About background radiation, spacetime curvature, missing matter and empty space.

By looking towards different directions in the sky we perceive the observable universe as a sphere, all the way back to the origins of the universe. This article describes a "realization" that does not derive from mathematical analysis, but from "philosophical intuition". What we see, when we observe the universe far away back in spacetime must be what "everything" was, according to cosmology theories: an extremely dense energy/mass concentrated in one point. By interpreting the observable universe through this view...

Continue reading at: http://bit.ly/1GI05dr

Freedom of speech in Canada?

In a major 9-0 decision on Thursday, all nine justices of the US Supreme Court agreed that creating an invisible barrier between pro-lifers and abortion "clinic" entrances was a ridiculous infringement on free speech rights.

Canadian pro-lifers have been barred from freedom of speech since 1991 when a Toronto judge issued a "temporary" injunction creating a "bubble zone" around abortion facilities in Toronto.

As a consequence of this temporary injunction, Linda Gibbons has spent many years in jail and more recently Mary Wagner has spent more than two years in jail for praying in front of a Toronto abortion facility.

The temporary injunction has never been legally challenged in Canada, since the police have repeatedly arrested these women under other offenses.

Freedom of speech in Canada eh?

A summary of the latest scandal, the Bergdahl exchange.

The release of the five most dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl has sparked quite a bit of controversy.

This is a summary, at this time, as more "revelations" are published every day.

It was a decision against the will of Congress (us, the people), the advice of the military and without consultation:

▬   The White House administration failed to observe the law, passed by Congress and signed by Obama, to give 30 day notice to Congress before releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

▬   White House press secretary Jay Carney,  on June 21^st 2013, asked about a possible release of terrorists from Guantanamo in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl said "we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law". But they went ahead without approval. Jay Carney resigned on May 30^th, 2014. Bergdahl was released May 31^st,2014.

▬   Congress had twice denied the release of prisoners in exchange for Bergdahl.

▬   The administration was warned by the Military NOT to do the exchange, but they went ahead against their advice.

▬   The Administration did not consult Secret Services.

▬   The Administration did not consult with its Allies, who fought alongside the US to defeat the Taliban and capture their leaders.

▬   The deal legitimizes the Taliban, as a power to deal with.

▬   The deal endangers the future of Americans, as terrorists worldwide may attempt to kidnap Americans, for money or exchange of "prisoners".

▬   The deal is an immediate treat, as the five Taliban leaders will start directing their forces against America and Western nations.

▬   The deal strengthens the enemy (a definition of treason), by returning prisoners before the war against the Taliban is over.

In addition, it was a political decision, not in the interest of America, but in the interest of Obama:

▬   So that after releasing the worst terrorists he can justify closing Guantanamo, a forever due political IOU.

▬   So that Obama, Hillary and Rice can pronounce the prepared talking point: "America does not leave their men behind", as a counter measure to the Benghazi scandal.

▬   So that he can be seen by Muslim leaders as helping Muslims (The father and Bergdhal himself are Muslim).

It is also a question of poor judgment:

▬   Releasing the top five most dangerous terrorists for one man who has no apparent confidential knowledge or strategic military value?

▬   Releasing five terrorists for a defector?

▬   The president feels that he can honestly deal with terrorists and Muslim extremists, for example mandating "limitations" after their release.

▬   Allowing the father to praise Allah in Arabic in the Rose Garden?

▬   What are American Allies going to think? Releasing the top fighters against the Allied forces that fought with their blood for ten years to capture them?

▬   What are the Afghani people going to think, after allied forces occupied their country to get rid of the Taliban, and now the Americans release their leaders?

Finally it is more lies, as usual:

▬   Susan Rice again she pronounced a lie on media interviews, that Bergdhal was captured in the battlefield and that he "served with honor and distinction".

▬   President Obama said that they had to intervene because "his health was rapidly deteriorating". When it became apparent that this was not the case, he changed his story and said that the Taliban was about to kill him.

▬   President Obama stated that no men had lost their life while seeking for Bergdahl, although this fact is confirmed by many people in the unit.

▬   The men in his military unit were made to sign a gag agreement "not to say" what really happened, so that the Administration could spin the event as they pleased. Fortunately these men are men of honor and spoke the truth when it was evident that they were used to perpetrate a felony.

▬   The father spoke in Arabic claiming that the son would have "trouble with English" and then he does not speak to the son in Pashto, but praises Allah in Arabic?

▬   Secretary of defense Chuck Hagel said that the final decision was taken by President Obama. However, Obama on June 10^th said that Hagel took the final decision!

VA death lists: PETITION

Please sign the following petition to allow veterans to be treated immediately at any hospital of their choice http://chn.ge/1iFsg1R  

The problem and the solution

Here is the problem:

About 30% or more of the people work for government or their spouse works for government.

More than 40% of the people work, or have worked for government, or have a close relative working for government.

More than 40% of the people receive "benefits" form government and think that in the free market they would not.

Most of the above people think that government is more efficient than private enterprise because "government has no profits" (whatever that means).

Most of these people are completely ignorant of macro economics, the effect of big government on the nation's GDP, on government revenues and on social programs.

Many good conservative people, politicians tea party members and other leaders continue to point out that socialist policies do not work and never worked.

However, the above people, at voting time, have to balance their immediate interest, with the interest of the nation. As a result, it is more convenient for them to believe Keynesian economics, socialist propaganda and the false economics of union leaders and leaders of the left.

These leaders also appeal to the feelings of compassion that most people have and to the guilt of the people who make "easy money" and compare their condition with the poor, the seniors, and the people who really need assistance.

I believe that the above is the reason why President Obama was elected. Twice! This is why today's polls show that another "leader" of the left, Ms. Clinton, has over 50% support.

As I wrote before, the problems we face today are not Obama's fault, but the fault of the people who elected him. Getting rid of Obama only propels their other alternative to the top: Ms. Clinton.

In my opinion, the solution is obvious, and I proposed it in other articles (http://tinyurl.com/pyc25rk, http://tinyurl.com/ofs5q7j ) and books.

Here is the solution:

Conservatives need to show the above people that left wing pseudo economics affects them negatively now. That over-regulation and government size over a certain optimum point reduce economic opportunities, jobs and reduce government revenues, with consequent reduction of the standard of living for all, but especially for the poor. Obamacare is a good example.

Conversely, conservatives have to show that a reduction of government size to the optimum level, together with sound economic policies, would immediately increase the number of jobs and opportunities available, increase government revenues and improve their standard of living, together with the condition of the poor.

Climate Change VS Global Warming

"Climate change" is the latest terminology introduced by the left, as "Global warming" caused by mankind proved to be a "constructed reality". But the statement that CO₂ causes temperature changes is also extremely exaggerated, to say the least.

People who worry about climate changes are barking at the wrong tree. Even if human habits could be drastically changed, this would have no measurable effect on climate.

Let's worry instead about pollution caused by other types of human activity, which incidentally have considerably improved over the last forty years, thanks to the concern of all of us.

Technical explanation

Greenhouse gasses are 2% of the Earth's atmosphere.  3.62% of these are CO₂ (that's 0.0724% of the atmosphere). If we assume that 3.4% of this amount is caused by human activity, this is 0.00246% of the volume of the  atmosphere. That's less than one quarter of one one/hundredth of one percent. The rest of the CO₂ (99.9975%) is caused by other natural sources.

If indeed the climate would be subject to change because of human activity by an almost immeasurable amount, let's say one one/hundredth of a degree per year because of human activity, then variations in the natural causes of CO₂ (the 99.9975%) would cause fluctuations of temperature over 40,000 times greater, that is variations of 406 degrees per year!

Since that is far from what we experience (by at least three orders of magnitude), then it means that the effects of human emissions of CO₂ on temperature are irrelevant.

Liberal logic and stupidity

1. Prohibiting law abiding citizens to carry concealed guns leads to more violence (See Chicago, Illinois, Australia, UK), thus they propose more "gun control".
2. Gun free zones allow criminals to freely shoot the highest amount of people before being stopped (almost all criminals who decided to do mass killings chose gun free zones), thus they want to prohibit guns in more places.
3. They refuse to publish the names and addresses of convicted child molesters (because of their right to privacy), but they publish the names and addresses of police officers, judges and other responsible gun owners.
4. They think "assault rifles" are dangerous in the hands of citizens. Thus they establish operation Fast & Furious to give them to drug dealers.
5. Increasing taxes leads to less government revenue (see California revenues falling in Nov. 2012, after Prop. 30), thus they want to raise taxes to get more revenue.
6. The myth of population explosion has been debunked years ago. We now have a problem of under-population in most industrialized countries. Thus, they want to reduce the population by encouraging abortion.
7. The myth of global warming caused by mankind has been debunked (The data was fake and the amount of CO2 produced by mankind is insignificant with respect of what is produced by nature). Thus, they want to reduce carbon emissions caused by mankind, no matter what the economic cost is.
8. The use of condoms has a 10% failure rate (If you engage in sex using a condom with an infected person 7 or more times, it is more likely for you to be infected than not). Thus they promote condoms for protection against AIDS.
9. The more you apologize to your enemies, the more your enemies think you are weak and irresolute. Thus they apologize to Muslim extremists as much as they can.
10. They think we should respect Muslims and try not to offend them. They heavily condemn an insulting video. But they go on and on bragging about killing Bin Laden. Then they are surprised to receive another terrorist attack on 9/11.
11. They fight against Al Quaida terrorists and kill Bin Laden. Then they round up all the guns they can find in Libya and give them to Ansar-al-Sharia, an affiliate of al Quaida, for them to fight the Syrian dictator. However, they are surprised when the terrorists use those guns to attack their  ambassador in Benghazi on 9/11.
12. They think dictatorships are bad. Thus they encourage a revolution in Egypt, so that a dictatorship can be established with the Muslim Brotherhood at the helm, who is enforcing Sharia Law.
13. The more the government spends, the worse the economy, the value of the dollar and the national debt (The psychological effect of Keynesian economics may work temporarily, only when the people perceive that the government is on the right track). Thus they want to increase the debt ceiling in order to spend more.
14. They plan to increase spending by 16%. When pressured by fiscal conservatives, they promise they will cut spending. Thus they increase spending by only 8% and praise themselves for "cutting their budget in half."

Letter to Mr. O'Reilly, FOX News

Mr O'Reilly,

I understand your frustration with uninformed, uninterested voters, who think that economic matters are boring and do not want to hear about them.

I understand, because I am just as frustrated with you, and almost all other conservative commentators, who continue to use the language of the left on economic matters.

How do you think they can focus on economic issues if you, the deliverers of the truth, do not have it clear enough to then make it personal and understandable for the average American?

Stay with me for a minute, while I am trying to clarify a simple concept.

A major myth of the left is that taxation is an infinite source of income. To them, more taxes always means more government revenues.

You understand that it is not so. Perhaps not in detail, but you know that society's resources are limited.

Technically you can refer to the "Laffer curve", which was basis for the Reagan-Thatcher economic recovery in the 1980's.

What that means is that after a certain point, which in most industrialized nations was reached in the early 1960's, more taxation means less government revenues. I.e.: Too much of a good thing is really bad for you.

I have written books and modeled such economic behavior, but I will not bother you with further details.

Fix that in your mind: More taxation means less revenue. This is an immediate effect, not years down the road. A very recent example is from California, just one month after passing Prop.30 raising taxes on the rich (See "California revenues in free fall" at: http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/despite-tax-increase-california-state-revenues-in-freefall/). Yes, there are other collateral reasons, such as businesses leaving, etc. but the effect happens also in a closed system. It is an economic truth with today's size of government.

Yet, just last night you said again that: Republicans could have compromised months ago by allowing Mr. Obama to get "more revenue" by raising taxes.

This is the opposite of the truth, just stated in the previous paragraph. I could have made a hundred examples from your talking points or from other Fox commentators.

I have to conclude that, either conservatives and news anchors do not understand simple economics (hard to believe), or that we continuously and unconsciously reinforce the message of the left by using their language, their talking points.

The Left successfully portrays itself on the side of the poor. They show uninformed voters that they are on their side and want to raise taxes to give them more (the Santa Klaus analogy you used). Whether they do that in good faith or not, it is not the point. The point is that we repeat and spread their message.

We, conservatives should show the uninformed voters that the left will reduce government revenues and by doing so the left acts against their interest: "government will no longer be able to be Santa Klaus."

Please, start informing America that more taxes means less revenues (technically, until government is again reduced to the optimum level – See Economic Optimalism and the STING curve).

Please, review your language carefully when talking about increasing taxes and government revenues.

Please inform your colleagues and your guests. It has to be a methodical self-review of language.

We need to reach uninformed voters where they are and where it touches them personally.

They may start listening, if they hear that every time taxes increase, not only they are going to possibly lose their jobs (if they have one), but also they are likely to receive less government  goodies, perks, unemployment check, free food, cell phones and every other form of government money they currently receive.

The well intentioned, church-going people, may also start sympathizing with conservatism, if conservatism shows it is on the side of the poor and the jobless.

Thanks for listening.

Eating less meat

Activists on the left say that when you eat hamburgers you contribute to “global warming”. But don’t you need to kill a cow to make burgers? Why then fewer cows would increase CO2 production?

Because apparently they understand how the market works: more demand allows for economy of scale: with more money invested in the improvement of farm methods and facilities, we would achieve more savings for producers , lower prices and more consumption, thus even more demand for meat and eventually more cows!

If only they applied the same reasoning to every other sector of the economy!

For example,

-If the left allowed for more oil drilling in the US, the current demand with new investments and technologies would lead to more abundance and lower gas prices.

-If they had not required lending institutions to finance unqualified buyers, the cost of borrowing would have been lower and the housing market would have continued to prosper.

-If they lowered the taxation and regulation burdens from industry, the cost of products and services would decrease and the buying power of salaries would increase.

They do not seem to acknowledge that demand and lower prices create more abundance and a higher standard of living for all. On the contrary, they think that producers are the enemies of the people. But producers are the people! Most of us contribute to creating products and services with our work...

...Apart from left wing activists.