I just read an article by Terrence Jeffries reporting that the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, just submitted a threat assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee stating the following about climate change:

Environment and Climate Change

The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.

  • The past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization, and the past few years have been the warmest years on record. Extreme weather events in a warmer world have the potential for greater impacts and can compound with other drivers to raise the risk of humanitarian disasters, conflict, water and food shortages, population migration, labor shortfalls, price shocks, and power outages. Research has not identified indicators of tipping points in climate-linked earth systems, suggesting a possibility of abrupt climate change.
  • Worsening air pollution from forest burning, agricultural waste incineration, urbanization, and rapid industrialization—with increasing public awareness—might drive protests against authorities, such as those recently in China, India, and Iran.
  • Accelerating biodiversity and species loss—driven by pollution, warming, unsustainable fishing, and acidifying oceans—will jeopardize vital ecosystems that support critical human systems. Recent estimates suggest that the current extinction rate is 100 to 1,000 times the natural extinction rate.
  • Water scarcity, compounded by gaps in cooperative management agreements for nearly half of the world’s international river basins, and new unilateral dam development are likely to heighten tension between countries.

Director Coats should be fired for publishing such rubbish.  First, the DNI is getting its climate projections from the U.N.’s IPCC, which has been known to not be reliable.  The IPCC routinely rejects accurate data that shows the earth is not warming and continues to present the false narrative of a dangerously warming planet.  NOAA and NASA routinely adjust temperature measurement data to make it show warming.  The earth has warmed about .06º C over a decade.  But that is not an earth shaking increase nor is it outside the range of natural variability, according to a number of experienced meteorologists.  A warming earth is good for the planet.  Animals, generally, do better.  Humans do better, and plant life flourishes.

Catastrophic weather events have not been on the increase, nor are they getting stronger, but just the opposite.  We have seen a decline in hurricanes of cat 3 strength or larger, a decline in severe tornados, a decline in drought, and a decline in forest fires.  Catastrophic weather events may seem worse but it is due to the media coverage rather than the event itself.  None of the events of the recent past has been unprecedented.  Our meteorological and geological history tells us they have happened in the past.  Any warming we have seen has been from natural forces, such as El Ninos, El Ninas, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Solar activity, etc.  The biggest problem that can be on the horizon, it seems, is that we are likely heading into a period of global cooling that could thrust us into a deep freeze within a decade or two.  Cold kills more people than hot weather.  Cold shortens growing seasons for food crops.  Cold taxes our energy grid substantially.

The Little Ice Age officially ended in 1860, a little over a 150 years ago.  Certainly, we have warmed since then, because of an active Sun.  It was to be expected.  We have gone through a number of ice ages and warmed up in between, often warmer than we are now, and with much higher levels of CO2.  That warming did not cause catastrophe but helped the earth to flourish again.

A number of scientists are now warning that the Sun is showing indications that it is going into its cyclic period of low activity.  This means we will be getting colder, perhaps for an extended period of time.  But such events are beyond our control, just as climate changing is beyond our control.  There is no empirical evidence that climate change or global warming is caused by CO2.  CO2 is not the magic control knob that we can use to control the climate or the weather.  Weather and climate are the result of a multitude of natural forces, none of which we can control.  Anyone who says differently is lying.



I just saw a headline that read “Scholars rank Trump as worst President, rank Obama in Top 10.” Such a statement goes to show how the media are desperate to turn the minds of the electorate away from Trump. There are a number of things wrong with the statement, most of them dealing with what the media are NOT telling you. They are not telling who these “scholars” are. So, I will tell you. It is commonly known that a majority of college professors, the “scholars,” are liberal/progressives. They are the same liberal college professors who are creating a generation of “snowflakes” by telling their malleable students that they need “safe spaces” to protect them from conservative ideas. They are telling their students that it is okay to shout down and shut down conservative speakers who come to their universities. They are telling their students that freedom of speech is for liberal progressives but not conservatives. They are telling their students that violence against conservatives is okay because it serves the cause. Because the majority of the “scholars” are liberals/progressives, when the media poll “scholars” the majority responding to the poll will be liberal/progressive. We already know liberals/progressives are vehemently against Trump.

By stating that “scholars” rank Trump as worst, the media are trying to convince you that Trump must be worst because these “scholars” are the intelligentsia, the intelligent elite who are the smart ones who know such things. The problem is that these “scholars” are only knowledgeable in their academic fields, and their knowledge is limited to what they have read. These “scholars” have spent their entire lives either going to school or teaching in a classroom. They have no real world experience in the other world of work or business. Just because they are “scholars” does not make them smarter than you. In many ways, they are as dumb as stumps.

I am among those that are called “scholars.” But, I am in the minority because I am a conservative. The difference between me and my liberal colleagues is that I know what it is like to serve my country in the military. I know what it is like to run a business and meet a payroll. I know what it is like to hold a position in senior management in a large organization. I know what it is like to be on the verge of bankruptcy and come back to solvency. I teach, not just from books, but from experience. I have lived through 12 Presidents, and I am one “Scholar” who ranks Trump one of the best Presidents and ranks Obama among the bottom three, if not the worst.



I have been engaged in a running debate with a very liberal individual who is constantly preaching the evils of the “wealth gap”, making those who have great wealth to appear as evil scrooges who are hoarding their wealth and not sharing it with the poor.  By this person’s definition of hoarding, anyone who has a savings account with a balance would be hoarding their money because he defines hoarding as keeping more than you need to live on or consume.  A savings account with a balance means it has money in it that was not needed for necessities or to support a lifestyle, therefore it is hoarded money.

This individual, and those like him, demonize the rich, making it sound like the rich gained their wealth by stealing it from the poor.  Also, he demonizes the concept of gaining wealth through passive means like stock ownership and owning property.  He believes the government should take the “excess wealth” through heavy taxation so it can be used to help the poor through income redistribution.

There are serious problems with this kind of thinking.  First, the wealth of the wealthy is not passively sitting idle, like bags of cash sitting in a vault.  On the contrary, the wealth of the wealthy is working and contributing to the economy.  The wealthy buy bonds, thereby loaning money to the government to fund its activities.  The wealthy buy property and build factories to produce consumer products that make our lives easier.  They build strip malls that provide places for people to open new small businesses.  They buy corporate stock, thereby providing the cash corporations need for expansion.  Even cash in the bank is loanable funds for the bank that helps people buys their cars and homes, or gives them seed money to start their small businesses.  Yes, all of these activities grow the wealth of the wealthy even further but they also form the backbone of our growing economy.  Even the concept of the stock market where the wealthy can get richer trading stock, benefits everyone in the economy.  Retirement programs, such as 401Ks invest in the stock market and grow, benefiting those who are vested in such plans.  The stock market would not gain in value if it were not for the wealthy trading in the stock market, which bids stock prices up higher and higher.  The bottom line is the wealth of the wealthy benefits everyone.

The liberals, or progressives, as they would like to be called  decry the wealth gap and believe government should take from the rich and give to the poor, but they always seem to be talking about the other rich, not themselves.  You do not see the wealthy Hollywood liberals volunteering to give up their wealth to give to the poor.  Senator Bernie Sanders is always complaining about the wealth gap but he is not selling any of his multiple homes to distribute his excess to the poor.  But he and the others will not hesitate to take your wealth and give it to others.  The story of Robin Hood made it noble to take from the rich and give to the poor.  In truth, Robin Hood was a thug and a thief.

Those liberals who demonize the wealthy and decry the “wealth gap” also imply that the wealthy do not earn their wealth or that CEOs of large corporations do not work for what they get or deserve their large salaries.  Such an attitude is a display of gross ignorance of what CEOs and other wealthy do.  Being a CEO of a medium to large company is a heavy responsibility that requires a lot of work.  True, it is not work where they must get their hands or clothes dirty, but it is work.  It is their responsibility to insure the organization runs smoothly and in a good direction.   CEOs must provide vision for the future of the company and its profitability.  The decisions made by CEOs impact the lives of tens of thousands of employees, depending on the size of the corporation.  Because of the nature of their job, most CEOs, like the President of the U.S., are never really away from work.  They represent their organizations day and night.  Most CEOs will likely put in 60 to 90 hour work weeks.  In one of my courses, students participate in a simulation in which they run a small manufacturing company in the athletic shoe industry.  They must make decisions dealing with production, product quality, marketing, human resources, pricing of the product, capital expansion, how to respond to things such as tariffs, strikes, etc. All of these decisions are processed by the computer and the student gets a report on how well there company did in the industry.  It is an eye opener for many students, because it gives them a real sense of the pressure of trying to stay profitable in a competitive industry.  I have had students decide that they no longer wanted to be in business because the stress was not worth it.  What I am trying to convey here is that those CEOs who are getting huge salaries are worth what they are getting.



The Dems and some world leaders are really flipping out because President Trump allegedly used some profane language to describe some Caribbean and African countries when talking about immigrants from those countries.  Besides the profane comments, the detractors are calling the comments racist.

Assuming the profane nature of the comments is true, I see nothing racist in the comments, nor do I see anything about which the liberal Dems should be offended.  Trump’s comments were merely addressing the economic depression and rampant corruption in those countries that kept their populations in a perpetual state of poverty.  Trump was asking why we want to take in immigrants from those countries when those immigrants are likely to be a burden on our society.  President Trump is merely doing what a country’s leader is suppose to do, look after the well being and security of his country’s citizens.  Our President has the obligation and duty to secure our border and control immigration.  People from other countries do not have a constitutional right to emigrate here.  Immigrants should have the education, skills and experience necessary to contribute to our growing economy rather than being a leach on our welfare system.

Again, this is not an issue of racism.  It is an issue of common sense.  Was Trump’s comments less dignified than what we would expect of a President?  Perhaps so, but it shows he is also human.  He calls it as he sees it in the language he is used to using in the world of the New York construction industry.  So what?  It is refreshing to see a President who talks like many of us.



This post is going to be a bit complex, addressing a number of diverse issues.

First, the more I listen to the news, the more I am convinced that liberalism is a mental illness.  Case in point #1: the Mayor of New York is suing big oil companies for causing global warming.  Case in point #2:  former President Obama says that those who watch Fox News live in a different world.  Case in point #3:  a liberal woman, with whom I frequently debate, likes to label all conservative Christians as “alt-right” and says that Christians are anti-science and believe a myth.

The Mayor of New York, Bill DeBlasio, should spend the taxpayer’s money more wisely than paying lawyers to pursue this lawsuit.  The lawsuit is frivolous because there is no empirical evidence that burning fossil fuels causes global warming or climate change.  All that the warmists have are poorly constructed correlations between the increase in human CO2 emissions and some warming of the planet.  To infer causation from a correlation, the cause must precede the effect, i.e. the rise in CO2 must precede the rise in global temperature.  The data on which the wamists base their theory was shown on a poorly constructed time line that seemed to show what they are professing.  This data was obtained from ice core studies.  But when the timeline is constructed to better show the timing of events, it shows that the warming preceded the rise in CO2 by 800 years.  The warmists continue to ignore the fact that there has been no significant warming in almost 20 years.  Ignored is other scientific studies that project we may be in a little ice age by 2050.  Ignored are the scientific studies that show solar activity being the major driver of weather and climate.  Ignored is the fact that climate has been changing naturally since the existence of the earth and a climate.  Ignored is the fact that extreme weather events are not abnormal but have been occurring for hundreds of years.  Ignored is the fact that the frequency and strength of hurricanes hitting the U.S. has been declining.  Ignored is the fact that tornado counts are declining.  Ignored is the fact that forest fires are declining and the acreage destroyed by fires is declining.  Ignored is the fact that some glaciers have been receding since long before the increase in CO2 and ice in the Arctic and Anarctic is actually growing.  Ignored is the fact that polar bear populations are growing and not declining.  And, sea level rise is not abmormally fast but has been consistent for a hundred years. Yes, recent events get a lot of coverage from the media, but that does not make them unprecedented.

Regarding case in point #2, Obama just disparaged a major voting block in the U.S.  Fox is more balanced in its coverage than CNN, PBS, or the major networks.  Yes, Fox is definitely leaning to the right, but at least they make an honest attempt to present both sides of the political spectrum,  CNN, on the other hand, devotes 98% of its coverage to anti-Trump news and commentary, with only a token representation of conservative view.  CNN is no longer a news agency but a political operative of the left.  I used to watch CNN and NBC but no longer.  It sickens me the one can turn to CNN any time of day and there will be nothing but anti-Trump programming.  CNN is so eager to present anti-Trump news that they do not vet stories and end up presenting false information as true.  Trump’s characterization of CNN as “fake news” is appropriate.

Regarding case in point #3,  Christians are not anti-science.  There is nothing in Christian belief that is inconsistent with science.  In fact, it seems that the more we learn in scientific study, the more we see that science confirms what the Bible says.  In areas where there may appear to be a conflict, I only say that our science is not complete.  There is more to learn.  In evidence I would call attention to the amazing amount of order in our universe.  Without such order, science would be impossible.  It is that orderliness that allowed our scientists to send man to the moon and return.  It is that orderliness that allows science to discover cures for diseases and medicines to relieve suffering.  It is that orderliness that has allowed all of our technological advances from automobiles, fuels, to microwave ovens, computers and cell phones.  Our technology could not exist without the orderliness of the universe.  That orderliness extends to DNA, the fundamental building block of all life on the planet.  The human body is an amazing feat of engineering design that the best scientific minds have not been able to replicate, yet the DNA code creates consistent life forms continuously.  To think that our world is an accident of a big bang rather than intelligent design is illogical.  It is equivalent to believing you can put a bunch of monkeys in a room full of typewriters and expect to eventually get the declaration of independence.

Labeling Christian conservatives as alt-right is an ignorant thing.  Alt-right has a specific meaning that does not fit Christian conservatives.  Whoever tries to label Christians as alt-right needs to do some research to find out what the term means.  I am Christian conservative and not alt-right.



Warmists are trying to make the case that recent storms are worse than in the past by using the dollar value of the destruction that was caused.   The high dollar amount of the destruction is not an indication of the level of the destructive forces of the storm, but more a reflection of the nature of the property being destroyed.  Because of the scenic value and desirability of beachfront properly, beachfront property has been in high demand.  As a result, property values have gone higher and higher with the areas built up with expensive homes and businesses.  When these beachfront properties are densely populated, it does not take much of a storm to create billions of dollars of destruction.

One article, recently published said that it was now possible to link specific extreme weather events to global warming/climate change because climate models have become better.  The problem with climate models is that they are programmed with the assumptions of the persons doing the “research.”  If it is assumed that human emissions of CO2 is  driving climate change, which, in turn, is driving extreme weather events, then that is what the climate models will show.  The climate models keep getting tweaked until they show what the “researchers” want it to show.

Yes, we have had some strong hurricanes in the recent past.  However, they were not unprecedented.  Those who track such things, tell us that hurricane seasons are getting milder and milder.  There have been more destructive hurricanes in the past, in times before CO2 emissions became an issue.  The hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas in 1900 comes to mind.  It was so strong it broke the measuring instruments, and killed 8000 – 12000 people.

The facts are that polar ice caps are growing, not receding.  The total area destroyed by forest fires is declining, not growing.  Ocean levels are not rising at an unusual rate.  Tornado counts are declining. And the earth has not shown a warming trend for the past 20 years.  This last fact is even now recognized by NASA.  Some scientists are now, again, predicting a little ice age beginning as early as 2030..  Yet, another “scientist” is predicting that a 2 degree centigrade increase in global temperature will cause the earth to become a desert wasteland by 2050.   As many scientists are saying a 2 degree increase in temperature is not likely from CO2 alone and will not be catastrophic.  Plants flourish in warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.  Animal life will adapt, as it always has in the past.  Previous interglacial periods got much warmer, and animal life did quite well.  More areas of the earth became habitable, animal life prospered, and there was plenty of food in the food chain.



I just finished reading an article by a professor at Brooklyn College that said “meritocracy in math class is a tool of whiteness, that holds back minorities.”  Her suggestion is that we should build math curriculum around social justice issues, because that would be more relevant to what minorities experience.  It is attitudes, like those of this professor, that are holding back minorities, because they presume minorities are not capable of learning math at the same level of proficiency as whites.  One does not do minorities any favors by giving them excuses for not doing well.  One of the problems with our education system is that we have engaged in too much dumbing down of the curriculum in order to give minorities a sense that they are accomplishing something.  It is the dumbing down of the curriculum and standards that is holding back minorities, because they are not getting the education and skills needed to compete well in this technology society.  Core math skills are an essential for success in many areas of our society.  If minorities want to compete equally with those of the majority, they must acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities that will make them competitive.

Dumbing down standards does nothing but perpetuate the notion that minorities are not capable of learning and becoming competitive.  Yes, the environment in which the minorities are raised may present some obstacles, but those obstacles must be overcome for the minorities to compete equally.  Again, dumbing down the standards helps neither the minorities nor the majority.  In the early days of our country, education meant something.  Even when there were one-room schools with one teacher and many different grade levels in the same school, students learned the basic skills and more.  They learned because they were expected to learn.  Standards were high and were kept high.  Learning occurred because the students were used to discipline and respected the authority of the teacher.  That is the fundamental ingredient missing in much of our schools today.  Without that, education suffers and will continue to degrade no matter how much money we throw at it.

The issue is not “whiteness” but standards and competitiveness.  Medical schools graduate those who are able to undergo the rigors of medical school and maintain very high grades without dumbing down the standards.  That is as it should be.  I do not think that anyone would want to be operated on by a surgeon who passed medical school with a “C” average.  We want the one who was a straight “A” student from a school known for its high standards.

The professor from Brooklyn College is doing nothing but trafficking in white guilt.  Doing such does nothing to help minorities.  She is doing more to hold minorities back than an meritocracy in math classes.  Minorities will never compete equally as long as the notion that they need special treatment persists.  For years, minorities said they wanted to be treated equally.  When I go for a job or seek a promotion, I must present credentials that establish that I am competitive for what I seek.  If minorities want equal treatment, they must also present credentials that establish their competitivens