Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Qanon The Sky is Falling Week

  Considering that 51,700 sealed indictments are pending the placement of Kavanagh into the Supreme Court saying that the sky is falling is not an  exaggeration.  The SC will then have five judges prepared to accept military tribunals for enemy combatants who are also American citizens.
Just in case you did not understand what is now at stake for the Democrats and why they are even willfully destroying their own election chances in the process.  
Rod Rosenstein will meet with Trump on Thursday to continue his long standing deer in the headlamps routine.  Without question this has been ongoing public theater for the purpose of completely disclosing the public guilt of the Obama FBI cabal that undertook Treason.  It has lasted a full two years and has made it impossible for the DEMs to mount any form of a political campaign.   At this point i am reminded that none of these folks are slightly stupid and either Rosenstein is in fact cooperating along with Mueller  to legitimately save the Republic  in concert with Mil Intel or they are truly owned by someone.
Never have we seen such a show.  By the by, Sessions recused correctly in order to not compromise this sideshow, whether it is real or not.  Everyone has played their part pushing fairy tales while preparations have been made to defeat the NAZIs one more time.  

Patriots are in control for the first time in all our lives.  The counter attack on the NWO is still happening in the shadows but it is very real and it is global..

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.295
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.293
DECLAS of FISA = [RR] self-incrimination.
[RR] in charge of DECLAS.
Due to massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST IG HOROWITZ was TASKED to final review [speed].
POTUS will not be BAITED TO FIRE when the release itself will FORCE RESIGNATION/TERMINATION [RR].
Did the IG recommend [RR] step down or be fired [speed]?
Why was Rachel Brand removed?
HUSSEIN + MO actively campaigning for the midterm elections?

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.293
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.281
Step 1: Read the 1st sentence re: [RR]
Step 2: Read the NYT article re: [RR] wear wire
Attempts to BAIT POTUS to FIRE to cross RED LINE will FAIL.
DECLAS of FISA = [RR] self-incrimination.
[RR] in charge of DECLAS.
Due to massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST IG HOROWITZ was TASKED to final review [speed].


POTUS will not be BAITED TO FIRE when the release itself will FORCE RESIGNATION/TERMINATION [RR].

Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

 This all happened because the NWO promoters needed a global problem to promote funding, and what better than the weather?  Once you understand motive, all behavior becomes rational.  Thus we have the linking of CO2 rise to Human causation. It was too useful to allow a challenge.
CO2 never was a Greenhouse Gas and neither is methane either for that matter.  What is true is that the long Bronze Age global temperature regime which was at least one degree warmer, went into decline because human agriculture desertified the entire Sahara and the whole of semi tropical Asia.  This can all be completely restored and all crop lands can also be essentially retimbered in spaced rows that provide partial shade and superior growing conditions.
This will increase global temperatures by about one degree, but also make substancial croplands much more temperate as they need to be....
Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

Written By: Dr. Tim Ball September 13, 2018


The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ TN Editor

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation. Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said,

“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”

Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics. Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.

“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”

The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.

A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world; e = mc2. You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.

The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?

The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is he didn’t say what they claim. Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,

Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.

The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results.

a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said,

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.

An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1) To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.

Figure 1

In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.

Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase.

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.

“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”

Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.

“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”

Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.
Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.

Thomas Huxley said,

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing. Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)

Figure 2

The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius. He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour. The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2. If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Political Economy with Robert Higgs

This item by Robert Higgs addresses the sustained problem of pernicious governmental growth that remains largely independent of actual market demand.  This is a factor that is internal to the whole structure and is truly paracitic.

To understand just how easily this arises, if you are in charge of a small department, your administrative pay rank may well be say a two.  There are two ways to get to a three rank.  The hardest is to transfer to a larger unit losing skills and knowledge in the process and exposing yourself to real failure with new supervisors.  The second is to expand your department willy-nilly to that same level.   Doing that of course preservers local knowledge, but makes you less desirable for a lateral move.

Contraction means real job losses as well. The best solution in an organization like the government is in fact to reset wage rates to 80% of industry standard and insist half of hires come out of private industry.  That way all senior staff is rotating back and forth at least and no one imagines using government service as a royal road to best financial outcomes.
Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Political Economy

Robert Higgs • Thursday October 15, 2009 4:27 PM PDT •


Since the early 1980s, I have been lecturing on the growth of government to a wide variety of audiences. In academic seminars and workshops, professors typically ask questions about my explanatory framework, my evidence, alternative explanations, possible counterexamples, and so forth. But when I speak to a friendly lay audience, the first question is typically something along the lines of, “What can we do to turn this thing around?” Academic people, who are accustomed to discussing all sorts of political and economic developments, many of which are none too savory, usually have the ability to distance themselves from any revulsion they may feel about the matters under discussion and to concentrate on how one might best explain the events in question. In social science, “value freedom” is upheld as a standard for the analyst. Market-friendly nonacademic people, in contrast, are often surprised, and appalled, to discover how much the government has grown and many of the means by which political actors have enlarged it, and their immediate orientation is toward action to reverse what they perceive to be a pernicious development. Thus, they bring normative and programmatic concerns directly to the fore. Like Lenin, they demand to know, “What is to be done?”

Because I am often introduced as an authority on government growth, the lay audiences seem shocked and disappointed when I answer the query about how we can stop further government growth by saying that I don’t know or, worse, by saying that I don’t think we ― which is to say, those of us in the room and all other likeminded people ― can do anything significant to deflect the trend toward larger, more tyrannical government.

I often receive similar reactions when I post commentaries on the Internet. Thus, I recently posted a short essay called “Partisan Politics ― A Fool’s Game for the Masses,” and in response, one man wrote: “Quit whining and figure out something better if you’re so damn smart.” Another wrote: “Okay, Higgs. So what can one do to protect one’s person and family and aid in the country’s survival?” I commonly hear from people who find my description or analysis beside the point unless I have “an answer” or “a solution” to the problem under discussion. Higgs, they conclude, is “not constructive,” and therefore he does not deserve anyone’s time and attention.

Although I would be the last to assert that I have a claim on anyone’s time or attention, I believe that the solution-demanding response to my commentaries (or anyone else’s) betrays a confusion between diagnostics and therapeutics in political economy. The former focuses on finding the causes of a condition or development, the latter on prescribing measures by which the condition can be lessened or eliminated. This distinction is common in the medical profession, where some practitioners specialize in diagnosis and others in various kinds of therapy. In political economy, however, the two activities are often combined. In professional economics journals, countless articles have been published in which the author first lays out his “model,” sometimes presents empirical “tests” of some of its implications, and finally draws “policy conclusions” ― that is, unsolicited advice to government functionaries as to how they should employ their powers.

Lay people and professionals alike, however, need to appreciate two critical points. First, in social and economic affairs, one man’s problem may be another man’s solution. The growth of government belongs to this category. Many people are pleased when the government grows, whereas others are outraged. Still others, of course, have no concern one way or the other, so long as their personal ox is not being gored deeply. In short, the normative evaluation of a socioeconomic condition or development may vary greatly among the people involved in it.

Second, even if everyone agrees that a certain condition constitutes a problem, it still may have no generally acceptable solution. Because of the diversity of beliefs, values, and interests in the populace, whatever is done to create a “public good” ― that is, a condition that, if established at all, applies equally to everyone ― will displease some people. For example, everyone may value “national security” in the abstract, but if in its pursuit some people want the government to go to war against country X, whereas others want the government to steer clear of war with country X, then some people are bound to be dissatisfied, no matter what the government does. Issues of this kind have no generally acceptable solution, owing to uncertainties about the “production function” for certain public goods. One might imagine, of course, that one side persuades the other to change its beliefs, values, or preferences, but unless unanimous agreement is achieved ― an extremely unlikely eventuality ― a certain number of problems whose solutions are contentious will necessarily always remain.

Since the Great Depression, the American public has generally approved of an active, interventionist federal government. In a perceived crisis, most people want the government to “do something.” Of course, most politicians and government functionaries, for perfectly understandable self-serving reasons, are quite pleased to respond to such public demands for action ― after all, taking such action promises to butter their bread more thickly. Franklin D. Roosevelt enthusiastically supported an approach whereby the government would “take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” Likewise, more recently, despite the great confusion that prevailed about the current recession’s causes and about the best means of moderating or reversing it, Barack Obama, soon after taking office, declared, “The time for talk is over. The time for action is now.” In both instances the president was presuming that successful therapy can be administered without a sound diagnosis. This presumption is foolish, however, if one’s interest lies not in mollifying a bewildered electorate, but in implementing a genuine remedy for the perceived problem.

Furthermore, in dealing with a “problem” such as the relentless growth of government, we must recognize that unlike the automobile mechanic who undertakes to repair a sputtering engine, we are attempting to alter the workings of a socio-economic process that has hundreds of millions of moving parts, each one with a mind of its own! It is hubristic ― a Hayekian “fatal conceit” ― to suppose that anyone can control this process in fine detail. The “man of system,” Adam Smith sagely observed, “is apt to be very wise in his own conceit.”

He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it.

I am not a “man of system” in the Smithian sense. For me to propose a “magic bullet” to stop the growth of government, as an oncologist might prescribe a certain drug to cure a particular type of cancer, would be ridiculous. Just as one may know a great deal about the origin and development of a particular type of tumor without knowing how to cure it, one may know a great deal about the growth of government without knowing how to stop it. Indeed, curing a cancer is a much simpler task.

Yet, one thing we do know: Many Americans now believe many things about their government that are false, and they expect much from the government that the rulers cannot provide. The public at large embraces myths about what the government can do, what it actually does, and how it goes about doing it. Only people enamored of such myths can support, for example, a gigantically expensive health-care “reform” at a time when the present value of the government’s promised future Social Security and Medicare benefits alone amounts to several times the current GDP. (I am disregarding here the interested parties who expect to reap short-run pillage from an intrinsically doomed system.) Until more people come to a more realistic, fact-based understanding of the government and the economy, little hope exists of tearing them away from their quasi-religious attachment to a government they view with misplaced reverence and unrealistic hopes. Lacking a true religious faith yet craving one, many Americans have turned to the state as a substitute god, endowed with the divine omnipotence required to shower the public with something for nothing in every department – free health care, free retirement security, free protection from hazardous consumer products and workplace accidents, free protection from the Islamic maniacs the U.S. government stirs up with its misadventures in the Muslim world, and so forth. If you take the government to be Santa Claus, you naturally want every day to be Christmas; and the bigger the Santa, the bigger his sack of goodies. This prevailing ideology constitutes probably the most critical obstacle to reductions in the government’s size, scope, and power. Getting rid of this ideology will be diabolically difficult, if possible at all.

Analysts of the political economy, such as yours truly, may have some capacity to open people’s eyes with regard to the government’s true nature and its actual operation. Such diagnostic work is a full-time job, however, so consumers of this analysis should not be surprised if a diagnostician cannot prescribe a sure-fire cure whenever he identifies, describes, or analyzes a problem. Moreover, consumers of opinion and analysis in political economy would be well served by developing a healthy skepticism toward all those who propose a simple cure for the growth of government ― flat tax, term limits, constitutional amendment, abolition of the Fed, you name it. The doctor with a panacea just might be a quack.

The Greatest Constitution the World Never Saw

This speaks volumes to just how much different polities were trying to establish stability through some form of a rule of law that applied to all including the powerful during the eighteenth century.  The Magna Carta had happened centuries past but had ultimately resolved in a triumphant parliament that was no longer dismissed by this time.  Others saw it working and started addressing their own polities in the correct understanding that it allowed the  movement toward peaceful resolution of all conflicts.
So yes this item is important in the time and place and starts a conversation that ultimately ends in a national identity and modernity for a swarm of Cossack horsemen.
The history of those ideas need to be fully related.  their importance today is completely apparent..

The Greatest Constitution the World Never Saw

By Dan Peleschuk • SEPT 10 2018

Why you should care

Because some consider Pylyp Orlyk’s 1710 document, which was never enacted, to be the true predecessor of democratic politics.


48.379433° N, 31.16558° E

KievCapital City

Considering the magnitude of the defeat, it was surprising Cossack nobleman Pylyp Orlyk had the energy to even put pen to paper — let alone conceive of a visionary political idea that would shape Ukrainian thinking for centuries to come. The army of Swedish King Charles XII, along with its local Zaporozhian Cossack allies, had just been routed by Peter I of Russia across what’s now central Ukraine, diminishing Sweden’s standing as one of the continent’s dominant powers and cementing Russia’s grip over Eastern Europe.

Thousands died in the June 1709 campaign, and Charles fled southwest to Ottoman-controlled territory, now part of Moldova. With him came Cossack leader Ivan Mazepa, as well as Orlyk, Mazepa’s trusted and well-educated counselor. Defeated, Orlyk was not discouraged: Fluent in several languages and conversant in political theory, he threw himself into a political project envisaging a form of democratic rule over the territory the Cossacks had just abandoned — but had increasingly come to consider their own.

Not only was the resulting document a landmark in Ukrainian political thought, but some believe the Orlyk Constitution, as it’s known, was one of the world’s first such treatises, empowering the citizenry and introducing the separation of powers long before the American or French constitutions were enacted. Yet because history is written by the winners, it was lost to history, says Frank Sysyn, director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies in Toronto. “The Orlyk Constitution and Orlyk’s activity,” he says, “becomes to a great degree symbolic in the way that lost causes can be symbolic.”

As legend has it, Mazepa fell out with the Russian tsar during a routine drinking party … in a betrayal over which Russia is still deeply bitter.

Early 18th century Eastern Europe was a complex web of ever-shifting political alliances. Imperial Russia was on the rise, seeking to snatch wide swaths of Northern Europe and maintain its control further south along the Black Sea. A key ally in this fight was the Cossack Hetmanate, a Russian protectorate run by the famously free-spirited Slavic warriors and considered a geographic and ideological predecessor to modern-day Ukraine.

For several decades, Moscow had afforded the region broad autonomy, but for Mazepa — the Cossack “hetman,” or leader — that apparently wasn’t enough. As legend has it, he fell out with the Russian tsar during a routine drinking party, and after Sweden promised him independence, he sided with the Swedes during the Great Northern War — taking with him several thousand fighters in a betrayal over which Russia is still deeply bitter. After their defeat, Mazepa and his men were forced into exile, where he died and was replaced by Orlyk upon approval from a military council.

Pylyp Orlyk
Source The Picture Art Collection / Alamy Stock Photo

The burgeoning Cossack dream of independence, however, lived on. The day Orlyk took over, April 5, 1710, he introduced his life’s greatest work: “The Pacts and Constitutions of Rights and Freedoms of the Zaporozhian Host.” The document established an array of civil liberties and rights guaranteed by the state — conceived for the first time as an explicitly Ukrainian political entity — which was to be comprised of elected leaders. “So it would’ve been a kind of republicanism,” says Sysyn, a leading historian of Ukraine, “but with a sovereign leadership.” The overarching principal, Sysyn adds, was to establish a largely democratic system to replace an absolutist ancien rĂ©gime — in other words, the epitome of Enlightenment Era thinking. Signed by the Cossacks, as representatives of the population, and the hetman, it resembled the agreements between Eastern European nobles and their rulers typical to the time.

But many Ukrainian scholars are more unequivocal about the constitution’s wider importance. Viktor Shyshkin, a former judge on Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, points to French philosophers Montesquieu and Voltaire — credited with developing much of modern democratic theory — and notes they were just teenagers when Orlyk put his own theories on paper, suggesting he preceded them. Orlyk had proposed the hetman’s power be limited and overseen by a General Council, whose authority was to eventually derive from elected administrative-territorial units. Any legal infractions or criminal activities were to be heard by a court, thereby effectively creating, some would argue, an independent judicial branch — an idea later developed by Montesquieu in his 1748 treatise The Spirit of the Laws, widely recognized for conceiving of the three separate branches of power. “With regard to its political and legal implementation,” Shyshkin wrote in a 2007 analysis, “the Ukrainian hetman was undoubtedly the first to do this.”

Revolutionary or not, Orlyk’s constitution was never put into practice, even though it was recognized at the time by Sweden and Ottoman Turkey. Orlyk remained in exile, the first in what would become a long tradition of Ukrainian political activity from the safety of foreign soil, and Russia reasserted its control over the Hetmanate, whose autonomy was all but abolished as a result of Mazepa’s revolt. In modern-day Ukraine, however, especially amid the revival of national consciousness after the 2014 pro-democratic revolution, officials have attempted to resurrect its memory — somewhat painful though it might be — through public commemorations. “Orlyk’s constitution evokes pride in Ukrainians,” Shyshkin writes, “and at the same time, bitterness that stems from an enormous intellectual loss.”

Dan Peleschuk, OZY Author

Monday, September 24, 2018

Science Study: Rising CO2 Producing 'Miracle' Re-greening Effects Across the Planet


As i have been posting, farmers need to integrate trees with their cropping strategies and their technology.  The benefits are all too obvious, not least from the movement of deep nutrients back onto the surface and the additional release of nitrogen from the root systems.

They have begun doing this in the Sahel and i expect the forest to march back into the Sahara and ultimately reforest the entire Sahara with perhaps a little help, but really not that much.

The Sahara was grassland at least five thousand years ago.  Proper husbandry and it can be a vigorous forestland as well. and well watered through a working hydraulic cycle.

Rising CO2 Producing 'Miracle' Re-greening Effects Across the Planet


Climate change myth pushers are scientifically illiterate propagandists who have brainwashed themselves against all scientific reality to somehow believe that carbon dioxide is a poison to plants.

In truth, it’s the “greening” molecule for the planet, as I’ve repeatedly explained in multiple climate videos, podcasts and climate articles.

Now, new science published in Nature demonstrates that global tree cover is rapidly expanding across the planet as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise to healthier, pro-tree levels that support forest growth and health.

Yes, you read that correctly: Forestation coverage of planet Earth is expanding, not shrinking as we’re all told by the lying globalist media on a daily basis. (The same dishonest media that claimed New York City would now be under water from an apocalypse of melting ice caps… go figure.)

“We show that — contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5 — tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level),” reports science study authors in this study entitled “Global land change from 1982 to 2016.”

The study was primarily funded by NASA’s Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments (MEaSUREs). It also enjoyed supporting funds from the World Resources Institute’s Global Restoration Initiative and the NASA Land-Cover and Land-Use Change (LCLUC) Program.

“Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016,” the authors explain. “Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (?3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia.”

See the study abstract yourself at this link.

Carbon dioxide is bringing planet Earth back to life by supporting forests, plants and food crops

The study documents the scientific reality that carbon dioxide supports the expansion of forests across the planet. That makes perfect sense, since CO2 is the “oxygen” of plant life.

Without CO2, nearly all plant life on the planet would die, quickly followed by the total collapse of the food web, animal ecosystems and human civilization.

Currently, CO2 is at around 408 ppm in the atmosphere, a number that’s dangerously low for plants (and forests), causing mass death of trees, food crops and even grasses. Climate change lunatics lie to the public and try to claim that CO2 levels have never been this high.

Even NASA joins the conspiracy by selectively choosing data to show the public, distorting the true history of CO2 on planet Earth. In reality, CO2 levels have been over ten times higher in the past (over 4,000 ppm).

Today’s CO2 levels are near the lowest they’ve ever been in the history of the planet, and as they rise, plant life across Earth is bring slowly restored.

The left-wing anti-science media is now banning all content that questions the fake science of climate change, hoping to censor any real debate on the subject while pushing their own quack science CO2 “poison” lunacy.

[People] who keep calling for eliminating all CO2 are, in effect, demanding their own mass suicide and the extinction of most life on planet Earth.

It’s the kind of suicidal, idiotic position that can only be pursued by scientifically illiterate, arrogant liberal mobs who know nothing about reality but are fixated on a delusional fairy tale pushed by Al Gore, an anti-science lunatic who profits from “carbon phobia.”

The study published in Nature was authored by Xiao-Peng Song, Matthew C. Hansen, Stephen V. Stehman, Peter V. Potapov, Alexandra Tyukavina, Eric F. Vermote & John R. Townshend. Citation: Nature 560, pages639–643 (2018)

Patrick Buchanan: A cancer grows at the Catholic Church

The real issue is that neither sexuality nor homosexuality happens to be benign.  Attempting to deal with it through celibacy is obviously impossible and protecting in-celibate priests is absurd if you maintain a doctrine of celibacy for priests.
Historically, celibacy simply meant that those in society who were subject to aberrant urges naturally ran to the Church for shelter at the least and companionship with like.  Thus we have this more public problem now that society is prepared to no longer suppress the problem and largely deny its existence.
Expelling all homosexuals from the Church will of course serve to backfire hugely on the secular accommodation with homosexuality and that is counter to good sense as well. The simple answer is no answer, just as denial and suppression were no answer in the past.

The criminal problem is all forms of sexual predation and that remains a minority problem for all aspects of sexuality and in particular that directed against minors by adults which appears to also be a medical brain problem that remains incurable...

It is not just the Catholic Church of course.  They just have the most experience in working with it while also maintaining a doctrine of forgiveness which is just as obviously inappropriate for the incurable.
I do suspect that castration needs to be fully studied as a prospective solution for  the incurable.  This would obviously solve the problem with priests in particular who are having issues with celibacy.  We assume that the process ends sexual desire and it should, but the effects do need to be well understood.

Patrick Buchanan: A cancer grows at the Catholic Church

| Sep 04, 2018 | By Patrick J. Buchanan


“Priests who prey on parochial school children and altar boys are not only sinners, they are criminal predators who belong in penitentiary cells not parish rectories….”

This summer, the sex scandal that has bedeviled the Catholic Church went critical.

First came the stunning revelation that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, former archbishop of Washington and friend to presidents, had for decades been a predator-priest who preyed on seminarians and abused altar boys, and whose depravity was widely known and covered up.

Came then the report of a Pennsylvania grand jury that investigated six dioceses and found that some 300 priests had abused 1,000 children over the last 70 years.

The bishop of Pittsburgh, Donald Wuerl, now cardinal archbishop of Washington, defrocked some of these corrupt priests, but reassigned others to new parishes where new outrages were committed.

This weekend brought the most stunning accusation. 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Vatican envoy to the United States under Pope Benedict XVI, charged that Pope Francis had been told of McCarrick’s abuses, done nothing to sanction him, and that, as “zero tolerance” of sexual abuse is Francis’ own policy, the pope should resign.

In his 11-page letter of accusations, Vigano further charged that there is a powerful “homosexual current” among the Vatican prelates closest to the pope.

What did the pope know and when did he know it?

Not unlike Watergate, the issue here is whether Pope Francis knew what was going on in the Vatican and in his Church, and why he was not more resolute in rooting out the moral squalor.

Orthodox, conservative and traditionalist Catholics are the most visible and vocal demanding an accounting. Progressive and liberal Catholics, to whom Pope Francis and Cardinal McCarrick were seen as allies on issues of sexual morality, have been thrown on the defensive.

Now, accusations alone are neither proof nor evidence.

Yet there is an obligation, an imperative, given the gravity of the revelations, that the Vatican address the charges.

When did Pope Francis become aware of McCarrick’s conduct, which appears to have been widely known? Did he let his close friendship with McCarrick keep him from doing his papal and pastoral duty?

This destructive scandal has been bleeding for decades. Too long. The Church is running out of time. It needs to act decisively now.

Priests who prey on parochial school children and altar boys are not only sinners, they are criminal predators who belong in penitentiary cells not parish rectories. They ought to be handed over to civil authorities.

While none of us is without sin, sexually active and abusive clergy should be severed from the priesthood. There needs to be a purge at the Vatican, removing or retiring bishops, archbishops and cardinals, the revelation of whose past misconduct would further feed this scandal.

For too long, the Catholic faithful have been forced to pay damages and reparations for crimes and sins of predator priests and the hierarchy’s collusion and complicity in covering them up.

And it needs be stated clearly: This is a homosexual scandal.

Almost all of the predators and criminals are male, as are most of the victims: the boys, the teenagers, the young seminarians.

Applicants to the seminary should be vetted the way applicants to the National Security Council are. Those homosexually inclined should be told the priesthood of the Church is not for them, as it is not for women.

Secular society will call this invidious discrimination, but it is based on what Christ taught and how he established his Church.

Inevitably, if the Church is to remain true to herself, the clash with secular society, which now holds that homosexuality is natural and normal and entitled to respect, is going to widen and deepen.

For in traditional Catholic teaching, homosexuality is a psychological and moral disorder, a proclivity toward acts that are intrinsically wrong, and everywhere and always sinful and depraved, and ruinous of character.

The idea of homosexual marriages, recently discovered to be a constitutional right in the USA, remains an absurdity in Catholic doctrine.

If the Church’s highest priority is to coexist peacefully with the world, it will modify, soften, cease to preach, or repudiate these beliefs, and follow the primrose path of so many of our separated Protestant brethren.

But if she does, it will not be the same Church that over centuries accepted martyrdom to remain the faithful custodian of Gospel truths and sacred tradition.

And how has the embrace of modernity and its values advanced the religious faiths whose leaders sought most earnestly to accommodate them?

The Church is going through perhaps its gravest crisis since the Reformation. Since Vatican II, the faithful have been departing, some leaving quietly, others embracing agnosticism or other faiths.

“Who am I to judge?” said the pope when first pressed about the morality of homosexuality.

Undeniably, Francis, and the progressive bishops who urge a new tolerance, a new understanding, a new appreciation of the benign character of homosexuality, have won the plaudits of a secular press that loathed the Church of Pius XII. Of what value are all those wonderful press clippings now, as the chickens come home to roost in Vatican City?

Revolutionary Breakthrough Cancer Treatment


 Read this closely.  What is abundantly apparent is that some form of an oxygen protocol is attractive and capable of producing a strong healing charge in the body. 

I do not think that it is necessary to spend a lot of time at it either.  Managing a surge effect will fire everything up and generate lasting improvement.

Otherwise, all cancer patients should be living in ab oxygen rich environment.  This needs to be done with at least access to a simple reservoir bag.

Revolutionary Breakthrough Cancer Treatment

Published on September 10, 2018
What we are going to look at in this chapter is a new concept in oxygen therapy, or what might be called oxygen manipulation; treatments that would alternate between oxygen deprivation and maximum oxygen saturation to stimulate the immune system, specifically, the white blood cells most responsible for battling cancer.

Researchers at UT Southwestern reported that increased oxygen coincides with a greater delay in tumor growth in an irradiated animal model. Oxygen is a switch hitter depending on its atomic states and so can act as a metabolic oxidizer, a more powerful immune oxidizer in singlet radical configuration, or as an “antioxidant” as it turns acidic protons to water when it mops-up after the process of respiration. Oxygen recharges pH buffers and conserves electrons.

Restoring oxygen levels to that of a normal cell makes the tumors three times more sensitive to treatment. Medical scientists know that oxygen works, it keeps us alive from moment to moment and comes in very handy when treating cancer. The only reason the mainstream of medicine does not embrace oxygen for cancer treatment is that the pharmaceutical companies cannot patent oxygen, which means there is no money in it.

Normal air contains 21 percent oxygen. Raising oxygen concentrations to 60 percent energized immune cells to shrink tumors in mice, researchers report in the March 4 Science Translational Medicine. About 40 percent of cancer-ridden mice put in an oxygen-rich environment survived 60 days or more. In contrast, mice that breathed normal air after getting an injection of lung-cancer cells died within about 30 days, say Stephen Hatfield of Northeastern University in Boston and colleagues.

Boosting oxygen in the air helped mice with cancer battle lung and breast tumors. A provocative study in mice suggests something as simple as breathing in extra oxygen might give immune cells a boost in attacking cancer. With the extra oxygen, "you remove the brake pedal" that cancer can put on tumour-fighting immune cells, said Michail Sitkovsky, director of the New England Inflammation and Tissue Protection Institute at Northeastern University.

Tumors grow rapidly as they suck up all the oxygen around them. Low oxygen causes tumors to release a chemical called adenosine, which makes immune cells sluggish and promotes tumor growth. Boosting oxygen counteracts adenosine and perks up immune cells called T cells and natural killer cells that shrink tumors. "The beauty is that oxygen per se is so well-tolerated," added Dr. Holger Eltzschig, an anesthesiologist at the University of Colorado in Denver.

New Breakthrough Cancer Treatment

It turns out that cancer-fighting cells of the immune system can also improve their performance when starved of oxygen, which happens naturally at high altitudes or done at home at sea level with an add on device to an Exercise with Oxygen Therapy system (EWOT). In a study published in Cell Reports, Weizmann Institute of Science researchers have shown that immune system’s killer T cells destroy cancerous tumors much more effectively after being starved for oxygen.[1] Oxygen-starved T cells proved much more effective at fighting the cancer.

This special form of EWOT, called Contrast Training, starts up with low oxygen setting (high altitude) and then when the body gets starved for oxygen one flips a switch and an avalanche of oxygen slams into the capillaries forcing oxygen into the cells. "Just as altitude training increases endurance in humans, so putting killer T cells through a ‘fitness regimen’ apparently toughens them up," says Prof. Guy Shakhar of Weizmann’s Institute of Science Immunology Department.

Mountain climbers and endurance athletes are not the only ones to benefit from altitude training — that is, learning to perform well under low-oxygen conditions.

Freediving competition.

Eleven-time free-diving world champion Goran Colak during a bout of static apnea; timed breath-holding while immersed in water.

White blood cells respond strongly to altered breathing patterns. We can all voluntarily hold our breath depriving our cells of oxygen. They get hungry for O2 fast but some people, like Freedivers, who dive while holding their breath can hold their breath for over 10 minutes. Scientists at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology used blood samples from elite free-diving athletes to examine how white blood cells of the immune system responds to acute reduction in blood oxygen levels.

They measured total gene expression in the athletes’ white blood cells by a method called full genome microarray analysis. The analysis results were striking: the activity of more than 5000 genes changed in response to the simple effort of breath-holding. This is almost ¼ of all genes found in human cells.

NTNU said, “The most striking finding was a marked increase of the white blood cell type neutrophil granulocytes. These blood cells are programmed for rapid response when the body perceives attacks from intruders; the neutrophils are capable of killing invading cells simply by eating them. But they also have another interesting trait that emerges when oxygen levels drop: neutrophil granulocytes are evolutionary old-timers that stem from an era when the atmosphere contained less oxygen than now, and their modern offspring still prefer environments where the oxygen levels are low.”

We can do EWOT contrast training (costs about two thousand more than a regular EWOT system) and deprive the cells of oxygen and then flood the body’s cells with O2. This will enhance not only the above white cells who thrive on low O2 but also stimulate white blood cell types that use more oxygen – like lymphocytes – which were less active in blood drawn after the athletes held their breath. What we observed are likely to be traces of evolutionary history still embedded in our immune system, visible when oxygen levels change. The study was published in November 2016 in the journal Physiological Genomics.


Professor Ardenne wrote[2], “Because more than 80% of all cancer deaths are caused by metastases, development and evaluation of methods for fighting tumor dissemination should be major tasks of present cancer research. Formation of metastases is favored by both reduced numbers of immune cells in the bloodstream and impaired oxygen transport into tissues. These closely related signs often emerge concomitantly when the organism is endangered by circulating tumor cells released from the original tumor by therapeutic manipulations. From knowledge of these facts the O2-multistep immune-stimulation technique (EWOT) has been developed as a way of diminishing the risk of tumor spread. The process combines temporary elevation of the number of circulating immune cells with continuous improvement of oxygen transport into tissues.

Otto Warburg established that lactic acid production is a fundamental property of cancer. It is carbon dioxide deficiency that impairs circulation and oxygen delivery to tissues. A lack of exercise leads to lower levels of carbon dioxide and this leads to lower levels of oxygen in the body. That is why cancer patients who exercise have a better prognosis and people stay healthier to begin with when they exercise and why EWOT is so wonderful and powerful in dealing with cancer.


Doctors are not interested in using oxygen to directly treat cancer. They do not want to look at the obvious. Hydrogen Medicine, when introduced (as separate treatment) into the oxygen/carbon dioxide matrix, will further increase the effectiveness of treatment. Hydrogen and CO2 hold the keys to successful oxygen therapy.

“In the presence of a large amount of carbon dioxide, the hemoglobin molecule changes its shape slightly, along with its electronic balance, in a way that favors the release of oxygen. The opposite happens in the presence of a high concentration of oxygen and a lower concentration of carbon dioxide,” writes Dr. Ray Peat.

If one wants to use oxygen successfully as a treatment for cancer then attention should be on increasing CO2 levels in the blood and tissues, which can be done with sodium bicarbonate, exercise and slow breathing practices. At the same time hydrogen water and inhalation of hydrogen gas should be employed.

Special Note: One in four adults worldwide doesn’t get enough exercise, putting “more than 1.4 billion adults at risk of developing or exacerbating diseases linked to inactivity,” a new study says. The study, which was conducted by researchers from the World Health Organization (WHO) and published in The Lancet Global Health, found that 27.5% of people across the globe do not meet the WHO’s physical activity guidelines of 75 minutes of vigorous exercise or 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week.

EWOT is a wonderful therapy for inactive patients because the oxygen part of the therapy assists with the exercise. Not enough exercise is a cause of cancer because it is a cause of CO2 deficiencies.

100K Africans Die From Fake Meds Each Year. Can She Save Them?

Unbelievably Nigeria today surpasses India with ten times the population in the numbers of those living in extreme poverty.  One obviously is making remarkable progress while the other is simply refusing to invest in the people.  They even have the money from oil that is mostly stolen.
This has gone on now for half a century and it is horrible.  At least we have a person like this showing what is possible.
Of course, you can count on the military to be fighting someone there as well.  .

100K Africans Die From Fake Meds Each Year. Can She Save Them?

By Oluwatosin Adeshokan


Why you should care

Vivian Nwakah’s startup connects reputable manufacturers with consumers in a bid to save lives.

Vivian Nwakah was told she wouldn’t survive in Nigeria, and she started to believe it. While her glistening dark skin makes her look just like most others in the capital city of Lagos, her American accent means she’s not like everyone else; and all of her friends who arrived around the same time as she did have since moved back to the U.S.

Nwakah’s mission, and the reason she stays, became clear shortly after her arrival in Lagos. Before she had gotten her driver’s license, Nwakah relied on a friend to drive her around. One day, after being diagnosed with malaria, that friend died — not from the disease, but from the fake malaria medication he was taking. In 2017, Nwakah launched Medsaf to help tackle the counterfeit medicines that run rampant in Nigeria.

About 17 percent of Nigeria’s generic drug supply was fake in 2015, down from 40 percent in 2001, according to government data. Improved technology has helped. Yet roughly 116,000 deaths per year in sub-Sarahan Africa are linked to counterfeit or substandard anti-malaria drugs alone, according to the World Health Organization.

We aren’t out to make profits — that’s easy. We are interested in making quality drugs the only drugs in Lagos.

Temitope Awosika, co-founder, Medsaf

Medsaf started as a vitamin company, but it has become a curated platform that connects pharmacies and hospitals with safe, cost-effective medications. When I meet Nwakah, 35, in her office on Lagos’ booming Victoria Island, she and Medsaf co-founder Temitope Awosika are bent over a laptop discussing numbers and new distribution targets as they plot a regional expansion. Because Nigeria accounts for more than 60 percent of the drug supply in West Africa, the counterfeit drug problem extends far beyond its borders.

Nwakah grew up in the Chicago area. Her father left Nigeria in the early 1970s, after the civil war, with several friends, all determined to study in the United States and become lawyers, doctors and bankers — to live out the American Dream with their families. Nwakah’s father became a banker and provided a comfortable life for his daughter. Both her parents have a complicated relationship with their homeland. “While my family is proud of the work I’m doing, they sometimes still think I won’t last in Nigeria,” she says.

Nwakah followed the highly educated path established by her father and started traveling abroad while enrolled in an international MBA program at Georgia State University. She studied in Rio de Janeiro and Paris before moving to Lagos to intern at a cable television company, where she made little more than $50 a month. Since then, she has moved across industries, with her most recent stint as a vice president for a Lagos-based clean energy company looking to help resolve the issue of Nigeria’s erratic power supply for local corporations.

The death of Nwakah’s friend inspired her to team up with Awosika, a pharmacist by training whom she met via mutual friends, to start Vitamins.ng. But as they surveyed manufacturers, hospitals, pharmacies and drug consumers, their focus turned to medicines. Trying to create a different kind of culture proved difficult, as sales reps typically “go outside under the scorching sun to sell and meet a quota,” Nwakah says, instead of the relationship-focused approach that she and Awosika favor. Medsaf’s staff has grown to 10 people in Lagos, mostly scientists and pharmacists, and there is another smaller team in Portugal to manage the website.

While Nwakah doesn’t feel embraced in Nigeria, her stubbornness and refusal to be fake are what make her perfect to run a business in the country, according to her co-founder. “From the very beginning, Vivian had a clear idea of how we needed to run, and that vision has helped us make better decisions, including the hard decisions,” Awosika says. “We are currently on course to [meet] all of our targets. We aren’t out to make profits — that’s easy. We are interested in making quality drugs the only drugs in Lagos.”

Since its launch, Medsaf has partnered with more than 500 pharmacies and close to 100 hospitals to sell medication around the country, processing 150 million doses of drugs. Funded primarily out of pocket, the startup is generating between $15,000 and $20,000 per month. But the bureaucratic hurdles to clear in getting these drugs to consumers are daunting. “Most of the drugs needed in Nigeria are either not available or not composed properly, and getting them manufactured and then registered in Nigeria tends to be a serious problem,” Nwakah says.

While the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria gave a “good faith” registration and induction to the startup, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) — which is well-attuned to the fake drugs crisis — can be more demanding. Nwakah says Medsaf must cover travel expenses for NAFDAC officials to inspect the startup’s drug manufacturers, most of which are outside Nigeria.

Medsaf is a valuable validator for medicines, but the biggest problem for the startup is one it cannot solve: poverty. Nigeria recently overtook India as the world’s poverty capital — with 87 million people living in extreme poverty. Though it is falling, inflation remains above 11 percent, further sapping purchasing power. “Nobody sets out to buy fake drugs, but with so many unregulated versions in shops and kiosks without licenses that are cheaper, the average poor Nigerian will take it,” says Zubair Abdulahi, a doctor who has worked in the biggest teaching hospital in Lagos. “Nigeria in recent years has turned into a dumping ground for lesser-quality variants from other countries. And without a government clampdown, Medsaf’s efforts, while noble, will not quite do anything constructive.”

Nwakah is more focused on finding a new and better way to distribute safe, effective medicines in Nigeria, and hopes to raise $5 million in capital and expand to 4,000 medical facilities. She won’t solve her adopted country’s ills herself, but if one malaria sufferer can get lifesaving instead of life-ending medicine, it’s worth it.