Advertisement

Entries from blogs tagged with “Technology”

It’s Not the Heat. It’s the Humidity

Climatologists pay too little attention to the role water plays in earth's energy system, including the way water vapor affects air temperature. Water's potential to affect air temperature is well established in science. As I have noted in previous posts the ability of CO2 to affect temperature is highly questionable. Those who spend much time in greenhouses know that they are often very humid places because water evaporates from plants and from surfaces that get wet when the plants are watered. Meteorologists typically refer to the water vapor content of the air as relative humidity which is how close the air is to holding as much water vapor as it can hold at its current temperature.

Unfortunately many climatologists waste so much time on the nonexistent impact of radiation on air temperature that they don't provide sufficient emphasis to the significant impact of water vapor on air temperature. Those who want to blame climate changes on humans ignore the fact that the combustion of hydrogen containing fossil fuels increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Other human actitivies such as watering yards, washing cars and operating public fountains also add water to the atmosphere.

Water has some special thermal characteristics that can significantly affect atmospheric temperatures. Water heats and cools signicantly slower than other components of the atmosphere. Water vapor needs to absorb over four times more heat energy than the same mass of other air molecules to raise its temperature the same amount.

Thus as the water vapor content of the air increases the atmosphere will heat and cool slower than when the air is drier. This process tends to keep the temperature from rising as high during the day or cooling as much at night, although the increase in the overnight low may lead to an increase in the daytime temperature because the air doesn't have to heat as much to reach a higher temperature. In equatorial areas deserts have higher maximum temperatures and lower minimum temperatures than jungle areas where the humidity is higher.

Water vapor possesses what physicists have traditionally called "latent" heat. Latent heat refers to the heat energy water molecules must absorb to go from a solid to a liquid (heat of fusion 80 calories/gram) or a liquid to a gas(heat of vaporization 540 calories/gram). This energy isn't reflected in the temperature of the water vapor. However, when water vapor condenses back to a liquid, or freezes, the release of this latent heat can raise the temperature of the air. A gram of water vapor releases enough heat energy when it condenses to raise the temperature of 2 kg of air by 1 C.

At approximately 65 F water vapor in the atmosphere holds as much heat energy as the rest of the atmosphere. This condition explains why dew points above 65 F are associated with the strongest thunderstorms.

Physicists define a "calorie" as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1 C. 27 C (82 F) is the same temperature as 300 Kelvin [the absolute temperature scale]. At 300 K water vapor has 300 calories of heat from its temperature and 620 calories of latent heat.

The dew point is the temperature at which water vapor will condense on objects or aerosals. The dew point normally is the lowest temperature the air will fall to. As the water vapor content of the air increases the dew point rises and the air doesn't get as cool at night.

The situation is more complex than I am presenting it in this post. I . The important facts to consider are that increases in humidity can raise the low, or minimum temperature, and limit the high, or maximum temperature, each day. In areas where significant snowfall occurs, the increase in low temperature can increase the melting of snow and ice by keeping the temperature above freezing for longer periods of time.

I recently came across a 10 year old study done by David R. Easterling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., indicating that humidy had increased and, as should have been expected, the minimum temperature had been increasing and the difference between the minimum and maximum daily temperatures, diurnal temperature range (DTR), had been declining.

The potential impact of changes in atmospheric water vapor are real science. Water vapor holds a substantial amount of heat energy. The only potential impact climatologists can find for carbon dioxide is the highly questionable claim about absorbing and re-radiating low energy IR. But then, if would be difficult for the politicians behind the global warming scare to make a case for getting rid of water.

Reply

And the Snow Flies …..in Jerusalem?

Would you believe an 8 inch snowfall in Jerusalem? How about Israeli President Shimon Peres making a snowman?

The childern of Jerusalem are enjoying throwing snowballs while drivers slip and slide on the treacherous roads. On Mount Herzl the heavy snow caused numerous historic trees to fall including some that were over 50 years old. Over 100 trees have fallen in the city as a whole . Some power lines are also down. Highways leading to and from Jerusalem were closed due to the snow.

The storm system has also brought freezing temperatures to Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Reply

Global Average Temperature an Impossibility

The following is a news release from the University of Copenhagen in March, 2007. I've decided not to put it in my own words because I agree with Professor Andresen, and want the article to reflect his views rather than mine. He is the professor not me.

Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.

Average without meaning

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.

If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

Many averages

A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.

Claims of disaster?

These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.

What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.

Reply

Global Warming Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Philosophical Magazine might not sound like the name of a science publication, but a century ago leading scientists published their discoveries in it.

During the early 19th Century many physicists supported the theory postulated by Benjamin Franklin that heat involved some type of fluid. The theory became known as "caloric theory". Joseph Jean Baptiste Fourier's theory that the atmosphere was heated from infrared radiation from the ground was a variation of caloric theory with IR functioning as the "fluid". Fourier believed greenhouses were heated by trapping this radiation.

Physicists in the early 19th Century were attempting to develop theories to explain the nature of atoms and their properties such as heat. Physicists theorized that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.

By the end of the century a new theory of heat, called "kinetic theory", was being developed that suggested heat was the motion, or kinetic energy, of atoms. However, Fourier's theory that IR heated the atmosphere particularly by interacting with carbon dioxide and water vapor continued to have support.

In 1897 J.J. Thompson overturned the popular theory of the atoms being the smallest particles of matter by reporting his discovery of the electron and predicting two other types of charged particles he called protons and neutrons.

Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. In 1909 he decided to test Fourier's theory about how greenhouses retained heat.

Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "cold frame" rather than a building a person could walk into.

He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.

During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.

The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate.

The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.

The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground.

Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse.

The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation.

The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence.

Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR.

At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.

Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. He called the amount of energy absorbed and emitted as a "quantum". (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)

Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering that reflects a broad spectrum of IR cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.

Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.

Reply 2 comments from Hopsgegangen Bondmen

The Greatest Scam in History

The residents of California are about to become victims of what Weather Channel founder John Coleman has accurately called "the greatest scam in history". They will be paying higher energy bills to help carbon traders get richer.

In the 1990's the corrupt Enron company began paying scientists and purported environmental groups to support the outright lie that slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could increase atmospheric temperatures. Enron also supported politicians who were willing to go along with this scheme. Enron's goal was to get governments to establish a system for trading what the company called "carbon credits".

Companies producing carbon dioxide have to pay for "carbon credits" to do so . These carbon credits can then be traded by speculators just like stocks and bonds. More on Enron and carbon trading later.

I've posted numerous articles on the global warming fraud over the last several years. I'm going to repost some of them to make it easier for readers to find them. Because of their age, some of the articles they link to may no longer be available on the web. I'm going to post them as is for now, but may rewrite some of them with new links later.

One fact many people don't understand about science is that science has long had an attraction for con artists. A few centuries ago "scientists" called "alchemists" would get wealthy nobles to finance their research by claiming to be working on a way to turn metals like lead into gold .

As a college undergraduate, I initially started studying math and physics before making the mistake of thinking I could help politicians find solutions to social problems by studying the social sciences. I didn't realize politicians weren't particularly interested in actually solving social problems. My physics course work included the study of light. Physics is the science that deals with energy such as heat and electromagnetic radiation or light.

The physics of climate is relatively simple. It isn't necessary to understand quantum physics to understand climate unless you want to study the peculiar characteristics of water molecules such as why ice(solid water) floats on liquid water. It's the complex interaction of various factors, including cycles like el Nino / la Nina, that makes climate complicated. The study of climate inspired development of the math/science field of chaos theory which applies to a variety of subjects including human behavior. Those of you who invest in the stock market might want to investigate applications of chaos theory.

My interest in human behavior includes human interaction with the physical environment. There are actions humans take that can impact climate, but production of carbon dioxide isn't one of those actions. For example, humans can cause desertification by eliminating trees. The draining of wetlands in Florida has increased the potential for freezing weather in the state. The increased danger of freezing weather potentially threatens the orange crop that plays a major role in Florida's economy.

The claim by global warming alarmists that slight changes in the amount of the very minor, but essential, atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide can significantly change temperature is absurd. CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. The only change in CO2 that could impact temperature would be if CO2 levels dropped below the amount necessary to support plant life. Plants store solar energy in the form of the electron bonds holding complex carbon molecules together. This process reduces the amount of solar radiation converted to heat.

Those who claim CO2 causes warming by trapping infrared radiation (IR) ignore the fact that physicist R. W. Woods disproved the theory that "trapping" radiation causes heating in greenhouses or the atmosphere over a century ago.

My knowledge of human behavior helps me understand how otherwise intelligent individuals can support the nonsense that a minor gas like CO2 can control climate. Many people support the claim that CO2 causes warming because they are profiting from trading carbon credits or are being paid by carbon traders. Natural gas companies like the late Enron company can gain a competitive advantage over coal because coal has a higher carbon content than natural gas

Others have reverted to primitive religious beliefs. They want to believe that humans can "control" climate because they are scared by the idea that climate is beyond control. In effect, many of them believe that if unfavorable weather events it means they have offended the "weather gods". Global warming believers use the equivalent of the word "heretic" to describe those who disagree with them. Terms like "denier" and "contrarian" labels those who use the terms as childish. The terms brand those who use them as religious fanatics rather than scientists.

Reply

Is Hillary’s Malady a Concussion or a Stroke?

I initially thought Hillary's "concussion" sounded a little too conveniently timed, you know like those ailments we got before school on days when we hadn't completed the day's assignment. However, now I'm wondering if all the precautions they are taking indicate her condition is more serious than we are being told.

Women Hillary's age are susceptible to strokes , including so called "mini strokes", that can cause falls. Hillary's father died of a stroke which means she has a family history of stroke susceptibility.

The Obama administration attempts to minimize the appearance of problems such as the one Hillary was scheduled to testify about. Hillary herself would want to suppress any announcement that she had had a stroke, even a minor one with no significant damage, because voters might not vote for someone who had had a stroke for president.

The stress associated with testifying before Congress could cause an increase in blood pressure for those who testify and high blood pressure is a risk factor for strokes.

Women experiencing a stroke can have symptoms such as nausea and tiredness that are similar to other ailments.

With prompt treatment, which Hillary is likely to have received, significant damage can be avoided.

We probably will never know if Hillary had some type of stroke unless she has the courage to tell us. If she did have a stroke, I hope she has enough sense to realize she needs to find a less stressful career. I suspect she could name her salary if she decided to apply for a job at one of the cable news channels.

Reply

Congress Can Avoid Fiscal Cliff

A year and a half ago President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed a suicide pact that they would lead the nation over a "fiscal cliff" if they couldn't agree on deficit reducing measures by the end of the Mayan calendar. The crackpots agreed to a measure that could impose taxing and spending changes that would be so drastic they could cause economic problems that would INCREASE the deficit by another trillion dollars. [Note: because of Congressional procedures and a desire for a Christmas break, members would need to reach an agreement by the date the Mayan calendar ends in order to get the legislation to President Obama by the end of the year.]

We don't need to go over the fiscal cliff. Congress cannot pass legislation that Congress cannot change. If there are any sane members of Congress left, they should introduce legislation to repeal the measure requiring a deficit agreement by the end of this year or at least extend the deadline for another year. If past Congresses could violate agreements they reached with the Cherokee and the Sioux, the current Congress can rescind an agreement reached among its members during a period of collective insanity.

The main obstacle to an agreement is that Obama wants to increase taxes and spending and Republicans want to reduce both. Our system is based on compromise. Each side needs to give in on one issue. Obama should agree to let Republicans reduce spending in exchange for Republicans giving Obama a tax increase on those who can afford to pay higher taxes.

Reply

The World Bank and Global Warming

The World Bank isn't known historically as an environmentally friendly institution in terms of the sorts of development projects it has funded. So when the World Bank gets concerned about the possible affects of global warming perhaps even the skeptics ought to pay attention.

Check out the World Bank's climate change site here: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-century

Reply

Lisa Miller - Virtual Slave

One of the worst abuses of American slavery was the fact that slave owners could take a mother's children away from her and sell them to someone else.

The corrupt Vermont court system is treating Lisa Miller and her daughter Isabella like they are slaves. A compassionless judge named William Cohen has forced Miller to leave the country to avoid having to turn her daughter Isabella over to a woman who is unrelated to Isabella.

While Lisa Miller was being treated at a state hospital for a suicide attempt, hospital personnel, of unknown sexual orientation, suggested to Lisa that she might be homosexual. Instead of going to an objective psychiatrist for evaluation she went to the homosexual run Whitman-Walker health clinic in the Washington, D.C., area where, not surprisingly, she was told she was homosexual. She subsequently developed a relationship with Janet Jenkins and decided to be artificially inseminated to have a child in 2002. The couple split up a year later.

Miller moved to Virginia and decided she didn't like the homosexual lifestyle, probably because she wasn't a homosexual to begin with. Initially there was a visitation arrangement for Isabella with Jenkins. Miller says she cut off the visitations because Isabella was uncomfortable with the visitations and according to Miller had talked of suicide.

Isabella's talk of suicide could indicate Jenkins was sexually abusing her. The National Institute of Health has reported an increased risk of suicide among abused children. Sexual abuse of children can be difficult to deal with. Some children may be reluctant to talk about incidents. Other children may invent incidents.. Some abusers don't consider what they are doing to be wrong even though society might disagree. One of the best examples is singer Michael Jackson not thinking he was doing anything wrong by sleeping in the same bed with young boys.

If there was physical contact, Jenkins might thought of it as as mother daughter thing, but Isabella might have thought of the contact with Jenkins in terms of Jenkins' past physical relationship with Isabella's biological mother.

Judge Cohen didn't bother to examine the situation, but instead decided to punish Miller for not accepting his arbitrary orders by giving Jenkins custody of the child she is not biologically related to. In a traditional marriage relationship the male partner has a right to share custody of a child if he is the biological father. There is no legitimate reason to grant an equal right to custody of a mother's child to a male or female partner who is not biologically related to the child. Only the mother should be allowed to decide if custody should be shared.

Granting custody rights to a non-related partner in effect makes the mother a slave. She becomes like the slave mothers whose children could be arbitrarily taken away from them and given to other unrelated individuals.

Vermont, or at least Judge Cohen, apparently supports some version of the archaic notion that a mother is the property of her partner and cannot act independently. Cohen apparently doesn't believe that a mother has a right to protect her child from questionable behavior by someone the child is not biologically related to.

Homosexuality isn't the only type of behavior a mother might conceivably object to in a former partner. Let's consider the hypothetical situation of a mother who has adopted a vegan lifestyle and doesn't want her child to have to spend time with a former partner who might feed the child meat that the mother believes is unhealthy and morally wrong. The difference between the mother and former partner wouldn't need to be that great. The mother might be concerned that the former partner had unhealthy eating habits and would feed the child a lot of potato chips, candy, fatty foods, sugary drinks, etc..

Janet Jenkins is a woman. Unless she has some medical problem that prevents pregnancy, she can have her own baby. Lisa Miller worked 24 hours a day for nine months to make Isabella. Lisa's body made Isabells without any help from the government or Janet Jenkins. If Janet Jenkins wants a child she should have one of her own and stop trying to use a corrupt court system to steal Lisa Miller's child. Lisa Miller is supposed to be a free woman not a slave. The government shouldn't be able to treat her like a slave whose child can arbitrarily be taken away and given to someone else.

Reply

Trade Tax Increase for Vote Rigging Prosecutor

Congressional Republicans shouldn't give President Barack Obama the tax increases he wants without getting something in return.

Many of the Republicans strongly opposed to tax increases believe Obama won the election because of voting irregularities in some states. They might find a tax increase more acceptable if the legislation were accompanied by appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of voting irregularities.

I don't know how valid the allegations are or if the actions could actually have changed the outcome of the election. However, ignoring these allegations won't make them disappear. Those who believe the allegations are valid will treat the failure to investigate as a cover up and wait for an opportunity to bring the subject up at a later time.

Any tax increases should include extending the Social Security tax to apply to all income received from an employer rather than just the first $110,000. The tax would apply to the incomes of employees like athletes and tv actors as well as employees like business executives. If lower income employees can afford to pay the Social Security tax on their incomes, then higher income employees can afford to pay taxes on the income above that normally subject to the Social Security tax. This tax would not be applied to business owners whose personal income and business income are the same. The tax would only apply to paid employees.

An option would be to add a temporary surtax that would be in effect until the deficit fell below some stated amount. Other tax increases could also be temporary with the duration and rate depending on the size of the deficit.

Congress should consider a temporary suspension of all tax credits with the duration of the suspension depending upon the size of the deficit. Many federal grant programs to state and local governments should be suspended as long as the deficit is too high.

Congress should stop talking about Medicare and Medicaid fraud and do something about it including hiring more investigators to the job and making executives in companies that engage in fraud subject to criminal prosecution.

Someone needs to tell those who don't want an investigation of election allegations that ignoring questions of scandal can make the scandal seem worse than it is. The Watergate burglary during the Nixon administration wasn't that big a deal, but the cover up made it a major scandal. Public opinion polls conducted in early 1973 [before Senate hearings] and early 1974 {after Senate hearings] indicated no change in what people believed happened but there was a change in how people viewed the significance of the scandal. Politicians never seem to learn that attempting to cover up "scandals" only makes the situation seem worse.

The recent election attracted a lot of support from various financial interests. A major scandal involving the financial interests who supported Obama would demonstrate a motive for "stealing" the election and increase the perception that the election was stolen and Obama is a crook.

I'm concerned about the potential for protests about the election turning violent. This has happened in other countries when governments have ignored complaints about election fraud.

I remember the sixties and would rather not go through something like that again.

Reply

Ask for New Election And Vote Fraud Investigation - Not Secession

Those who are talking about secession should shift their focus to calling for a new fair presidential election that does not allow use of the type of touch screen computers involved in election irregularities in various locations. Americans should copy the citizens of other countries who call for new elections when their leaders engage in election fraud.

Alternatively, Congress could trade establishment of a special prosecutor for election fraud for a tax increase. The allegations of vote rigging are far more significant than the Watergate burglary that was investigated by a Special Prosecutor. President Barack Obama probably was not involved in the vote rigging activities, but a failure to investigate and prosecute those involved could be considered an impeachable offense. A vote rigging Prosecutor might have to investigate some of Obama's financial supporters, but probably wouldn't investigate Obama. Republican voters might be more likely to accept a tax increase tied to an investigation of state and local Democratic officials.

I don't know if Barack Obama would have won a fair election or not, but there are enough irregularities reported about the recent election to indicate he might have lost a fair election.

Irregularities include more than 100% turnout in some areas, allegations of illegal aliens being brought in to vote and voting machines that wouldn't allow votes for Mitt Romney. Ohio had a policy of allowing people to register and than vote without allowing officials to make sure they were not also register elsewhere.

The first rule of election rigging should be "don't be too obvious". In parts of Cleveland and other locations Obama received 99% of the vote which looks suspicious.

Election rigging has a long history in the United States, particularly in major cities where corrupt political machines didn't want to risk losing the offices that gave them power and money. For example, Chicago has a reputation for being a place in which the dead are allowed to briefly return to life to vote on election day.

It shouldn't be surprising if vote rigging occurred in an election in which huge sums of money were donated to the presidential campaigns by wealthy individuals on both sides. Some rich folks don't like to lose and will ignore laws if they think they can get away with it. Many believe that billionaire Nazi collaborator George Soros is behind the vote rigging.

Other wealthy interest groups are also potential suspects. For example, some carbon traders have violated European tax laws and even sold phony carbon credits. They might find spending a few million on vote rigging to be a good way to insure election of a president who supports the global warming scam.

Allegations of vote rigging might recede into the background for a time, but they could be resurrected if people believed Obama was abusing his office to benefit the wealthy interest groups that helped finance Obama's reelection. Efforts to restrict gun ownership could also trigger allegations that he stole the election for that reason.

Reply

Reporters as Prostitutes II

The only differences between many American political reporters and prostitutes is that prostitutes understand what type of business they are in and prostitutes provide something of value to the people who pay them.

One of reasons Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney is because most political reporters at the Main Stream Media (MSM) are essentially prostitutes. They are partisan Obamista Democrats whose motto is "ours is not to question why. Ours is but to lie and lie." They apparently believe their duty is to make their fellow Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad. If wealthy Republicans want to improve their chances of winning, they will need to invest in media companies and replace the partisan Democrats with either Republicans or with real journalists who believe they have a duty to pressure politicians regardless of party into being truthful.

American reporters should know better than to automatically believe any politicians, particularly those running for president. It wasn't that long ago that President Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with an intern and President George W. Bush was claiming that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. They certainly weren't the first two presidents to lie. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the assistance he provided to the British prior to American entry into World War II while he was plotting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to get the United States into the war.

American reporters continue to publish stories supporting the late Enron Corporation's global warming scam even though the documents indicating Enron's role in setting up the scam have been available for years. Reporters potentially have access to studies by scientists who question the claims about global warming, but refuse to consult the critics of global warming. Reporters ignore the fact that those who want to profit from trading carbon credits are likely to spend large sums to elect candidates like Barack Obama who support their agenda.

Real journalists recognize that when politicians and government officials try to keep documents secret, it is often to cover up damaging information. For example, in the1960 presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy refused to release his medical records while falsely claiming he didn't have any health problems. We didn't learn until many years later that Kennedy was afflicted with Addison's disease, a disorder that can cause a fatal drop in blood pressure.

When we elect a president we are really hiring a president. We should have access to the same information an employer might request from a potential employee. The news media should seek that information on our behalf.

Unfortunately, most American journalists don't care about whether or not candidates are truthful about their background. For example, there have been cases in the past of journalists who have lied about the education. Thus, it would be reasonable to require presidential "job applicants" to make copies of their college records available to those who decide who to hire for the job.

Barack Obama claims to be healthy like Kennedy did, but refused to make his medical records public to confirm his claim. Obama's body is consistent with the type of body that individuals with potentially fatal Marfan's syndrome often have. Those with Marfan's syndrome can suffer from sudden heart attacks. How can we be sure he doesn't have Marfan's syndrome if he won't make his medical records public.

The presidency has citizenship and a minimum age requirement. Thus it is reasonable to require those applying for the job of President of the United States to submit a birth certificate to confirm he meets the citizenship requirement and is old enough to qualify for the job. However, MSM journalists act like the issue isn't important. They continued to ignore the issue even after Obama posted an obviously forged birth certificate on line.

The forgery lists his "race" as "African" even though the term "African" cannot be used to indicate a specific race. Africa contains two visibly different groups of people. Those who live north of the Sahara Desert have light colored complexions. Those who live south of the Sahara have dark complexions.

The use of the word "African" instead of the term used at the time "Negro[the Spanish word for black]" could indicate Obama has been keeping the document secret for a reason other than where he was born. When Obama was born southern police were still beating civil rights demonstrators. If Obama's complexion was light enough to pass for Hawaiian, his mother might have taken advantage of giving birth in Hawaii to list her son as whatever term was used for native Hawaiians. Obama might have decided to keep the document secret because he wanted to use his complexion to appeal to black voters and didn't want them to think he was really an Hawaiian.

Obama's decision to keep his birth certificate secret might involve an old dictator's trick. A dictator wanting to determine how loyal his supporters are may say or do something questionable to determine who will support him regardless of what he has said or done.

The tendency of the MSM to bias news in favor of their Democratic Party has increased the degree of division between Democratic activists and Republican activists. Those who realize they cannot trust the MSM turn to Republican organizations that also present biased information.

The current situation with the media isn't new. In the 19th Century Noah Webster observed: “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."

Mark Twain also had a low opinion of journalists. " That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."

Reply 16 comments from Agnostick Jonas_opines Alyosha Patricia Davis Donttreadonme Somedude20 Roedapple Deec Media_hookers_for_obama Beatrice and 1 others

Did Obama Indirectly Admit to Being Muslim Recently?

I remember a few decades ago when the Roman Catholic Pope visited the United States. Some reporters in effect said that they were Catholics by using the Catholic term "Holy Father" when referring to the Pope.

Did President Barack Obama recently reveal that he's a "closet" Muslim when he said: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Why did Obama use the name "Prophet of Islam" instead of "Mohammad" or "The Prophet Mohammad" like most non-Muslims would?

Obama admits that "to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Obama's emphasis on not "slandering" the Prophet Mohammad implies he may assign greater status to Islam than other religions.

Obama has long attempted to convince people he is Christian even though he used the phrase "my Muslim faith" in an interview with George Stephanopoulis in 2008 He wouldn't be the first politician to claim to be an believer in some religion to gain public support.

I realize the naive Obamistas think they must believe everything their Imperial President tells them. But, those of us who have studied American history realize that politicians, especially presidents, will lie if they think they can get away with it.

Reply 1 comment from Tim Hjersted

Thinking About the Unthinkable in Libya

Recent claims that an attempt to rescue the American Ambassador in Libya was vetoed by someone high up in the administration raises a disturbing question. Did someone higher up want the Ambassador and/or others at the consulate to die?

Investigators need to examine this possibility. One potential problem might be that the action resulted from the same type of "failure to communicate" that caused the death of Canterbury Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1170. King Henry II was locked in a long running dispute with Beckett and at some point said something that caused his knights to mistakenly believe the king wanted Becket dead.

Someone in the White House may have believed that President Barack Obama wished something bad would happen to Ambassador Chris Stevens or someone else at the Libyan Consulate. When the report of the attack came in such an individual might have decided the attack would help the President get what he wanted and vetoed a rescue. I hope this is not what happened, but it is a possibility that deserves investigation.

I believe we can reject the possibility that Obama was worried about civilian casualties because Obama didn't worry about that possibility when he was trying to overthrow the Libyan government and hasn't worried about that possibility when authorizing drone strikes in Pakistan.

I initially thought the Obama administration simply didn't have resources available to rescue people at the consulate because it didn't recognize the potential threat due to the continued instability in Libya. However, the stories about the veto of a rescue attempt indicate rescue resources were available.

We know from the killing of Osama bin Laden that the Obama White House has the capability to monitor events like the attack on the Libyan consulate. Thus it is unlikely that the failure to respond was due to a lack of information. Either someone in the administration didn't want to respond or Obama's approval was needed and he was sleeping or brewing beer or something and didn't want to be disturbed.

Reply

It’s Halloween Night in Your Neighborhood

The wind picks up leaves

swirls them around

teens commit pranks

while adults act like clowns

You make chicken chili

heat up spiced cider

put beer in the fridge

stock up on candy

Carve pumpkins to

look like a fright

bring in the cat

turn on the porch light

Get in your car

Dirt roads wind you around

Take you far out of town

Where haystacks seem bleak

Until scarecrows peek

from around them!

Witches on horned owls

screech high overhead

Demons pop up from

under the hood

Clouds cover the moon

You hear a loud thud

You have a flat tire

in three feet of mud

You arrive back at home

It's time to disrobe

You sneeze once or twice

You've caught a damn cold!

Have one last beer

with your favorite candy

Pull on warm socks

Put your feet up.

Oops, turn out the light

Blow out the candle

Put out the cat

Spirits creep in, see you're asleep

Let themselves out with

hardly a peep.

Your snoring is loud

you're all tuckered out

Your dog jumps into bed

howling in fright!

Realization sinks in

it's gonna ba a long frekin night

On Halloween night in your neighborhood

(10-28-2007 - Ronda Miller)

Reply 30 comments from Ladyj Pywacket Ronda Miller Class Clown Riverdrifter Jay_lo Tange Frankie8 Roedapple Bevy and 1 others

Democrats War on Women

It isn't unusual for a political group to accuse a rival group of doing what it is doing. This situation occurs because members of the the first group believe whatever they are doing is "right" and whatever the opposition is doing is "wrong". The best example of this phenomena is the standard claim by each party that the other party is getting special interest group support.

Democrats have been accusing the Republicans of waging a war on women while ignoring the Democrats own war on women. War involves death and Democrats support policies that increase the death rate of women by failing to regulate abortion providers or adequately test contraceptive produces.

Governments have long recognized the need to regulate the health care industry to insure that those providing medical services are actually qualified to do the job and adhere to the highest standards of safety. However, when it comes to regulating those who provide abortion related health care many Democrats act like disciples of Rush Limbaugh.

The only people who seem interested in insuring adequate regulation of abortion providers are the people who oppose the procedure. Many Democrats are so obsessed with the idea that abortions must be available that they don't care about the safety of the procedure. Some Democrats seem incapable of understanding that women don't benefit from abortions that kill them.

Although it is preferable for babies to be delivered by trained individuals, people with no medical training including cab drivers and children have been known to help successfully deliver babies.

However, abortion is major surgery. An abortion involves removing something from the interior of a body that is attached to the body. Abortions should only be performed by trained professionals operating in facilities that conform to government standards for surgical facilities. Abortionists should know how to correct the mistakes that sometimes occur during surgery. Government needs to strictly regulate the process to protect women from the type of under qualified individuals who will attempt to perform medical services if the opportunity is available. Government should require individuals and facilities that perform abortions to meet the same licensing standards as other facilities.

Failing to require facilities that treat only women to meet the same standards as facilities that treat men and women is the equivalent of the old southern Jim Crow laws. The lack of government oversight is particularly disturbing when unlicensed or under regulated facilities are allowed to operate in areas with high minority populations. A young black woman named Tonya Reaves died a few months ago from a poorly performed abortion at an unlicensed Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago. http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/howcandreamsurvive.htm

As with many medical procedures there are potential adverse side effects to abortion. Democrats believe doctors who should be required to inform patients of adverse side effects for other procedures shouldn't have to inform women about possible adverse health effects of abortion which some studies indicate include an increased risk of breast cancer (in young women) and suicide. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/86/21/1584 http://afterabortion.org/2001/suicide-rate-higher-after-abortion-study-shows/

The primary impact of abortion on breast cancer seems to be on young women with the first pregnancy because their breasts are still developing new cells. The abortion stops this process with some cells not fully developed. If these undeveloped cells start reproducing later as something other than breast cells the result can be a cancerous tumor.

Medical authorities don't fully understand how a woman's brain chemistry changes with pregnancy and with the end of pregnancy. They know that women can become severely depressed and possibly suicidal after giving birth. An artificial end to pregnancy is likely to cause the same depression encouraging changes in a woman's brain chemistry. Women who have unwanted pregnancies may already have a negative attitude about themselves which could lead to depression and suicide.

Women who have abortions should be encouraged to contact mental health professionals after the abortion. Women who have abortions may be more likely to become severely depressed because they have a negative attitude toward the pregnancy and possibly a negative opinion about themselves associated with the decisions that led to the pregnancy.

Medical treatments often have risks of adverse side effects for some people. Patients have a right to know what the suspected adverse side effects are so they can make an informed decision. Medical treatments don't affect everyone the same way. For example, the penicillan that could save my life from an infection would have killed my mother because she was allergic to it. Some medical treatments, such as use of radiation, can increase the risk of cancer. Other treatments such as organ transplants may increase the risk of suicide.

Surgery carries the risk of infection, permanent injury or even death. Abortion can be major surgery. Complications from an abortion can include a hysterectomy or death as the family of Tonya Reaves discovered after she died from a poorly performed abortion in an unlicensed clinic a few months ago.

Democrats apparently think women are incapable of evaluating possible risks when determining whether or not to have an abortion. Democrats don't think women considering an abortion can balance the possible adverse consequences of an abortion with what they consider the negative aspects of their pregnancies.

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "equal protection of the laws." If the law requires health care providers to warn men of possible adverse side effects of medical procedures, then health care providers must provide the same type of warnings to women including those seeking abortions. State laws that seem to allow those providing medical threatment to avoid warning women are unconsitutional.

If Democrats really cared about women they would do something to prohibit those men who molest young girls from paying abortionists to dispose of the evidence that a molester has gotten an underage girl pregnant. Children who are sexually molested can suffer for years afterwards. Proving child abuse can be difficult because courts may not consider a child's testimony to be reliable. The remains of an aborted baby provide indisputable evidence that a man has sexaully molested a child. Child molesters often molest more than one child. Failing to prosecute a molester allows him to continue to ruin the lives of children. If Democrats really cared about women they would support legislation requiring abortionists to deliver the remains of abortions on underage females to the local medical examiner for possible law enforcement action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_se...

Democrats make a big deal out of contraceptives. They want to make sure women don't have to pay for them. However, Democrats don't seem to care as much about the safety of contraceptives. If you notice the ads by ambulance chasing lawyers you've seen the ones about a lawsuit involving the once popular contraceptive Yaz.

Yaz has been discovered to have the same problem as some earlier contraceptives. It can cause fatal blood clots. If Democrats really cared about women they would insure that contraceptives are adequately tested for the potential to create blood clots or cause other problems before they can be marketed.

Democrats claim Republicans are waging a war on women, but it is the Democrats who see nothing wrong with allowing unregulated or poorly regulated individuals to perform medical procedures on women that can injure or even kill the patient. It is Democrats, rather than Republicans, who favor laws that increase the risk of death for women.

Reply 14 comments from Jackmckee Jafs Liberty275 Rockchalk1977 Fretster Blue73harley Riverdrifter Autie Pizzapete Armstrong and 2 others

Will Moore Movie make OBL a Muslim Hero?

Western Elitists often don't understand that people in other parts of the world don't think the same way they do. For example, they don't realize that those we consider to be villains may be considered heroes by some Muslims.

If Michael Moore portrays President Barack Obama as taking control of the effort to get Osama bin Laden, the implication will be that bin Laden was a powerful man who posed a major threat to the United States, a man Americans feared . The more time the President of the United States is portrayed as devoting to the search for bin Laden the more important OBL will appear to be. At a time when the United States faces significant economic and budget problems, the President wouldn't spend time going after a man who didn't pose a major threat to the country. Al Qaeda could use the idea that the United States feared bin Laden as a recruiting tool.

Another potential problem with the movie is the handling of OBL's death. If the movie shows bin Laden fighting the SEALs, he will appear to many Muslims to be "heroically standing up to a superior force in a situation in which death is inevitable." If the movie shows bin Laden simply being shot without a weapon in his hand, then those who kill him will appear to Muslims to be murderers. Either way Muslims may decide that bin Laden is a martyr. Either way could provoke Muslim violence against American interests in the Middle East.

Reply 2 comments from Buckysbabe Oldbaldguy

Obama Disrespected Voters in 3rd Debate

On October 22 voters tuned into a presidential debate expecting a serious discussion of foreign policy issues. Apparently President Barack Obama didn't understand that fact or didn't care. Or perhaps, he decided to use the show to audition for a new career on Saturday Night Live.

Obama responded to a statement by Mitt Romney about the navy being smaller than in 1916 by telling what some considered a joke instead of attempting to explain why he thinks the United States doesn't need a larger navy.

"But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

The statement is something I might expect from a half wit comic like Bill Mahr, but not from a president who is supposed to be demonstrating why he should be retained as commander in chief. If I were a Democrat I might suggest it is the type of statement I would expect from Michele Bachmann

Obama's comparison of the size of the navy to the reduced need for horses and bayonets makes no sense. His use of this comparison indicates he doesn't understand military matters. Incidentally, I was recently reminded that our special forces troops initially entered Afghanistan on horseback. I also found out that bayonets have been used in Iraq.

His statements about aircraft carriers and submarines sound like something a child would say or maybe something an adult would say to a child. I would be remiss if I didn't suggest that Obama's statement might be something someone under the influence of alcohol might consider brilliant.

It might come as a surprise to Obama but "ships that go underwater" were used extensively by the Germans in WWI. Our navy had trouble protecting merchants ships from submarine attack because our navy was too small. Incidentally I won't fault Obama for using the word "ships" to refer to submarines, but the navy has traditionally used the term "boat" for a submarine rather than "ship".

Aircraft carriers date from WWI, but the first ships used seaplanes that landed and took off from the water and were only stored on the ship. The first carrier capable of launching and landing aircraft, the HMS Argus, wasn't launched until 1918.

Reply 43 comments from Kirk Larson Bob Forer Jonas_opines Paul R.  Getto Booyalab The_original_bob Rockchalk1977 Armstrong Roland Gunslinger Merrill and 23 others

In a Perfect World

Friends of mine seem surprised, and certainly questioning, when they learn I'm pro life. The questions my stance, which is a life style choice not a political siding, garner include the standard ones. I'm asked why I feel it's okay to tell someone else what they have to do with their body - my response is that I'm not telling anyone what they should do with their own body, just what they shouldn't do to a body too small and defenseless to stand up for itself.

Hasn't that been the American way since the beginning of the American dream? Don't Americans put themselves into harms way and travel across the sea to protect those who don't have the physical abilities to defend themselves against cutting swords or toxic poisons another entity uses on them?

It's easy for me to answer the 'when life begins' question. My response is that as a human development major I was taught that life begins with the zygote. I believe that.

I appreciate people come from different belief systems, lifestyle choices, opinions, cultures and religions.

In a perfect world the smallest form of human life would be cherished, protected, coddled, nourished. Once that perfect world of respect for the most fragile of human life begins, then our climate of a world at war begins to change.

Our focus shifts and we begin to look inward towards the smallest movement, the slightest sound of a beating heart.

I don't want or expect the reverse of our present culture where women for the most part retain secondary rights in respect to equal pay, sexual bias, and exploitation. They don't need to be put on a pedestal.

But our culture would be vastly improved if our focus was placed on the family - the smallest of life's form was cherished to the ultimate end of giving it the optimal in physical, emotional and educational care. Women wouldn't be subjected to the fear of rape or incest because they would be cherished as the sacred houses where honored life begins.

In a perfect world no one would need to defend their reasons NOT to kill an unprotected life.

I know we don't live in a perfect world, but let us begin doing what we can. It starts at home - it begins within.

Reply 16 comments from Ronda Miller Ken Lassman Ronaldo Ignacio Jay_lo Bearded_gnome Riverdrifter Roedapple Armstrong Tange Rockchalker52

No Dave, Undecided Voters Aren’t “Idiots” –- You Are

During the last week talk show host David Letterman has been calling undecided voters "idiots" because they are still undecided. If he actually knew anything about the candidates he would understand that the undecided voters may be the smart ones.

For those who don't watch Dave, it has been evident for a long time that he's an Obamista. He believes whatever Obama says and ignores criticism of Obama. He frequently criticized Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax returns while saying Obama could keep all his records secret.

Many undecided voters may be waiting to see if secret documents are released. Perhaps undecided voters are more likely to recognize that politicians that attempt to keep documents secret are usually covering up something.

Typically undecided voters in an election involving an incumbent have decided they would rather replace him, but aren't sure of the possible replacement.

President Barack Obama is clearly an ineffective president. He seems unable to comprehend the fact that the al Qaeda attack on the American consulate in Libya indicates the organization may be getting stronger, not weaker. He brags about the drop in unemployment while ignoring the fact the drop is due largely to people becoming so discouraged they have stopped looking for work. A half million have dropped out during the last couple of months.

Obama is the worst president since Gerald Ford. I've been reluctant to compare him to pre-Depression presidents because the office has changed so much since the Depression. However, Obama's recent suggestion that the navy has declined in importance like bayonets and horses, indicates he is out of touch with reality. He may be the on the way to becoming the most irrelevant president since Millard Fillmore.

The challenger Mitt Romney has thus far been uninspiring. Undecided voters want to watch him a little longer to make sure Romney doesn't self destruct.

The undecided voters are attempting to send the major parties a message. They want better quality presidential candidates from the major parties. They want candidates they can have confidence in. They want candidates they can commit to instead of having to decide which is the lesser of the two evils.

Reply 4 comments from Wutangstylez Riverdrifter Wristtwister Roedapple

1 2 3 4 ...58