Mueller Chose To Slime Trump On Obstruction Rather Than Indict

After two years and spending an estimated $35 million, Robert Mueller issued a 448-page report that ignored the governing special counsel regulations.
Margot Cleveland

By

After two years and spending an estimated $35 million, Robert Mueller issued a 448-page report that ignored the governing special counsel regulations. Those regulations required Mueller, at the conclusion of the special counsel’s work, to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.”

Yet, instead of issuing the mandated closing documentation, Mueller explained that his team “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” of whether “to initiate or decline a prosecution.”

Attorney General William Barr spoke during today’s press conference of Mueller’s failure to perform this regulatorily required duty. When asked why he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein felt it necessary “to take it to the next step to conclude there was no crime,” Barr retorted:

The very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries and compulsory process that’s involved there, is for one purpose and one purpose only. It’s to determine yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal. That is our responsibility and that’s why we have the tools we have. And we don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information. We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to. That was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. Yes.

Notwithstanding Mueller’s professed refusal to render judgment on whether to initiate or decline prosecution, Part 2 of the special counsel’s report served solely to indict President Trump in the court of public opinion by providing detailed factual conclusions that seemingly support obstruction of justice charges—at least based on the special counsel’s view of the law.

But Mueller’s view is decidedly wrong. Prior to his appointment, Barr decimated the obstruction of justice theory of criminal liability Mueller relies upon in the special counsel report.

Further, while Democrats and the media will put Barr’s view down to bias, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein agreed with those conclusions. Rosenstein, who supposedly floated the 25th Amendment as a basis to out the president, is anything but biased in favor of the president. Rosenstein appointed Mueller, and Rosenstein, who flanked Barr during the press conference, agreed with Barr’s conclusion that no crime had occurred.

Many believe lead special counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann instigated the non-indictment indictment of Trump in Mueller’s report. The modus operandi is just too perfect.

Recall that Weissmann led the Enron task force and served as the lead prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s case against Arthur Anderson. Weissmann secured a conviction against the former accounting giant, shuttered the firm, and left tens of thousands of innocent employees without jobs. Then, “three years later, the Supreme Court reversed the Andersen conviction in a unanimous decision, holding that Andersen’s conduct was not criminal, and it ‘was shocking how little criminal culpability the jury instructions required.’”

Weissmann’s attempts to convict Merrill Lynch executives of non-crimes were likewise swatted down in court. And then there was Weissmann’s questionable conduct during those trials, which emails indicate included threatening witnesses.

Even if Weissmann holds responsibility for pushing to include the obstruction of justice analysis, Mueller approved the final report that pontificated on Trump’s potential criminal conduct, while refusing to make a decision to initiate or decline charges. Ironically, in justifying his non-decision, Mueller claimed any other outcome would be unfair to the president. From the special counsel’s report:

We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusations is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongfully accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusations of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequence that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.

But Trump has no process now to clear his name from the taint of obstruction of justice created by Mueller’s report. So, after two years of battling unjust and untrue charges of collusion with Russia, Mueller has destined President Trump to spend the second half of his first term combating claims of obstruction of justice—claims which, even if they had a basis in fact, have no basis in law.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

 

Advertisements

To whom it may concern ! | Jim Campbell’s

To whom it may concern !

Information Worth Sharing

Comments by Jim Campbell

April 11, 2019

If so-called “Man Caused Climate Change,” was real, why don’t the proponents answer the very simple question below.

Why has there been two ice ages and smaller ice ages when the industrial revolution had not begun?

Also, to be sure, Climate change, as in “Real climate change,” does not exist in a vacuum.

The words to biggest polluters are China and India and they have refused to sign on to any world wide climate change agreement. (Source)

The reality?

It’s just another socialist scam put forth by the likes of Al Gore to enrich themselves while we The People are forced into paying higher taxes!

John Eidson

April 11, 2019.

Intentional brainwashing teaches the kids about global warming.

Get them while they are young, it worked for Adolph Hitler, this dogma is being taught in most U.S. schools which are run by teachers unions which require disbanding!

No prospective science no truth.

Lesson 1: Are polar bears dying out?

For those who worry about global warming is killing them off, QUIT WORRYING!

Dr. Taylor is a polar bear biologist at Lakehead University in Canada.

He’s studied polar bears for more than three decades and has published on the high side of 50 scientific papers on polar bear sub-populations.

The picture above shows him taking a blood sample from a BIG tranquilized bear.

Brave man! A bit crazy, but brave.

Dr. Taylor is as close as it gets to being an expert on polar bears.

Here’s his take on the Polar Bear population scenario.

There are more polar bears in Canada today than 30 years ago.

He said that of the 13 polar bear sub-populations in Canada, 11 are stable, one is increasing and only one is in decline.

Can you imagine she just said what she said to theses students?

What up with “My way or the highway on the 2nd Amendment Mrs. senile old dowager?

In his expert opinion, polar bears are not being wiped out by climate change or anything else.

His research shows they’re flourishing!

Dr. Taylor is not the only polar bear scientist who feels that way. Ditto Dr. Susan Crockford.

Dr. Crockford is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Victoria in Canada.

With 35 years experience, she’s a certified expert on the evolution of polar bears.

She says that in the 1960s there were an estimated 10,000 polar bears in the world.

I found out from doing some poking around on the web that by 2015,  the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated the number had risen to as high as 31,000.

To help celebrate International Polar Bear Day, Dr. Crockford recently wrote a paper reporting that polar bear numbers have continued to steadily rise, with 2018 data estimating there are more polar bears today than when they were first protected by an international treaty in 1973.

Dr. Crockford also told me that polar bears are resourceful creatures that have survived many periods in Earth’s past where the warming was much greater than the warming we’ve had since the Industrial Revolution.

I didn’t know that. Did you?

If you want to not worry as much about the fate of polar bears, you might want to read her new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened.

Because their good faith scientific opinions upset the people who try to scare kids by saying that polar bears are being killed off by global warming, Dr. Crockford and Dr. Taylor are demonized as “climate deniers.”

That’s not a very nice thing to say, and it’s not true.

They’re not denying that climate change is real—the climate is always changing. Always has, always will. What they dispute is that polar bears are dying out.

The best available population estimates support their view.

Music Please !

Anyway, that’s today’s global warming report l. Stay tuned, more to come!

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it’s up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.

Musings of a Heavily Armed Soccer Mom Reading Class

User Image By Kimiko Komatsu

Musings of a Heavily Armed Soccer Mom
Reading Class
Musings of a Heavily Armed Soccer Mom is a series of articles with a positive slant. Conservatives are faced with enough negativity, on a day to day basis, that, hopefully, some good news, and some success stories, will be appreciated.
When my sons were approximately seven and eight years old, I received a call from their school. I was told that I needed to come in for a parent-teacher conference, at my earliest convenience which, they suggested, should be at 4:00 PM the following day. Yes, in their infinite wisdom, they somehow knew what would be convenient for me. The only other information I was given was that I shouldn’t bring either of the boys to the conference. I arrived ten minutes early and waited twenty minutes for the conference to begin. I was seated across from two teachers who, I noticed, were viewing me with a certain disdain. It was as if I smelled bad or was a convicted child molester. I could tell they didn’t approve of me, but I didn’t yet know why.
The meeting commenced, without so much as an introduction, when one of the two women, who I suspected were the boys’ teachers said, “Mrs. Komatsu, while testing your sons we’ve discovered some highly disturbing information.” They now had my complete attention.
I asked, “In what class are they having difficulty?” I’ve always taken their education very seriously and I monitored their progress, in all their classes, on a daily basis.
“The problem we’re having concerns their reading abilities,” I was told. I was completely speechless. I just sat there like a fool with my mouth hanging open.
Finally, I replied, “There has to be some sort of misunderstanding. Sean and Mike are excellent readers. As a matter of fact…”
“I assure you there is no misunderstanding,” she interrupted. We’re professional educators and we are fully competent in our areas of expertise.” At this point I knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this was about to get really interesting.
“There must be some sort of mistake,” I said again. “I know how well both…” She interrupted me, yet again, to say, loudly and slowly. “There… is… no… mistake.”
I was beginning to get a bit irritated. I was called in for a conference, yet I’d already been interrupted, twice, when I attempted to participate. It was becoming clear that my place in these proceedings was to sit quietly and display the proper respect to these highly qualified individuals. However, my respect and my patience were rapidly diminishing. “So why don’t you just tell me what the problem is. I’m sure we all have better ways to spend our afternoon,” I suggested.
The teacher who had previously been silent now spoke. “Mrs. Komatsu, we didn’t know there was a problem until we conducted a test to determine all the children’s level of reading ability. We’ve never seen this happen before. The test evaluates performance up to the ninth-grade level and both your boys passed all elements of the test. Because of that we can’t determine how well they can read.”
I couldn’t help it. I broke out laughing. The second teacher continued, “Mrs. Komatsu, I don’t think you appreciate just how serious this is.” I replied, “I believe I do understand. Let me tell you what I’ve gotten out of this little conference and you tell me if I’m on track. My boys aced your little test that no one in this school is supposed to be able to complete and in doing so you’ve been unable to label them the way you would like. You obviously know that they read beyond a ninth-grade level so what more could you possibly need to know? They don’t fit your metrics and for some unknown reason you need to point this out to me as if it were a problem. What is it that you want from me?”
I watched the faces, on the other side of the table, turn red. The first teacher took over again. “Mrs. Komatsu, we need to know why your boys read as well as they do.” Since the boys started school, I’d been prepared to be called in to explain why Sean punched out a bully on the playground or to explain Mike’s unusual sense of humor or a dozen other problems. I was not prepared to address anything related to academics and I was especially unprepared to address questions related to why they exhibited exceptional reading ability.
“Before I answer that I need to ask both of you a question,” I began. “I need to know precisely what question I’m answering. I need to know if I’m answering, ‘Why did my boys ace a test that no one aced before them or am I answering, ‘Why do my boys read better than any other students in the school?’”
The squirming and red faces on the other side of the table let me know that I’d struck a nerve and what I was really expected to answer was the latter question and not the former. “My boys read as well as they do because I invested the time in teaching them to read the way I was taught to read. I purchased a couple Phonics books, spent some time teaching them and then I made sure they always had something they wanted to read. Soon, they loved reading as much as I do. It wasn’t long before they didn’t need me to help them sound out words. Instead they helped each other and, before I realized it, they were off and running. We don’t always have a lot of money but when we go shopping the bookstore is always the first stop. I know they’re excellent readers but until you told me the test results, I had no idea how accomplished they really are.” The silence, from the other side of the table was deafening. The first teacher, the more dislikable, more pompous of the two spoke. “Mrs. Komatsu, your degree is in…?” “I don’t have a degree. I graduated High School, that’s all.” I answered. “…and yet, somehow, you felt qualified to do a job best left to trained professionals with years of experience?” said teacher number one. A quick temper has always been one of my problems. Also, back in those days I had a quick mind. This combination got me in trouble more than a few times. Thankfully, that day wasn’t one of those days. “Trained professionals with years of experience, like the two of you?” I asked.
“Yes,” replied teacher number one, “I’m glad to see you’re getting something out of this conference.” Something snapped when she said that and teacher number two acted like she’d heard something snap. What had just been broken was my patience. Teacher number two appeared as if she was about to do an impromptu “duck and cover” drill.
I took a few deep breaths and composed myself before I started speaking. I knew this was an opportunity I couldn’t afford to foul up. I spoke slowly, distinctly and at a higher volume than I should have. “Since I’m not the sharpest wit in the room, I’d like to make sure I haven’t misunderstood anything that’s happened here, if I may?” Both teachers nodded at me and I continued. “As a poorly educated mom I took two young boys and two paper-back books and produced the only two kids who ever maxed your little evaluation. That’s two out of two. That’s 100%. Every student I taught maxed your exam. In contrast, the two of you, and I have no idea how many other reading teachers in this school, with your multiple degrees, all the resources of a modern school system, all the government funding and all the teacher’s aids have produced exactly none out of the thousands of opportunities you’ve been given. That’s zero out of thousands. That’s a miserable 0.0%. That is a disgrace. Now, unless you’re prepared to hire me as a consultant, I’ve other things to do and places to be. This conference is over.” I got up and walked toward the door.
Teacher number two asked me to wait just another minute and she asked, “Please, tell us what made you decide to teach your boys to read rather than allowing us to do it the proper way.
I let the last crack pass and answered, “Because learning to read is simply too important to be left up to pompous jackasses like you two. Oh, by the way, if I hear of even the slightest incident of this school punishing or issuing any sort of retribution to my boys, in any way, for what I’ve said here today, you will rue the day you met me.” Then I left the room. 

I hadn’t made it back to my car before I realized that none of this made any sense. Yes, Sean and Mike were excellent readers but how did that threaten anyone? Yes, they aced the exam but how was that a problem? Surely the faculty could claim credit for that and use it as proof that they were outstanding reading teachers. I’ve always had a need to know how and why stuff worked. No matter how hard I tried I couldn’t arrive at a sensible explanation as to what was behind this whole event. Weeks later, from an acquaintance inside the school system, I learned what had really happened. During the normal course of reading class some of the better readers were enlisted to help some of the slower readers. Sean, being the best reader in the class, was one of those students. All Sean knew was that he was supposed to help his fellow students learn to read and in doing so he chose his preferred method of instruction, Phonics. It just so happened that those he helped also preferred his method as it made learning so much easier.
Inquisitiveness is normally a valuable commodity in children but there are exceptions. One little girl asked the teacher, “Can we use Sean’s way of teaching? We like it a lot better than yours.” As near as I can determine that was the exact second the excrement contacted the whirling blades of the air circulation device.
After she didn’t receive a satisfactory answer, from the teacher, she went home and told the entire story to her parents. Several days later Mom and Dad were in front of the School Board demanding to know why their daughter was receiving higher quality instruction from a classmate than she was from her teacher. For those of you keeping track, this was the exact second the excrement began rolling downhill. I’m sure your imagination can accurately fill in the rest of the story.
Let’s squeeze this story one last time to be certain we’ve gotten every drop of juice out of it. My boys are intelligent but they’re not geniuses and for an amateur I’m an OK teacher… nothing more. The true superstar of this story is Phonics, the method of instruction. While this story doesn’t represent a structured scientific study, it does give some valuable insight. Phonics, which at one time was widely taught in our schools, was abandoned for an inferior method. Why would that happen?
I see only two possibilities and the first is abject stupidity on the part of the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, both of whom have a hand in determining how and what our children are taught. The second, and sadly, most likely, is a concerted effort to reduce the population’s ability to read and to comprehend what it reads. Reading is the most fundamental and most important subject taught to our children. If one learns to read, and to comprehend what’s read, a person then has the ability to teach themselves almost anything else they please. When one’s ability to read is compromised so is one’s ability to read and acquire new concepts and new skills. When one’s ability to read is hindered so is one’s ability to write and I’m referring to writing in the literary sense and not the handwriting sense. When the population has difficulty reading and writing, their ability to effectively communicate is compromised. When reading skills are limited self-improvement and the ability to communicate are impacted negatively. What more effective changes can be made to a society if your goal is subjugation and oppression? This is not an accident. This is a sinister, diabolical plot to destroy a nation and a planet. These acts fall into the category of crimes against humanity.
Epilog
I’ve made this account as accurate as I could. Those of you paying extremely close attention may catch a few small inconsistencies. I’m well aware of them. I’ve tried to justify them from the beginning, ten years ago. I believe they’re evidence that I never uncovered all the pieces of the puzzle.
A .pdf copy of this article may be downloaded at: http://www.jack-ass.net/art/musings_reading_class.pdf

Can’t Win: Now That Vital Glacier Is Growing Again, Scientist Says That’s Bad News

Can’t Win: Now That Vital Glacier Is Growing Again, Scientist Says That’s Bad News

You’ve probably heard the alarmed scientists and politicians before: Global warming is causing glaciers to melt, serving as the proverbial canary in the mine shaft of a planet on the brink of disaster — and the world could end in just over a decade as a result.

But many of those same scientists are now scratching their heads and scrambling to come up with an explanation after an important glacier in Greenland was found to be growing again.

The Jakobshavn glacier is a massive ice sheet that’s about a mile thick. This frozen wonder has influenced history in the past, with many experts believing that the iceberg that famously sunk the Titanic broke off from this ice sheet before drifting into the North Atlantic.

Over the last few years, climate experts pointed to retreating ice on the Jakobshavn glacier as Exhibit A in the global warming debate.

“The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually,” The Associated Press reported.

TRENDING: James Woods Celebrates Trump’s ‘Slam Dunk Victory’ with Video Roasting ‘the Liberal Press’

That is, until now. Despite climate experts and politicians alike insisting that massive, economy-changing regulations were needed to stop glaciers from melting, it seems the Earth had other plans.

Over the last two years, the Jakobshavn glacier has been growing again at the same rate it was previously shrinking.

“Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid-1980s,” the glacier study found.

Yes, despite human population growth and fossil fuel use bemoaned by figures like Al Gore over the last few decades, ocean temps in that region have been going down.

Has the media exaggerated climate change fears?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“That was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said Jason Box, a scientist who works with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

Other scientists admitted that the new ice being added to the glacier was likely part of a natural process largely outside of human control.

“A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland project,” the AP reported. “The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago.”

It’s worth pointing out the Greenland-sized elephant in the room here: If “natural cyclical cooling” is a major factor in glacier density, wouldn’t that imply that the inverse — natural cyclical warming — also sometimes occurs?

This seems a bit like a shell game. When there appears to be a cooling pattern, it’s cyclical and natural; when there’s a warming pattern, it’s all the fault of humans and we need massive government takeovers to stop it.

RELATED: Flashback to 1989: UN Predicted ‘Disaster’ If Global Warming Not Checked by 2000

Scientists seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to explaining the unexpected shift in the Jakobshavn glacier. Experts were quick to breathe a sigh of relief that ice was expanding, but went on to still call the glacier expansion “bad news.”

“(T)his is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought,” the AP said.

A University of Washington ice scientist named Ian Joughin called it “a temporary blip” and predicted that the glacier would continue to melt even after the last few years of data showed the opposite.

“In the long run we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” NASA climate scientist Josh Willis said.

Again, those same climate scientists failed to predict that the glacier was going to grow over the last two years and called it a “surprise.”

And that’s the big point here: Scientists have a pretty poor track record at making large-scale predictions years into the future. Climate models are useful, but as this unexpected glacier growth just showed, they’re also deeply flawed.

“We conclude that projections of Jakobshavn’s future contribution to sea-level rise that are based on glacier geometry are insufficient,” the glacier study said.

That is exactly why caution and conservatism should be the watchwords when experts preach doom and gloom. We simply don’t know enough about the climate and the planet to gamble entire economies on predictions, and we should be wary when only one side of the facts are used to push big-government expansion.

Good science will acknowledge that there are far more unknowns than knowns — which is exactly why there’s far less of a consensus on global warming than the political left wants to admit.

Wal-Mart vs. The 535 Morons

Wal-Mart vs. The 535 Morons

  1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.
  2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
  3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
  4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
  5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world’s largest private employer, and most speak English.
  6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.
  7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years .
  8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
  9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
  10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.
  11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth’s population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
  12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the groundwork for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans… Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To the 535 voting members of the Legislature

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

  • The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 244 years to get it right and it is broke.
  • Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 84 years to get it right and it is broke
  • Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 81 years to get it right and it is broke.
  • War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.
  • Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
  • Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 49 years to get it right and it is broke.

You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our “duly elected’ (they never read anything) and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.
AND I know what’s wrong. We have lost our minds to “Political Correctness”!

Someone please tell me what the HELL’s wrong with all the people that run this country!

We’re “broke” & can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.

In the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey…And now Pakistan previous home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!! (And you can’t agree to a simple $5B for a wall to help keep us safe?!!!)

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks…

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without ‘needed’ meds, and mentally ill without treatment – etc, etc.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn’t it?

99% of people won’t have the guts to

send this to their Clown in Office.

Via Vermont Loon Watch

It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments

https://vermontloonwatch.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/political-speak-24/

 

It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments. That he has none is a fallacy.

Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

All have been fact checked

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Rick Wagoner of GM) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to go golfing more than 150 times in his eight years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

Quite impressive a list, is it not?

 

The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

How is it possible that, according to one recent poll, a stunning 52 percent of millennials would like to live in a socialist or communist America?

Source: The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

Obama Was Hand-Picked, NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew & Tried to Protect Him – Freedom Outpost

Dean Garrison

Let’s kick a dead horse.  The debate is settled and the damage is done. But who thinks Obama was eligible to be president?

Even President Donald Trump questioned Obama’s citizenship in 2014 by offering $50 Million to see his college records, but Obama never responded to his offer. Nothing has been done to this point.

And sadly, nothing ever will.

Let me show you today how Congress protected him from both sides of the aisle and guaranteed the debate would never go too far.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.

Why is that important?

Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.

Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who would benefit greatly from the happenings by gaining his spot in the Oval Office.

I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”

There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.

But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:

  1. Barack Obama was hand-picked to be President.
  2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understood that Obama was not “natural born” and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
  3. In the end, they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain’s eligibility status, hoping that Obama’s own status would not be brought into question.

It appears to have worked.

Below is a lengthy excerpt from “Article II Facts” hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.

Let’s take a trip back through recent history:

Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”  – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.

The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.

The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]

There you have it. Make of this what you will.

It raises many questions.

Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain’s aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?

Why were people like InhofeIssa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men were later three of Obama’s biggest critics. We heard lots of threats and promises from them that yielded no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of “all bark and no bite”? (See Definition of “Smoke and Mirrors“)

If it is true that the definition of “natural born citizen” only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?

Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knew it.

So why was nothing ever done?

Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison

 

Ending Birthright Citizenship

Ending Birthright Citizenship

History, as the saying goes, is a lie agreed upon, and there has perhaps been no bigger lie detrimental to the future  national security and economic well-being of the United States that the 14th Amendment, clearly written to protect the rights of African-American slaves liberated by the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, somehow confers citizenship on the offspring of anybody whose pregnant and can sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol.

U.S. citizenship is rendered meaningless if it is defined as an accident of geography and it is the clear that this was not the intention authors of those who wrote the 14th Amendment and shepherded it into the Constitution. President Trump has rightly targeted birthright citizenship as an historical error that needs to be corrected:

President Trump said in a newly released interview he plans to sign an executive order ending so-called “birthright citizenship” for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil — a move that would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and trigger an almost-certain legal battle…

Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that “there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

“What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”

Anton is stunningly correct and clearly echoes the sentiments and legislative intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. The only question is whether this historical error is better corrected though a clarifying amendment, legislation, or through a Trump executive order. GOP Rep. Steve King, R-IA, has proposed legislation:

In January of this year, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 (HR 140) that seeks to amend current law by making requirements for citizenship more narrow, and, in King’s opinion, more constitutional…

“A Century ago it didn’t matter very much that a practice began that has now grown into a birthright citizenship, an anchor baby agenda,” King said. “When they started granting automatic citizenship on all babies born in the United States they missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal immigrants. That has got to stop.”…

King’s bill seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill states that a person born in the United States is a citizen if one parent is “(1) a citizen or national of the United States, (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.”

But some would argue that no clarifying legislation is necessary and that as a result of President Trump’s appointment of originalist interpreters of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, the original intent of the 14th Amendment can be restored.

The Supreme Court has never said birthright citizenship is constitutional and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote it.

Peter H. Schuck, Yale University’s Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law Emeritus and self-described “militant moderate,” reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution. Though opposed to many of the president’s positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy…

On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump. In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called “anchor-babies” — those born to illegal aliens — was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters. Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, “We’re the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.”

This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

Trump during the campaign correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration.  He would end it and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As The New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.

“They have to go,” Trump said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.  As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration”. Once of age the baby born here can sponsor others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth. 

Critics have said that the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution. In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment — only correctly interpreting it — perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The 14th Amendment, passed, on July 3, 1866, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision had held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens:

John Eastman of the Claremont Institute testified before the subcommittee, saying, the Supreme Court has never actually held that anyone who happens to make it to U.S. soil can unilaterally bestow citizenship on their children merely by giving birth here.

Although such an understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment has become widespread in recent years, it is not the understanding of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, or of those who ratified it, or of the leading constitutional commentators of the time. Neither was it the understanding of the Supreme Court when the Court first considered the matter in 1872, or when it considered the matter a second time a decade later in 1884, or even when it considered the matter a third time fifteen years after that in the decision many erroneously view as interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on U.S. soil, whether their parents were here permanently or only temporarily, legally or illegally, or might even be here as enemy combatants seeking to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.

Eastman argues that the modern view of the Fourteenth Amendment ignores a key phrase in the Citizenship Clause. Mere birth on U.S. soil just isn’t enough. “A person must be both ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ and ‘subject to its jurisdiction.’”

During debate on the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?        

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

HR. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system, a very costly one. 

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right — becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the Border Patrol.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.  

 

Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn’t rise up, trap and retain heat | PSI Intl

Written by John O’Sullivan

We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect). But as President Trump looks to help dismantle the hoax there is much inconvenient science at hand to help his administration discredit this ‘theory’ beloved by climate alarmists.

The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim.  Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus,  in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

As shown  in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster).  Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.  It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:

“Proponents [of the greenhouse gas theory] point to scientist John Tyndall for postulating what we now call global warming in his 1861 paper published in “Philosophical Transactions.” Tyndall’s experiments methodically measured with an electronic galvanometer, the relative heat absorption of various gases, gas vapors and even a few solids. He proved that they absorb heat in the order listed.

Generally, the larger the gas molecule (compound gases), the more heat they absorb with the most heat absorbed by olefiant gas (ethylene). Although he does not mention carbon dioxide, it might absorb about a third of that amount. He discovered that that these gases absorb less heat as their pressure rises, so he measured at extreme low pressures.

At one point, he generalizes that gas vapors, such as aqueous vapor, absorb roughly 13 times more than dry gases. Solids absorb even more heat. He notes that gases cool in proportion to the absorption with large molecule gases taking longer to cool. Tyndall leaps a bit with this concept when he hypothesizes the affect on our atmosphere by stating, “to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times” – which we attribute to global warming.”

There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:

“As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”

You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long. In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption/emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]

By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:

“Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]

So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’! Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.

But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their  mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.

And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.

So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.

It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).

As Moodey goes on to tell us:

Charles Law precisely quantifies the volume expansion of gas when heated at each degree of temperature. Likewise, as gas cools its volume shrinks precisely the same. Our modern instruments measure instantaneous changes in volume and temperature. This does the same as John Tyndall’s instrument, except we can measure a slight change in volume with each degree of temperature. By my experience with this, I estimate that gases lose the absorbed temperature very rapidly when the heat source is removed.

Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.

Now back to some Geology:

And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life. Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater. For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system. Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]

This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters. Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back … and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]

It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora. The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]

If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at 3,000 ppm, far higher than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):

And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%. So where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic? Pure nonsense because even NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification. And more than 99% of earth’s FREE CO2 is already in the ocean waters.

If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20. For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength. Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2

Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level.  The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).

As Professor Nahle found with his open air experiments:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases. In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity/emissivity of the atmosphere.”

Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny.  Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled. In fact putting co2 into the air is  saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.

*****

[1]  Nahle, N., ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,’ http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

[2] Lionel Guidi, et al x 64 names  (2015)  Plankton networks driving carbon export in the oligotrophic ocean. Nature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature16942

[3]  ‘Marine barite: Recorder of variations in ocean export productivity‘ page 698, Fig 6).

[4] Samson Reiny, ‘Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds,’ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth (accessed online: January 30, 2017)

 

global_warming_hoax