This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: thebesig

  • The Liberal Zombie Manifesto

    President Trump accurately identified the parties, on both sides, that were involved with violence. This was in the aftermath of the Charlottesville, VA, incident. The media, ignoring violent leftists, vilified the president for not carrying their narrative. In their eyes, only one side deserved this type of label and condemnation.

    Violent leftists were also guilty for the violence. Many in the media; however, deliberately disregarded them or deemphasized their involvement and impact.

    Shift to reporting on actual or assumed scandals and you’ll see a similar script. Liberal talking heads, and reporters, run fool’s errands regarding President Trump’s “scandals”. Yet, calls for pursuing actual scandals, by Democrats, are dismissed, swept under the rug, ignored, half baked, not seriously done, etc.

    Enter the Liberal Zombie manifesto. I also got this from the old Protest Warrior forums. As with the previous article, I did some major editing and adjustments. I also updated this as the years went by.

    The above photo is one of the protest signs that Protest Warrior used. One way they’d use this sign is to “blend in” with a group of people who were demanding gun control.

    Without further ado…

    I don’t pay for my mistakes or misfortunes.

    1. If I…

    a. Never went to college…

    b. Was born into a poor family…

    c. Am lazy…

    d. Am unmotivated…

    e. Wish to portray myself as a victim of any situation or series of events…

    It’s other people’s responsibility to extricate me from my own mess.

    2. Receiving more Social Security than I deserve is great because it rewards me for failing to put money away when I was younger.

    3. Abortion is great because I should never have to deal with the consequences of my failure to use the following:

    a. Birth control.
    b. Common sense.
    c. Keep the gates closed to irresponsible partners.

    4. Government subsidized paid abortion is a right that I have for not being responsible in the first place.

    NOTE: Please see Manifesto rules concerning my not having to pay for my mistakes. And society’s responsibility to get me out of the mess that I get myself into.

    Affirmative Action is great.

    1. If I’m a minority, I can get a job with substandard qualifications over someone that’s more qualified than me for the job. It’s not about who is qualified or not, it’s about giving me the job because I want it.

    2. If I’m white, I’ll support affirmative action to the hilt if it doesn’t affect me.

    The best thing about affirmative action is that it allows us to make protected groups think we’re helping them. Instead, we’re keeping them down by allowing them to take the path of least resistance. “Gain with no pain” is the rule. It’s easier to sway them with fake news this way.

    3. Racism against whites is OK. Racism against minorities is horrible.

    a. If whites kill a member of a protected group, that’s a hate crime. If a member of a protected group kills a white person, it’s simply a misunderstanding of the races.

    b. If you fail to hire a member of a protected group, you’re a racist. If you fail to hire a white person, you’re doing your job in “hiring the most qualified person” for the task.

    c. If you call a white person a thief, chances are he’s actually a thief. If you call an illegal immigrant a thief, you’re a racist, even if he’s a thief.

    d. If a black kid is kidnapped and drugs are involved, only report the kidnapping. If a white kid is kidnapped and drugs are involved, report everything.

    Gender discrimination only occurs when applied against a woman.

    1. If a man hits his woman, it’s domestic violence. If a man didn’t hit his woman, but she claimed that he did, it’s still domestic violence.

    2. If a woman hits her man, it’s domestic disturbance. Don’t worry, her hitting her man is her man’s fault. Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney. Numbers based on battered women’s shelters should be taken as gospel.

    Cherry picked “evidence” is better than data obtained via the scientific method.

    3. If a husband murders his wife in the heat of rage, prosecute him to the maximum extent of the law. If a wife murders her husband in the heat of rage, it’s due to self-defense. Even if he’d been long asleep when she had to “defend” herself…

    4. If the father kills the kids in the heat of rage, prosecute him to the full extent of the law, he should have controlled his anger in the first place.

    5. If the mother kills the kids because of post-partum depression, it’s because her husband subjected her to too much stress and she cracked. She wasn’t herself.

    NOTE: If this starts to get confusing, remember… If a man does something wrong, he failed to exercise responsibility over his behavior. If a woman does something wrong, it’s because of some external extenuating circumstance “out of her control”. If a man is involved, it’s the man’s fault.

    You can’t say I’m wrong here.

    1. If you think I’m wrong, you’re just exposing your own hatred, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.

    2. There should be no restrictions on behavior or restriction against consumption of certain substances. There should be no restrictions on censorship in free media.

    3. Accepting a lifestyle only applies to lifestyles my friends and I accept. It’s okay to be intolerant of lifestyles that embrace conservatism, moderation, class, and modesty. I refuse to acknowledge the inherent hypocrisy in this.

    4. If our views of what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” came from different upbringing… Then what’s “right” and “wrong” for me is different from what’s “right” and “wrong” for you.

    5. There’s no universal rights or wrongs… There’s no absolute evil… My sense of what’s “right” and “wrong” always trumps yours.

    Drugs are good. Smoking is bad. I’ll defend that to the death!

    Censorship applies only when I want it to.

    1. Say you give me a forum and an outlet. I subsequently make a donkey out of myself.

    a. If you call attention to that fact, you’re infringing on my freedom of speech.

    2. If you refuse to buy my albums or watch my movies because of my political rants, you’re infringing my freedom of speech.

    3. If we deny you of a forum and an outlet, we’re not denying you your freedom of speech. We’re just silencing bigotry and hatred.

    Abortion is good. The death penalty is bad. I’ll defend that to the death to!

    I don’t like facts because they go against most of what I believe in.

    1. If you destroy my drivel and tripe with the facts, you’re just expressing your opinion.

    a. For the sake of not hurting anybody’s feelings, there’s no right or wrong when we debate. Facts are what my emotions say they are.

    b. The empirical evidence you present against my drivel is just your opinion.

    c. Facts are what my emotions say they are.

    d. Being right is in the eye of the beholder.

    e. If you refuse to see my emotions as fact, you’re narrow minded and stuck in a “black and white” mindset.

    Changes in society should fit my tastes.

    1. I’ve suffered a traumatic experience in my life and I have not gotten over it. Instead of changing myself and moving on, I’m going to change the world to fit my perception. It’s easier for me if the world did the hard work of changing to accommodate my habits and beliefs.

    2. Change is good if it fits my perceptions. Evidence that this change is harmful should be dismissed as…

    a. Conservatives’ refusal to be inclusive…

    b. Right wing religious extremism…

    c. Denying a group their rights…

    d. Discrimination…

    e. Refusing to share…

    Corruption by liberals, whether moral or political, will be ignored.

    1. If you call me out on my corruption, you’re a bigot consumed with hatred.

    2. If I’m minority and you call me out on my corruption, you’re a racist.

    3. If I’m a woman and you call me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of being misogynist.

    4. If I’m Muslim and you call me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of Islamophobia.

    5. If I’m gay, and you call me on me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of homophobia.

    I hate guns… There shouldn’t be guns.

    1. If nobody had guns, they’d be unable to stop me from stealing their property and rights. That’s my ultimate goal.

    2. We need to think of the safety of the person that’s going to rob your house or rape your loved one. Robbers and rapists are people too.

    Exception: Only the government, representatives of the government, and my security, shall have guns.

    I attended some liberal arts school in a left-wing university and got a degree in Postmodern Feminist Studies or some such horse poop.

    1. As a result of this useless degree, I consider myself a foreign policy, political, historical, economic, and crime expert. I know better than military veterans, policemen, and other residents of the real world.

    a. I also know how to raise and educate your kids better than you do.

    b. Let’s make this simple so that you’ll know what I am talking about.

    Say I have a degree in basket weaving. Say you’re a fire fighter and we’re arguing about disaster operations dealing with fire. Say, in this argument, you’re wiping my rear end all over the floor. Even under those conditions, I’m right and you’re wrong.

    My watching fire fighters (military, police, or other profession) in action on the news, or in the movies, has more weight over what those professionals experience firsthand. Even though I may never have access to the information they have access to.

    Diversity is great only when we’re talking about having both genders, almost all races, most religions, and almost all ethnic groups being represented.

    1. Diversity does not apply to those with conservative views, to Christians, and to white males.

    a. Don’t ask why, because my explanations of this concept always tend to be circular in nature. So we’ll just skip to the end and I’ll call you a bigot, racist, narrow minded, xenophobe, misogynist, NAZI, etc., right now, to save time.

    Or, I could be nice about it and just tell you that you’re wrong.

    b. The absence of Christians, Republicans, white males, conservatives, etc. does not constitute a lack of diversity. Don’t ask about this, either you narrow-minded racist.

    All religions-especially Christianity and Judaism-are bad.

    1. Crazy Muslim radicals are the only exception to this rule.

    2. “Separation of church and state” means “A churchless state.”

    3. “Freedom of religion” means “Freedom from having to acknowledge the right to practice religion. It also means the freedom from having religious morals and values.”

    4. Atheists that follow a moral code are lumped in with the religious people.

    5. We don’t care for atheists that support religious rights for others, who are conservative, who are white, etc.

    6. All mention of religion should be kept out of schools, even if it means revising the Declaration of Independence, fudging the facts about the first Thanksgiving, or suing the school if winter break is called Christmas Break.

    I will not accept any historical-primary source evidence-that the Founding Fathers were Christians and embraced Christianity.

    I’ll quote Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, etc. completely out of context to make my case against religion and against war.

    Aggression is never good… It’s never okay to use force.

    1. Instead of using force to defend yourself, concede immediately. I’ve no concept of honor or national pride.

    2. I’d rather jeopardize my own family, economy, and security, in lieu of using force. It’s never okay to use force! Now, when my security is present, that’s a different story.

    The military should be eliminated.

    1. They’re all a bunch of brainwashed savages anyway who parrot what their bosses say.

    2. They just joined for education benefits and for the money (after we severely cut their budget).

    3. We totally support the troops, but not the military, its mission success, or its Commander in Chief-unless he is a Democrat.

    What’s that? Pointing out indefensible contradictions in my ideology? Why you fascist narrow minded racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophob! Did you have to point that out to me with one or more big, long, multi paragraphed posts when you could’ve said it with less?

    I’ll never accept the fact that sometimes, people just get offended.

    That’s life in my world. In my perfect world, nobody-except conservatives-would ever be offended.

    I refuse to follow the rules of logic or rhetoric.

    Proper debate rules do not apply to me. I can argue however I want; please see my rules on what constitutes fact.

    I must win every argument even if I have to pull things out of my arse to do it!

    1. You must cooperate with me by not pointing out the errors of my argument.

    2. You must cooperate with me by using less words. Remember, less is more when you argue, more is more when it’s my turn.

    3. You must cooperate with me by conceding to me without requiring me to do the same.

    4. If I can’t win, I’ll resort to insults such as calling you a racist, anti-gay, right wing… By giving you a name that matches “Fantasy land” or any other false and derogatory descriptions.

    I refuse to acknowledge the validity of an analogy or metaphor.

    When you use them, I’ll make sarcastic remarks and/or give myself some omnipotent powers in dealing with the analogy.

    Say we’re arguing about gun control. Then you use an analogy. You point out the fact that gun free zones, and other gun laws didn’t stop mass shooting. Then you ask me if criminals, who didn’t follow the current laws in the books, would all of a sudden follow these new laws. I’ll tell you that we’re not talking about psychology. I might talk about some cartoon character. I’ll get emotional with you. Or I’ll simply conduct the verbal equivalent of evasive maneuvers.

    The best way to react when my statement has been disproved is for me to repeat myself.

    1. You’ll eventually get tired and give up, which is my actual goal. If you don’t, I’ll simply call you names.

    2. If you don’t fall for my ploy, I’ll accuse you of repeating yourself and ignore the fact that you’re doing so because I’m repeating myself.

    a. You see, only I can repeat myself. You can’t.

    Censoring conservative dialog is not censorship but preventing hate speech.

    1. If you’re minority, and you’re debating as a conservative, you’ll be labeled as a sell out to your race, ethnic group, etc… Even if you use proper debate etiquette and follow the rules.

    2. If you’re a woman that’s arguing as a conservative, you’ve sold out your gender.

    3. If you’re a democrat that’s arguing as a conservative, you’ve sold out the Democratic Party.

    4. If you’re a Republican arguing as a liberal, you’re arguing your conscience. You’re also a part of the center and the mainstream.

    It’s OK to criticize the the United States, but not OK to criticize the UN or any other country that hates the US.

    1. If you’re a foreigner and you bash your own country, you’re ashamed when you shouldn’t be.

    2. If you’re American and you bash your own country, you’re giving good and honest criticism.

    3. If you point other nation’s shortcomings out, you’re preaching hate.

    4. If these nations bash the United States, they’re giving “legitimate” criticism.

  • Are You a Liberal Zombie? Liberal Zombie Q & A

    These day’s Gun control arguments and activism is a taste of the Liberal Zombie Apocalypse. They’re all over the place, on your news-feeds, on your browser, on your social media, on message boards, on the streets, etc. They don’t want your brain or flesh… Just a piece of your gun rights. They want the government to take more of your money, and make it harder for organizations to earn it.

    On top of that, they want to turn you into one of them via their version of “discussion and compromise”. This involves you being in listen mode, while they try to convert you.

    The following is a breakdown of their “line of reasoning”. I saw the original version of this on the old Protest Warrior forms. It was funny, but needed adjustments for easier reading. I improved, adjusted, and expanded on it over the years. This is a humorous take on the profiles of the liberals, embellishers, and phonies that we’ve came across.

    Without further ado:

    Q: First of all, what is a liberal zombie?

    A liberal zombie is a former human that used to have a brain and was once capable of carrying out a debate. Today; however, said individual no longer has a brain and can only parrot leftist/Anti American tripe and drivel; facts are completely useless to him/her. This is also a person that doesn’t believe in personal responsibility and accountability. They choose to blame some outside factor for their demise instead. They’ll utilize the, “But they do it to,” argument in response to your pointing out their errant arguments and actions.

    Q: What kind of defenses do these zombies utilize when shocked into reality by the facts?

    Typical responses to the facts include rebuttals consisting solely of insults but no substance, name-calling, comments such as, “This thread is stupid”, and comments pulled from ones behind — or out of thin air. Other defenses include accusing you of being in denial, of being a phony, of arguing from assumptions, and of arguing from perception.

    One defense used by these zombies is a severe emotional reaction to an analogy that forces them to question their flawed reasoning.

    They’ll also tap dance around straightforward questions that you ask them. Or, they would simply ignore these questions.

    If you want to get an idea of what they will tell you in advance, go watch and read some liberal news sources. Touch up on some conspiracy theories while you are at it. Don’t forget to watch and read foreign news sources as well, like those immediately to the right of Vladimir Lenin. Their reply will certainly be a refresher of these sources.

    There’s a typical defense used by a borderline zombie whose perception of things come crumbling down like a house of cards… Whose misconceptions have been shattered as a result of being exposed to facts and/or logical arguments. This defense comes in the form of accusing you of having no debating skills, of accusing you of being brainwashed, or an accusation that your response had no substance when the facts dictate otherwise.

    Treat these borderline zombies with care, any more exposure to the facts could send them hurtling down the path to becoming full blown zombies. Flaming them with the facts could accelerate this change.

    Q: Where do these liberal zombies come from?

    Most, if not all, liberal zombies begin as thinking human beings. But mainstream media propaganda likes to brainwash their audiences. Brainwashing includes thinking that the USA, its rich people, and its conservatives, are the causes of all of the world’s problems. It also includes making these liberals think that they are only presenting one of many “right” answers. Other people, unfortunately, do a Castro “face dive” into news sources that are based on emotion and not on fact.

    But once facts and logic are applied to their dishonest tomes, leftist propaganda quickly falls apart as their ideology cannot stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Thinking people, on the other hand, are quick to see the facts and are very quick to connect the dots. They’re not suckered into confusing emotions as facts.

    SOME humans; however, cling tenaciously to this leftist line of reasoning in spite of the facts. This causes their brain to literally begin to decay in their skulls. They have the appearance of humans, but – upon closer inspection – their glassy eyed stupefied stare and pungent aroma quickly identify them to be liberal zombies!

    Q: Should I shoot them?

    Heavens NO! You’ll only re-enforce the propaganda that they’ve been forced fed, about veterans, law-abiding citizen gun owners, and conservatives. You’ll end up going to jail.

    Q: Should I debate them?

    NO! This is about one of the most dangerous things a human being can do when confronted by this type of zombie. They’re IMMUNE to facts, to rational thought, and to logical reasoning. Debating them encourages them to repeat their liberal vitriol and drivels and may in fact attract MORE zombies. It’s best to ignore them, or hurl insults at them.

    Q: Do liberal zombies KNOW they are zombies?

    In most cases no, they still think they’re rational human beings. They’re usually completely devoid of a sense of humor.

    There are issues and areas that make perfect sense to them, though facts — current and historical — do not support what they think makes sense. They believe that their drivel makes perfect sense to other people, even when common sense dictates otherwise. They see anyone, that dares to use the facts to discredit their tripe, as brainwashed sheep incapable of coming up with their position… Without rational thought and without instruction by some “right-wing” higher source.

    If someone claims that the liberal media — such as the New York Times, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and their ilk — are “centrist” or reliable news sources, for example, there’s a 99.99% chance that they’re a liberal zombie.

    A liberal zombie, upon seeing this post, will demonstrate denial by claiming that they could take each of the criteria here and apply them to conservatives.

    This is consistent with their “blame the other guy” mentality.

    The ones that are truly in denial will try to go through this list and explain why they are not liberal zombies, or why others are zombies.

    Q: Are all liberals zombies?

    No, although liberals do have zombie like tendencies, there are many liberals that retain some higher brain functions and can hold an open debate. Then there are liberals that are borderline zombies, as mentioned earlier.

    Warning: too many facts at once can overload a borderline liberal zombie, and fling them into full-blown brain melt down, handle these people gently!

    Note: If you come across a classical liberal, don’t panic, they’re perfectly human and are very capable of analytical thinking. Their liberal like appearance is just a defense mechanism. This also applies to the fair and balanced modern liberals, who have maintained their brain functions. The latter is just being well intentioned and don’t mean any harm, their consistently being wrong should not be mistaken for zombie behavior.

    Q: Are there other ways to spot this type of zombie?

    My word yes!

    Merely mentioning the following will often send any liberal zombie within earshot into a frothy frenzy of spewing utter nonsense:

    * President Trump (or Republican politician),

    * President Trump’s policies and accomplishments,

    * Our right to defend ourselves and to act in our best security interests,

    * Why gun control won’t work,

    * Tax cuts given back in the percentages that they were paid,

    * Responsibility and accountability,

    * Why tax cuts are not income redistribution,

    * Evidence that the liberals are wrong… Or a strong logical argument against liberal tripe,

    Or support for the candidate that believes in these things.

    If you want to quickly spot some liberal zombies, simply talk about liberal zombies. This will cause liberal zombies to come out of the woodworks and go straight for you. Use this trick with care.

    It’s best just to walk away and ignore these zombies when this happens; or hurl insults at them. This may cause them to call you an oil hungry imperialist, fascist, sheep, (well versed in the army doctrine if you are in the military, no matter which branch), brown shirt, brainwashed, NAZI, racist, xenophobic, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, etc., before going away.

    Q: Can liberal zombies ever say anything intelligent? Can we communicate with them?

    The classical liberal and the fair and balanced modern liberals are the types that could hold an intelligent conversation on a regular basis.

    The liberal zombies also can and do say something intelligent once in a while that is NOT 100% retarded. But they usually follow that with name-calling or insults.

    Q: But thebesig, there are conservatives on This Aint Hell that utilize name-calling and insults, does that make them zombies as well?

    If this happens, there’s a very good chance that the recipient of this label is actually an idiot, or what they are described as. This is not an insult on the account that this poster is calling it like it is.

    This is different from someone calling you an idiot because they do not have a factual or logical reply or because they simply don’t like what you said.

    Q: Do these zombies have a sense of humor?

    No.

    Q: If someone doesn’t have a sense of humor does that mean that they’re a liberal zombie?

    They either don’t find you funny or they just simply lack a sense of humor. More criteria will have to be utilized before determining whether someone is a liberal zombie or not. If it’s the former, it’s possible that they take things to seriously. In this case they might become candidates for being real liberal zombies in the future.

    Q: What should I do if I accidentally try to be rational with one of these zombies?

    Quickly realize your mistake, ignore them, and then walk away – OR hurl insults at them until they call you an imperialist, fascist, brown shirt, brainwashed, in denial, xenophobic, misogynist, racist, homophobic, etc. and walk away.

    Q: Hey thebesig, what do you do when the liberal zombie just won’t go away?

    One common zombie fighting tactic is to instantly reply to their post with a cut and paste from a site that has nothing to do with the original thread, let me give you an example:

    Thread title: Man-made global warming is real!

    Your initial reaction is to debunk this with facts, but remember; this is NOT a rational human that we’re dealing with here, but a liberal zombie. Respond to the thread with cut/pastes from sites that have nothing to do with the original post. For example, an article on someone going full bore “trigglypuff”, a copy and paste of a sports event, or growing garden plants. Remember, Google is your friend!

    Using President Donald Trump’s tweets greatly offends these zombies hint hint!

    Q: Dear thebesig,

    What should we do if we are accidentally bitten by one of these zombies? Their soulless behavior isn’t contagious, is it?

    Please… I need answers quickly… I’m starting to feel like… like… like…. I…Am… Feeling… triggered!

    Liberal zombie conversion is not spread by bites. It’s self-inflicted when a rational thinking human being clings tenaciously to leftist mantras in spit of facts and logic proving otherwise. Their brain suffers a massive meltdown and begins to rot in their skulls.

    If you “feel” like you are becoming a liberal zombie, put the iPhone, iPad, games, etc., down and get a job… The feeling will soon pass.

    Q: Hey thebesig, are there other types of zombies that I should be aware of?

    There are these anti-western zombies that despise anything western and do not restrict their hatred to the US. These zombies honestly think that without western civilization, the world would be a utopia paradise with ever lasting peace. The criteria used on liberal zombies applies to these zombies as well.

    Also, there’s the “Stolen Valor” zombie. These guys will do things like tell you about the nature of their service. Then, when you ask them questions about their service, they’ll tell you that “it’s secret” or “classified” or something like that.

    Q: Thebesig, what do I do when name-calling does not work?

    If this liberal zombie is immune to name calling (a rare and extra annoying type of zombie) then simply say, “Oh be quiet!” Then walk away. Don’t waste your time with these zombies, you’ll get better reception arguing with the walls.

    Q: What’s the best way to recognize one of these zombies on websites like this?

    Watch for the “clever” – you got under my skin – responses to this post.

  • Illegal alien, with driver’s license, suspected of rapes.

    Alfonso Alarcon-Nuñez

    Then presidential candidate Trump was vilified for his “rapist” and “criminal” related descriptions regarding illegal aliens from Mexico and other Latino nations. Liberals joined the fold and acted “in solidarity with these immigrants”, with Californian politicians going as far as insisting on California being a sanctuary state. One of those illegals is sitting in jail on suspicion of multiple rapes.

    Alfonso Alarcon-Nuñez faces charges involving raping drunk women, burglarizing them, forced oral, etc. His plan of attack involved targeting parties where he knew he could get drunk women to utilize his services as an Uber driver. He’s an illegal alien with a driver’s license:

    From California’s KSBY News Station:

    Alfonso Alarcon-Nunez, 39, was arrested at his Santa Maria home last week. The DA’s Office says he has been identified as an undocumented immigrant. The DA’s Office adds he was voluntarily deported from New Mexico back in 2005.

    …

    The District Attorney says he was issued a valid driver’s license back in 2015.

    Liberals on social media are circulating stories of George Garcia, landscaper, being deported after being in the U.S. for 30 years. The implication? That President Trump and conservatives are inhumane and are “xenophobes” and “racists”, and don’t care about wrecking lives to act out their “racism” and “xenophobia”.

    What the conservatives are actually arguing; however, is that enforcing the law isn’t just abiding by rule of law. In cases of the need for deportation, enforcing the law could’ve saved lives. Alfonso Alarcon-Nuñez has been charged with 10 felonies, suspected of at least four rapes, and is suspected, based on initial investigation, of conducting even more rapes and burglaries.

    Perhaps cooperation with federal immigration authorities and law enforcement, and tighter security at our border, isn’t such a bad idea…

  • Exploding Stars and Climate Change

    NASA, exploding star

    Although the article claims that they just tested this concept, this theory has been around for a while. It had also been proven in the laboratory and observed in nature.

    Exploding stars are influencing our weather, scientists find

    Increased cosmic rays, in our atmosphere, result in increased cloud formations. Increased cloud formations reflect more heat back into space. Cosmic rays force water droplet formation, contributing to cloud formation and precipitation.

    Cosmic rays fluctuate, going through cycles of increased and decreased volume. Solar winds influence the volume of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. Solar winds act as a primary line of defense against cosmic rays, the Earth’s magnetic field acts as a secondary line of defense.

    So, an increase of solar winds decreases the volume of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. Likewise, a decrease in solar winds allows for an increase in volume of cosmic rays that enter. The sun has been providing us visual clues, for centuries, to support this.

    An increase of solar sunspot activity is related to an increase in solar winds. A decrease of solar sunspot activity is related to a decrease in solar winds. By extension, an increase of solar sunspot activity causes the volume of cosmic rays, entering the atmosphere, to decrease. A decrease of solar sunspot activity allows more cosmic rays to enter.

    Sunspot activity has been plotted for centuries. Minimum sunspot activity was spotted during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minimums. In many instances, no sunspot activity was detected for a long period. This is also known as the, “Mimi Ice Age”.

    Records of sunspot activity, when matched with the Mimi Ice Age and with the recent warming, show sunspot activity averages and global temperatures “marching in step”. As sunspot activity goes up, average global temperatures go up. As sunspot activity goes down, average global temperatures go down. Superimpose the cosmic ray activity with these two, and you will see a generally symmetrical inverse pattern.

    Climate change is a natural process.

    By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, telegraph.co.uk:

    The researchers claim that cosmic rays, coupled with the activity of the Sun, were linked to the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age between the 13th and 19th centuries, when the Thames regularly froze over during the winter, allowing frost fairs to be held.

    The sun is showing signs of entering another protracted solar minimum. The past three solar sunspot cycles show a downward trend in solar activity. By the way, the Earth’s magnetic field is also weakening. Using history as a guide, the climate is changing, but not in the direction that the mainstream media is currently portraying.

  • Myth of the 97% Scientist Consensus on Global Warming

    In an argument, between those who believe climate change is natural, and those who support man-made global warming, someone is going to throw the “97% consensus among scientists on global warming” card or something similar. By “consensus”, the idea is that scientists consider this a “no-brainer”. The planet is warming up, we’re contributing to it, and 97% of the scientists agree.

    The reality? That consensus doesn’t exist. This is based on a study done on a selected number of peer reviewed studies. A look at the actual study does not support the 97% consensus claim. There’s not enough information in the paper to conclude, or infer, that there is a consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming.

    From the study’s abstract:

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

    The study was done in phases. The first phase started with a keyword search of their database.

    The two keywords used were “global warming” and “global climate change”. Most of the people, who have done searches on the Internet, via keyword, would know that different combinations of keywords tend to provide different compositions of results. Why not use something like “average temperature change”, “climate cycles”, “space weather”, “climatic optimums”, “climatic minimums”, or other keywords that could also bring up climate related articles?

    By using “global warming” or “global climate change”, the researchers are attempting to get results that would point to a majority agreeing on man-made global warming. Out of the thousands of academic journal articles available, a researcher could drastically narrow down the results. The kind of results they get depends on the keywords used to search those articles.

    The timeline used for this search went from 1991 to 2011 excluding papers generated before 1991. Considering that it has been more than five years since the “newest” paper considered for the study, this time range is automatically out of date. Additional studies have been done since 2011, with an increasing amount of the studies pointing to the sun and other natural causes for climate change. The “universe” of results and studies have changed our understanding of the topic since then.

    Yet, people would like to throw the “But there’s a 97% consensus that the planet is warming and people are behind it” argument.

    Out of the results, the researchers pulled the abstracts out, and categorized them. These abstracts were sent to those who rated these abstracts on whether are not they supported man-made global warming. The results are shown in the abstract, with most of the papers reviewed, out of the 11,944 papers considered, not taking a position on global warming. That was a whopping 66.4%, with the balance going towards those that specified agreement or disagreement with man-made global warming. From this balance, 97.1% supported manmade global warming.

    From there, the researchers sent 8,547 invitations to the authors of the papers. They received 1,200 responses from these authors. After they narrowed that list down to 1,189, they invited these authors to self-rate their paper’s support for global warming.

    From the 1,189 scientists, reviewing 2,142 of their own papers, 97.2% endorsed man-made global warming.

    This is where the 97% shows up. This is the “97% consensus” that is used to argue that the majority of scientists “agree” to man-made global warming. If you’ve read this far, you could tell, by the numbers, that 97.2% of 1,189 scientists does not constitute a near consensus of all the scientists.

    Now, ready for the kicker? From the paper itself:

    Nevertheless, 11,944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature…

    A fraction of those 11,944 papers doesn’t constitute a scientific consensus, within the scientific community, on manmade global warming. The so called “scientific consensus” supporting man-made good warming doesn’t exist.

    You could download the study itself from here:

    Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

  • Iranian fast boat bullies Navy auxiliary ship

    Someone needs to remind the Iranians of Operation Praying Mantis. During that engagement, the U.S. Navy smacked the Iranian Navy around so hard, and did a lot of damage to them, that they were “feeling the pain” and embarrassment for a long time.

    When I was in the Navy, and my ship deployed to the Persian Gulf in 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iranians didn’t want to come out to play with us. But again, the Persian Gulf was rapidly becoming a US/Allied pond and they would’ve ended up with the “wrong” kind of public coverage.

    However, enter a non-combatant ship and the Iranians all of a sudden want to get brave. As with the period leading up to Operation Praying Mantis, the Iranians don’t appear to be able to make a solid connection between having a real leader in Washington DC, a military that normally doesn’t take those kind of games with the right leadership in Washington DC, and the butt kicking that’s given to the one that plays with fire the way the Iranians like to play with fire.

    Or, they could utilize a “substitute” and simply rest their fast boats in front of a US ship, knowing full well that the maritime rules of the road would require the ship to turn to avoid collision. Once the ship turns, to abide by the maritime rules of the road, the Iranians could brag about “forcing” a U.S. ship to move. I guess the real world is different from a movie

    Thanks to the originator of the ducks on water photo above, that symbolizes what the Iranian navy would be during Praying Mantis II.

    From the Navy Times

    A Navy official says a U.S. ship was forced to change course and move out of the way of Iranian fast boats while moving through the Strait of Hormuz during the weekend, in what has become a frequent occurrence there.

  • Zimmerman Telegram Text Published a Century Ago

    Portrait

    In February 27, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went in front of Congress regarding the Zimmerman Telegram. The British intercepted it earlier in the year; they later passed this information on to the United States. The above Wikipedia photo is a copy of the raw message sent to the German ambassador in Mexico.

    The proposal?

    That if Mexico joined the war on Germany’s side, and if Germany won, Mexico would regain Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

    If victorious in the conflict, Germany also promised to restore to Mexico the lost territories of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

    The Germans were aware of the Mexican Expedition and the back-and-forth conflict along the US Mexican border. The United States deployed an expeditionary force into Mexico to go after Francisco “Pancho” Villa and his militia.

    Given what happened in the previous century, and that Mexico was embroiled in a revolution during that same time period, they were in no condition to join on Germany’s side. They risked an even bigger loss.

    Those that didn’t want us to enter World War I dismissed the Zimmerman Telegram as something made up. It was published publicly in March 1, 1917. The United States joined the United Kingdom, France, and Russia against the Germans on April 6, 1917.

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/zimmermann-telegram-published-in-united-states

  • Defense Secretary James Mattis Plan to Defeat ISIS

    As readers here know, our enemies and adversaries are watching our moves, basing their own actions on what we do. They’re emboldened to act against our allies and us all over the world. This is partly based on our falling short of fully engaging against our global threats.

    One of these threats is a collection of enemies with conflicting and competing interests, but a common goal. They want to eliminate western and other non-compliant cultures and governments. In place of these cultures and societies, they hope to establish a global empire that rules according to their radicalized political, murderous, holocaust, and thug worldview.

    As long as they continue on despite international opposition, they have hopes that drive their continued fight. Enter Retired General James Mattis, now Defense Secretary James Mattis.

    Military.com reports that Defense Secretary James Mattis has a plan to rapidly defeat ISIS. This plan calls for utilizing multiple national, international, and regional assets. This strategy calls for using multiple points of attacks from military, political, and economic corners. This is an asymmetrical warfare approach to an asymmetrical threat. The plan is secret for understandable reasons, offering President Trump with options to choose from.

    The plan calls for a quick defeat for ISIS. Hopefully, this is what eventually happens. ISIS uses their battlefield gains as part of their recruiting efforts. They reach out to potential fighters and potential lone wolf attackers.

    These guys won’t listen to reason as we see it. They are bent on the long-term goal of establishing their version of a global Islamic caliphate. As far “out of whack” this may seem to most outside of their part of the world, ISIS and other terrorist organizations truly believe that they’ll accomplish this.

    Although they won’t listen to reason, they will understand brute strength and violence of action. They’ll also understand losing traction in other areas of influence. What’s needed is a plan that defeats them not just militarily, but also economically, politically, and in other spheres of contests for the mind and heart.

    Hopefully, the Mattis plan does what’s hinted.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/28/mattis-gives-white-house-tentative-plan-rapid-defeat-isis.html