Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]

Skip to comments.


Mises Economic Blog ^ | 10/29/2009 | Stephan Kinsella

Posted on ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2009‎ ‎5‎:‎01‎:‎23‎ ‎PM by sionnsar

Physicist Howard Hayden, a staunch advocate of sound energy policy, sent me a copy of his letter to the EPA about global warming. The text is also appended below, with permission.

As noted in my post Access to Energy, Hayden helped the late, great Petr Beckmann found the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (brochures and further Beckmann info here; further dissident physics links). Hayden later began to publish his own pro-energy newsletter, The Energy Advocate, following in the footsteps of Beckmann's own journal Access to Energy

I love Hayden's email sign-off, "People will do anything to save the world ... except take a course in science." Here's the letter:

***

Howard C. Hayden
785 S. McCoy Drive
Pueblo West, CO 81007

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."

It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a "tipping point." Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output "goes to the rail." Not only that, but it stays there. That's the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA­GISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value.

  • The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

  • A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
  • The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
  • CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
  • A warmer world begets more precipitation.
  • All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
  • The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ºC, and the lowest is -117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin "proved" that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He "proved" it using the conservation of energy. What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have "proved" that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn't.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

Howard C. Hayden

Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

Monday, January 23, 2017

When did Israel Steal its country from the muslims?

There was an Israeli state in the land of Israel 2000 years before the evil prophet of Islam allegedly flying on a "magical horse" from Mecca to Jerusalem.

  • * There was an Israeli nation in the land of Israel.
  • * There was an Israeli kingdom in the land of Israel.
  • * There were Israeli kings in the Israeli kingdom of Israel.
  • * There was an Israeli capital in the kingdom of Israel.
  • * There was and there is an Israeli essence.
  • * There was and there is an Israeli heritage.
  • * There was and there is an Israeli culture.

    The “Palestinians” are Arabs who were brought to the region by the Ottoman empire as part of the Muslim occupation in the region. They are definitely not the tribes from Crete who settled down in the 5 cities of Gaza strip after the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. These tribes were called Philistines and they weren’t Arabs at all and today’s “Palestinians” are definitely not their descendants. The Philistines don’t exist as a nation.

    Israel isn't just a name of a state. It's first and for all a name of a nation (Am Yisrael). Israel is the name of the father of the nation (Jacob) and Israelis are his descendants. The real meaning of the word 'Israeli' is someone who belongs to the nation of Israel and not only "a citizen of a state called Israel".

    Gentiles invented the word ‘Jews’. When the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans occupied the land of Israel they called all the Israelis in the name 'Jews' because at those days the tribe of Judah was the biggest and the dominant tribe which survived the exile of Assyria in which 10 tribes of Israel were exiled. The tribe of Judah lived in the Judean desert thus the gentiles who occupied the land of Israel called the members of this tribe (and also the ones of Benjamin and Levi who joined it) in the name 'Jews'.

    When Israelis (Jews) who live abroad go to synagogue they don't read about Jews in the prayer books nor in the Torah but about 'The Nation of Israel', 'The Children of Israel', 'The House of Israel’,'Shema Yisrael' etc. They are Israelis because they belong to the nation of Israel even if they aren't citizens of a state called Israel. Both the words 'Jews' and 'Israelis' refer to nationality, to ethnic identity and not to religion. Jews are members of the tribe of Judah and not "people who believe in Judaism". And the nation isn't called Judah but Israel, and so does the land and in the future the 10 tribes will return to this nation.

    That's why Arab citizens of Israel don't define themselves as Israelis but as Arab/"Palestinian" citizens of a state CALLED Israel. They aren't members of the Israeli nation but of the Ishmaelite nation. Ishmael used to shoot arrows at Isaac (father of Israel) while saying: "I'm only playing..." That's why there's no "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" but a WAR that the Ishmaelite/Arabs opened on the Israelis. Also Muhammad murdered Israelis in Saudi Arabia who refused to accept his murderous pagan dream.

    Couple of facts about Israel that the haters of Israel don't like:

    1. Israel became a state in 1312 B.C., two millennia before Islam.

  • 2.Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians"in1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood in 1948.
  • 3.After conquering the land in 1272 B.C., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300years.
  • 4.The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 BC lasted just 22 years.
  • 5.For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule,(East) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it.
  • 6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an.
  • 7. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it.
  • 8.Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem.
  • 9.In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presence. 68% of them fled without ever setting eyes on an Israeli soldier.
  • 10. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms.
  • 11. Some 630,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while close to a million Jews were forced to leave the Muslim countries.
  • 12.In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of100 million refugees following World War 2, they are the only group to have never integrated with their co-religionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel ,a country no larger than New Jersey, USA.
  • 13. There are 22 Muslim countries, not counting Palestine. There is only one Jewish state.
  • 14. Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel.
  • Israel ceded most of the west bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian authority, and even provided it with arms.
  • 15.During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths.
  • 16. Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 general assembly resolutions,429 were against Israel.
  • 17. The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the temple mount and western wall.
  • 18. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Trump’s NOAA Administrator Must Address the Temperature Record Controversy

Jan 19, 2017

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

image

Roseburg, Oregon official USHCN temperature monitoring site shows examples of spurious heat influences that accumulate over the years, spuriously exaggerating the “global warming” signal.

An article appeared in the Washington Post yesterday entitled, “Who Will Lead NOAA Under President Trump?”. Written by the Capitol Weather Gang’s Jason Samenow, it lists three top contenders:

Scott Rayder, senior adviser for development and partnerships at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Barry Myers, chief executive of AccuWeather in State College, Pa.

Jonathan White, president and chief executive of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership

The article addresses important issues facing NOAA in the coming years, such as making our weather forecasting capability the best in the world while still respecting the role of the private sector in adding value to the data collection and modelling role the government has taken leadership in.

Yet, something is missing…

You see, the names mentioned are part of the existing establishment, and we all know that President Trump is interested in “draining the swamp”.

They might be perfectly fine candidates - if Hillary Clinton had won the election.

What is missing is NOAA’s controversial role in promoting the U.N. plan to use global climate change as a way for the U.N. to oversee the redistribution of the world’s wealth and deindustrialize the West. (Note that’s not my claim...it’s their claim). It is well known that most of the countries that signed on to the Paris Agreement did so because they hope to gain from those transfers of wealth.

And we also know the result of CO2 emissions reduction will be a huge amount of pain (up to $100 Trillion loss of wealth this century) for no measurable impact on global temperatures, even using the U.N.’s over-inflated warming predictions.

NOAA has been actively “adjusting” the thermometer record of global temperatures over the years by making the present warmer, and the past colder, leading to an ever increasing upward temperature trend. This supports the global warming narrative the current administration, and the U.N., favors.

In my opinion, NOAA needs leadership that will reexamine these procedures. It took a TV meteorologist, Anthony Watts, to spearhead a site inspection of nearly all of the temperature monitoring locations in the U.S., even forcing NOAA to admit that many of their temperature monitoring stations were simply of no use for monitoring climate trends, when parking lots and air conditioning exhaust fans gradually encroached on these sites, causing spurious warming. Watts’ research has suggested that, after removing the contaminated stations, a substantial fraction of the reported warming in the U.S. simply disappears.

Why did it take an outsider - with no funding - to do what NOAA should have done to begin with?

Yes, providing data and analysis addressing the global warming issue is only one part of NOAA’s responsibility (which includes ocean research as well).

But it is by far the most important part of NOAA’s mission when it comes to the future health of the U.S. economy.

The new NOAA Administrator needs to address this issue head on, and not whitewash it. I seriously doubt any of the three candidates listed above will do that.
-----------

See this working paper from several years ago that Icecap and Anthony Watts did exposing surface temperature measurement issues.

See Anthony’s paper showing half of the U.S. warming is artificial.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Climate Experts Expected To Continue Lying Right Up To January 20, 2017

Dec 27, 2016

 

Now we are down to FOX News and Faux News (all the other television networks and major metro newspapers and most magazines). The lies go on and on not just about politics but everything elitists progressives want you to believe.

By Tony Heller

The fake news Huffington Post says sea level at New York will rise six feet this century and they will have more heat waves.

image
Enlarged

New York City Could See Up To Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise This Century: Report | The Huffington Post

Apparently this panel of scientific experts didn’t look at any actual data. Over the past six years, sea level at both New York and Boston has fallen about two inches.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Sea level trends

There has been no increase in the number of hot days in New York, which peaked in 1955.

image
Enlarged

Away from the urban heat island effect of Manhattan, New York State has seen a sharp decline in the number of hot days.
image
Enlarged

Nationally, the percent of hot days has also plummeted.

image
Enlarged

Everything they said was fake news, but to be fair to this team of climate experts morons, NASA’s top climate expert believes Lower Manhattan is already underwater.

image
Stormy weather - Salon.com

-------

Note from Willie Soon:

Dear friends in New England…

This is truly a very stupid game they keep playing...they could not make themselves to show the NH resident the proper map of their own state...but blow up the tiny part where you are connected to the sea… See the latest laughable report.

See the local Climate Commission reportplanning to spend (and benefit greatly from billions

Tom Wysmuller is our local expert on sea level here.. I believe that I opted out to be on this NH sea level committee some years ago and told Tom about this and he may have attended some of the “meetings"…

Joe D’Aleo is of course our top meteorologist that can tell you all you need to know about the weather forecasting business using his analogy-based pattern
recognition method…

for a little cure on sea level scare ... here is one of my earlier insights:

How To Tell Who’s Lying To You: Climate Science Edition

Dec 29, 2016

 

By Francis Menton

Scott Adams—known, among other things, as the cartoonist behind the Dilbert series—has an excellent blog on which he posts something thoughtful nearly every day.  His particular interest is in the arts of persuasion.  Recently he has dipped his toe into the subject of “climate science,” with a focus on the apparent inability of partisans on either side of the debate ever to convince a single person to come over from the other side.  Now, suppose you come to this debate with no scientific expertise and no ax to grind for either side.  The debate has very significant public policy implications, and understanding it is important to being an informed voter.  How are you to supposed to evaluate the arguments and come to a view?  Adams comments:

My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

I’m going to respectfully disagree with Adams on this one.  If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you.  This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial.  The method is this:  look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side.  If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem.  And rightfully so.

I’ll give just a few examples of this phenomenon relevant to the climate change issue.

(1) The Hockey Stick graph.  The so-called Hockey Stick graph first appeared in a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes that was published in Nature magazine in 1998.  It purported to show a reconstruction of worldwide temperatures from the year 1000 to present, in which the temperatures had remained almost completely stable for the first 900 years (the “shaft” of the Hockey Stick), and then suddenly shot up in the twentieth century in the time of human CO2 emissions (the “blade").  This reconstruction effectively repealed the prior accepted version of climate history, in which temperatures had been warmer than the present at least in the so-called Medieval Warm Period of about 1000 - 1300, and probably also in the Roman Warm Period around the year 0.  When the UN’s climate-evaluation body, the IPCC, issued its next Assessment Report in 2001, the Hockey Stick graph had suddenly become the icon of the whole endeavor, appearing multiple times in the Report.  The Hockey Stick seemed like the perfect proof of the proposition that global warming must be caused by humans, because anyone could see from the graph that the warming had all occurred in the era of human use of fossil fuels.  Here is a version of the Hockey Stick graph from the IPCC Third Assessment Report:

image

Unfortunately for Mann et al. and the IPCC, numerous people—those nefarious “skeptics” --promptly began to ask questions about the source of the information behind the “shaft” of the stick.  Thus these skeptics were questioning the ideas that temperatures had remained essentially stable for a millennium and that there had been no Medieval Warm Period.  The most famous of the skeptical researchers was a Canadian named Stephen McIntyre.  McIntyre began a blog called Climate Audit, and started writing many long posts about his efforts, all unsuccessful, to replicate the Mann et al. work.  Requests to Mann et al. for their data and methodologies were met with hostility and evasion.  Over time, McIntyre gradually established that Mann et al. had adopted a complex methodology that selectively emphasized certain temperature proxies over others in order to reverse-engineer the “shaft” of the stick to get a pre-determined desired outcome.

The coup de grace for the Hockey Stick graph came with the so-called Climategate emails, released in 2009.  These were emails between and among many of the main promoters of the climate scare (dubbed by McIntyre the “Hockey Team").  Included in the Climategate releases were emails relating specifically to the methodology of how the graph was created.  From the emails, skeptical researchers were then able to identify some of the precise data series that had been used by Mann et al.  Astoundingly, they discovered that the graph’s creators had truncated inconvenient data in order to get the desired depiction.  A website called Just the Facts has a detailed recounting of how this was uncovered.  As a key example, consider this graph:

image

The bright pink represents data that was deleted from the Mann et al. reconstruction because, obviously, it would have thrown off the nice, flat “shaft” of the stick, while also revealing that this particular “proxy” had totally failed at predicting the twentieth century rise in temperatures.  Most would call this kind of data truncation “scientific fraud.”

Note that the revelations that came out of the Hockey Stick controversy do not prove that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is wrong.  However, those revelations did show beyond doubt that the leading promoters of the hypothesis had resorted to fraud in the effort to get the public to accept their position.  Once that was established, why would you believe anything else they say?

Even today, the Wikipedia write-up of the Hockey Stick controversy takes a position favorable to Mann et al.  If you are willing to devote some time to this issue, read that article next to the write-up at Just the Facts linked above.  I would call the Wikipedia article evasive in the face of highly credible allegations of fraud.  See if you agree.

(2) Adjustments to the instrumental temperature record.  World temperature records based on ground-based thermometers date back to about the late 19th century in most cases.  These records are far more accurate than what we have from earlier times (which are mostly “proxies,” like tree rings and ice cores); but the ground thermometer records still have plenty of problems.  As examples, the location of a ground station could have been moved over time, sometimes multiple times in over 100 years; the physical surroundings of a station could have changed (trees could have grown up, or an adjacent parking lot could have been built); the type of instrument could have changed; and so forth.  Most would agree that some sorts of adjustments to the record, known as “homogenization,” are appropriate to make the earlier data comparable to the more recent data.  However, here the adjustments are in the hands of small numbers of people who are committed to the global warming cause.  Most of the adjusters are government employees working for weather agencies like NASA and NOAA in the U.S., and comparable agencies in other countries. 

As with the Hockey Stick graph, independent researchers interested in the topic have gone to work at their own expense to try to understand the government’s adjustments and evaluate if they are appropriate.  Notable among these researchers are Tony Heller at the website Real Climate Science and Paul Homewood at Not a Lot of People Know That.  What these researchers find is that, in literally every case, earlier temperatures have been adjusted downward, and to a lesser extent, later temperatures adjusted upward.  Obviously, such adjustments can create warming trends where they do not exist in the raw data, and enhance what otherwise might be small warming trends to make them look significant and even scary.  Here at Manhattan Contrarian, I have covered this issue in a now ten part series called The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.  All ten articles are collected, along with others, here.

And literally every time anyone looks at raw temperature data, and compares it to current “final” version temperature data, the same phenomenon is found.  Just this week at Watts Up With That, an Australian meteorologist named Brendan Godwin reports that Australia is subject to the same pervasive corruption as other places:

The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network - Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) Technical Advisory Forum released a report in 2015 confirming that the Surface Air Temperatures were being adjusted, confirming the process is called Homogenization, confirming that other weather monitoring institutions around the world are making these same adjustments and purporting to justify why the adjustments are being made. Observing practices change, thermometers change, stations move from one location to another and new weather stations are installed. They refused to release their complex mathematical formula used to make the adjustments.

Go to the link to see how a slightly declining temperature trend at Rotherglen, Australia, has been turned into a more-than-one-degree-C-per-century increasing trend through supposed “homogenization” adjustments.  Huh?

But the most important part of this story is not the suspicious nature of the adjustments themselves, but rather the flat refusal of the adjusters to reveal the methodology by which the adjustments have been made.  Real, honest scientists would gladly provide the full, unedited computer code that made the adjustments, and would answer any questions that would help an independent researcher to replicate the results.  Yet read through posts of people reporting on the adjustments, and you will universally find that they have been rebuffed in their attempts to find out what is going on.  For example, as I reported in this post in July 2015, a heating consultant in Maine named Michael Brakey, who was just trying to get accurate temperature data to inform his business, stumbled on major recent downward adjustments of earlier temperatures in that state.  Attempting to get the details of the adjustments, the best that NOAA would give him was this vague and preposterous statement:

“...improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”

All you need to do is read my series of posts on this topic, and/or some of the many links found in those posts, and you will know that what is going on is not remotely honest.  You don’t need any specialized scientific training to figure this out.

(3) Hottest [week/month/year] ever.  Readers of my series on The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time are aware that our government bureaucrats at NASA and NOAA regularly put out breathless press releases announcing that some given month, or series of months, or year, was the hottest such period on record.  For example, in this post from August 2015, I reported on government press releases as to March, May and July 2015, declaring them each to be the “hottest ever” on some or another criterion.  That post also reports on how the press releases are then picked up and repeated, more or less word for word, by every news source going under the banner of “mainstream”: CNN, Bloomberg, Washington Post, USA Today, BBC, AP, LA Times, CBS News, and many, many more.

But does any one of these press releases, or any one of these news sources, so much as mention that these so-called “records” are based on temperature records that have been “adjusted” to enhance warming trends?  Given how widespread is the information on unexplained warming-enhancing “adjustments,” it is almost incomprehensible that not one of these news sources would even ask the question, “How much of the warming is in the raw data and how much is in the adjustments?” But if such a thing exists, I can’t find it.

I could give many more examples, but undoubtedly you are getting the picture.  A reasonably intelligent person who investigates the situation will quickly find that the promoters of the global warming scare refuse to reveal their detailed methodology, refuse to allow independent researchers to try to replicate their work, and refuse to answer any and all hard questions.  (By contrast, when, for example, skeptical scientists a few months ago released a major Research Report claiming to invalidate all the bases for the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, all data and methods were released simultaneously.) This is all you need to know to make up your mind. 

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Liberals Awake from 8-Year Moral Coma (American Thinker)

 

By Jeffrey T. Brown

For eight years, the voices of what passes for morality on the left were utterly silent as the values of generations of Americans were flushed down the drain.  Those Americans whose desires, experiences and values differed from the leftist elite were treated as worthless garbage, no longer necessary to the imminent liberal utopia, except as a source of revenue.  Christianity was treated like a virus to be extinguished, or revised and controlled to accommodate leftist ideology.  Speech that offended the shameless was branded as hateful, and those daring to openly object to the onslaught of vice and immorality were falsely smeared with every vile epithet the liberals could conjure.  Rights were relegated to what Democrats were willing to grant their enemies, but we were never going to be entitled to privileges they reserved to themselves.

Our nation has been assaulted for eight long years by those who contributed nothing of substance to its successes, but were eager to pillage its resources to fund and advance their political agenda.  Every means possible to offend and marginalize their political opposition was employed, so that decent people were called racists, “phobes,” haters, deniers, liars, morons, bullies, and many unprintable things, all for wishing to have a say in what was being done to them by the left, and for possibly stopping the moral, philosophical and physical violence that have always been tools of leftist overthrow.

Few, if any, leftists/liberals/socialists/Democrats seemed troubled by what was done by them, or on their behalf by those they put into political office, or by those who appointed themselves cultural spokesmen.  It was perfectly American, as they saw it, to smear, defame, slander, coerce, intimidate, fine and even jail those who refused allegiance to a movement premised upon anarchy and social collapse.  They were winning, after all, so they got to be the team and the referee, and they made up the rules.  In their minds, nothing existed of the United States before eight years ago, and this country consisted only of what they turned it into.  With their president at the helm, they tried to remake America into a giant version of themselves, soulless and amoral.  They tried to make it un-American.   

Suddenly, however, with their political triumph derailed, they have emerged from their self-induced moral coma to pretend they have conscience.  Now, after eight years of neglect, fraud, manipulation, scandal, deception, cheating and tyranny, they have found their voices.  Now we are treated to an endless chorus of newly virtuous voices, uniting in purity to stop the coming disaster of representative government under the sway of someone other than an America-hating, Israel-hating, Constitution-hating, Iran-loving, terrorist-enabling ruler with a pen and a phone, willing to do anything as long as it was destructive to this country and all it has stood for over generations.

We are awash in leftist, progressive, liberal mystics, telling us through tears and in panicked tones exactly what Donald Trump’s presidency will look like and how it will end, before he has held the job for even one second.  In hysterics, they speak of the un-American things Trump will do in the future, and how “afraid” the leftists are of someone whose personal history shows no hint of the things they predict.   Bruce Springsteen expresses his concerns about competence, and the newly dark dynamic that Trump allegedly brings to politics.   Robert Reich produces instructional videos for mindless liberals about how Trump controls the media message, which is a harbinger of tyranny.   Where have these people been for eight years?

As we hear each of these predictions, some of us are struck by a recurring sense of deja vu.  It’s as if we’ve already seen all the chaos and mayhem that they predict will occur, not just once but innumerable times.  Indeed, it almost feels like we can trace the beginning of our deja vu back eight years, before a man with no identifiable accomplishments to his name other than being half-black and hip eluded all scrutiny before his election as president; before race relations were destroyed for political profit; before people lost their livelihoods for not bending to government coercion; before people lost their health insurance on the basis of lies; before anti-white racism became fashionable; before the press was merely an extension of the Democratic Party; before our military and security were sacrificed to social justice; before our college students became simpering toddlers without an original thought; before our country sold out to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood; before science was rendered meaningless in order to advance political goals; before we ignored laundry lists of felonies by Democrats; before it was cool to assassinate police; before our southern border was erased; before those same liberals tacitly invited every terrorist who could walk or say “refugee” to enter our country, plant roots, and plan the inevitable attacks; and before our president and his followers became the laughingstock of the civilized world. 

Suddenly, after eight years in which their secret mantra seems to have been “Make America Hate Again,” they protest that the notion of stopping their immoral destruction of our country is itself immoral and hateful.  Many of us have noticed that the damage they forecast, the shredding of our national fabric, has been well underway for eight years, and that their unhinged reaction to being stopped from finishing the job is far more morally disgusting than anything Donald Trump could do to make us the United States again.

Morality, like truth, isn’t supposed to be a prop, trotted out when necessary to trick the gullible.  Leftists are purveyors of subjective morality, which is a fungible entity, almost always being interchangeable with political expedience.  For them, an act becomes “moral” as soon as it advances whatever goal they seek to accomplish.  When treated to subjective morality from a member of the political party that has entirely eschewed objective morality, we should reject everything that person says the moment it leaves their lips.  Like the limits and prescriptions of the Constitution, they only ever invoke objective morality when they are not in power, and seek to influence those whose emotions have outpaced their intellect. 

There is much work to be done, but we needn’t pause to consider lectures on morality from amoral people.  Those who are still Americans will rebuild what was wrecked by those who have become something else.  While we do so, we would be wise to remember that those who are transitioning from Americans to “something else” are determined to finish the job.  If given another chance, they will happily force us to live in their corrupt, coercive Orwellian zoo.  They won’t rest until they control everything, and we are compelled to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they say.  That is, they won’t rest until we are no longer free people living in the United States, but rather are just a means of funding the overthrow of a country designed to prevent the corruption and tyranny they showed us for eight long, morality-free years.

For eight years, the voices of what passes for morality on the left were utterly silent as the values of generations of Americans were flushed down the drain.  Those Americans whose desires, experiences and values differed from the leftist elite were treated as worthless garbage, no longer necessary to the imminent liberal utopia, except as a source of revenue.  Christianity was treated like a virus to be extinguished, or revised and controlled to accommodate leftist ideology.  Speech that offended the shameless was branded as hateful, and those daring to openly object to the onslaught of vice and immorality were falsely smeared with every vile epithet the liberals could conjure.  Rights were relegated to what Democrats were willing to grant their enemies, but we were never going to be entitled to privileges they reserved to themselves.

Our nation has been assaulted for eight long years by those who contributed nothing of substance to its successes, but were eager to pillage its resources to fund and advance their political agenda.  Every means possible to offend and marginalize their political opposition was employed, so that decent people were called racists, “phobes,” haters, deniers, liars, morons, bullies, and many unprintable things, all for wishing to have a say in what was being done to them by the left, and for possibly stopping the moral, philosophical and physical violence that have always been tools of leftist overthrow.

Few, if any, leftists/liberals/socialists/Democrats seemed troubled by what was done by them, or on their behalf by those they put into political office, or by those who appointed themselves cultural spokesmen.  It was perfectly American, as they saw it, to smear, defame, slander, coerce, intimidate, fine and even jail those who refused allegiance to a movement premised upon anarchy and social collapse.  They were winning, after all, so they got to be the team and the referee, and they made up the rules.  In their minds, nothing existed of the United States before eight years ago, and this country consisted only of what they turned it into.  With their president at the helm, they tried to remake America into a giant version of themselves, soulless and amoral.  They tried to make it un-American.   

Suddenly, however, with their political triumph derailed, they have emerged from their self-induced moral coma to pretend they have conscience.  Now, after eight years of neglect, fraud, manipulation, scandal, deception, cheating and tyranny, they have found their voices.  Now we are treated to an endless chorus of newly virtuous voices, uniting in purity to stop the coming disaster of representative government under the sway of someone other than an America-hating, Israel-hating, Constitution-hating, Iran-loving, terrorist-enabling ruler with a pen and a phone, willing to do anything as long as it was destructive to this country and all it has stood for over generations.

We are awash in leftist, progressive, liberal mystics, telling us through tears and in panicked tones exactly what Donald Trump’s presidency will look like and how it will end, before he has held the job for even one second.  In hysterics, they speak of the un-American things Trump will do in the future, and how “afraid” the leftists are of someone whose personal history shows no hint of the things they predict.   Bruce Springsteen expresses his concerns about competence, and the newly dark dynamic that Trump allegedly brings to politics.   Robert Reich produces instructional videos for mindless liberals about how Trump controls the media message, which is a harbinger of tyranny.   Where have these people been for eight years?

As we hear each of these predictions, some of us are struck by a recurring sense of deja vu.  It’s as if we’ve already seen all the chaos and mayhem that they predict will occur, not just once but innumerable times.  Indeed, it almost feels like we can trace the beginning of our deja vu back eight years, before a man with no identifiable accomplishments to his name other than being half-black and hip eluded all scrutiny before his election as president; before race relations were destroyed for political profit; before people lost their livelihoods for not bending to government coercion; before people lost their health insurance on the basis of lies; before anti-white racism became fashionable; before the press was merely an extension of the Democratic Party; before our military and security were sacrificed to social justice; before our college students became simpering toddlers without an original thought; before our country sold out to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood; before science was rendered meaningless in order to advance political goals; before we ignored laundry lists of felonies by Democrats; before it was cool to assassinate police; before our southern border was erased; before those same liberals tacitly invited every terrorist who could walk or say “refugee” to enter our country, plant roots, and plan the inevitable attacks; and before our president and his followers became the laughingstock of the civilized world. 

Suddenly, after eight years in which their secret mantra seems to have been “Make America Hate Again,” they protest that the notion of stopping their immoral destruction of our country is itself immoral and hateful.  Many of us have noticed that the damage they forecast, the shredding of our national fabric, has been well underway for eight years, and that their unhinged reaction to being stopped from finishing the job is far more morally disgusting than anything Donald Trump could do to make us the United States again.

Morality, like truth, isn’t supposed to be a prop, trotted out when necessary to trick the gullible.  Leftists are purveyors of subjective morality, which is a fungible entity, almost always being interchangeable with political expedience.  For them, an act becomes “moral” as soon as it advances whatever goal they seek to accomplish.  When treated to subjective morality from a member of the political party that has entirely eschewed objective morality, we should reject everything that person says the moment it leaves their lips.  Like the limits and prescriptions of the Constitution, they only ever invoke objective morality when they are not in power, and seek to influence those whose emotions have outpaced their intellect. 

There is much work to be done, but we needn’t pause to consider lectures on morality from amoral people.  Those who are still Americans will rebuild what was wrecked by those who have become something else.  While we do so, we would be wise to remember that those who are transitioning from Americans to “something else” are determined to finish the job.  If given another chance, they will happily force us to live in their corrupt, coercive Orwellian zoo.  They won’t rest until they control everything, and we are compelled to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they say.  That is, they won’t rest until we are no longer free people living in the United States, but rather are just a means of funding the overthrow of a country designed to prevent the corruption and tyranny they showed us for eight long, morality-free years.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/liberals_awake_from_8year_moral_coma.html#ixzz4V5dtqY7L
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook