Saturday, September 20, 2014

Arson suspect arraigned in Northern California fire. State arson measure lapsed in Jan. 2014-Sacramento Bee

.
9/19/14, "Suspect arraigned in King fire; at least four houses burn," Sacramento Bee, by Darrell Smith and Sam Stanton

"Authorities say the fire is the work of Huntsman, whom they describe as a small-time criminal offender from the Santa Cruz area who moved to El Dorado County about two years ago....

Huntsman is being held on $10 million bail, and the allegations led Pierson to make a public appeal to Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday to sign a bill on his desk that greatly enhances penalties for some arson fires.

The bill, by state Sen. Tom Berryhill, R-Twain Harte, reinstates a measure that lapsed on Jan. 1 and allows for sentences of 10 years to life for someone convicted of aggravated arson, which is arson causing $7 million in damage, including firefighting costs.

The King fire is costing $5 million a day to fight, and while Pierson noted it could not be applied retroactively to the Huntsman case it could be an important tool for future arson prosecutions.

Shortly after Pierson sent a letter to the governor and made his remarks, Brown’s office issued an update of signed bills that included the arson measure."...

Image: "Wayne Allen Huntsman, the suspect in the arson that set off the King fire, is arraigned in El Dorado Superior Court in Placerville on Friday alongside his attorney, William Dittman."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/19/6720237/wayne-allen-huntsman-king-fire.html#storylink=cpy
photo Randall Benton, sac bee



.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/19/6720237/wayne-allen-huntsman-king-fire.html#storylink=cpy

US enabled beheadings, genocide against Kurds by giving finest tanks and weapons to unvetted Iraqis who left them for ISIS to use. 60,000 Kurds flee in past 24 hrs., small children walking miles across desert, "astonishing"-BBC. Depraved US could at least apologize for doing nothing to stop genocide it caused.

.
9/20/14, "Syria crisis: 66,000 'flee Islamic State' into Turkey," BBC














"Queues of refugees began to mass even before the border opened on Friday," Reuters

"Some 66,000 refugees - mainly Syrian Kurds - have crossed into Turkey in 24 hours, officials say, as Islamic State militants advance in northern Syria....

"As of today, the number of Syrian Kurds who entered Turkey has exceeded 60,000," Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus told reporters on Saturday.

He was speaking from the southern Turkish province of Sanliurfa, where many of the refugees have sought shelter.

Separately, a Turkish government official told the BBC's Mark Lowen that the number is as high as 66,000....

The influx is astonishing - and still continues....

BBC correspondents say the capture of the town would give IS control of a large strip of Syria's northern border with Turkey."...

============================

Where is the "caring, compassionate" US Left?

7/11/14, "ISIS steps up assault on Kurds in Syria’s north," Daily Star, Lebanon


"They (ISIS) captured large amounts of weapons left behind by Iraqi troops including U.S.-made armored personnel carriers, Humvees and artillery.

Kurdish official Nawaf Khalil said members of ISIS are trying to capture an area near the Turkish border that would link them with their positions in eastern Syria. The fighting is concentrated in the region of Ain al-Arab, or Kobani in Kurdish."...












Image: "Turkish soldiers stand guard as Syrians approach the border fence near the Turkish town of Suruc, opposite the Syrian town known as Ayn al-Arab in Arabic and Kobani in Kurdish. Photo: Reuters"
  

=========================

Kurds beheaded by ISIS:

"He says that four other older men from his village were beheaded before they could escape. He named them....The battle-hardened veterans of the PKK and its Syrian franchise, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), have proved the most effective fighters against IS. The PKK, however, is still described as a “terrorist organisation” by the US and Europe, at the behest of Turkey, which fought against the PKK from 1984 to 2013."...

9/21/14, "Isis in Syria: 60,000 Kurds flee terror in new exodus," UK Independent, Isabel Hunter

"Relatives carried the sick, the frail and the elderly on their backs as reports emerged that more than 30 civilians had been slaughtered while trying to escape.

An estimated 21 villages have so far been overtaken by IS and 200 have emptied as terrified Kurds fled, fearing a repeat of the horrific massacres in Iraq. “As soon as we saw what happened in Sinjar, we knew that we would be next,” Mr Ali says....

Using heavy artillery, captured either from Mosul or, more likely, according to witnesses, from Assad’s army bases in Syria, IS fighters have shelled villages to soften them up before mounting a ground assault.

Khaled, 38, and his 75-year-old father have been travelling for 10 days. Their clothes are torn and their hair dusty. They escaped the IS shelling of their village of Korik, known as Abu Haya in Arabic, near Tel Abyad. “We’ve been sleeping in our car or on the ground. They [IS] beheaded two people from our village. For what? They don’t need a reason – they were killing anyone they saw, but most people had left or were hiding,” says Khaled.

With his eyes trained on his village from the Turkish side of the border, Sabri Mohammad, 60, is worried about his five sons who have stayed behind to fight IS. “There! That’s Daesh [IS fighters],” he says as he points to a convoy of trucks entering the village. “I could see their black flag flying over the police station already … Everybody has left. I was the last one to come though.”

He says that four other older men from his village were beheaded before they could escape. He named them as Mohammed Oso Nabo, 55, Sino Nabo, 70, Mohammed Ali Muslim, 65, and Muslim Qadr, 75....

The battle-hardened veterans of the PKK and its Syrian franchise, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), have proved the most effective fighters against IS. The PKK, however, is still described as a “terrorist organisation” by the US and Europe, at the behest of Turkey, which fought against the PKK from 1984 to 2013."...

Image: "60,000 Syrian Kurds are reported to have fled to the border with Turkey (AFP)"


========================

Comment: Crimes against humanity by the Republican Establishment. They're the only entity that could've stopped this and they didn't. 





'Climate Science Is Not Settled,' Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Energy Dept. official in Pres. Obama's first term-Wall St. Journal Saturday Essay

.
"Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate."
 
9/19/14, "Climate Science Is Not Settled," Wall St. Journal, Steven E. Koonin, The Saturday Essay. "Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term."

"We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin."

"The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. 

Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. 

There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself. 

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets 

a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences. 

A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.

For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:

The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right

Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability
are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.

The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. 

The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature. 

• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century

A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. 

And this is despite an heroic 

research effort costing billions of dollars
.
These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.

Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled." 

While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.

We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes. 

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences. 

Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates.

That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.

Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.".
 
"Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN +0.42% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies." via Powerline

=======================

In 2012 alone $1 billion a day was spent on the notion of man caused global warming or man caused climate change.




Half measures against ISIS advocated by the Wall St. Journal and Mr. Obama are the very things that have created "hunting season on Americans" and will only make ISIS stronger-Angelo Codevilla

.
9/19/14, "Washington’s Ruling Class Is Fooling Itself About The Islamic State," Angelo Codevilla, The Federalist
.
"The American people’s reaction to Muslim thugs of the “Islamic State” ritually knifing off the heads of people who look like you and me boils down to “let’s destroy these bastards”—which is common sense. But our ruling class, from President Obama on the Left to The Wall Street Journal on the Right, take the public’s pressure to do this as another occasion for further indulging their longtime preferences, prejudices, and proclivities for half-measures in foreign affairs—the very things that have invited people from all over the planet to join hunting season on Americans.

This indulgence so overwhelms our ruling class’s perception of reality that the recipes put forth by its several wings, little different from one another, are identical in the one essential respect: none of them involve any plans which, if carried out, would destroy the Islamic State, kill large numbers of the cut-throats, and discourage others from following in their footsteps. Hence, like the George W. Bush’s “war on terror” and for the same reasons, this exercise of our ruling class’s wisdom in foreign affairs will decrease respect for us while invigorating our enemies.

The WSJ’s recommendations, like the Obama administration’s projected activities, are all about discrete measures—some air strikes, some arming of local forces, etc. But they abstract from the fundamental reality of any and all activities: He who wills any end must will the means to achieve it. As in Bush’s war, as is the custom in Washington nowadays, our ruling class’s several sectors decide what actions they feel comfortable undertaking about any given problem, while avoiding reasonable judgment about whether these actions will actually fix the problem. This is the very definition of irresponsibility. But they call it “strategy.”

Irresponsibly Avoiding Debate

Our Constitution prescribes that war happens subsequent to votes by elected representatives. By debate and vote, presumably they reconcile the war’s ends with the means to be employed. But to reconcile ends and means is to banish illusions and pretenses. Yet because these are what our ruling class lives by, leaders of both parties have joined to preclude such debates and votes. They granted congressional funding for the one part of Obama’s venture with regard to the IS that required it—arming some of the Sunni rebels against Syria’s Assad regime—while avoiding votes on what precisely that or any other part of the venture means. This is textbook irresponsibility.

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a Marine veteran, objected: “We need to crush ISIS and not work on arming more Islamic radicals. Just what would arming these people accomplish?
To prevent massive numbers of Republican congressmen from joining this common-sense question, the House Armed Services Committee’s bill requires the administration to  answer it in a report to Congress some time in the future, but not now. The fact that the administration and the leaders of both parties—the ruling class—did not make reasoned answers to the key questions the primary premise of their request suggests not so much that they are hiding these answers from others as much as that they themselves have not addressed the questions.

In the Senate, the ruling class avoided any vote at all by placing the money for arming the Sunni rebels into the Continuing Resolution for keeping the government open. This device, which reduces the senators’ choice to funding everything the the ruling class wants or “shutting down the government,” has become the principal way by which the ruling class dispenses with the Constitution.

Experience Says We’re Crazy

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)’s common-sense objection to arming the Sunni rebels might as well have been voiced by any ordinary citizen for all the effect it had: “Our past experience, after 13 years, everything that we have tried to do has not proven to be beneficial, not proven at all. So what makes you think it’s going to be different this time? What makes you think we can ask a group of Islamists to agree with Americans to fight another group of Islamists, as barbaric as they may be?”

The answer is that our ruling class does not think, as much as it indulges its imagination and believes its own spin. A prime example of which is the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial of September 17.

Never mind that the Islamic State’s Sunni subjects welcome the ritual beheaders who rule over them because these are Sunni as well. “The brutality,” writes the WSJ, “has created conditions similar to those that preceded the Sunni Awakening in Iraq in 2007—the revolt by ordinary Sunnis and their tribal leaders in Anbar province against al Qaeda.” This follows the Bush administration’s spin concerning the so-called “surge.” In fact however, Iraq’s Sunnis sought America’s protection in 2007 not against any other Sunnis but against the Shia death squads that had begun massacring them in large numbers.

According to the same fantasy, conducting air strikes today against the IS in former Iraq and Syria would encourage its Sunni-Wahabi fighters to defect to the ranks of U.S.-supported “moderate” Sunnis. This neglects not only that the flow of fighters in the region has always gone only in one direction—away from the less pure and less brutal to the purer and most brutal Islamists. It also neglects the incommensurability of the two sets of fighters’ objectives. The “moderates” are mostly Syrians interested in governing Syria, while the Islamic State’s fighters are led by Saddam’s Iraqi cadre, have fighters from all over the world, and have pan-Islamic objectives. Joe Manchin is right. The WSJ notwithstanding, while the “moderates” will take U.S. money and arms, no amount of “vetting” will or can cause them to fight the IS for us.
.
While Obama limits himself to unexplained confidence that Sunni Arab states will join in fighting the IS, the Journal supposes to know why they have not done so yet, and why instead they have been helping the jihadis: because our aid to the right Sunnis in 2012 and 2013 was “microscopic and half hearted.” This was the aid being brokered by the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and cut off by mortar shells expertly aimed by we know not whom. But the WSJ knows who’s to blame for the Sunni Arabs’ failure to meet the ruling class’s expectations: “Some Conservatives.”

Get Your Heads Out of The Sand

Like the Bush administration, Obama and the Journal are grasping at what they imagine to be a vast reservoir of inherently moderate Sunni peoples and governments. Just show them how pro-Sunni America really is, and this vast moderate wave will submerge the terrorist threat to America. Thus the Journal writes that we dare not just make war on the IS that makes war on us. No. “Sunnis will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its Shiite allies in Beirut and Tehran.” You see, the real game lies in making nice to Sunnis.

Obama has made clear that he envisages a very limited, tightly targeted air campaign against the IS. It goes without saying that this cannot possibly hurt it severely. But, were the U.S. government somehow to mount a serious air campaign, nevertheless the inescapable fact remains that the IS can be finished off only on the ground. But how? By whom? Obama stays away from the question.

The Journal, however answers: “the Kurds, the parts of the Iraqi military that aren’t dominated by Iran’s militias, and the moderate Sunnis in Syria and Iraq.”

This is beyond dumb. Believing in the saving power of a “moderate Sunni” wave is as politically correct though patently silly as believing in global warming after years of record cold. All know that the Kurds will fight only for Kurdistan. The Iraqi army has proved beyond doubt that, as a fighting force, it exists only insofar as it is composed of Shiite militias. But our inward-looking, bipartisan ruling class refuses to deal with reality. War consists of massive killing that dispirits the survivors.

Yet our ruling class refuses to consider how many of what categories of people will have to be killed in order to end this war with the peace we want. War does not tolerate solipsism.
.
Yet again, consensus within the ruling class is setting America on course to demonstrate impotence.  Its preferences, prejudices, and proclivities guarantee that the Islamic State and those among us whom it inspires will be a growing problem as months and years pass. Harsh consequences will follow

until a political vehicle
  
for the expression of the American people’s common sense 

comes into being."

"Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014." via Lucianne
.
================================
.
Comment: The Wall St. Journal=Rupert Murdoch= Fox News (and the Bush-Barbour crowd). Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire globalist who favors what his cohorts favor which is number one, open borders. If you have no borders, you're not a country, have no basis for levying tax, having a military, holding elections, or anything else. As Dr. Codevilla describes, Rupert Murdoch is what passes for "the right" today.
 


 .

If the GOP loses the Senate, blame the Establishment-Laura Ingraham

.
9/19/14, "If the GOP Loses the Senate—Blame the Establishment," NRO, Laura Ingraham

"Now the concerned whispers are becoming audible groans. Turns out after premature high-fiving in certain Republican circles, the GOP just may be on the verge of blowing its opportunity to take control of the U.S. Senate in November. A few of us have been warning for months that unless the GOP responded smartly to the huge public outcry over the border surge, it would miss a chance to energize disaffected voters. We also urged our friends in the establishment that they shouldn’t take their primary victories against more-conservative candidates as a sign that they could “play it safe” during the campaign.

The public wants policies to strengthen the American workforce, raise its standard of living, and renew and protect the homeland. It wants to see an affirmative agenda to spur growth and economic opportunity—one that goes beyond “dump Obamacare.” But the voters are enduring uninspiring candidates, boring political ads, and wishy-washy campaign statements on immigration enforcement. One of the only Senate campaigns playing the immigration issue correctly is that of moderate Scott Brown in New Hampshire. And guess what? After trailing Jean Shaheen for months, he is now in a dead-heat race with the pro-amnesty Democrat incumbent. Go figure.

Then there’s the issue of money. Writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, establishment fave Karl Rove says the GOP Senate majority is “still in doubt,” noting that the GOP Senate candidates are being outspent $109 million to $85 million in media buys. He urges Republicans to “open their wallets to candidates whom they have never met.” Here’s what I say to this entreaty: How much money did the establishment spend to save Thad Cochran? How much did they spend to try to save Eric Cantor? How much did they spend to save Lamar Alexander, and Lindsey Graham, and all the other incumbents who they defended earlier this year? None of those dollars were spent to fight the Democrats — they were all used to beat and in many cases malign the Tea Party.

Meanwhile, how many voters in places like Mississippi, and Tennessee, and South Carolina, decided that they aren’t going to give any more money to a GOP establishment that hates them and mocks them at every turn? How much money has that cost the GOP? 

The bottom line is this: If the GOP loses the Senate, it’s all due to establishment incompetence. From beginning to end, they ran exactly the campaign they wanted. They took all the budget issues off the table. They refused to use the power of the purse—congressional Republicans’ most potent weapon for curbing White House excesses. They spent most of the year talking about immigration reform instead of criticizing Obama. They saved almost all of their incumbents from primary challengers. And they pushed through guys like the vanilla Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Bush loyalist Ed Gillespie in Virginia. This is their race. If they can’t win it — then how can they expect to beat Hillary in 2016?"
.
=====================

Among comments at NRO:

====================

We do not have an opposition party in this country. We had one in the Tea Party. However, once they got to Washington, the dark forces that run that machine ground them down or into submission. There are still far, far too many Americans that have abdicated their responsibility for electing good men and women and pay little or no attention to what is going on. We shall reap what we have sown." 

===================

 
The RINOs/establishment repubs are as bad as democrats. this country has no chance. Always remember, when the GOP had the white house, the senate and the congress, they didn't seal the border either. if you can't tell a republican from a democrat, why would you vote for either?"


==============================

"

Well, let's see. We had (Scott) Brown in the Senate before. I wonder what his voting record was? Hmmm Let's see! HE VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON ALL MAJOR IMPORTANT LEGISLATION! Which not only hurt the American people who believe, like you, that they had a representative in D.C. who held their values, but he also hurt the Republican Party because people like me no longer trust them WHATSOEVER."

==================== 


.
Look, that is not the whole story. When you have the Establishment bashing/lying, obfuscating the truth against the "tea-party" types in dirty races, as in the Mississippi Senate primary AND what they did to Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia and you can bet there have been others. The Establishment are altogether Evil and power hungry, they do nothing for the people and only look to further their power. And by somebody "less conservative" do you mean someone who embraces amnesty? In that case we really only need to do this whole stupid "dance" once more time. Right? Because then, its all over but the shouting!"
.
=====================

RNC official Henry Barbour ran Sen. Thad Cochran's June 2014 Mississippi primary campaign. Barbour incited racial hatred and violence against innocent Americans--which apparently isn't criminal: "The Tea Party intends to prevent blacks from voting on Tuesday." The fliers were distributed in black neighborhoods. This is how the RNC "crushes" "fellow Republicans:"



RNC Cochran campaign strategy. "The tea party intends to prevent blacks from voting on Tuesday," read one mailer distributed in black neighborhoods...."Mississippians cannot and will not be intimidated to the bygone era of intimidating black Mississippians from voting," this campaign flyer declared."

=========================
.
Comment: The GOP wants democrat voters to be their voters. They want permanent, dependent voters who don't ask questions like, if you erase a country's southern border, doesn't that mean the country no longer exists? Forget merging with democrats, the GOP has merged with Soviet style dictatorship: 


"All they (the GOP) gotta do is throw away their base. That's Christmas morning for 'em."... 
 
10/16/13, "GOP Seeks to Rid Itself of the Tea Party," Rush Limbaugh

 


.

Friday, September 19, 2014

US-enabled ISIS genocide continues, tens of thousands more Kurds flee, Mothers, babies and young children on foot-Washington Post. Republicans delivered tanks and weapons for genocide, at minimum GOP had no reason to believe tanks wouldn't be used for genocide

.
9/19/14, "Syrian Kurds, Arabs flee toward Turkey border as Islamic State advances," Washington Post, Rebecca Collard















Image: "Syrians within a group of hundreds of refugees wait near the Turkish-Syrian border after fleeing Islamic State forces. (EPA)"

"Thousands of Syrian Kurds and Arabs pushed through the Turkish border Friday as they fled the Islamic State’s latest advance in Syria. By sundown, the militants had taken more than 60 villages in northern Syria, according to observers. 

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a group based in Britain, says tens of thousands of residents have fled their homes ahead of the Islamic State surge, adding to the over 3 million Syrians who have already sought refuge in neighboring countries. Turkey, which already hosts more than 800,000 Syrian refugees, at first kept the border closed Friday, before finally allow the flood of new refugees to enter.

The Islamic State’s rapid advance prompted calls for international military support, and specifically from the United States, for the Syrian Kurdish fighters. 

“We are in desperate need of the American strikes,” said Redur Xelil, the spokesperson of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), one of the Kurdish groups fighting the Islamists. “There is now an international alliance under American command to fight ISIS. I think it is time to hit them.”

The YPG forces have been battling the Islamic State troops for more than three days in these villages. Xelil said his fighter’s weapons are no match for the looted American arms the militants took from fleeing Iraqi soldiers in June. 

“ISIS has highly advanced and sophisticated American weapons. We need weapons too,” said Xelil.

“ISIS is now aiming to take over Kobane as they aimed to take over Erbil.”"

===============================

Comment: I address only Republicans. From 1989 to 2014, the GOP has proved to be as bad or worse than Democrats. The entire US political class is responsible for turning the planet into a massive criminal enterprise. The US has two Soros parties. The GOP could've made the world better, but they made it worse. 95% of them belong in jail.
 
.

No likelihood that Sandy-like storms will increase in future per "best models available," Kerry Emanuel, PNAS study, August 2013

.
8/2/13, "Model projections of atmospheric steering of Sandy-like superstorms," pnas.org, edited by Kerry Emanuel, MIT

Abstract:

"Either Sandy was an extremely rare event or climate change has increased the odds so that the return period reported by Hall and Sobel (1) is an overestimate. We address the latter question here by focusing on how the frequency of the large-scale flow patterns that gave Sandy its anomalous path will change in a warming climate."...(parag. 4)

"Given that these unusual atmospheric conditions were crucial to steer Sandy, the obvious question is: will these conditions change in the future? In other words, will changes in the large-scale flow patterns make westward steering of transitioning Atlantic tropical cyclones more likely, thus increasing the probability of landfall of any such storms whose tracks bring them near the coast of the northeast United States?...(parag. 9)

"The best models available offer no support for the conclusion that blocking frequency or westward steering will increase in the future."...(parag. 14)

Hall and Sobel, 5/28/13: "We calculate that under long-term average climate conditions, a hurricane of Sandy's intensity or greater (category 1+) makes NJ landfall at an angle at least as close to perpendicular as Sandy's at an average annual rate of 0.0014 yr–1 (95% confidence range 0.0007 to 0.0023); i.e., a return period of 714 years (95% confidence range 435 to 1429)."

"Author Information
  1. 1 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA."
===================================
.
.
Image: "Unlike the 10 other hurricanes that made landfall in the region shown since 1851 and typically grazed the coast, Hurricane Sandy barreled into New Jersey on a path (red) nearly perpendicular to the shoreline. Figure from the paper. ©AGU."
  
"Their results agree with two other studies that predicted hurricanes would impact Manhattan with Sandy’s 9-foot surge or greater once every 400-800 years. We had completely different models and were looking at different things, but our results overlapped,” Hall said. “This points to a very unusual storm.”"

6/3/13, "Hurricane Sandy took highly unusual path, but climate change doesn’t get the blame – yet," blogs.AGU.org, by Sarah Charley
.
==========================
.
"We calculate that under long-term average climate conditions, a hurricane of Sandy's intensity or greater (category 1+) makes NJ landfall at an angle at least as close to perpendicular as Sandy's at...a return period of 714 years."...

5/28/13, "On the impact angle of Hurricane Sandy's New Jersey landfall," Geophysical Research Letters, AGU, Timothy M. Hall (1) and Adam H. Sobel (2)


"Abstract"

"[1] Hurricane Sandy's track crossed the New Jersey coastline, at an angle closer to perpendicular than any previous hurricane in the historic record, one of the factors contributing to record-setting peak-water levels in parts of New Jersey and New York. To estimate the occurrence rate of Sandy-like tracks, we use a stochastic model built on historical hurricane data from the entire North Atlantic to generate a large sample of synthetic hurricanes. From this synthetic set we calculate that under long-term average climate conditions, a hurricane of Sandy's intensity or greater (category 1+) makes NJ landfall at an angle at least as close to perpendicular as Sandy's at an average annual rate of 0.0014 yr–1 (95% confidence range 0.0007 to 0.0023); i.e., a return period of 714 years (95% confidence range 435 to 1429)."

"Author Information
  1. 1 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
*Corresponding author: T. M. Hall, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA."



.

Humza Yousaf, Islamist-linked radical behind Salmond and Scottish Independence sought to take country much farther left-Breitbart London

.
9/18/14, "Humza Yousaf MSP: The Islamist-Linked ‘Radical’ Behind Salmond and Scottish Independence," Breitbart London,

"As Scotland votes on independence, in a campaign led by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and a coterie of advisors, few can claim more influence than Member of the Scottish Parliament Humza Yousaf.

Yousaf was recently described by the BBC's Andrew Neil asthe power behind Alex Salmond”. But how much do we know about the 29-year-old chalked up to be an independent Scotland’s Foreign Secretary and perhaps even Prime Minister.

We know he studied politics in his hometown of Glasgow, and according to the Guardian he became involved in politics just after 9/11. He was firmly opposed to the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was prolific in the Stop The War movement, helping to organise coaches from Glasgow Central Mosque to the two million strong rally against the war in Iraq.

But Yousaf was willing to go further than his contemporaries to get what he wanted. The Guardian reports he joined a human blockade of the Charing Cross exit of the M8 motorway. In 2012 he described his experiences: "We had our two hours, freezing our arses off. And that was it: I was hooked."

Initially he was attracted to the Scottish National Party’s opposition to the War on Terror, but he also became interested in its socialist views. Like many in the party he sees leaving the United Kingdom as a good way to push a much more left-wing agenda in Scotland
.
English voters are far more conservative than the Scottish and are perceived to be holding them back from creating a Scandinavian-style socialist state. He once said that: “You have to keep being radical with your ideas”. His age, looks and charisma have undoubtedly made it easier to entice the Scottish into his "radical" agenda.

Prior to his election to the Scottish Parliament in 2011, Yousaf had been a media spokesman for Islamic Relief, a charity that has been accused on a number of occasions of being a front group for radical Islamism. Yousaf was a volunteer for Islamic Relief since the age of 10.

Yousaf was also heavily involved in a community radio station for over a decade and helped organise food parcels for asylum seekers. 

After just one year in the Scottish Parliament, he was appointed Minister for External Affairs and International Development, equivalent to Foreign Secretary. This senior role is bound to make him a genuine contender for Prime Minister once Alex Salmond steps out of the way. This would make him the first Muslim head of government in Europe since the Crusades.

But his rise to the top has not been without its hiccups. In 2005, whilst working for Scotland’s first Muslim MSP, he was rejected as a candidate. The selection process was reported on by the Scottish Herald because of allegations of vote rigging and the signing up of fake voters. In the end the allegations were thrown out, but the debacle delayed Yousaf’s entry into parliament by one full term.

He was also embroiled in a financial scandal after his cousin Osama Saeed – a former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman - was awarded £400,000 for a Muslim festival entitled “IslamExpo”. In the end no festival took place and the staff working on the project were reported to have mainly been members of his own family. In the end Saeed repaid £128,000 of the money that was awarded to him. 

As a director of the foundation the debacle undoubtedly caused Yousef public embarrassment but he did stick by his cousin.

Furthermore, the Scottish Herald reported on what became known as a "lunchgate" scandal, where Saeed and Yousaf collaborated to fundraise on the back of cash for access. It said at the time:
"...an amateur recording of the night obtained by the Sunday Herald reveals a tawdry hustling for cash as Salmond and Sturgeon laughed and clapped just a few feet away. At one point, Salmond was seen handling a cheque for £500.

"The tape will add to the criticism that the pair offered access to parliament and ministerial time in return for a large donation to SNP funds.

"The auctioneer was Humza Yousaf, who works for both Salmond and Sturgeon at Holyrood.

"Yousaf’s patter was wasn’t subtle. The link between cash, parliament and the ministers’ time was explicit."

It is unclear what Saeed’s group, the Scottish Islamic Foundation, is doing now but in the past it has been accused of having extremist links. When they met with the British government they took Mohammed Sawalhathe subject of a BBC Panorama expose into Islamist terrorist group Hamas – with them.

The BBC alleged: “From London, Sawalha is said to have master minded much of Hamas’ political and military strategy. Wanted by Israel, he fled to London in 1990… In London, Sawalha is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah.

“Then, in January 1993, an operation Sawalha was involved in went badly wrong. Hamas would be forced to reorganise its funding arrangements. A senior Hamas man from America flew into London for instructions from Sawalha. Sawalha’s visitor was en route to the Palestinian territories.

“The two men travelled to Sawalha’s home. His visitor’s name was Mohammed Salah. Salah’s mission was to distribute funds. Sawalha told him who to meet in the Palestinian territories…. With Sawalha’s agreement Salah began distributing about a quarter of a million dollars to local Hamas operatives. “

“Some was ear marked for military activities. Some for missionary dawah. More money was in the pipe line from his bank in Chicago. But the Israeli’s had been tracking him. Stopped at a check point as he left Gaza, Salah was arrested.”

Somehow, Yousaf is now a respected figure in Scottish politics and is believed to have put much of his past behind him. If his plans come to fruition he will become one of the most powerful men in Europe, imbued with a firm belief that things have to change.

Yousaf is happily married to Gail Lythgoe, a red-headed Muslim convert. He recently called for Scotland to take in Palestinian refugees, and urged a full arms embargo of the State of Israel.

The YesScotland campaign and Scottish National Party refused multiple requests for further information and comment from Breitbart London journalists." via Lucianne



.