be gripped by another
long Glacial Winter.
The transition from Greenhouse Earth to Icehouse Earth always occurs
suddenly. Once our verdant greenhouse is gone, life of Earth will never
be the same again.
The warm days, seasons, years and epochs have never been a deadly
threat to life on Earth. Frost, snow, hail and ice are the killers. If
our descendants do not have the energy, resources and wisdom to keep
their people warm and fed through the coming glacial epoch, humans may
follow our Neanderthal cousins who perished in the last glacial winter,
just 20,000 years ago.
It is a wonder of the modern era that people who cannot accurately
forecast next weekend’s weather claim they can regulate the temperature
of the whole globe by bashing industry and taxing carbon.
There is NO evidence in climate history that carbon dioxide has a
detectable effect on global temperatures. However if our continued use
of cheap reliable hydro-carbon energy does slightly delay the onset of
the next glacial winter, we and all life on Earth should count ourselves
extremely lucky.
Flashback 1990: AP calls satellite temperatures ‘more accurate’ – But in 2016: AP ignores satellite’s showing 18 year plus ‘standstill’ in global temps
Flashback 1990: AP calls satellite temperatures
‘more accurate’ – But in 2016: AP ignores satellite’s showing 18 year
plus ‘standstill’ in global temps
The Tennessean - April 22, 1990:
'An Associated Press article reported that by the more accurate
technique of weather satellite measurement, no long-term warming or
cooling trend cold yet be detected.'
'An Associated Press article reported that by the more accurate
technique of weather satellite measurement, no long-term warming or
cooling trend cold yet be detected.'
1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more
accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp
change.’ - April 1990 - The Canberra Times: 'A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA...'
But in 2016, NASA ignores satellites showing a 'pause' of over 18 years. See: James Hansen omits satellite data from 2015 temperature analysis
Flashback:
1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more
accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp
change.’ – April 1990 – The Canberra Times: ‘A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA…’
‘The [NASA] report’s authors said that their satellite analysis of
the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the
standard way to monitor temperature change.’
Real Science website analysis:
‘Twenty-four years later, NASA and NOAA ignore the more accurate
satellite data – and report only useless, tampered surface
temperatures.’
Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months
It’s
Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of
66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming
the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the
standard way to monitor temperature change.’
Real Science website analysis:
‘Twenty-four years later, NASA and NOAA ignore the more accurate
satellite data – and report only useless, tampered surface
temperatures.’
Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months
It’s
Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of
66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming
BREAKING: Obama Preparing Executive Order to Change the First Amendment - World News Politics
BREAKING: Obama Preparing Executive Order to Change the First Amendment
(Conservative Tribune) – First, President Barack Obama ignored
President Obama is preparing his latest executive action designed to
execute an end-run around Congress: a requirement for companies that do
any business with the government to disclose their “contributions to
groups that spend money to influence campaigns”, according to a New York
Times report.
While the executive action would not prohibit said corporations from
getting government business, it goes to reason that donating to the
“wrong” party or cause might cause those corporations to lose government
business.
Especially given a long line of Supreme Court rulings in which the
campaign spending of for-profit organizations was deemed protected under
the First Amendment, the executive action would again put the
administration in the position of using unilateral action to bypass both
Congress and the Constitution.
US Administration proposed this measure back in 2012. They called it
Disclosure Act, but it was defeated by Republican opposition, who felt
that the legislation deliberately squelched corporate speech.
“While we will continue to examine additional steps we can take to
reduce the corrosive influence of money in politics, only Congress can
put an end to it,” said Brandi Hoffine, an Obama spokeswoman, said when
reached about the possible executive action.
According to business groups, the real goal of such a measure
wouldn’t be to reduce the influence of money in politics, but to
intimidate corporations into abandoning their freedom of political
speech.
“The real goal of the disclosure proponents is to harass, intimidate
and silence those with whom they disagree,” Blair Latoff Holmes, a
spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told reporters.
“We continue to believe that one’s political activities should play
no role in whether or not you get or keep a federal contract, and we
encourage the administration to leave this bad idea right where it is.”
The most cherished right of being an American citizen is indeed the
freedom of speech. The idea that a president who cannot work with
Congress has decided to bypass the constitutionally mandated lawmaking
process to chip away at parts of the Constitution is bad enough. The
fact that he would do so on the constitutional right that is the bedrock
of American democracy is absolutely sickening.
BREAKING: Obama Preparing Executive Order to Change the First Amendment
(Conservative Tribune) – First, President Barack Obama ignored
huge swaths of federal immigration law. Then, he chipped away at the
Second Amendment. Now, he’s aiming even higher — the First Amendment.
President Obama is preparing his latest executive action designed to execute an end-run around Congress: a requirement for companies that do
any business with the government to disclose their “contributions to
groups that spend money to influence campaigns”, according to a New York
Times report.
While the executive action would not prohibit said corporations from
getting government business, it goes to reason that donating to the
“wrong” party or cause might cause those corporations to lose government
business.
Especially given a long line of Supreme Court rulings in which the
campaign spending of for-profit organizations was deemed protected under
the First Amendment, the executive action would again put the
administration in the position of using unilateral action to bypass both
Congress and the Constitution.
Disclosure Act, but it was defeated by Republican opposition, who felt
that the legislation deliberately squelched corporate speech.
“While we will continue to examine additional steps we can take to
reduce the corrosive influence of money in politics, only Congress can
put an end to it,” said Brandi Hoffine, an Obama spokeswoman, said when
reached about the possible executive action.
According to business groups, the real goal of such a measure
wouldn’t be to reduce the influence of money in politics, but to
intimidate corporations into abandoning their freedom of political
speech.
“The real goal of the disclosure proponents is to harass, intimidate
and silence those with whom they disagree,” Blair Latoff Holmes, a
spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told reporters.
“We continue to believe that one’s political activities should play
no role in whether or not you get or keep a federal contract, and we
encourage the administration to leave this bad idea right where it is.”
The most cherished right of being an American citizen is indeed the
freedom of speech. The idea that a president who cannot work with
Congress has decided to bypass the constitutionally mandated lawmaking
process to chip away at parts of the Constitution is bad enough. The
fact that he would do so on the constitutional right that is the bedrock
of American democracy is absolutely sickening.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
IPCC
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/the-ipcc-doesnt-believe-its-own-models-the-1-5c-ambitious-target-400ppm-were-already-there/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
