• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


FireFox last won the day on September 27 2015

FireFox had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

98 Excellent

About FireFox

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,137 profile views
  1. 'Safe zone' for women aims to stop New Year's refugee sex attacks in Berlin New Year's Eve celebrations in Berlin will see a "safe zone" for women for the first time in the city's history. Organizers of the Brandenburg Gate party are hoping to prevent mob attacks similar to those that occurred in Cologne two years ago. Hundreds of women were attacked by gangs of men with migrant backgrounds during New Year's Eve celebrations in 2015. The incident happened after Germany had accepted a record influx of more than one million migrants. The German capital will this year have a "safety zone" where Red Cross helpers will look after women who feel harassed or threatened. Additional safety precautions, including a ban on large bags, rucksacks, glass bottles and alcoholic drinks, will also be enforced. COLD PUTS SOME NEW YEAR'S EVENTS ON ICE Berlin police have issued advice to women attending the celebrations, encouraging them to seek help if they feel threatened and to avoid carrying a valuable bag. About 500 security personnel will be at the Brandenburg Gate party, as well as more than 1,000 extra police officers patrolling the city. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to turn out for the celebrations.
  2. Turn it up.

    I love the shot of the P38 @ about 0.49 seconds...made a model of that in my youth (many moons ago!). 1:25 ain't bad either.
  3. Turn it up.

    Man is there some good footage here. Better on full screen, sound loud...
  4. Media No Ka Koi

    The mainstream media are really just the best aren't they...? CNN leads media trump bashing over fake Koi-feeding news President Trump and Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe carried on an old tradition of feeding carp at a Koi pond at Alaska Palace in Tokyo when CNN and the rest of the mainstream media decided to twist the narrative to make Trump appear like a buffoon. Liberal network CNN ran a ridiculous headline, “Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into Koi pond,” complete with a misleading tweet from reporter Veronica Rocha that only shows the Trump dumping the entire box of food. Her footage is conveniently edited to skip Abe doing the same thing. IN fact, Abe dumped his entire box of fish food into the pond and Trump followed while the Prime Minister of Japan smiled. However, the anti-Trump media has been cropping the video to only show Trump’s actions.
  5. Must have sounded good at ground level... (HD...view on wide screen)
  6. Thales New 2020 Cockpit

    Beam me up Scotty.
  7. Music Break!

  8. I agree with the dude on the left...looks like he's sized things up correctly.
  9. The Friday Funny

    The Outdoorsman... During his physical, the doctor asked Eric, the patient, about his daily activity level. He described a typical day this way: "Well, yesterday afternoon, I waded along the edge of a lake, drank eight beers, escaped from wild dogs in the heavy brush, marched up and down several rocky hills, stood in a patch of poison ivy, crawled out of quicksand, jumped away from an aggressive rattlesnake and took four leaks behind big trees." Inspired by the story, the doctor said, "You must be one hell of an outdoors man!" "No," he replied, "I'm just a lousy golfer."
  10. Hello gator. I found this interesting... Guest essay by Michel de Rougemont Heretic? You’re welcome! Hysteric? Please cool down! We hear that global warming is highly dependent on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this gas that is required to sustain life on Earth and that is also emitted when burning flammable stuff, such as wood, coal, mineral and organic oils, or methane. If you are told “this depends on that”, you are invited to examine available data observed over time to draw a representation of this on the y-axis vs. that on the x-axis. So, in all logic, you should be interested in a representation of the temperature evolution in dependence of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Yes, you should, but, looking hard into the latest IPCC Report (the fifth of Working Group I, to be precise), no diagram of that sort can be found among its 1535 pages. So, asks the judge: what is the evidence that the victim was attacked by the suspect? And the expert is not able, or willing, to provide any evidence. Is he actually an expert, or an incompetent prosecutor? Among the available observed climate data are the so-called temperature anomalies (Ta), summarized as global monthly means, and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) over the same time span. But time line diagrams show us only that, since the beginning of the industrial era, the global mean temperature went up by 0.8 to 1 °C, and [CO2] increased from 280 ppm to 405 ppm. So, what? The suspect was there while the victim developed fever, is it enough evidence of culpability? As for any circumstantial fact, the answer must obviously be no. Presence is required, but is not sufficient to prove anything. The next question is then: how fast was warming going on when [CO2] was low, and when it is now high? If a correlation can be shown, then a stronger case against the alleged culprit could be opened. Using a simple spreadsheet to calculate these changes, and smoothing them over a 7-year filter[1] so that a cloud of data points can be seen as a trend line, the following diagram is obtained: Zero on the y-axis means that neither warming nor cooling takes place. At high [CO2] some cooling was observed, at lower [CO2] high warming rates were observed. Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it. Sorry, no statistical significance, no hint of a proof! Why do the IPCC experts avoid looking at such simple relationship? I can only guess, and my guess is that they are either blinded by their greenhouse assumption, thus faithfully ignoring any other indices, or they deliberately hide what would prevent them to obtain a capital punishment sentence. In any case they behave away from any scientific honesty. Mainstream yes, but a highly polluted stream. This is all the available observational data; any other relationships are conjectures, however plausible they might be, no evidence. Therefore, all possible heretical interpretations must be made, for example that one: from all possible known and unknown causes of the observed global warming, the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may have, or not, a contributing role. No scepticism, no advocacy, no unsustainable allegation, plain factual view. I have only one questions to ask to all mainstream climate-experts, and their gullible followers in the public, the media, and in the political world: What observational evidence can you provide to sustain the allegation that temperature is “very likely” and mostly driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions? Notes: Originally published here: Contrary to almost all mainstream climate scientists whose sustained professional life depends on an on-going climate alarmism, including peer reviewers, I have no conflict of interest in relation with this subject. My sources are all publicly available data series. I can provide my spreadsheets to anyone who asks politely via the contact page of this blog. [1] Why seven years? Because it’s uneven, large enough but not too long, and it is already documented in a famous book.
  11. Trump Wins

    Finally, some clarity?...
  12. Love the final 4 sentences... Comey exonerates Trump – so much for obstruction James Comey’s public testimony exonerates President Trump of obstruction of justice. To put it simply, “hoping” that something happens is not a crime. The law demands much more than that. Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act “corruptly.” The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey. Instead, the fired FBI Director recounts how President Trump expressed compassion for the man he dismissed as his National Security Adviser, calling Michael Flynn “a good guy” who “has been through a lot.” Comey agreed. Then the president said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” The president’s statement is not an order or mandate. It is not even a “request,” though Comey insists he understood it to be. But even if we construe it as such, it is not enough to constitute obstruction. Not even close. There must be a “corrupt” act that accompanies the directive. For example, if the president had said, “Bury whatever incriminating evidence you have, exonerate Flynn, and terminate the investigation of him entirely… or I will fire you.” That is, arguably, obstruction. It includes two corrupt elements –a threat and concealing evidence. However, this is not what happened. Comey knows all this. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, posed the key question: “Do you know of any case in which someone has been charged with obstruction based on the word ‘hope’?” Comey answered, “I don’t.” On that point, Comey is correct. Hoping or wishing for an outcome bears no resemblance to the crime of obstruction as defined not just by statute, but by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2005 case of Arthur Anderson v. United States. Intelligence Committee Chairman, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., asked Comey quite directly, “Was the president trying to obstruct justice?” As expected, Comey demurred by claiming, “It’s not for me to say.” While there is no legal basis for declining to answer the pivotal question, Comey dodged it for a reason. If he said, under oath, that he regarded the president’s words as obstruction, Comey would have incriminated himself in a crime known as “misprision of felony.” As explained in an earlier column, the law imposes an affirmative duty on federal officials, like Comey, to immediately report knowledge of a felony such as obstruction to a person in authority. In the case of an FBI Director, his superior is the Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice. Comey admitted he did not tell anyone at DOJ. His excuses were legally vacuous. Thus, one can conclude that Comey either did not believe the president obstructed justice (and, therefore, had no duty to report it) or he did not want to put himself in legal jeopardy. Comey was pressed on the issue. Unbelievably, he claimed he did not know whether FBI agents have a duty to report a crime that has been committed: Question: “You’re unsure whether they would have a legal duty?” Answer: “That’s a good question. I’ve not thought about that before. (pause) There is a statute that prohibits misprision of a felony -- knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it. But this is a different question.” No, Mr. Comey, it is not a different question. It is a fundamental legal obligation for all people who serve in law enforcement. The head of the FBI should know that. Regardless, the entire question of obstruction was rendered moot and meaningless by Comey himself when he endorsed what constitutional scholars, including Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, have long maintained. That is, the president has the constitutional authority to stop investigations and prosecutions. “I’m not a legal scholar…but as a legal matter, the president is head of the executive branch and could direct, in theory, that anybody be investigated or not be investigated,” admitted Comey. Comey Leaked His Memo Obstruction aside, one of the more stunning moments during the hearing came when Comey confessed that he deliberately leaked to “a friend” the contents of the memo memorializing his conversation with Trump… so that it would then be leaked to the media. Comey said it was his personal property. Wrong. Under the Federal Records Act and the FBI’s own Records Management regulations, “any document that is made in the course of business” is the property not of the person who authored it, but the property of the U.S. government. And so are its contents. It matters not whether the document, as this one, is unclassified. Comey improperly and, perhaps, unlawfully leaked a government document involving an FBI investigation. Comey admitted he did it to prompt the appointment of a special counsel who is now tasked with examining Russia’s interference in the presidential election. At the very least, Comey violated government rules by converting government property for his own use. It does not matter, legally, that he was no longer employed by the FBI. Is it a crime? Under 18 USC 793 (“Leaking Non-Classified Information”), it is a crime punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment to “willfully communicate or transmit national defense information,” even though it is not classified. While the contents of the memo do not deal directly with national defense matters, the overall investigation does. So it is debatable whether Comey could be charged. If nothing else, Comey’s leak appears to be a rather sleazy tactic designed to harm the president. How can he justify publicizing his own self-serving narrative while admitting in his testimony that he resisted all attempts by the president to publicize the truth that Trump was not personally under investigation? He cannot. It is equally disgraceful that Comey appears to have purposefully written his memo as an unclassified document so that he could later use it to his advantage by leaking it to the public without committing a serious crime. Making it classified, he told the committee, “would tangle it up.” In other words, he manipulated the classification system to exploit the political damage his document might cause. Comey’s testimony did manage to put to rest the constant accusation that President Trump attempted to quash the Russian investigation. Sen. Burr inquired, “Did the president at any time ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections?” Comey replied, “Not to my understanding, no.” As anticipated, Comey trashed Trump in a manner that is typical of an angry or disgruntled former employee who lashes out at the boss who fired him. But his venomous attack seemed shrill and unbecoming of his stature. He branded Trump a liar and claimed the president “defamed” him when Trump described the FBI as “poorly led and in disarray” under Comey’s leadership. As a lawyer, Comey well knows that the president was expressing an opinion which is protected speech under the First Amendment. Hence, it is not defamation at all. Moreover, truth is a complete defense. Given Comey’s mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email case, in which he contorted the law and usurped the authority of the Attorney General, the president’s description may be the truth. And so, the much anticipated Senate Intelligence Committee hearing did not provide what President Trump’s antagonists yearned for – evidence of guilt. The only guilt rests with the president’s critics, especially many in the media, who have leveled wild and baseless assertions that he committed a crime during his now infamous conversation with the fired FBI Director on February 14th. Through ignorance and malevolence, they have laid bare their contempt for facts and the law in pursuit of a political mugging. It’s a shame that is not a crime. Jails would be overcrowded with politicians and journalists.
  13. Great article, sums it up rather well in my opinion.... I have only now stopped laughing. I was going to write about President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord the other day, but the reflexive and hysterical insanity emanating from the anti-Trump eco-nuts had me in stitches. John Kerry (who signed the accord in 2015): “one of the most shameful [decisions] any president has made.” Bill “It’s-not-easy-being-green” McKibben: the withdrawal “undercuts our civilization’s chances of surviving global warming.” Yikes, Bill, really? The billionaire Dem donor Tom Steyer: “a traitorous act of war against the American people.” Wow. Everyone seemed to be trying to outdo the next fellow in hyperbole. The Daily News reprised a variation on its most famous headline: “Trump to World: Drop Dead.” The angst was international. You don’t need much German to translate the headline from the Berliner Kurier: “Erde an Trump: F**k You!” And so on. Trump’s most memorable line—”I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”—was greeted by the ambulatory jelly that is the mayor of Pittsburgh with categorical repudiation. “Fighting climate change,” said Mayor William Peduto, “will not only save our planet, but save lives.” Try getting your head around that statement when you have a spare hour. Hysteria on the Left was universal. But as many cooler-headed commentators observed, one of the really amusing things is that the Paris Accord means exactly nothing. Since it requires nothing of its signatories, it will yield nothing from them. As an editorial in The Wall Street Journal pointed out, “amid the outrage, the aggrieved still haven’t gotten around to resolving the central Paris contradiction, which is that it promises to be Earth-saving but fails on its own terms. It is a pledge of phony progress.” Perhaps this is the place to note that CO2 is actually good for Gaia. Plants love the stuff. That’s what they eat. Did you know that the slightly higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are actually making the planet greener? Yes, it’s true. And since everyone on the hysterical Left likes to appeal to “science” (the scare quotes are necessary, since most of them know about as much about science as John Kerry or Al “Big-Carbon-Foot-Print” Gore), let me offer them a little instruction manual on the subject, The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 is Good for the Earth. For a very modest consideration and an hour’s reading, they could actually learn a little about the real science of climate change instead of repeating, mantra-like, the dogmatic imprecations that have been passed down to them from their tribal elders. But I digress. If the Paris Accord is mere window dressing, which it is, then why the hysteria? Two reasons, chiefly. One revolves around that “exercise in moral and social signaling” that the WSJ editorial speaks about. The whole climate change industry is a multinational conglomerate issuing toxic plumes of virtue signaling, stultifying for economies and the truth, but catnip for the virtucrats who are acolytes in this pagan cult. In other words, getting on to the climate change bandwagon makes the disciples of this religion feel better about themselves. It’s a simultaneous absolution and holy communion. It is an invitation to smugness, a recipe for an intoxicating shudder of group narcissism: “We few, we happy few, we band of eco-minded fruitcakes.” As Holman Jenkins put it, Trump declined to attend their church. The second reason for the hysteria follows from the one serious effect of the climate accord. It has nothing to do with saving the environment. Every candid observer understands that the real end of the accord is not helping “the environment” but handicapping the developed countries. At its core, the accord is intended as a mechanism to redistribute wealth by hampering countries like the United States from exploiting its energy resources and growing its economy. Hamstring the United States, but let countries like China and India—industrial strength polluters, both—do whatever they want. Like many international agreements, the unspoken subtext of the Paris Climate Accord is “hamper America. Grab as much of its wealth as you can. Say it’s in the name of ‘fairness.’” That’s not going to wash with Donald Trump. In this respect, he has returned to a much more traditional view of the role of president. He is not the president of the world. He is the President of the United States. We seek to get along with others, but his first task is to assure the prosperity and well being of the citizens of the United States. America First. As Andrew McCarthy and others have pointed out, in withdrawing from the Paris Accord, Trump has also returned to a more traditional—which is to say, a constitutional—view of treaties. The Paris Accord was a treaty. But it was never presented to the Senate for ratification. In this respect, it was just another of Obama’s initiatives to circumvent the Constitution and govern by administrative fiat. The reason that the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to ratify treaties is because treaties can deeply affect the the lives of American citizens. McCarthy explains, That attitude, it can almost go without saying, is the deeper reason the Left hates Trump. As he said in his statement withdrawing from the Paris accord, a clean environment is a high priority for him. But on ourterms, not on the terms of countries that seek to harm us. “The United States, under the Trump administration,” he said, How the Left hates that: “We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs. We’re going to grow.” For the Left, being environmentally friendly doesn’t count unless it hurts. The idea is that if you really want to help the environment—as distinct from merely saying that you want to help the environment— you need economic growth. Why? Because only through growth will you have the resources to address the real (as distinct from the imaginary) problems besetting the environment. As I say, the last day or two has been delicious. There was the comic exhibition of hysteria, but there was also the embarrassing (though also comic) failure of logic. The United States, it was said, should not abandon its leadership role by refusing to follow what other countries are doing. Er, OK. But among the many reasons to applaud Trump’s courageous decision to withdraw the 2015 climate accord is the independence it signals about Trump himself. There are always a lot of rumors and innuendo swirling around the American president. But Trump has suffered from a veritable cloud of malicious rumor. “There’s chaos in the White House.” “His advisers hate each other.” “His advisers hate him.” “This faction is getting the upper hand.” “No, that one is.” And so on. One frequently heard suggestion is that Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, form a powerful liberal faction that will influence Trump’s policy on a host of contentious social issues, including environmental issues. Those who like what Trump promised on the campaign trail should be heartened by Thursday’s announcement. Maybe Ivanka and Jared represent a liberal faction among Trump’s advisers, and doubtless, as relatives, they have privileged access to him. But that did not matter. Trump did what he always suggested he would do: he left the agreement not because he is hostile to the environment but because it was a bad deal for America. “We’re getting out,” he said. “And we will start to renegotiate and we’ll see if there’s a better deal. If we can, great. If we can’t, that’s fine.” My, how the PC Leftists hated that! But Trump was right. The accord was a bad deal for the United States. Perhaps there’s a better deal to be had. If so: terrific. If not, America will follow its own course.