Sunday, March 24, 2024

Unity: A Tale of Three Presidents


For the State of the Union address, political strategy would suggest to Mr. Biden that he at least try to rise above the fray and appear more like a statesman than a stump speaker. It was not to be.


In a country deeply estranged along party lines, President Joe Biden’s recent State of the Union constituted a partisan diatribe, not a unifying address. This was not solely the result of Mr. Biden’s personal frailties and biases. There was a method to his mendacity and its delivery.

Customarily, the modern SOTU is addressed to Congress, of course, and to the entirety of the American people. Presidents being politicians and leaders of their parties, partisanship is not unheard of, though it is often brief and subtle. The reason is that Americans, while knowing presidents are politicians, want to know their head of state can rise above partisanship when the need arises and put the interests of the country ahead of party.

Obviously, during a re-election year, the president will be sorely tempted to be more partisan than usual. No stranger to decrying millions of his fellow citizens as dangerous threats to the nation (which he conflates with his party), it is easy to chalk Mr. Biden’s excremental oratorical ejaculations as simply par for the course. Yet, given his partisan bona fides, political strategy would suggest to Mr. Biden that he at least try to rise above the fray and appear more like a statesman than a stump speaker.

It was not to be, and for a dispositive political reason: most Americans are concerned Mr. Biden’s manifestations of his age preclude him from being an effective president; and, more importantly, in the near term, most of his own party pines for a more hale and hearty standard bearer. Consequently, the Biden team played into their man’s strengths, such as they are, and what followed was less an address than a paranoiac’s animadversions against his opponents.

Having already met with social media influencers to prime the pump and knowing the supine regime media would ever be on board for some GOP/MAGA bashing, the SOTU reviews were a forgone conclusion: “a ‘fiery’ Biden calls out,” ad nauseum…. As designed, the less than presidential polemic played well with its target audience of Democrats, though whether it will quell the base’s desire for a better presidential nominee remains to be seen, or, crucially, if it remains and is unmet, whether the fear of Mr. Trump will spur a sufficient voter turnout during the election’s voting period (“election day” being rendered quaint).

Still, Mr. Biden whispered, whelped, and threatened to the heavens, and, after comparing our current state of the union with America on the precipice of World War II (and, less than subtly, himself to FDR), tossed in the Civil War to boot in uttering these nationally divisive low-lights for the ages:

Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault here at home as they are today. What makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack, both at home and overseas, at the very same time…

“January 6th and the lies about the 2020 election, and the plots to steal the election, posed the gravest threat to our democracy since the Civil War.

Uh, yeah….

Not wanting to minimize the horrors of World War II or the Civil War, let us look to the historical record to see how two presidents, one an incumbent Democrat and the other a former Republican president and general, worked together to further heal a nation that only recently emerged from an internecine cauldron of death and destruction.

On July 23, 1885, former Lieutenant General of all the Union Armies and, later, President Ulysses S. Grant died of throat cancer. President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ordered a national period of mourning for thirty days. He also ensured that his Republican predecessor Grant’s last requests regarding the funeral were honored. President Cleveland did so.

After a train had taken Grant’s body to New York City, a seven-mile-long funeral march ensued, with tens of thousands of mourners—including President Cleveland and former Presidents Hayes and Arthur—following behind the two dozen black stallions drawing the casket to Riverside Park. Reportedly, over a million and a half people viewed the funeral.

Per Grant’s wishes, President Cleveland assigned these men as pall bearers: Generals William Tecumseh Sherman, Philip Sheridan, Simon Bolivar Buckner, and Joseph Johnston. They rode together in the same carriage. Sherman and Sheridan fought for the Union. Buckner and Johnston fought for the Confederacy.

As a result, the entire country was able to witness and, like President Cleveland, honor the last act of a dying President Grant, a man whose job entailed killing his fellow Americans who were trying to kill him, namely, empathy and forgiveness in the cause of healing, peace, and unity.

Thus, in this tale of three presidents, Americans should be grateful that Presidents Grant and Cleveland (and Hayes and Arthur, as well), and Generals Sherman, Sheridan, Buckner, and Johnston rose above parochial and personal concerns and performed such a magnanimous and commendable act on behalf of uniting a reconstructing, though still Civil War-scarred, nation.

As for the divisive Mr. Biden?

Well, sometimes a distressed body politic drops a deuce, like a Buchanan, before a Lincoln comes along to clean up the mess.



X22, And we Know, and more- March 24

 





'There's Been No Increase': Scientists Debunk Climate Change Claims About Hurricanes

 


https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/theres-been-no-increase-scientists-debunk-climate-change-claims-about-hurricanes-5608497?utm_source=PR_article_paid&utm_medium=email&est=0zmVCR4ySTuBn3oH%2BDit5uItbrI%2Bm9871eQut7G0d0j%2FPu2EoUXcXutqRnIiYzdsMEj2

This year’s hurricane season, which officially starts June 1, is being predicted by WeatherBELL as the “hurricane season from hell,” with weather patterns similar to those of 2005, 2017, and 2020.

Along with it, says the firm’s meteorologist and chief forecaster Joe Bastardi, will come the climate change blame game, which he calls a false narrative.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, killing an estimated 1,833 people and causing approximately $161 billion in damages. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, Irma hit the Caribbean, and Maria hit the Caribbean and Puerto Rico, resulting in at least 3,364 fatalities and a combined cost of over $294 billion in damages.

In 2020, six major hurricanes landed, resulting in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) dubbing 2020 the “most active season in recorded history.”

Following each season, government officials, committees, and scientists were quick to blame climate change.

“There is perhaps no better example of the potential for devastating global warming impacts than the Gulf Coast and Hurricane Katrina,” the U.S. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming stated after Katrina.

“While the contribution of human-caused warming to Hurricane Katrina is difficult to quantify, scientists have unearthed a trend towards larger, more intense storms as oceans around the world warm.”

After Irma, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called the 2017 season “the most violent on record.”

“Changes to our climate are making extreme weather events more severe and frequent, pushing communities into a vicious cycle of shock and recovery,” he stated.

After the 2020 season, Jim Kossin, an atmospheric research scientist at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, blamed “warmer-than-average ocean temperatures” for the hurricane “hyper-activity.”

He said an increase in more ferocious hurricanes over the past 40 years was linked to climate change.

Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

Mr. Bastardi said he expects to hear similar messaging this year if it pans out like he’s predicting.

“If you hang around people constantly spouting negative stuff and how bad it is, guess what you’re going to believe? … It’s a great strategy for pushing this thing—if I wanted to argue the CO2 [carbon dioxide] argument, I'd do exactly what they’re doing,” Mr. Bastardi told The Epoch Times.

“But there’s been no increase. And the size of the storms is getting smaller. That’s the other thing: hurricanes are smaller and more compact.”

Oceanographer and certified consulting meteorologist Bob Cohen concurred.

He said there’s currently a transition from El Niño patterns to La Niña, which is “correlated with higher-than-normal hurricane activity.”

“Right now, the subsurface temperatures are much cooler than during El Niño,” he told The Epoch Times. “The immediate near-surface temperatures are still warmer, but the subsurface water pool and the warm water pool have dissipated, and so once that pops to the surface, it becomes La Niña,” Mr. Cohen said.

He said he expects “we'll hear a lot more alarmist messaging” if 2024 is a busy hurricane season, as predicted.

But, like Mr. Bastardi, Mr. Cohen said hurricanes aren’t getting bigger or more intense. He said that as temperatures naturally warm coming out of the Little Ice Age, hurricanes and weather events will get less intense—not exponentially worse.

Basic Physics and Temperature

The Earth endeavors to exist in a state of equilibrium; it tries to equalize the temperature between the equator and the poles, which drives weather, according to Mr. Cohen.

“When you look at the 50,000-foot big picture, the Earth is a heat engine,” he said. “The tropics remain fairly constant in temperatures, and it’s the poles that have the greatest change.

“The gradient drives the storms. … If the poles warm, the temperature gradient decreases, which would mean less of a requirement for more intense storms from Mother Nature. It’s basic physics.”

Mr. Bastardi agreed.

“Look at Ida versus Betsy,” he said. “Betsy’s hurricane-force winds extended out 150 miles to the west and 250 miles east. Ida 50 miles to the west, and 75 miles to the east. They’re both category 4. They both had similar pressures. Which was the worst storm? The bigger storm. But they don’t tell you that.”

NOAA’s hurricane division shows Hurricane Betsy hitting Florida and Louisiana in 1965 with a central pressure of 946 millibars and a maximum wind speed of 132 miles per hour. Hurricane Ida hit Louisiana in 2021 with a central pressure of 931 mb and a maximum wind speed of 149 miles per hour.

However, NOAA data doesn’t include the overall size of a hurricane.

“Hurricanes now are like fists of furry rather than giant bulldozers that come in and plow the coast,” Mr. Bastardi said. “But [NOAA] won’t show the entire picture. Because if they did, people would say, ‘What the heck!’”

He said the reason hurricanes are more costly now is because of increased infrastructure along the coasts, not because of increased severity.

NOAA’s historical hurricane data dating back to 1851 supports the premise that hurricanes aren’t getting worse.

It adds as a caveat to its data that “because of the sparseness of towns and cities before 1900,” hurricanes may have been missed or their intensity underestimated.

NOAA’s data also shows hurricanes are getting less severe in terms of central pressure.

Even with possible missing data, the NOAA data show an average central pressure decline of 0.00013mb per year between 1851 and 2022 (2023 data isn’t included yet), and max wind had a marginal average increase of 0.00011mph per year for that same period.



The agency uses the Saffir-Simpson scale to categorize hurricanes from 1 to 5 based on maximum sustained wind speed.

Fear Before Reality

Government agencies, such as NOAA, often lead with an alarming statement about increased weather severity, but beyond the headlines, the data show a different story, Mr. Cohen said.

For example, in its 2023 State of the Science fact sheet titled “Atlantic Hurricanes and Climate Change,” NOAA asks the questions: “Has human-caused climate change had any detectable influence on hurricanes and their impacts?” and “What changes do we expect going forward with continued global warming?”

It answers itself by stating that “Several Atlantic hurricane activity metrics show pronounced increases since 1980.”

A few paragraphs later, NOAA states that if the data from the 1900s to the present is considered, “There has been no significant trend in annual numbers of U.S. landfalling tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes.”

Instead, there’s a “decreasing trend since 1900 in the propagation speed of tropical storms and hurricanes over the continental U.S.”

Mr. Cohen said NOAA’s approach is problematic. Its initial statements are “scary” and then “it discounts these same statements.”

“It’s very confusing because it goes back and forth between blaming climate change and blaming natural variability,” he said.

The reliance on climate modeling instead of observed reality is one of the problems with government reports, Mr. Cohen said.

In its fact sheet, NOAA says it hasn’t found clear evidence of a “greenhouse gas-induced change in historical observed Atlantic hurricane behavior.”

“Since a highly confident attribution has not yet been established for Atlantic hurricanes, future projections rely mostly on climate models alone.”

Mr. Cohen said the real observations don’t agree with the models

“Some will say, ‘Well, if the observations don’t agree, then the observations are wrong.’ But it’s the opposite. It’s the models that are wrong,” he said.

Mr. Bastardi concurred and added that much of what’s being presented to the public is propaganda, not science, intended to facilitate a specific outcome.

“The climate agenda is the nail in freedom’s coffin. We’re more prosperous, we have five times the number of people, and we have one-fiftieth the number of climate disasters than we did in the 1900s,” he said.

“But we’ve got this mass brainwashing going on, and it’s all over incremental nonsense—very, very small things that are just amplified to make people think that things are really bad.”

CO2 Impact

When asked if human-caused CO2 has an impact on hurricanes, Mr. Bastardi was quick to say “no.”

Mr. Cohen agreed. “Greenhouse gas doesn’t warm the ocean, except in the top millimeter. The deep warming is caused by the sun. The greenhouse gas theory, which is effect, irradiates heat that tries to escape back down to the Earth in a wavelength that only goes into the oceans at the top—the ocean’s skin or the top few millimeters. So, you don’t get changes in ocean heat content because of greenhouse gasses,” he said.

“You get that because of solar insulation, the direct sunlight, which is a different wavelength. And so, changes in thermal heat content are not due to greenhouse gasses.”

Mr. Bastardi agreed and said there are still a lot of unknowns when it comes to the climate and what causes warming or cooling, particularly in the oceans.

“We’re woefully short of knowing what’s going on in the oceans,” he said. “We have one data point for every 112,000 square miles. It does not do anything except faintly estimate what’s going on.”

He said the increase in geothermal activity in the oceans since 1990 has been warming the oceans. But he’s also seeing a predicted cooling.

“What’s more startling to me is how cold the Indian Ocean is forecast to get over the next six months. I mean, I’ve never seen a drop like this forecasted,” he said.

During the incoming change to the La Niña pattern, upwelling in the oceans brings cold, nutrient-rich water to the surface, pushing the Pacific jet stream northward. That can result in droughts in the southern United States, increased rain and flooding in Canada and the Pacific Northwest, and an increased risk of hurricanes, according to NOAA.

“The warming of the oceans is a big deal,” Mr. Bastardi said. “But there may be a countering going on. As far as La Niña goes, the planet is warming. And it’s warming in a way that creates stronger than average easterly winds across the Pacific, which means upwelling, and upwelling means cooler water.

“All a La Niña is is a resistance to the warming that’s taking place. And unless there is a shutdown of whatever input that is—if you’re a CO2 guy, you think it’s manmade, and if you’re me, you believe it’s natural—until that shutdown occurs, the oceans will continue to warm.

“Now, here’s a dirty little secret: We don’t have the data to know exactly what’s happening.”

Mr. Bastardi predicts this hurricane season “will turn into a real political football” over the climate change narrative.

Mr. Cohen added, “You never see it asked: ‘For humans, what is the optimal temperature?’

“Nine times more people die from cold than heat. The yields in Africa now because of the CO2 are huge, feeding millions of people. So many articles, particularly in the mainstream media, are written to scare people. And that leads to the general public thinking we’re heading into a bad situation. And that’s not the case.

“Warmer weather is better.”

 

 


Bidenomics Sucks, And So Does Joe And All Democrats


It’s weird watching Democrats try to convince Americans they simply don’t know how good they’ve got it. They cite random data points to insist people are uneasy and unable to pay their bills only because of their imagination. Of course, as I always say, if you control the unit of measure, you control everything. They cherry-pick data to make a general case that doesn’t come anywhere close to registering with individuals. It's a lie by sleight of hand, and it will never work for anyone with half a brain cell in their head.

So, what do they point to to convince everyone they’ve got it made? One of those things makes them a special kind of evil – it’s the stock market.

When Donald Trump was President, he was constantly pointing out when the stock market would hit a new record high. When he did it, Democrats would mock it, screaming about how most Americans weren’t in the stock market, seemingly forgetting about 401(k)s. 

Even with that, however, Democrats attacked the idea that a record Dow Jones Industrial Average meant anything other than rich people getting richer.

Now, they’re touting a record stock market as a sign that Americans have it really good under Joe Biden. Hearing a leftist extol the virtues of a high stock market is odd, and then talking about how people’s 401(k)s is hilarious, especially when they’re trying to appeal to people under 60. 

Honestly, telling anyone not retired or about to be that they have it good because something they’re years away from being able to collect on is doing well at that moment shows a level of tone-deafness that might set a record. Young people are actually dipping into their retirement accounts because they can’t afford to buy a house pay rent or just make ends meet, so they’re paying a substantial tax penalty to survive. Bidenomics in action. 

You can’t take your 401(k) into a grocery store and make food more affordable, the Dow hitting 40,000 doesn’t make necessities cheaper or salaries higher, it just makes people who donate to Joe Biden’s reelection campaign recoup in short order the cash they gave to keep the person responsible for the misery in power. Gas prices remain unchanged in this scenario.

Yet, this seems to be a cornerstone of Biden’s campaign: accounts you can’t touch without paying through the nose, and can’t collect on until you’re retired, are up. So, if nothing changes in the ensuing 20-30 years, you should be grateful and vote for grandpa's hair-sniffer…or something. 

The more they tout the stock market, the more it is important to remember something they may well have forgotten, but you never should – they’ve kept you out of it as best they can. Every point they claim is an indication of how well the economy is doing should be a reminder of the money they kept you from having.

Back in 2005, President George W. Bush proposed allowing Americans, if they chose to, to invest a tiny percentage of their Social Security money in the stock market. Unlike the Ponzi Scheme the government completely controls, this would be money people could pass along to their heirs if they should pass away. The Democrats hated every little bit of this concept. 

“There is no crisis,” they yelled. This was an attempt to “privatize Social Security” to make the rich even richer, they said. They never really said how. 

They also claimed it would put Social Security money at risk somehow. The only way that could be – taking money out of it – is if it were the Ponzi Scheme they’ve always denied it was. 

But that’s neither here nor there, just think about how much more money your retirement could have had Democrats not blocked this plan. At the time, the stock market was around 10,000, now it’s almost 40,000. Would you like to have quadrupled your money over those ensuing years? Better yet, would you like to have invested in companies that did much better than that over that time? The possibilities were endless before Democrats limited them to none.

NOW they have the nerve to brag about the stock market and say that, somehow, means the people they excluded from engaging in it are better off than they were 4 years ago, back when they could afford to buy a house, fill up their gas tank AND feed their families? Hell no!

Bidenomics sucks, Joe Biden sucks, Democrats suck. If you’re having any economic problems, it is their doing. If you can’t find a job, if an illegal alien is getting tax money for their housing, food, and general life, that’s because Democrats favor them over you. If you can’t fill your car with gas, can’t pay your rent, can’t afford a home, can’t buy much beyond ramen without making sacrifices elsewhere, thank a Democrat, especially Joe Biden. 

And remember that feeling, even if your situation improves slightly by November, or you get used to the pain. Never forget what they’ve done, because while they’re scrambling to make changes to help their reelection chances, the damage Joe Biden will do if he wins and never has to face voters again will be much, much worse. 



How Britain’s Meddling in Israel Could Backfire — on Ukraine

 Britain’s foreign secretary, David Cameron, plunges into a rabbit-hole of virtue-signaling.

Note the hand signs ?

Is London meddling too much in Jerusalem’s affairs? The British foreign secretary and former prime minister, David Cameron, appears to have gone down a rabbit hole of virtue signaling at an inopportune time, just as Israel is closing on the last remaining vestiges of Hamas terror units in the Gaza Strip.

In a bizarre inversion of priorities, Britain has even threatened to condition arms sales to Israel on Israel allowing prison visits to Hamas terrorists. Yet suspending arms shipments to Israel, for the time being a hypothetical, could stymie British and American efforts to train Ukrainian soldiers on German-built Challenger tanks. 

Last week it was reported that Britain is seeking to condition arms supplies to Israel on securing permission for “Red Cross or diplomatic visits to the detained terrorists of Hamas elite Nukhba force.” That the Red Cross has a strange affinity for cozying up to convicted terrorists is no longer a surprise. To that toxic equation, though, add the latest rhetorical intrusions of the British Foreign Office — to say nothing of the Biden White House.

Mr. Cameron is blaming Israel for slowing down delivery of aid into Gaza by land. He takes issue with, as he states it, “arbitrary denials by the government of Israel and lengthy clearance procedures, including multiple screenings and narrow opening windows in daylight hours.”

The erstwhile premier also claimed that Israel has closed the Kerem Shalom crossing on Saturdays due to the Sabbath. Yet Cogat, the Israeli body governing civilian affairs in the Palestinian territories, has denied that and insisted the UN requested the down time so that deliveries could be processed. 

Earlier this month Mr. Cameron wrote on X that Israel should “allow more [aid] trucks into Gaza.” An Israeli government spokesman, Eylon Levy, replied on X, “I hope you are aware there are no limits on the entry of food, water, medicine, or shelter equipment into Gaza, and in fact the crossings have excess capacity.” Added he: “Test us. Send another 100 trucks a day to Kerem Shalom [border crossing] and we’ll get them in.” 

The British Foreign Office subsequently sought a “clarification” as to whether or not Mr Levy’s posts represented the official Israeli position on the matter. It is not yet clear whether they did or not,  but in the midst of the spat the talented Mr. Levy was suspended from his position.

Mr. Cameron’s threatening to “withhold weapons” from Israel over disagreements pertaining to aid delivery and Red Cross access to imprisoned Hamas terrorists is detrimental to relations between Britain and Israel. According to the Britain Israel Communications and Research Center, even though “UK arms imports do not represent a substantial part of Israel’s defense procurement,” the British-Israel defense trade “is of mutual benefit, and the relative importance of the trade relationship is arguably greater to the UK military than to the IDF.”

And how. Israel’s Elbit Systems does a brisk business with the British defense ministry and is currently the main contractor providing training to tank crews in the British Army

According to London’s Private Eye, last May Elbit won a 10-year, $71 million contract to run Project Vulcan for the British Army, which involves “driver, gunner, commander” and “crew training” to “teach troops to use Challenger tanks.”

Not all those who are being trained are British — some are Ukrainian. More than 50,000 Ukrainian recruits have received training in Britain since Russia invaded Ukraine, and Prime Minister Sunak has commended “how the training the Ukrainian soldiers were receiving on British Challenger 2 tanks would give them the upper hand on the battlefield and allow them to push back Russian forces.”

No wonder then that, according to London’s Private Eye, “in the UK Elbit is confident it is well embedded in British military work, saying its recent contracts ‘consolidate’ its ‘position as a leading provider of training and simulation to the UK armed forces.’”

The British Israel Communications and Research Center puts Great Britain’s share of total Israeli arms imports at merely 0.9 percent of Israel’s total. Meanwhile, Israeli arms imported to Great Britain “have protected UK service personnel in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in other combat deployments.”

Why, then, would Mr. Cameron want to possibly jeopardize a mutually beneficial relationship? The Sun was not able to ascertain the precise extent to which Ukrainian troops have received training in Britain on Israel-made battle simulators, but it is safe to say that any such experience would be highly useful along the frontlines. 

Nor had Elbit Systems responded to an inquiry as to whether British grandstanding on Gaza might harm commercial relations or other forms of cooperation between the two countries. One thing is crystal clear, though. Support for Britain’s ruling Conservatives is plunging to new lows, and a general election is fast approaching — as is a possible ouster of Mr. Sunak even before that.

The Labor party is traditionally seen as more sympathetic to Palestinian causes than are the Tories — but as Mr. Cameron ought to know by now, the Middle East can be a more hazardous place to play politics than Downing Street.