Obama’s legacy

Obama’s legacy is a devastated Democratic Party

By Deroy Murdock

As President Obama concludes his reign of error, his party is smaller, weaker and ricketier than it has been since at least the 1940s. Behold the tremendous power that Democrats have frittered away — from January 2009 through the aftermath of Election Day — thanks to Obama and his ideas:

  • Democrats surrendered the White House to political neophyte Donald J. Trump.
  • US Senate seats slipped from 55 to 46, down 16 percent.
  • US House seats fell from 256 to 194, down 24 percent.
  • Democrats ran the Senate and House in 2009. Next year, they will control neither.
  • Governorships slid from 28 to 16, down 43 percent.
  • State legislatures (both chambers) plunged from 27 to 14, down 48 percent
  • Trifectas (states with Democrat governors and both legislative chambers) cratered from 17 to 6, down 65 percent.

Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, eight presidents have served at least two terms or bowed to their vice presidents due to death or resignation. Among them, Obama ranks eighth in total state legislative seats that his party preserved during his tenure.

  • Obama has supervised the net loss of 959 such Democratic positions, down 23.5 percent, according to Ballotpedia, which generated most of the data cited here. This far outpaces the 843 net seats that Republicans yielded under President Dwight Eisenhower.
  • By this measure, Ronald Reagan is No. 1. While he was president, Republicans gained six statehouse seats.
  • In terms of boosting his party’s state-level strength, Obama is the worst president since World War II. Reagan is the best.

Democrats can chant the soothing lie that this wholesale, multi-level rejection of their party stems from “structural racism,” the legacy of Jim Crow, the immortal tentacles of slavery, or whatever other analgesic excuse they can scrounge up. The same nation that they claim cannot outgrow its bigotry somehow elected and then re-elected Obama, quite comfortably.

This deep-rooted repudiation is not of Obama himself, but of Obamaism, today’s Democratic gospel.

At home, Obamaism features economic stagnation, morbidly obese and equally dysfunctional government, racial and identity fetishism, and rampant political correctness.

Overseas: Shame at American pre-eminence fuels flaccid “leadership from behind.”

All told, 1,043 federal and state-level Democrats lost or were denied power under Obama, largely because Americans grew disgusted by such outrages as a non-stimulating $831 billion “stimulus,” eight consecutive years of economic growth below 3 percent, an 88 percent increase in the national debt, the revocation of America’s triple-A bond rating and ObamaCare’s epic flop ($2.3 trillion to finance widespread insurance policy cancellations, 20 bankruptcies among 24 state co-ops, early retirements for experienced but exasperated doctors and more). Also nauseating: federal nano-management of everything from dishwashers to third-grade lunches to national school shower policy.

Abroad, Obamaism spawned the rise of ISIS, the fall of US personnel in Benghazi, and Iran’s relentless humiliation — before, during and after Obama’s delivery of some $100 billion in unfrozen assets, including at least $1.7 billion in laundered cash, literally flown in on private jets.

“My legacy’s on the ballot,” Obama said last September, just as he had said before the 2014 midterms.

And Democrats have paid the ultimate price. The political cadavers of more than 1,000 Democratic incumbents and nominees, from Hillary Clinton on down, confirm that Obama is poison at the polls.

Rather than enjoy a traditional, low-key post-presidency in Chicago, Obama plans to hunker down in Washington, DC, comment on current events and counsel his party’s candidates and officeholders. Democrats should find this as appetizing as dinner cooked by Typhoid Mary.

Deroy Murdock is a contributing editor with National Review Online. William de Wolff, who holds a master’s in international relations from NYU, contributed research.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Political Science: A Reply to the 375 Concerned Members of the National Academy of Sciences

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William M. Briggs, David R. Legates,
 Anthony Lupo, Istvan Marko, Dennis Mitchell, & Willie Soon

Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.

True, we influence climate, by returning to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by taking carbon dioxide; storing the carbon in leaves, stems, and trunks; and returning the oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying nearly all the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by emitting hot rocks that warm the air and ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun and cause cooling. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature within a few degrees either side of the period mean for more than 800,000 years.

The activists say we are warming the oceans. But in the first 11 full years of the least ill-resolved dataset we have, the 3500+ Argo bathythermograph buoys, the upper mile and a quarter of the world’s oceans warmed at a rate equivalent to just 1 Celsius degree every 430 years, and the warming rate, negligible at the surface, rises faster the deeper the measurements are taken. The oceans are warming not from above, which they would if we were warming the air and the air was warming the oceans, but from below.

The activists say we are warming the lower atmosphere. Yet on all datasets, the atmosphere is warming at less than half the rate originally predicted by their fellow-activists at the error-prone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — who have a vested interest in overstating the supposed extent of our influence on climate. For, otherwise, the Panel would be – as it should now be – abolished. The Panel is political, but science is not science unless it is scientific, and unless it is free, in particular, from the political totalitarianism that sullenly insists that only one opinion – the Party Line – may be uttered.

The activists say the oceans are “acidifying.” The truth is that, aside from a few transects and a few local studies, science has no idea whether or at what rate the oceans are “acidifying.” What is known, however, is that the oceans are not acid (as rainwater is): they are pronouncedly alkaline. It is also known that, under anything like modern conditions, they are so powerfully buffered that alkaline they must remain.

The activists say our influence on climate is evident in “altered rainfall patterns,” but in this they are at odds with their fellow-activists at the ill-fated Intergovernmental Panel, whose special report on extreme weather (2012) and whose fifth and most recent (2013) Assessment Report on the climate question find little or no evidence of a link between our industries and enterprises on the one hand and global rainfall patterns on the other.

The activists say we are to blame for retreating Arctic sea ice. But Arctic sea ice variations, if objectively quantified with proper error estimates, are fully within the large natural range of changes that have no need of any unique explanation by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. In addition, Antarctic sea ice, which they somehow do not mention, has largely offset the loss of Arctic ice.

True scientists, like any other citizens, are entitled and even encouraged to take part in the political process, and to state their opinions. This applies to non-USA-citizens, which many of the 375 are. What true scientists must not do, however, is pretend, as the activists did, that their totalitarian point of view is unchallengeable. In all material respects, unfolding events have proven their extremist viewpoint prodigiously exaggerated at best, plain wrong at worst.

Specifically, the activists complain that, during the presidential primary campaign, “claims were made that the Earth is not warming.” Yet early in the primary campaign it was correct to say the Earth had not been warming for almost 19 years. More recently there has been a naturally-occurring El Niño event, which has raised the trend a little, but it remains true that the early predictions of medium-term warming were badly exaggerated.

The activists declare their faith in the doctrine “that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks” to everything from national security via health and agriculture to biodiversity. But this statement is based wholly on faith and is unsupported by reality. We know this because of the serially failed predictions made by alarmists.

The activists say, “We know that the climate system has tipping points.” Yet, revealingly, “Tipping point” is not a scientific but a political term. The activists say that “rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return,” but there is no evidence for rapid warming of the planet today. At the end of the Maunder Minimum, the Earth’s atmosphere warmed more rapidly in response to the naturally-occurring recovery of solar activity from 1695-1735 than it has warmed in any subsequent 40-year period. There is nothing unprecedented either about today’s global temperatures or about the rate at which those temperatures have been changing.

The activists say warmer weather will “possibly” set in motion “large-scale ocean circulation changes.” The scientific truth is that, while the wind blows, the Earth rotates and its land-masses are approximately where they are, the ocean circulation must remain much as it is now. To suggest otherwise is mere rodomontade.

The activists say warmer weather will cause “the loss of major ice sheets.” But if the great ice sheet that covered most of North America to a depth of two miles had not melted owing to naturally-occurring global warming 10,000 years ago, where would the United States be today? Antarctic snowfall accumulation has not exhibited a massive meltdown over the past 40 to 60 years, and there has been no change to speak of in northern-hemisphere snow cover. There is little evidence that the tiny global warming that has occurred is at all likely to have major effects, whether on the cryosphere or on anything else, and still less evidence that those effects would be deleterious, and still less that, even if they were deleterious, the proposed measures to prevent them would make any detectable difference, and still less that, even if proposed measures might work, the imagined benefits would exceed the extravagant cost of their implementation.

The activists are also wrong in their assertion that any appreciable human influence on the climate will be detectable for many thousands of years. Their fellow activists on the Panel say that very nearly all of the feedbacks from the small warming that may be caused by our enriching the atmosphere with plant food act over timescales of hours to – at most – decades.

The activists are wrong to state that “it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord.” On the scientific evidence to date, it is abundantly clear that the original predictions made by the totalitarians were extreme exaggerations; that, though the world may warm a little, it will not warm a lot; that adding CO2 to the air will be of benefit to plants in reducing their need for water, which is why the world’s desert regions are beginning to green; and that the cost of futilely playing Canute with the climate is 10-100 times greater than the cost of any realistically foreseeable net disbenefit from warmer weather.

It would, therefore, be entirely proper for a presidential candidate to argue that the United States should withdraw from the Paris climate treaty, except for one inconvenient truth. The United States has not ratified the treaty. Any such ratification requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and the collapse of the totalitarians’ scientific case for “climate action” now renders any such two-thirds majority impossible to achieve.

Though the activists have attempted – falsely and improperly – to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party’s candidate in the forthcoming presidential election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab-coats by collectively suggesting that “Science” demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.

Therefore, the signatories hereto repudiate the letter issued by the 375 activists as reflecting not scientific truth but quasi-religious dogma and totalitarian error; we urge the voters to disregard that regrettable and anti-scientific letter; and we invite every citizen to make up his or her own mind whom to elect to the nation’s highest office without fear of the multifarious bugaboos conjured into terrifying but scientifically unjustifiable existence by the totalitarian activists who have for decades so disrespected, disgraced and disfigured climate science.

Posted in POLITICAL | Leave a comment

Appomattox Republican Mass Meeting March 8, 2016

OFFICIAL CALL MASS MEETING
Appomattox County Republican Committee
Republican Party of Virginia 

As Chairman of the Appomattox County Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia, and pursuant to the Plan of Organization and as recommended and directed by the Committee, I, Mike Schmitt, do hereby issue this Call for a Mass Meeting to be held: Jamerson Library Main Street, Appomattox, VA
OR an alternate site if necessary
March 8, 2016 7:00pm

Mass Meeting Purposes:
A. Electing up to 175 Delegates and an equal number of Alternates to the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Convention, to be held April 29-30, 2016 James Madison Convocation Center, Harrisonburg, VA. Pittsylvania County is entitled to 35 Delegate Votes.
B. Electing up to 175 Delegates and an equal number of Alternates to the 5th Congressional District
Republican Convention, to be held on Saturday, May 14, 2016 at the Nelson County High School, Lovingston, VA or an alternate site if necessary. Appomattox County is entitled to 35 Delegate Votes.
C. Election of Appomattox County Republican Committee Unit Officers as follows: Chairman, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer.
D. And for the transaction of such other business as may properly come before the Mass Meeting.
All legal and qualified voters of Appomattox County, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
regardless of race, religion, national origin or sex, who are in accord with the principles of the Republican Party and who, if requested, express in open meeting either orally or in writing as may be required, their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election, may participate as members of the Republican Party of Virginia in its mass meetings, party canvasses, conventions or primaries encompassing their respective election districts.

State and 5th District Convention Delegate Filing Requirements:
Delegate candidates for election at said Mass Meeting shall file a separate application for each Convention.
Beginning February 12, 2016 and ending March 1, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Delegate candidates may pre-file
applications by email to chall1776@yahoo.com or by mail to Cindy Hall, Secretary, PO Box 436, Concord, VA 24538. Postmarks will not govern. OR Delegate candidates may present a completed Delegate candidate application to the Secretary upon their registration at the Mass Meeting. Each respective application is attached to this Call and is also available at rpv.org. It is the responsibility of the Delegate candidate to confirm receipt of application with the Secretary.

Appomattox County Republican Committee Unit Officers Filing Requirements:
Candidates for election or nomination at said Mass Meeting shall complete at the Mass Meeting registration, an application declaring their intent to run for a specific office. Only candidates for Chairman will be required to pay a $15.00 filing fee.

Registration Fees:
The Republican Party of Virginia is requesting a voluntary $35 filing fee from all individuals seeking election as a Delegate to the State Convention. Checks need to be made out to the “Republican Party of Virginia”.
The Republican Committee of the 5th Congressional District is requesting a voluntary $25 filing fee from all individuals seeking election as a Delegate to the 5th Congressional District Convention. Checks need to be made out to the “Appomattox County Republican Committee”.
All filing fees may be mailed to: Karen Angulo, Treasurer, PO Box 955, Concord, VA 24538.

Paid for and authorized by the Appomattox County Republican Committee
*********************************************************************************
Delegate File Form – 5th Congressional District – Appomattox County Republican Unit

VA State Convention Delegate Candidate Form – Appomattox County Republican Unit

Appomattox County Republican Unit                                                                                        

Update on future meetings to elections:

March 1, 2016 Tuesday – Time –  6:00am to 7:00pm  precincts open
Locations
Presidential Primary – vote
 
March 8, 2016  Tuesday –  Time – 7:30pm     Location:  Appomattox Library
157 Main St, Appomattox, VA 24522
              ACRU local meeting to present unit “Call” –  to select delegates to 5th District Convention
Mass Meeting

April 29-30, 2016 Friday/Saturday  2:30pm/12:00pm to 5:00pm
Location:   James Madison University Convocation Center
                895 University Blvd. Harrisonburg, VA 22807
Virginia State Quadrennial Convention – Delegates to select presidential candidate

May 14, 2016  Saturday – Time – 11:00am
Location: Nelson County High School
6919 Thomas Nelson Hwy, Lovingston, VA 22949
                5th District Convention – Select candidate to replace Robert Hurt in Congress

July 18-21, 2016 Saturday – Tuesday –  Location: Quicken Loans Arena
                1 Center Ct, Cleveland, OH 44115
Republican National Convention – Appomattox County Unit – 35 delegates

November 8, 2016 Tuesday – Appomattox precincts open at 6:00am to 7:00pm
                Locations
                Presidential Election – vote

Posted in POLITICAL | Leave a comment

2016 Presidential Voting Schedule

2016 PRESIDENTIAL VOTING SCHEDULE

The full schedule of states’ primaries and caucuses. In most states, parties

vote on the same day. States that don’t are designated in parentheses.

 

Feb. 2: Iowa caucuses

Feb. 9: New Hampshire primary

Feb. 20: Nevada caucuses (D), South Carolina primary (R)

Feb. 23: Nevada caucuses (R)

Feb. 27: South Carolina primary (D)

March 1: Alabama primary, Alaska primary (R), Arkansas primary, Colorado caucuses, Georgia primary,

Massachusetts primary, Minnesota caucuses, Oklahoma primary, Tennessee primary, Texas primary,

Vermont primary, Virginia primary

March 5: Kansas caucuses, Kentucky caucuses (R), Louisiana primary, Maine caucuses (R), Nebraska caucuses (D)

March 6: Maine caucuses (D)

March 8: Hawaii caucuses (R), Idaho primary, Michigan primary, Mississippi primary

March 13: Puerto Rico primary (R)

March 15: Florida primary, Illinois primary, Missouri primary, North Carolina primary, Ohio primary

March 22: Arizona primary, Utah primary

March 26: Alaska caucuses (D), Hawaii caucuses (D),Washington caucuses (D)

April 5: Wisconsin primary

April 19: New York primary

April 26: Connecticut primary, Delaware primary, Maryland primary, Pennsylvania primary, Rhode Island primary

May 3: Indiana primary

May 10: Nebraska primary (R),West Virginia primary

May 17: Kentucky primary (D), Oregon primary

May 24: Washington primary (R)

June 5: Puerto Rico primary (D)

June 7: California primary, Montana primary, New Jersey primary, New Mexico primary, South Dakota primary

June 14: Washington, D.C., primary North Dakota primary

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE CO2 GREENHOUSE

Heinlein Explains Global Warming:   “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”

  1. WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE CO2 GREENHOUSE

    It is obvious to any physicist that the greenhouse conjecture is false, because the direct solar radiation reaching the surface is less than a third of what would be required to explain observed surface temperatures.

    James Hansen noted this apparent discrepancy and, not realizing that the rest of the required thermal energy is in fact supplied during the day by non-radiative processes, he wrongly assumed that radiation from the cold atmosphere could be added to solar radiation and the total used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. But even the net of 390W/m^2 which included the back radiation would not be enough because it is variable flux and can thus only achieve a mean temperature much closer to freezing point. He really needed over 450W/m^2 but glossed over that fact and “taught” the world of climatology the totally incorrect physics based on compounding the radiation from two effectively sub-zero sources and assuming that the sum “explained” observations.

    Now, most of the atmospheric radiation comes from the most prolific “greenhouse” gas, water vapor which is claimed to cause warming, though evidence suggests the opposite. So where did it all go so wrong? Hansen incorrectly assumed that, without IR-active greenhouse gases, the temperatures in the troposphere would be isothermal. That is not what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us, because it says entropy will be a maximum, not temperatures equal. Every vortex cooling tube in the world demonstrates how a force field (like gravity or centrifugal force) sets up a radial temperature gradient as that force acts on molecules in flight between collisions. The “lapse rate” (climatology speak for temperature gradient) is not due to imaginary “parcels” of air rising, expanding and cooling, because there is nothing to hold any such parcels together as the molecules move randomly between collisions at speeds of about 1,800 Km/hour.

    This temperature gradient evolves at the molecular level in accord with the process of maximum entropy production, and that state of maximum entropy is reached when there are no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. That means that the sum of mean molecular gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy is homogeneous, and so there is a temperature gradient.

    Once we understand that the temperature gradient is what physicists call the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, then everything falls into place. We can deduce quite simply that new solar energy absorbed in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere each morning will disturb the equilibrium and it can only be restored by downward non-radiative heat transfers, these being the real source of the missing energy Hansen tried to explain with back radiation.

    So, in fact, temperatures in a planetary system build up from anchoring layers in the upper troposphere and above, all the way to the core, because the temperature gradient, forming at the molecular level, can be calculated and shown to occur in solids, liquids and gases. It forms by a slow process which can be over-ridden, and is, in the oceans and the stratosphere, but, in general, it dominates. It is observed in all planetary tropospheres, and so the probability of this “heat creep” hypothesis being wrong is millions to one against.

    http://climate-change-theory.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Greenpeace Speaks!

Featured Image -- 153

Video | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Climate Game

This gallery contains 1 photo.

”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the … Continue reading

Gallery | Leave a comment