2015 US Budget Allocations

Source

Al Gore and the Climate Hoaxers are Wrong Again

For years, pushers of global warming have been saying that the seas will soon be inundating the world’s sea shores, but a new calculation of the rise of the oceans seem to show that the former calculations were off by as much as two quadrillion gallons.

Al Gore made himself infamous for his fantastic claims that “soon” melting ice caps would cause the world’s oceans to rise by “20 feet” and would swamp over much of the earth. His claims have been widely ridiculed, even by global warming theorists.

Still, less fanciful predictions have said that the oceans will rise up to some 6.7 inches in the next 90 years. This would still be a major problem, according to climate change adherents.

However, a new reckoning of the rising sea levels finds that previous calculations have have been off, and by quite a bit.

A group of researchers from Harvard and Rutgers Universities discovered that the actual rise in sea levels measured only 1.2 millimeters instead of the previously accepted 1.6 to 1.9 millimeters.

This, the researchers say, means that the actual rise has fallen from the once-imagined 6.7 inches over 90 years to 4.2 inches.

A recent New York Times article noted that this means the difference between the old and new numbers “turns out to be an immense amount of water: on the order of two quadrillion gallons.” That would be about as much water as the whole of Lake Superior.

If this new research stands up to peer review, it could explain why global warming activists have had trouble reconciling measurements they’ve been finding over the last ten years or so.

via Breitbart

Global Warming is Socialism per George Will

Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it's a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people -- our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.

Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it's a series of propositions that can't be refuted. It's very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, "We are the real defenders of science," and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.

I own a house in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, facing the Atlantic, where the hurricanes come from. After Katrina, the global warming people said, "This is just a sign of the violent weather that's going to become more common because of global warming." Well, that certainly interested me. Of course, since then, there's been a collapse of hurricane activity.

I was a columnist in the 1970s when Newsweek, Time, all sorts of media outlets said the real problem is global cooling. I remember the Washington Post reporting that the armadillos were going south to escape the coming chill, the threat of glaciation over northern Europe. We've been through this before. You say, "What happened to global cooling?" They say, "Well, our models were wrong." Now we're supposed to risk several trillion dollars of global growth and spending on new models that might be wrong?

One other thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report. The New Yorker, which is impeccably alarmed about global warming, the writer being their specialist began her story something like this: "In a report that should be but unfortunately will not be viewed as the final word in climate science." Now, just think about that. The final word in microbiology, the final word in quantum mechanics. There are no final words in science. But there you have the deeply anti-scientific temper of the global warming advocacy groups: Final words.

Watch the Interview with George Will: the Daily Caller

Dirtbag Al Sharpton is the King of the Race Hustle Shakedown

Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist?

Then you need to pay Al Sharpton.

For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence.

Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal met with the activist preacher after leaked e-mails showed her making racially charged comments about President Obama. Pascal was under siege after a suspected North Korean cyber attack pressured the studio to cancel its release of “The Interview,” which depicts the assassination of dictator Kim Jong-un.


Pascal and her team were said to be “shaking in their boots” and “afraid of the Rev,” The Post reported.

No payments to NAN have been announced, but Sharpton and Pascal agreed to form a “working group” to focus on racial bias in Hollywood.

Sharpton notably did not publicly assert his support for Pascal after the meeting — what observers say seems like a typical Sharpton “shakedown” in the making. Pay him in cash or power, critics say, and you buy his support or silence.

“Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group that has produced a book on Sharpton.

And Sharpton, who now boasts a close relationship with Obama and Mayor de Blasio, is in a stronger negotiating position than ever.

“Once Sharpton’s on board, he plays the race card all the way through,” said a source who has worked with the Harlem preacher. “He just keeps asking for more and more money.” 

More on the Sharpton Hustle at the: New York Post

What the Media doesn't want you to know about Police Shootings and Race

By Michael P. Tremoglie, Dec. 8, 2014

White officers were 87 percent of America’s 641,208 police and accounted for 82 percent of justifiable homicides by police in 1998. Black officers were 11 percent of police forces and accounted for 17 percent of all justifiable homicides.

According to the FBI, blacks were 43 percent of the known killers of law enforcement officers during the period from 2004-2013. But blacks were only about 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2013. You will not read this in the New York Times.

Here are several more facts that no other journalist has provided. I have stated these during interviews on the Bill Bennett show and the Seth Leibsohn radio shows:

Black officers, from 1980-2008, were involved in 13% of justifiable homicides by police, but 3% of those they killed were white compared to 11% who were black (the differences were due to rounding). You will not hear this from the Boston Globe.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, homicides by law enforcement personnel accounted for 61 percent of the arrest-related deaths for the period 2003-2009. Homicides by law enforcement accounted for 60.9 percent of whites and for 61.3 percent of blacks killed while being arrested for this period. This will not be published in U.S. News.

It was estimated, by the FBI, that during these same seven years state and local law enforcement officers made nearly 98 million arrests. This means that only 5 thousandths of one percent of arrests involved the killing of the person being arrested. Think about this - one out of every 20,000 arrests result in someone being killed. According to one source, there is a four times greater chance of being electrocuted than being killed while being arrested. Sean Hannity does not know this.

The most comprehensive study of homicides by police that I could locate was conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and published in March 2001. I wrote about this for an online magazine in 2002. You will not hear this from Byron York.

The report titled Policing and Homicide 1976 to 1998, listed the demographic information about citizens killed by police that were determined to be justifiable homicides and about police killed by citizens.

This monograph stated that black officers committed a statistically disproportionate amount of justifiable homicides by police in 1998. White officers were 87 percent of America’s 641,208 police and accounted for 82 percent of justifiable homicides by police in 1998. Black officers were 11 percent of police forces and accounted for 17 percent of all justifiable homicides.

Black officers also killed black felons more than white officers and vice-versa. The black-officer-kills-black-felon rate was 32 per 100,000 black officers in 1998, which is higher than the white-officer-kills-black-felon rate of 14 per 100,000 white officers. The white-officer-kills-white-felon rate was 28 per 100,000 white officers in 1998, which is higher than the black-officer-kills-white-felon rate of 11 per 100,000 black officers. 

The study also stated that young black males murdered police officers at a rate almost 6 times that of young white males. Young black males made up about one percent of the U.S. population but 21 percent of felons who murdered a police officer from 1980 to 1998. Young white males were eight percent of the population but 20 percent of the murderers of law enforcement officers for the same time frame. 

One other aspect of this is that most justifiable homicides by police are intraracial. According to FBI national data on justifiable homicides by police from 1976 to 1998. The officer’s race and the felon’s race were the same for about 65 percent of justifiable homicides by police. You will not be told this by Chris Wallace.

Finally, what is probably the most shocking fact is the attitude of the public. According to the University of Chicago's prestigious National Opinion Research Center, General Social Survey, 12.8 percent of Americans, in 2012, who said that they can imagine a situation where they would approve of a police officer striking a citizen - said that a policeman should not strike an adult male citizen who was attacking the policeman with his fists. What is even worse is that this figure has increased about four times what it was nearly forty years ago.

Simply put, about 12 of every 100 Americans, do not think police officers should defend themselves even when the officer is being attacked by someone using their fists. It is quite possible that the majority of these people are journalists.

Source:   Tremoglie's Tea Time 

via: Larry Elder