Castro outlives Seeger

 

Notorious American Stalinist asswipe and banjo player Pete Seeger, has reportedly predeceased Stalinist Dictator Fidel Castro; for those of you who may have been taking bets, or may care in any way.

Pete Seeger in style

Not Pete Seeger

something in the water apparently

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among those relative few who might care, are people who liked or were emotionally linked to, the so-called folk music movement of the 1930s to 1960’s.

Seeger’s father Charles, was a musicologist who developed an interest in using folk music as a vehicle for social protest movements. He, Charles, held a position as, ” … Deputy Director of the Federal Music Project, part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) …”  [Routledge History of Social Protest in Popular Music, note 21 page 43 – from Internet]

Hey thanks FDR. Harry Hopkins, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss … a real string of government funded New Deal hits there if you know what I mean.

Anyway, this led to the father introducing the son to some opportunities.

“According to an interview with Seeger posted on http://www.marist.edu, where Seeger served as a Summer Scholar in 1996, the Great Depression hit his family hard …
He received a scholarship to Harvard and, according to the Harvard University Gazette, entered in 1936 and studied sociology. He helped run, drew cartoons and wrote stories for the Harvard Progressive, a monthly publication. He left the school in 1938 without graduating. …
…  in 1935, Charles Seeger [Pete Seeger’s father] took a job in Washington, D.C., in the music division of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration. While there, Charles Seeger met Alan Lomax, who with his father, John Lomax, helped develop the Library of Congress’ Archive of American Folk Song.
Charles Seeger put his son in touch with Alan Lomax and the rest is, literally, history.”

 

As “Homer Simpson Goes to Washington” puts it,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/homer-simpson-goes-to-washington-joseph-j-foy/1101164733?ean=9780813138916

 

What followed The Guardian states, was that:

“Seeger made his first recordings in New York in 1940 with the Almanac Singers musical collective. The album Talking Union (1941-42) was adopted by American labour activists for generations, and the group, which was soon joined by the folk singer Woodie Guthrie, also recorded anti-war ballads, which proved embarrassing when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and the American left became ferociously patriotic.”

 

Pete Seeger died at ninety four years old, while still a lousy communist. A fraud, singing of freedom while an ideological enemy of it.  Some people, just never learn. Maybe they can’t.

Was Obama’s Real Job to Destroy America’s Moral & Ethical Foundations?

This is a posting on an email type website called the “LAST RESISTANCE” This is the post, but go to this site since the List starting with “Push to legalize same-sex marriage” and all items following this have a LINK to the real story. This is just a list, but really not the whole posting. It is worth the time to look at that list and contents. And remember this on the disatorous State of the Splintering Union Address on Tuesday. Someone suggested a drinking game everytime BO Blames someone else for the disaster he is reigning (as a king) over. I responded that you would be dead in 15 minutes from alcohol poisoning. Someone else thought that it would only take 10 minutes. For safety’s sake, don’t do it. 🙂 But as much as BO’s talking point experts say how great things are. Just look at the fake Unemployment of the BLS U-3 Chart of 6.7%, a more realistic number is the BLS U-6 chart saying 13.1%, but my gut says it’s higher than that. People participating in employment is shrinking. There are loads of websites showing a variety of stories saying 6.7% to much higher. But it’s a sales job from the country’s perma-liar.

Was Obama’s Real Job to Destroy America’s Moral & Ethical Foundations?
Posted By Dave Jolly on Jan 24, 2014

It should be obvious to everyone that Barack Hussein Obama’s sudden rise to power had to be orchestrated by some very powerful and wealthy people. We can speculate who some of them are, but needless to say, Obama was not capable of pulling off political victories on his own.
So what was the purpose behind Obama’s push to power? What was his real job that his puppet masters gave him?

After five years in office, I believe that the real job the power tycoons gave Obama was to destroy the moral and ethical values and foundations of America. Think about what Obama has done or is trying to do since taking office:

Push to legalize same-sex marriage
Allowed homosexuals in the military
Supports the legalization of marijuana
Destroying religious rights
Destroying family values
Destroying parental rights
Made racial tensions worse, not better
Destroying freedom of speech
Destroying and defying US Constitution
Destroying jobs
Trying to destroy right to bear firearms
Destroying powers of Congress by overriding them
Trying to destroy conservatives
Assumed presidency without proving eligibility
Aiding and abetting America’s enemies
Destroying right to life
Destroying economy
Weakening the military
Turned schools into brainwashing institutions
Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens
Can you list anything positive that Obama has done since taking office in January 2009? I can’t. So ask yourself what was the real task given him by his secret handlers?

The reason behind it is simple. Once the moral and ethical values of Americans had been destroyed, the hidden power tycoons could take complete control of the nation. And they’re getting very close to accomplishing their goal.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4493/obamas-real-job-destroy-americas-moral-ethical-foundations/#JfphdlqkF0D0wHiO.99

The Perfect Martini

 

Anyone who has drunk, or imbibed since we don’t want to sound as if we are alluding to intoxication, a sufficient number of martinis to use the term “perfect martini” also knows that there is really no such thing as a perfect martini. Even martinis made to your favorite recipe will obviously vary to some significant degree with the care which one takes – or doesn’t – in making (proportioning) the drink and with the particular brands of ingredients used.

That rocks glass in your hand on the patio in July, the glass sloshingly filled with cubes and gin and vermouth and a couple of olives, and which you hold in the one hand as you flip steaks on the grill with the other, holds the same nominal drink as that carefully proportioned vodka and vermouth mix poured from a shaker into a coupe glass, and then garnished with a twist of lemon zest.

In the name of decency, there are some limits though.

For example, although either gin or vodka (or both together, Mr. Bond) may be used or substituted, most people would agree that no matter how stingy the application may be,  a “martini” made without any vermouth is just not really a martini as most of us understand it.

Not so much vermouth!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of vermouth, many of us, myself for instance, had become comfortably accustomed to Noilly Prat only to discover a couple of years ago that something awful had happened. I first though I had gotten a bad bottle. Instead of the usual clear liquid I was used to seeing, out came a yellow-greenish fluid with a more pronounced taste, smell, and what seemed to me to be oily character. It tasted like the abominable Gallo vermouth. It made my martini undrinkable. Until recently I could not come up with a satisfactory explanation as to what went wrong. Abandoning my theory of a heat spoiled bottle at the second disappointment, I figured my memory of what I like must have been off … very off somehow.

Turns out that the company had been bought out, and the new ownership of Noilly Prat decided that Americans would henceforth receive the European version of their “dry” vermouth; which was distinctly heavier in scent and taste than that to which we were accustomed. Apparently Noilly had for some years, and long before I ever approached a martini glass, been offering a specially dry version for the North American market. After grimacing my way through those last unwitting purchases of the Euro-style and highly scented version of their “dry”, I dropped any pretense of brand loyalty and grabbed a bottle of Martini & Rossi off the shelf the next time out. According to the blog “The Gray Report” (and Gray himself actually prefers the Euro-version), many others did as well. I certainly hated it. Enough people agreed with me implies Gray, to cause sales to plummet sufficient to get management’s attention and to promise to bring back the American version to this market.

So far, I haven’t seen it. Though I can’t say I have looked very hard.

As far as the mix portions go, I for one, have over the years developed a preference for what some web sites, Vermouth101.c0m for instance, are calling a 1950’s mix … basically 3 measures of gin or vodka to one half measure (I’m not using the technical term for “measure” here) of dry vermouth. So for example, a measure might be one of those ounce-and-a-half shot glasses. Then, three full shot glasses of gin, and one half of that ounce and a half shot glass, of vermouth.

You will notice too that as Mr. Niven above protectively recoils from that bottle of vermouth proffered by the cheerfully smiling pixie, he is simultaneously cradling an almost fishbowl sized snifter, which he’s using as the martini mixing glass.

He obviously wants his martini as dry as possible. And I agree to some extent as I mentioned just above.

But I would not go so far as the version of martini supposedly liked best when I first started drinking them during that late 1980s and 1990’s era sometimes credited with the return of the cocktail to prominence. That version, was reportedly almost pure gin or vodka, and I found it as objectionable to my palate as the early 20th century version said to be preferred by FDR: a two gin to one vermouth mix with plenty of brine added. I tried it. Yech. No wonder FDR had a stroke.

Well, no accounting for the taste of certain statist liberals who smoke cigarettes from holders.

We’ve already addressed what are from my point of view the preferable proportions of the two main ingredients in the mix. How they are mixed together is another matter.

The phrase “shaken not stirred” has become a painful cliche that causes me to actually wince when hearing it. But, that doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer the drink mixed that way. In fact, while doing research – well, while idly scanning various books and other websites for confirmation of my own prejudices – I read that martinis were originally meant to be made that way: shaken.

By the time the James Bond novel Casino Royale was published for Ian Fleming in 1953, in the very year Mr. Niven was saving his bowl of gin in “The Moon is Blue” from the debasement of too much, or almost any vermouth, the mixing process seems to have changed from shaking to stirring. Or at least swirling the mix with cubes.

Which leads us to another painful cliche: one which expresses alarm over the possibility of “bruising the gin”.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, so I can’t explain it to you. And when I hear it, I can only picture some dissipated country club type given to the pointless regurgitation of current mythologies as a way of cementing his image as one who is in need of constantly cementing his image. Out of respect to our early 1950s motif here, I’ll include an image of just that type of fellow as portrayed by actor Louis Calhern, in yet another William Holden movie of that same era, “Executive Suite”.

Better not be bruised!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any event, I not only have a fictional spy on my shaken side, I apparently have the British medical establishment. You may be thinking I am referring to a recent series of articles based on the premise that James Bond liked his martinis shaken and not stirred because had he been a real person who drank as much as seemingly recorded in the spy novels he, would have had a case of the shakes which made stirring impossible … or something like that.

However, that particular bit of politically motivated kill-joy posturing by the PC crowd is not what I am referring to. What I am citing here is an article in the British Journal of Medicine titled “Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis”.

Shaken martinis were more effective in deactivating hydrogen peroxide than the stirred variety, and both were more effective than gin or vermouth alone (0.072% of peroxide control for shaken martini, 0.157% for stirred v 58.3% for gin and 1.90% for vermouth). The reason for this is not clear, but it may well not involve the facile oxidation of reactive martini components: control martinis through which either oxygen or nitrogen was bubbled did not differ in their ability to deactivate hydrogen peroxide (0.061% v 0.057%) and did not differ from the shaken martini. Moreover, preliminary experiments indicate that martinis are less well endowed with polyphenols than Sauvignon white wine or Scotch whisky (0.056 mmol/l (catechin equivalents) shaken, 0.060 mmol/l stirred v 0.592 mmol/l wine, 0.575 mmol/l whisky).

 

With authorities like that behind you, who needs some comic book spy on your side?

How’s it to be served then?  In what kind of glass? A “martini glass” obviously?

Well, there are different theories. I always specified a rocks glass in restaurants. Occasionally a self-confident middle aged waiter in the tonier kind place would good naturedly admonish me with an “Oh sir! Not really!” and I’d give in and have it in a stemmed glass. I’ve kind of gotten used to them by now. The design is supposed to have a certain logic, and I admit that the drink may taste somewhat better in one. Or at least more like an aperitif to be savored, than a concoction to be guzzled.

Still, I like a squat tumbler  in some situations. Summer evening grilling is good time to load up with ice, in my opinion; and a double old fashioned glass works really well for that.

But the classic martini glass is making a bit of comeback without any assistance from me. That is to say, when I say “classic”, a sub 7 ounce capacity glass with a short pulled stem, rather than one of those 12 ounce glass funnels ill balanced on a 6 inch pillar, which has been the popular version for the last 30 or so years.

As an admirable return to basics, take this well proportioned glass sold this Christmas season as an example. Not a pulled stem coupe with that little extra cusp in the bottom (that is to say not one obviously shaped like a mold of Marie Antoinette’s left you know what …) it’s nonetheless pretty appealing all the same.

Short stemmed, made in Poland, and called “True martini” glass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, you can still get the champagne coupe/cocktail glasses common in the early 60’s as well. From Germany, just for you: at two for sixty or seventy dollars a pair.

Coupe type glass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what’s the perfect martini? I don’t know really, and haven’t the authority to say. Make it 6 to one.  Vodka or gin depending on mood. Rocks or Martini glass depending. Two cubes with the former, or just a bit of cracked ice in the latter.  Mix shaken, well, with ice. Poured over a stuffed olive, and a twist of zest added last. Let sit about a minute. Then …

That’s perfect enough for me.

You, are entitled to your own opinion of course.

 

A satisfied customer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Much Better – No Hype of Cooling or Warming Essay on the Climate Issue

Finally found a Common Sense – No Preaching of Warming or Cooling, just a straight here’s the facts ma’am, just the Facts.

Timo Niroma:
Sunspots: The 200-year sunspot cycle is also a weather cycle.
A 2000-year historical perspective.

— The Roman Empire and its demise.
— The Mayan Classic Period.
— When the Nile froze in 829 AD.
— Why is it Iceland and Greenland and not vice versa?
— Tambora did not cause it.
— The spotless century 200 AD.
— The recent warming caused by Sun.
— The 200-year weather pattern.

A 2000-year historical perspective

The other supercycle, besides the Gleissberg, that most often is referred to in the present-day data, is a 200-year supercycle. The Gleissberg cycle is usually cited with one of two values, accurately as 78 years, inaccurately as 80 years, but the 200-year cycle has no agreed-upon value, mostly the values referred to are from 180 to 220 years.

Explicitly there is no 200-year cycle in the Elatina data, but I have interpreted that the 29.2 “sawtooth pattern” represents a cycle of 173 years, which means that it may be a variant of the 200-year cycle. In addition, the longest of the remaining Elatina supercycles is 105 years. There is also a 52-year cycle, which is not seen in today’s data. One interpretation could be that the corresponding cycles today are 105 (weak) and 210 (strong) years. There are indications that the possible 200-year cycle really oscillates today. Would this hint to limits of 170 and 210 years in Elatina data, corresponding to from 180 to 220 years in today’s data. That may mean a change in the Sun’s cyclicity or in the Earth’s rotation rate or rather a mixup of these both factors.

The Gleissberg cycle has no obvious subcycles (other than the seven basic cycles), but the 200-year cycle clearly consists of two parts of 100 years, which oscillate between 80 and 120 years and is intertwined with the Gleissberg cycle. It seems that the cycle 120/60/30 years or maybe more accurately 26.5/53/106/212 years are also weather cycles. At least at the moment (2001) the 200-year cycle seems to have a value of 211.4 years.

The following minima are minima smoothed by one sunspot cycle or 11 years (actually they are low maxima per cycle). The minima between the Sporer minimum in 1496+-1 and the Maunder minimum in 1695 is 198-200 years. The minima between the Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum in 1815 is 120 years. There are indications of a warm spell beginning around 1755. Thus we have here a 55-60-year weather cycle: around 1870 began a cold spell which had its coldest phase around 1900, 1930’s had a warm spell, 1960’s had a cold spell, 1990’s again a warm spell, which culminated in 1998. I predict that the Sun is now going towards low intensity, and the warm spell ends in the 2010’s. The 2020’s will again be a cold decade.

But everything is relative. The colder spells are not so cold as the earlier ones and warmer spells are a little warmer than the previous ones. This is caused by a larger oscillation, the 100/200/400-year oscillation. The Medieval warm lasted from about 930 to 1300, with an aftermath about 1350-1370. The Little Ice Age began after that getting a real escalation about 1400 and having two great (Sporer and Maunder) and some smaller really cold periods. After the first warm period about 1760-1800, there was the Dalton minimum from 1800 to 1830, from which we are now going again towards a warmer period, compared to the Medieval maximum.

“The disturbances of the early third century were nothing compared with what would follow the end of the Severan dynasty in 235 AD. The half century from 235 to 284 AD was a period of unparalleled crisis, during which the Roman Enmpire nearly came to an end… This is a period for which comparatively little documentation exists, but that in itself may be symptomatic… Barbarian incursions were frequent and ruinous between 248 and 268… It was Diocletian who, in a reign from 284 to his voluntary abdication in 305, quelled the barbarians, defeated usurpers, and at the same time initiated sweeping political and economic changes that transformed the nature of the Empire, and ensured its survival for a while longer… In the mid fifth century the West was gradually lost. Areas like Spain and Africa were temporarily or permanently lost to the barbarians… In 439 Vandals took Carthage… In the 20 years following the death of Valentinian III (455 AD), the Roman Army proper dwindled to nothing.” (Tainter 1988, pp. 137-148).

Was there something like the Sporer minimum in the 200’s and Maunder minimum in the 400’s or rather vice versa as the following shows? What makes this a relevant question is that according to Schove there was only 7 cycles from 192 AD to 302 AD. This means that there most probably was 7 Jovian years plus a 27 year cessation. A real mother of all Maunders. Was this the reason for the Barbarian invasions at that time? Did they escape the terrible cold? And when the second cold spell came 200 years later, were also the Vandals attacking for the reason of the cold weather? Did the mighty Roman Army dwindle to nothing in just 20 years for this same reason?

There were 220 years between the Barbarian incursions from 230 AD to 270 AD and demise of the Roman Army after the Vandals from 450 AD to 490 AD.

Was it the warming of the climate that gave Diocletian and his followers the chance to revive The Roman Empire? There is one other historical moment whose simultaneous appearance gives this thought some credence. “The earliest inscriptions so far discovered in recognized Mayan lands are dated AD 292 and 320, dates on the threshold of the splendid Classic Period… The earliest date mentioned on inscriptions at Uaxactun is AD 328…” (Whitlock 1976). There is no known Columbus or other connector at that time between The Roman Empire and the Mayans.

Now it seems like this 100/200-year Maunder-like cyclity continued. The period of 200 years seems to oscillate between 180 and 220 years. The 220 is best approximated by 100+120 years and the 180 years by 60+120 years.

120 years of warm period passed. Then in 608 AD Euphrates froze. After the warm 700’s, in 829 AD Nile froze (Cambridge CCNet 1998). The century of 800’s belong to the dark ages. Again we have here 220 years.

“Another period of expansion [of the Mayas] extended from AD 731-90, when three splendid new centres were founded… Soon afterwards decline set in…” (Whitlock 1976).” “…the Maya of the Southern Lowlands, whose society underwent a rapid, dramatic, and justly famous collapse between about 790 and 890 AD.” (Tainter 1988, pp. 152-153). “There is no trace of the large-scale destruction and fires which would have marked an invasion or an earth-quake.” (Whitlock 1976, p. 26).

“The Norwegian farmer Folke Vilgerdson made the first attempt to settle in Iceland in about 865 AD… He lost his cattle in a severe winter and disappointed went back to Norway after having seen a fjord filled up by sea ice. Therefore he called the country Iceland. Only a few years later, in 874, Ingolf Arnason succeeded. He was followed by many others, and settlement was completed in 930 AD… In 982, Erik the Red discovered new land West of Iceland. He called it Greenland; according to the Greenlander Saga this was only to persuade people to follow him… But the O(18) curve suggests that the name described a reality… So the drastic climatic change [warming] late in the ninth century may be part of the reason why Iceland and Greenland did not get the opposite names.” (Dansgaard: Palaeo-Climatic Studies on Ice Cores, in Oeschger, Messerli and Svilar, 1980).

“The beneficent times came to an end. Sea ice and stormier seas made the passages between Norway, Iceland and Greenland more difficult after AD 1200… In mainland Europe, disastrous harvests were experienced in the latter part of the thirteenth and in the early fourteenth century.” (Grove 1988, pp. 1-2). The cold decades of 1680-1700 are very well documented, at least in Europe. (See for example Rothlisberger 1986). The glaciers in Alps increased, there was no good wine, harvests were a catastrophe and famine killed like the black death centuries before. Cold was also the decade of 1810-1820, including “the summer that did not come” or a “year without summer”. The Tambora volcanic eruption has been accused for this summerless year 1816. Maybe it helped a little, but the cold spell had already begun from the spotless year 1810, with which Tambora had nothing to do.

If we take the Schove estimates of the maximum magnitudes (R(M)) from the period 1500-1750 and the measurements from 1750, we get (the rounding for exact centuries done only to make the general picture clear):

1400-1520 ? cold (Sporer minimum)
1520-1640 107 warm
1640-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum)
1700-1805 114 warm
1805-1925 95 cold (Dalton minimum)
1925-2010 138 warm
2010-2110 ? cold?

So the supercyclic rise is a very long process, maybe a 1000- or a 2000-cycle or even longer. The Sun seems to be much more irregular than we ever have imagined. The historical data seem to show that the 200-year oscillation has been there at least since 200 AD. The even centuries seem to be have been cold, odd ones warm, not to the accuracy of year, but in the average anyway. If a spotless sun during the third century caused the process of the Great Roman Empire demise to begin, we have to write the history books anew.

The other thing that seems apparent is that the general warming trend has been going on at least 1,800 years so that the third century AD may be the coldest century for at least 2000 years. Its only rival is the latter part of the 17th century. 1690’s may have been almost as cold as the years 250 to 270. The cold periods later during the first millennium AD are more dramatical than the Little Ice Age thousand years later. On the other hand we may now live in the second mildest climate Anno Domini. Warmer periods seem to have occurred only from about 930 to 1200 AD with an interruption about 1030-1080. In mind the Roman Warm Period 1000 years earlier in mind, we may speculate that warm periods last about 350 years and really warm episodes don’t exceed 100 years. Does this imply a sudden end to today’s warm period in 2030-2050 (warming began in 1700, and the real warm period in 1930). This may even have greater implications to the whole Holocene climate study and possibly to ice age theories also. Considering the evidence it looks like a megalomaniac idea that the recent rise of half a degree would have been caused by man. So great are the natural variations. But man has always wanted to be in the center of the world.

One solar-based climate change may have a period of about 1050 years. There are many reports of a cold period beginning about 850BC (Geel et al.: Solar Forcing of Abrupt Climate Change around 850 Calendar Years BC), there begins around 200 AD a period of low cycles which transforms into a cold period around 230 AD (see above), consisting of a maximum length Gleissberg cycle and lastly the low periods beginning in 1200 AD (Schove) with an interruption in 1250-1280 leading to the rapid deterioration of the climate beginning about 1300 AD, which led to the end for the Medieval Maximum and for example to the demise of the Greenland habitat and forced Europeans to invent the warming system for their houses. The cold and warm period seems to have some 1000-1100 year oscillation.

More about Gleissberg cycle: http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gleissb.htm

Article – Read This
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/some200.htm

Castro

I was going to title this “Castro on the Brink of Hell”.

But most Christians, especially those visiting this site would probably blanch at that,  and feel that it was a call far beyond my right to make. Not only being presumptuous in the very making, but a call, if there were such a fate possible, too terrible to smirk over.

Yet, one cannot help but wonder what kind of cosmic justice would be served by granting these post-human, anti-human, morally deconstructed and murderous entities of the left, mercy.

But we balk. This limit on how far we are willing to go, is where the leftist appetite thing, the collectivist seeker of power over other men, has what appears to be a Darwinian at least, advantage over those humans who do recognize moral and ethical boundaries, and who try to deduce behavioral standards from principles that extend beyond their own brute impulses.

The left’s power and their seeming advantage lies in their liberation from all ethical and moral standards. But of course, this may well entail their journey beyond what it even means to be human.

But, whatever their lack of moral inhibitions may do for them now, one limit these human demons, these tyrants of left cannot evade, is time.

Think of Castro alive forever, and you have some reasonable facsimile of hell on earth; that is to say, of the leftist mind and personality poured out upon, and dominating everyone with its endlessly fulminating nihilism and resentments.

Here is one of them with whom time has caught up. The God of Progressive Hollywood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How much longer shall he reign?

They must be thanking the powers they revere that they still have Obama.

The POLAR VORTEX – Panic In The Streets (Oh, It’s Winter)

For a few days now there has been panic in the Streets over, wait, it’s coming, Oh IT’S WINTER. We are being warned about this MONSTER from THE NORTH POLE, the DREADED POLAR VORTEX. Guess what, it’s to Winter what Hurricanes are to Summer. In Momma Nature’s normal fashion, called weather, the world does get hot, and the world does get cold. I’ve seen these winter outbreaks of cold all the time. Today’s biggest laugh from the purveyor’s of weather panic, the GlowBall Warming Phanatics, like Algore, the Polar Vortex is a new phenomena caused by Glowball Warming. This is as hilarious as the GlowBall Warming hunters going to Antarctica looking for existence of GlowBall Warming in the height of the Southern Hemisphere’s SUMMER, only to get stuck in the ICE, the rescue ship from China is now stuck in the ice, and another rescue ship from Australia decided not to get stuck. But America to the rescue with its super Ice Breaker called the Polar Star. The world is closing today and tomorrow. GlowBall Warming’s Icy Winds and Temperature are just too cold. My friends in Finland Laugh at this which is their normal winter. After all, who can’t handle -20C, -4F?
(A little help from the editor of 1st Street Journal)

It’s 2014 – Now How Will We Be Screwed?