Amnesty? Refugees? What’s the difference? Democrats Will Grow Their Base…

Suffering, perhaps temporarily, the setback of an injunction against executive amnesty; the administration is moving full speed ahead with its plans for refugees. Who knows what the actual intake will be before this is all done but missing from the equation is the untold number that will also arrive, subsequently, as derivative beneficiaries of those granted status (see here: http://www.uscis.gov/i-730).

Unlike the folks entering across the southern border, refugees, once they’ve been admitted into the country and have stayed for a year, automatically qualify to adjust status to become permanent residents. From this point on, they are on a glide path to becoming US citizens in five years which then allows for another round of possible “chain” sponsorship of relatives and thus even more immigrants will flow. By its very nature, refugee status produces the same results as amnesty and for the Democrat party and assorted RINOS, the happy outcome they seek. The difference, however, is that no executive or unilateral action is needed – current laws allow this. One wonders if, as we write this, DHS and USCIS are figuring out just how to declare all illegals in the country refugees (or at minimum, the ones who’ve been arriving since Summer 2014, supposedly fleeing strife in Latin America).

Any reform of current immigration law MUST end chain immigration by moving away from that based entirely on “family reunification.” A realistic and beneficial solution is one in which family unity is limited to spouse and minor children with all other family sponsorship being based on a points system of which “family reunification” is a minor aspect; points will be primarily awarded on an educational background and experience or skill basis. Until there is reform (not likely under this President) fundamental transformation will proceed, country and the will of its citizens be damned; unabated and abetted by a Congress that has long since given up on the concepts of checks and balances and being a co-equal branch.

Advertisements

Some Things are Self-evident….(Climate Change Crap)

But it took a study to confirm it:

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/solar-energy-contributes-climate-change-study

As was originally postulated here on 1/3/2014, under the title:

To The Hot Air Crowd (When it Suits Them)

Here we are, it’s winter, it’s freezing cold outside, snow is on the ground and a global warming research ship is stuck in ice looking for evidence of melting and disappearing ice. I suppose this is really “climate change,” the lingo used to cover everything that needs a weather related explanation when the obvious is too simple and when it has to be pinned on mankind. So, for instance, if it is freezing cold outside, as it should be in winter; it is not global warming but “climate change” that gave us snow. If it is an extremely hot day in August, then, it is really global warming. See how this works? By the way, what happens to the alarmists who predicted an “active hurricane season” last year, as they did the year before, when not much happens? Their salary doubled?

As the scientists should know and as Al Gore and his acolytes should learn, a single data point here and there doesn’t prove a damn thing. A flash, by the way, remember when John Glenn got a free ride on the shuttle (then in his 70s), to “study” the effects of microgravity on old folks? Well, everyone should know, including the loser Mr. Gore, that a “study” involving one person is worthless; unless, of course, said study is the study of chakra release in the confines of a massage room. (For the record, I don’t believe the rumor that it was Chopra, Deepak Chopra, that Mr. Gore wanted released from his, er, pocket!)

But seriously, scientists, again, ought to know about two things; these are:

(1) the “butterfly effect” which in chaos theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz, ScD, in the very title of his paper, “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?” (see following link for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz ). Essentially, it’d seem that the equations governing the outcome of weather patterns over long periods of time (beyond your 5 – 10 day forecasts) are very dependent on the initial conditions. Imagine then that these equations are complex models involving differential equations with boundary or initial conditions that no one can predict or is known; what good would solving these do? So we run through some supercomputer many different models, the point is, no one really knows. Have these scientists even used what they do know and have observed to match any of their models? Put another way, have they been able to model a system that provides an output that matches the empirical, historical data? Even if they have, however, it’d prove nothing with respect to long term prognostications because, again, the initial conditions are always changing and not really known. Those who pretend to understand all of this would also likely believe an economist who says that, based on his models, on December, 28th, 2020, the DJIA will close at 24,020 or that on January, 6th, 2014; it will close at 15,900. No one has a clue and still, to morons like Mr. Gore; this is “settled science” by “consensus” but all it really is utter crap.

This brings us to the second thing you have to wonder if “scientists” or environmentalists know or have been concerned about.

(b) I’ll call this, the “mononymous1” effect (as a placeholder, because I’d actually like to call it the “my family name” effect – in the interest in remaining anonymous, for now; this is obviously not possible). This “mononymous1 effect” is the combined effect on weather patterns and climate change due to the introduction of wind turbines into wind streams and the increased albedo of the planet because of solar panels. If the butterfly effect is real, then imagine the ripple effect of erecting wind turbines into wind streams. It’d seem, on its face, that the interruption of wind flow and the removal of energy from a wind stream would have a direct and immediate impact on weather and many perturbations on climate models. Are the “green” folks aware of any of this? is there “settled science” on this? Imagine, also, the ripple effect of changing the planets albedo (put another way, energy absorbed versus energy reflected) by using highly reflecting solar panels. Again, do the “green” people know? Has anyone got a clue? Hey, Dr. Gore, are you on to this? Have your guys studied how and if the buildings of Manhattan have produced any “climate change” or weather patterns anywhere? Get back to me…

It is one thing to care about the environment; it is, in fact, quite commendable and we should let our own conscience guide us on how we choose to “care.” It is quite another thing, however, to think you KNOW something about “climate change” or “global warming” and try to use it as a means of stealing freedom and coercing certain behavior from the gullible and collaterally, the rest of us.