Excellent article below from Breibart.com.
At least businesses like Google know when to call it quits and stop throwing money down a rat hole. Too bad liberal-socialists-progressives in government don’t know when to quit, as they continue to throw hard-earned taxpayer money down any rat hole they can find. Actually liberal-socialists-progressives love to find some secret rat holes in which to throw tax payer cash and claim they are doing it for the common good. They would never, never admit to wasteful government spending and let citizens keep more of their money. For example just look at liberal-socialist-progressive President Obama and his continually propping up many failed projects. I am now thinking about projects like Solyndra, that promised a bright future with renewable energy but failed in a big way. Anyways, read further the article below as it shows how Google experts have wisely given up on so-called renewable energy, at least for now.
22 Nov 2014 at Breitbart.com
Some people call it “renewable energy” but I prefer to call it “alternative energy” because that’s what it really is: an alternative to energy that actually works (eg nuclear and anything made from wonderful, energy-rich fossil fuel.)
Now a pair of top boffins from uber-green Google’s research department have reached the same conclusion.
Ross Konigstein and David Fork, both Stanford PhDs (aerospace engineering; applied physics) were employed on a Google research project which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal. But after four years, the project was closed down. In this post at IEEE Spectrum they tell us why.
We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Why is renewable energy such a total fail? Because, as Lewis Page explains here, it’s so ludicrously inefficient and impossibly expensive that if ever we were so foolish as to try rolling it out on a scale beyond its current boutique levels, it would necessitate bankrupting the global economy.
In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work – steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage – that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.
Yet our political class remains committed to the fantasy that the emperor’s green clothes are perfectly magnificent. Earlier this week, for example, the British government chucked £720 million of taxpayers’ money into a cesspit labelled the Green Climate Fund.
In theory this UN-driven initiative is supposed to help Third World countries cope with the effects of climate change. In reality, all it will do is force on their struggling economies more of the costly, intermittent renewable technologies (wind turbines; solar; etc) which have proved such a disaster for the advanced Western economies.
If we really want to throw money at the developing world so it can combat climate change, then what we should really be doing is insist that it is spent on adaptation projects – not, heaven forfend, ones to do with “decarbonisation.”
How to solve the problem of too much taxes, regulation and bureaucracy? Easy, just introduce more loopholes and pile on even more bureaucracy. This is typical #LiberalLogic. It is time the American people wake up.
What a tremendous legacy for President Obama and the usual suspects on the loony left. Medtronic, Walgreens, Pfizer and others are all moving their headquarters out of the United States by using mergers and acquisitions in order to save on corporate taxes. Now, this does not sit well with Senator Dick Durbin, the number two head honcho in the US senate and close ally to Obama. Senator Durbin has decided to introduce a bill that will grant about $1200.00 tax credit per employee to companies that keep their headquarters in the US. Un-freaking-believable!! I cannot believe the mindset of these Liberal Democrats. Just pile on more loopholes, red tape and bureaucracy. Never for a moment consider that the policies of the current people in power need to be checked. This is typical liberal logic. [see http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/06/25/senators-say-walgreen-domicile-move-like-giving-up-on-america/ ]
And then Senator Durbin has the gall to scold these companies, accusing them of “giving up on America” for a measly tax break.
No Senator Durbin IT IS YOU WHO HAS GIVEN UP ON AMERICA!! You and you liberal and progressive colleagues have given up on America many decades ago when you all have decided to try and remake America into something the Founding Fathers don’t even recognize anymore, a banana republic or a European-like socialist country.
You and your ilk have decided to not uphold the letter of the law and any decency left in America and have decided to trample on the very US Constitution. You liberals constantly try and try to pass laws that go against every ounce of decency. And if you can’t get your way legislatively then you go to the courts and cry and wail sometimes for years and years until you get your planted judges and supreme court justices to pass laws for you. This is what the Founding Fathers never intended the judicial branch to do. Thanks a lot, you lefties. If we ever get the general public to wake up and realize you liberals and progressives need to be voted out in the coming elections I will say to you good riddance. You, Dick Durbin and people like you must be utterly defeated in the arena of ideas if we are to ever have the hope of the American Dream again.
Cannes: Video of Hollywood Environmentalists in Anti-Fracking Sting Operation to Debut (Exclusive Video)
More ASTOUNDING BLATANT HYPOCRISY among environmentalists and the Hollywood left #StrangerThanFiction George Orwell would be proud to write this story except its REAL. Where is the outrage?
James O’Keefe says he duped Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemingway into agreeing to get involved with an anti-fracking movie while hiding that its funding comes from Middle Eastern oil interests.
Journalist James O’Keefe, known for his controversial undercover sting operations aimed usually at liberals — is set to unveil at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday the first of a group of videos that he says will reveal hypocrisy among Hollywood environmentalists.
In the video, obtained exclusively by The Hollywood Reporter and embedded below, actors Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemingway are duped by a man named “Muhammad,” who is looking to make an anti-fracking movie while hiding that its funding is coming from Middle Eastern oil interests.
Muhammad, accompanied by a man pretending to be an ad executive, seemingly has the two actors agreeing to participate in the scheme, even after he acknowledges…
View original post 1,538 more words
Spread the word! Uninstall Firefox. Go with Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Opera or anything but Mozilla Firefox. Boycott Firefox.
Do this, but not solely for the reasons that you might think that I am saying this. Delete Firefox to preserve liberty and to preserve tolerance. I am talking about the true sense of the true meaning of the word “tolerance.” The loony left have hijacked and changed the meaning of that word, just as Orwellian leftists have done to other words in the past. It’s what they do. It’s why I call them Orwellian. Actually, before I go on, I think Dennis Prager said everything else I wanted to say best, and with superior clarity on this subject in this article that he wrote last Tuesday.
In 31 years of broadcasting, and 40 years of writing, I have never advocated a boycott of a product.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, when the left attempted to destroy Chick-Fil-A for its owner’s views on same-sex marriage, I suggested on my radio show that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, stand in front of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant while enjoying some Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. In that way, I argued, he could show one of the great moral differences between the right and the left. Though Ben and Jerry are leftists, we conservatives do not believe that company owners’ views should matter to consumers. We believe that products should speak for themselves. If the ice cream is good, despite whatever repugnance we might feel regarding the views of the makers of that ice cream, we will still purchase it.
The left does not see things that way. The left is out to crush individuals and companies with whom it differs. This is especially so today on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this took place last week. The governing board of the widely used browser, Firefox, forced the company’s CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign. The Firefox board had learned that in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In classic Communist fashion, gay rights organizations demanded that Eich publicly recant. When Eich did not, gay rights and other leftist organizations called for a boycott of Firefox. Firefox immediately forced Eich out.
All these years, the left, after coining the term “McCarthyism” in order to disparage the right, had fooled most people into believing that it is the right that suppresses liberty. The truth, of course, has been the opposite. Worldwide, with the exception of Nazi Germany (which was a uniquely race-based totalitarianism, neither left nor right — while it rejected Marxist class-based struggle, it supported socialism (“Nazism” was short for National Socialism), every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts — because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.
During the McCarthy era, the left (and not only the left) screamed when people were falsely charged with supporting Stalin and Communism, one of the greatest evils in human history. But the left also screamed when people who really did aid and abet Stalin were dismissed from their jobs. In other words, for those on the left who celebrate Eich’s ouster, it was evil to deprive a man who supported Stalin of a job, but it is right to fire a man who supports the man-woman definition of marriage. Such is the left’s moral compass.
It is important to further note that gay employees at Firefox acknowledge that Eich never discriminated against gays, whether in employment, benefits or any other way. But that doesn’t matter to the left because a totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA.
As Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George warned on my radio show, today the left fires employees for opposition to same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it will fire employees who are pro-life (“anti-woman”). And next it will be employees who support Israel (an “apartheid state”).
The reason to boycott Firefox is not that it is run by leftists. Nor is the reason to support the man-woman definition of marriage. It is solely in order to preserve liberty in the land of liberty. If Firefox doesn’t recant and rehire Eich as CEO, McCarthyism will have returned far more pervasively and perniciously than in its first incarnation. The message the gay left (such as the Orwellian-named Human Rights Campaign) and the left in general wish to send is that Americans who are in positions of power at any company should be forced to resign if they hold a position that the left strongly opposes…
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Al Gore declares there is a “scientific consensus” regarding Global warmi…I mean Climate Cha…sorry, make that Polar Vortex!
[I feel the need to add these parenthetical paragraphs because I am not sure if everyone understands the reference to “drinking the purple Kool-Aid.” From UrbanDictionary.com: “A reference to the 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the group, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Kool-Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called “the Jonestown Massacre”, 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the Kool-Aid and died.
Bob: Yeah, he really drank the Kool-Aid on that one. Chris: I’m thinking about attending a PETA rally
Donna: Whatever you do, don’t drink the Kool-Aid!]…
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Obama said his plan would guarantee that fewer people will be without health insurance and that health insurance costs for everyone will be lower when in reality the direct opposite on both points has occurred. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-insurance-costs-to-soar-under-obamacare/
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Obama said on July 18, 2009, “…Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.”
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is accepted more and more as scientific fact, rather than theory when Darwin himself declared: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree…” see: http://willemdax.tumblr.com/post/59518695106/evolution-vs-god-by-thewayofthemaster-prepare
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when it comes to accepting that abortion is not really the murdering or killing of a human being. see: http://willemdax.tumblr.com/post/29573770079/180-movie-by-thewayofthemaster-what-changed
Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when it comes to the acceptance of same sex relationships and even same sex marriage. Have we really thought this through…? This is the slipperiest slope of all time “…with the public endorsement of same-sex relationships, the endorsement (or at least acceptance) of consensual, adult, incestuous relationships is the next step. Consider the following…” https://willemdax.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/the-slipperiest-slope-of-all-time/
And finally, Why is it that most people are drinking the purple Kool-Aid when it comes to general acceptance that society is just becoming more and more complicated and that therefore we need to have ever-growing governments and more and more government laws and programs and higher and higher taxes so that government can take care of this so complex of a modern society that we live in…freedom be damned…
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” ― Thomas Jefferson
P.S. Why is it that most people enjoy story-telling from the likes of George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm) in the past and now today, Suzanne Collins (The Hunger Games) yet no ones seems to be learning the lessons from these great stories.
Tim Wildmon – http://www.afa.net
Thursday, December 05, 2013 – See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/tim-wildmon/2013/12/05/to-those-who-say-there-is-no-war-on-christmas#sthash.Eefk3Brh.dpuf
Christmas is the most notable day on the calendar where the general American public is reminded of the life of Jesus Christ. That is why some want to do away with it.
Someone sent me an article from USA Today, which has this headline: “Not all Christians believe there is a ‘War on Christmas.'” The article quotes Christian leaders and authors saying they disagree with those of us who believe there is a war on Christmas. I could give a litany of examples of exactly how the war on Christmas has manifested itself the last decade or so. From nativity scenes no longer being allowed on the courthouse square, to schools changing Christmas break to “winter” break, from Christmas parades being changed to “winter” parades, to children being told they can no longer sing carols during their “winter” program, etc., etc. There is an intentional effort by some secularists to purge the word ‘Christmas’ from our culture. Whether it will be successful or not remains to be seen. But it’s discouraging to see some fellow Christians say – “Who cares?”
The very word itself – “Christmas” – is a reminder that this particular holiday is the celebration of Jesus Christ. Those who promote political correctness and extreme multiculturalism resent this because it is exclusionary in their view. Some Christians are willing to go along with that line of thinking. For example, USA Today quoted Dan Scott, senior pastor of Christ Church in Nashville, who said this: “We really need a way to treat the public square as the public square and private realms as private realms and not feel demonized because we come from a different perspective.” In other words, Christians should keep Christmas in our homes and churches – the “private realms” – but we can’t expect the general public to be accepting of Christmas any longer because it promotes Christianity.
Christmas is the exaltation of one particular religion that makes a claim of being the only true religion and that is unacceptable to the movers and shakers of contemporary American popular culture, elitist academia, and many in the mainstream media, news, and entertainment. Therefore, Christmas must be replaced with words and ideas that are broad and general so as to knock Christmas from its traditional place in America’s public life. It is an attempt to define Christianity as no more important to the history and fabric of America than is, say, Hinduism. This is what these people (often called secular progressives) believe, and evidently a number of Christians agree with that position. Subsequently these Christians find more fault with their fellow believers – those of us who want to keep Christ in Christmas and Christmas in America – than they do with those who want to eradicate Christmas.
This is why it concerns me when I read stories like the one in USA Today. One of the people quoted in the article is Christian author Rachel Held Evans, best known for her book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood. Evans wrote a blog that went viral where she challenges the idea of a war on Christmas with these questions: “Did someone threaten your life, safety, civil liberties or right to worship?” No. “Did someone wish you happy holidays?” Yes. “You are not being persecuted.”
What Evans has done here is very clever. She framed the issue falsely. She set up a straw man. No one is arguing that Christians are being persecuted physically. What we are saying is Christianity itself is under siege in America. Just ask the Christian bakery owners in Washington state, the Christian florist in Colorado, or the Christian photographer in New Mexico who were all fined by their state governments because they would not participate in homosexual “weddings.” But what Evans has done is like the man who cheats on his wife and she confronts him about it. It might go something like this:
“I know you are cheating on me. What do you have to say for yourself?” the wife says. To which the husband responds: “There are children dying in sweatshops in Third World countries, and you are talking to me about my having sex a couple of times with some woman? Are you serious?”
See how this works? The “logic” is: If your life is not being threatened or your family is not in physical danger or your church is not being padlocked, then we have no cause to point out the war of Christmas. It’s much ado about nothing, say these Christian brothers.
The war on Christmas is really part of the larger war on Christianity and it concerns me that smart people like Rev. Scott and Evans don’t seem to get that.
Then there was the quote from Daniel Darling, vice president of communications for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. The article said this about his position: “He (Darling) said on Friday that some media outlets are overstating the war on Christmas debate, and very few Christians actually engage in it. ‘We advise people that, rather than trying to force that weary Wal-Mart worker to say ‘Merry Christmas’ against company policy, how about we be the bearers of joy. Instead of taking offense, say, ‘Here’s the story, we’re the joyful ones. We’re the ones that have the greatest story.'”
Darling, like Evans, has created a false caricature of his fellow Christians who want to keep Christmas alive in the public square. The image Darling creates is one of a Christian bully. Who does this browbeating of store employees? No one I know. (By the way, Wal-Mart does not forbid its employees from wishing customers a “Merry Christmas.”) What American Family Association and some other groups do is produce a Naughty & Nice list of companies that do or don’t allow Christmas in their stores. Due to the efforts of AFA, many household name corporations have put Christmas back in their promotions, advertisements, and stores over the last few years. The Gap was the latest store to write AFA about how they were doing this. This is a good thing. Christians should applaud Gap and others when they refuse to yield to political correctness and recognize that if not for the Christmas gift-buying season, many of them would not be in business.
All of this Christians criticizing other Christians, often based on false information as demonstrated here, seems to be a trend. I’m not sure why this is, but I have a couple of theories. First, we Bible-believing Christians have been so maligned and lied about by the media, particularly the entertainment and news media, that the negative stereotype that has been created has stuck. And now even we are quick to believe the worst about our fellow brothers and sisters. The second reason is what I call the “nicer than Jesus” mentality. It is human nature to want to be liked and avoid confrontation. Christian activism, while it should always be carried out with civility and manners, is sometimes by necessity confrontational – and confrontation is not considered “nice” by some. But Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is talking here about a public stand for biblical righteousness, not just being a Christian. The world doesn’t care if you are Christian … as long as you don’t talk about what’s right and wrong, moral and immoral, or good and evil. That’s when the persecution comes.
Is there a war on Christmas? Yes. Is it part of a larger war on Christianity? Yes. Does this matter to the future of our country? Most certainly.
Just because Christians are not being physically persecuted in America today doesn’t mean these matters are not important. Not only is Christianity good for the individual, the moral value system that comes from Christianity is also good for society at large. God help us get it back before it’s too late.
Chelsea Clinton: Not the sharpest tool in the shed! This would be hilarious if it was not also very sad. I don’t know about you but I would think that it would be obvious not to wish that baby killing was more popular in history especially directly among individuals in your ancestry.
Chelsea Clinton Laments: My Great Grandmother Did Not Have Access to Planned Parenthood
by Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. | New York, NY | LifeNews.com | 6/20/13 4:22 PM
New York, NY (CFAM) — From the stage at the recent Women Deliver conference, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”
Chelsea’s grandmother was born of an unintended pregnancy. And new research shows that her family is not alone in treasuring a person who – if Planned Parenthood had been successful – would not have been born.
“Every child a wanted child” is the rallying cry of family planning organizations that promote abortion as a way to achieve that goal. The New York Times Magazine recentlydescribed a study of women who were turned away from abortion clinics because their pregnancies were too far along. Researchers found that in the vast majority of cases – 95% – the mothers bonded with their babies. A significant percentage later denied having ever sought an abortion, despite the fact they were included in the study on that basis.
In a different long-term study, Dr. Rebecca Callahan observed a similar change in attitude among mothers with unwanted pregnancies in rural Bangladesh. Although 42% of the women initially labeled their pregnancies as unwanted, over half of them changed their views retrospectively. Over 60% of women who originally stated their intention to have no more children classified subsequent births as wanted or, at worst, mistimed. Callahan presented her findings at the 2013 meeting of the Population Association of America.
Instead of focusing on the positive finding that women’s initial aversion or ambivalence about pregnancy does not mean the child will be unwanted, Callahan expressed concern that “the rationalization of births as wanted distorts the true level of unintended pregnancy.”
While neither study examined why the women’s preliminary attitudes toward their pregnancies were negative, both were dismissive of the mothers’ eventual change of heart. “It’s psychologically in our interest to tell a positive story and move forward,” Dr. Katie Watson told The New York Times Magazine. “[I]t’s wonderfully functional for women who have children to be glad they have them,”
The fact that many wanted children result from unwanted pregnancies calls into question the very reason for organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations Population Fund, whose mission statement seeks “to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted.”
The Guttmacher Institute, founded by Planned Parenthood, publishes articles warning of the dire consequences for “unwanted” children – implying that they would have been better off never being born. Despite current research demonstrating that an unplanned pregnancy does not necessarily predict an unwanted child, these findings are rarely used to develop interventions to encourage expectant mothers to embrace their unplanned offspring or consider placing them for adoption.