Some Santa Claus politically incorrect humor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A deserving appointment.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced Representative Martha McSally will replace outgoing Senator Jon Kyl to represent the U.S. Senate seat long held by John McCain.

The decision revives McSally's political career after her defeat to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema for the state's other Senate seat.

Insiders attribute her loss to several factors.

McSally, emerging damaged from a bruising primary, did not effectively tell her story to voters in densely populated Maricopa County as the nation's first female fighter pilot and role as a workhorse in Congress.

Meanwhile, Sinema effectively re-branded herself as a moderate.

Ducey and McSally are scheduled to speak at a joint press conference this morning.

Per Azcentral:

In a statement about his selection to The Arizona Republic, Ducey cited McSally's military background and six deployments to the Middle East and Afghanistan.

"All her life, Martha has put service first — leading in the toughest of fights and at the toughest of times,” the governor's prepared statement said.

"With her experience and long record of service, Martha is uniquely qualified to step up and fight for Arizona’s interests in the U.S. Senate. I thank her for taking on this significant responsibility and look forward to working with her and Senator-Elect Sinema to get positive things done.”

McSally said in a statement that she understands the challenges Arizonans face, having traveled every corner of the state during her unsuccessful 2018 Senate run.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Left brain, right brain and the mind according to Prager. (See 1 below.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Erick Erickson on Trump's biggest problem and can he be re-elected.

Against Hillary a no-brainer . Now that voters know Trump and obsess about him and not his policies it is an uphill fight? (See 2 and 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
India has Fakir's, America has Google. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cracking the illegal immigrant safe and finding power and money.? (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oily Trump versus dry Obama. (See 5 below.)

And:

Climate change has a monetary cost which can be crippling. (See 5a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Explaining the Left, Part V: Left Vs. Right Is Brain Vs. Mind

By Dennis Prager

When I talk to young people, I try to offer them what I was offered when I was their age but is rarely offered today: wisdom. I was given wisdom largely because I went to a religious school — a yeshiva, a traditional Jewish school in which the long day (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) was divided between studying religious subjects (in Hebrew) and secular subjects (in English).

With the increasing secularization of society, less and less wisdom has been conveyed to young people. One particularly obvious example is most secular people, especially on the left, believe human beings are basically good. It is difficult to overstate the foolishness of this belief. And a belief it is: There is no evidence to support it, and there is overwhelming evidence — like virtually all of human history — to refute it. Jewish and Christian kids who study the Bible know how morally flawed human nature is by the age of 10.

Another thing I tell young people — which, if they take seriously, will make them immeasurably wiser, finer, happier and more productive — is life is a daily battle between the brain and the mind. The brain wants an ice cream sundae; the mind knows too many sundaes will make a person overweight and eventually diabetic. Similarly, the brain (especially that of the male) wants sex with anyone it finds attractive; the mind knows the trouble doing so will likely lead to.

The brain is instinctive and feelings-based; the mind is thoughtful and can be reason-based.

Tragically, since the 1960s, the brain — i.e. feelings and instincts — has been valued far more than the mind.

That explains why for 40 years, I have asked high school seniors which they would save first if both were drowning, their dog or a stranger, and only one-third have voted to save the stranger. Their reason? They love their dog, not the stranger. The brain over the mind. Feelings over thought (not to mention transcendent values).

On the most important issue in human life, determining what is right and what is wrong, the brain (feelings) has triumphed over the mind (reason and values). At least two generations of Americans have been raised not with moral instruction but with the question "How do you feel about it?"

Almost every left-right disagreement in American life can be explained by the brain-mind conflict. The brain is led by what feels good, the mind by what does good. And leftist positions feel good.

It feels good to allow anyone who wants to enter America to do so. But if America is worth preserving, the mind understands that the right policy cannot be determined by feelings.

It feels good to keep expanding government so it can provide more and more people with benefits. But the mind recognizes this is a recipe for disaster because people become addicted to benefits, and because the government assumes greater and greater debt it will not be able to repay.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)

Trump's Biggest Problem Is This, Not Mueller

After the President's tweet cheering on the demise of the Weekly Standard, I noted President Trump needed to be building bridges in the aftermath of the 2018 midterms, not burning bridges. Numerous Trump supporters offered up a variation of "f**k them" and "they'd never vote for him anyway."

They sure seem certain that the President could do nothing to lure any of these people his way. Over at RedState, Sarah Quinlan notes the President probably has no shot getting her vote.

This is all a bigger threat to President Trump than Bob Mueller.

The President won in 2016 while losing the popular vote. He only won because 60,000 voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania went with him over

Dr.Google Is a Liar

Fake news threatens our democracy. Fake medical news threatens our lives.
By Haider Warraich (Dr. Warraich is a cardiologist.)

It started during yoga class. She felt a strange pull on her neck, a sensation completely foreign to her. Her friend suggested she rush to the emergency
room. It turned out that she was having a heart attack.

She didn’t fit the stereotype of someone likely to have a heart attack. She exercised, did not smoke, watched her plate. But on reviewing her medical history, I found that her cholesterol level was sky high. She had been prescribed a cholesterol-lowering statin medication, but she never picked up the prescription because of the scary things she had read about statins on the internet. She was the victim of a malady fast gearing up to be a modern pandemic — fake medical news.

While misinformation has been the object of great attention in politics, medical misinformation might have an even greater body count. As is true with fake news in general, medical lies tend to spread further than truths on the internet — and they have very real repercussions.

Numerous studies have shown that the benefits of statins far outweigh the risks, especially for people at high risk of heart disease. But they have been targeted online by a disparate group that includes paranoid zealots, people selling alternative therapies and those who just want clicks. Innumerable web pages and social media posts exaggerate rare risks and drum up unfounded claims, from asserting that statins cause cancer to suggesting that low cholesterol is actually bad for health. Even stories simply weighing the risks versus benefits of statins, a 2016 study found, were associated with patients’ stopping the cholesterol-lowering drugs — which is associated with a spike in heart attacks.

False medical information can also lead to patients' experiencing greater side effects through the “nocebo effect.” Sometimes patients benefit from an intervention simply because they believe they will — that’s the placebo effect. The nocebo effect is the opposite: Patients can experience adverse effects solely because they anticipate them. This is very true of statins. In blinded trials, patients who get statins are no more likely to report feeling muscle aches than patients who get a placebo. Yet, in clinical practice, according to one study, almost a fifth of patients taking statins report side effects, leading many to discontinue the drugs.

What else is on the fake news hit list? As always, vaccines: According to one deceptive viral story this year, the body of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist washed up in a river after he had raised concerns about the flu vaccine. Last week, Mark Green, a physician in Tennessee, just elected to Congress, repeated the much-debunked falsehood that vaccines can cause autism (he later said that his comments had been “misconstrued”).

False concerns that the vaccine for human papillomavirus causes seizures and other side effects reduced coverage rates in Japan from 70 percent to less than 1 percent in recent years. Polio vaccinators in Pakistan are frequently attacked by militants because they think the vaccine is intended to sterilize the local population.

Cancer is another big target for pushers of medical misinformation — many of whom are making money off alternative therapies. “Though most people think cancer tumors are bad, they’re actually the way your body attempts to contain the harmful cells,” one fake news story reads. It suggests that surgery “compounds the risk of spreading harmful cells,” and warns that “prescription medications cause the body to become acidic, adding to the uncontrolled cell mutations.”

A 2017 study fo und that when cancer patients turn to alternative therapies like diets, herbs and supplements in place of conventional therapies, they are 2.5 times more likely to die. By exploiting people’s fears, those who dissuade patients from getting evidence-based treatment have blood on their hands.

Doctors and nurses frequently try to discourage their patients from turning to
the internet for answers. And yet patients will continue to Google their
symptoms and medications because the internet doesn’t require an
appointment or a long wait, it is not rushed, it doesn’t judge, it doesn’t require a
hefty co-pay and it often provides information that seems simple to
understand.

Silicon Valley needs to own this problem. I am not a free-speech lawyer, but when human health is at stake, perhaps search engines, social media platforms and websites should be held responsible for promoting or hosting fake information.

The scientific community needs to do its part to educate the public about key concepts in research, such as the difference between observational studies and higher-quality randomized trials. Transparency is paramount to maintaining the public’s trust, and stories such as the one showing that researchers at the National Institutes of Health had solicited and received funding from big alcohol for a study on the benefits of moderate drinking demonstrate how quickly it can be undermined.

Finally, journalists can do a better job of spreading accurate information. News sites are more likely to cover catchy observational studies than randomized controlled trials, perhaps because the latter are less likely to produce surprising results. Such coverage can overstate benefits, claiming for example, that statins could cure cancer or help men have erections; it can also unduly emphasize potential risks, such as suggesting a misleading connection with dementia. (Although a small number of people appear to temporarily experience memory lapses after taking statins, no randomized controlled trial has found an association between the drug and cognitive impairments — and certainly not dementia.)

Presenting facts, though, might not be enough. The boomerang effect, in which people become even more entrenched in false beliefs when presented with facts, can also occur when medical misconceptions are challenged. To convince my patient that a statin was in her best interests, not only did I provide her the clinical rationale, but I also shared a personal story: After my dad had a heart attack, I urged his doctors to immediately start a statin at the highest dose. I told her that while a statin couldn’t guarantee that he wouldn’t have another heart attack, I wanted my dad to get his best shot at a healthy life. Only then did she agree to take the prescription.

To have any chance at winning the information war, physicians and researchers need to weave our science with stories. This is the only way to close the wedge that has opened up between medicine and the masses, and which is now being exploited by merchants of medical misinformation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4)The MAJORITY of Americans don't realize just how much POWER & MONEY the Democrats make off Illegal Aliens being in our country even without voter fraud!!!

THIS is why they created 'Sanctuary' cities and states.

Simply by including their numbers as part of the population in the
US Census, they get MOUNTAINS of money from the federal
government and for every 770,000 illegal aliens in their Democrat-
controlled area, they get a seat in the US House of Representatives apportioned to their area following the census.

YES! READ IT AGAIN!!!

After the US Census(performed once every 10 years), the 435
seats in the US House of Representatives are divided up by state populations and the last one resulted in one seat for roughly every 770,000 people...

Soooooooo, let's say California has about 4 MILLION non-citizens
living there right now...

That means that FIVE of their seats in the US Congress are due to
people who are not Americans being counted in the Census!!!

NOW, imagine if by 2020, when they do the next census, they had 10 MILLION non-citizens living in California..

That would mean California would get 10 SEATS in the US HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES due to non-citizens...

NOW, do you see why Democrats want Open Borders???

Don't believe it the next time you hear the bleeding-heart liberals
and Democratic Party Leadership claiming how they 'care' about
these poor illegal aliens.

The Democrats found a way to get money and seats in Congress
without even having to rig elections!!!

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY & POWER!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How America Broke OPEC

Lessons from the U.S. rise to be the world’s largest oil producer.

The Editorial Board

An oil pump is seen operating in the Permian Basin near Midland, Texas, May 3, 2017.

For nearly six decades OPEC has dominated oil markets by setting production

quotas among its 15 members. In late 2014, OPEC flooded the market with oil in

an effort to break U.S. drillers who were burning cash on mounds of debt. As oil

prices fell below $40 a barrel in 2015-2016, many wildcatters folded or were

absorbed by larger producers.

But the survivors became more efficient. Technology—including drones with

thermal imaging to detect leaks along with improvements in horizontal drilling—

boosted productivity. Over the last five years production per rig has more than

tripled in the Permian Basin and quadrupled in North Dakota’s Bakken Shale.

While the Bakken rig count has fallen by 70%, output has increased by a third.

Most American oil refineries have processed heavier crudes, which depressed

prices for lighter, sweeter grades produced in the new wells. But in late 2015 the

GOP Congress expanded shale-oil’s market by lifting the export ban on crude in

return for Barack Obama’s demand to extend renewable energy tax credits. U.S.

crude exports have since soared to 3.2 million barrels a day.

Many U.S. producers say they can turn a profit at $50 a barrel and even as low as

$30 in the Permian’s most productive regions. Yet most OPEC members need

prices ranging between $70 and $90 per barrel to balance their budgets. The cartel

scaled back output in 2016, but shale producers roared back as prices recovered.

America’s shale gusher has presented a quandary for OPEC and especially its

largest member, Saudi Arabia, which faces large budget deficits as it works to

contain Iranian influence in the Middle East.

Earlier this year, the Saudis obliged President Trump by increasing output to

prevent prices from soaring with the reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Even

so oil prices hit a four-year high in early October. But they have since declined

30% amid weakening world economic forecasts, sanctions exemptions and surging

U.S. production.

OPEC and Russia last week agreed to scale back production collectively by 1.2

million barrels a day, but the meeting exposed the cartel’s cracks. Qatar quit amid

hostilities with the Saudis. Small producers carped they were too insignificant to

affect global supply. Algeria produces one million barrels per day, which is as

much as U.S. output has increased in five months.

Saudi Arabia, Russia and allied producers agreed to shoulder the bulk of the cuts

while Libya, Iran and Venezuela received exemptions. Some in the media claim

the Saudis defied Mr. Trump’s pleas to keep oil prices low, yet U.S. shale producers

are likely to benefit from OPEC’s cuts by capturing more market share.

One of the biggest constraints on U.S. production has been a distribution

bottleneck. Hence West Texas Intermediate now sells at a $8 to $9 discount to

Brent crude on the world market. But next year three pipelines capable of

delivering two million barrels of Permian crude to the Gulf Coast are expected to

come online. In 2020 two more pipelines that can carry two million barrels a day

are expected to be completed.

Oil companies are also racing to build more export terminals to handle the supply

gusher, which isn’t likely to stop anytime soon. The U.S. Geological Survey

reported recently that the Permian’s Delaware Basin holds more than twice as

much oil and 18 times as much natural gas as the heavier-drilled Midland region.

*******

Barack Obama, hilariously, is now claiming credit for the shale boom. “You know

that whole suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer . . . that was me,

people,” he said last month at Rice University. But drilling leases on federal land

declined 28% during his two terms amid new restrictions on land use. Drilling

skyrocketed on private land, despite attempts by his regulators to block pipelines,

slow down approvals, and impose higher costs on production.

The Trump Administration is expediting pipeline and terminal permitting and

opening new federal land to drilling. Last year’s tax reform unlocked Alaska’s

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Interior Department recently scaled back

needless Obama protections for the sage grouse, which will allow drilling on nine

million acres in oil-rich states. Leases are being snapped up at auction, even in

areas where recoveries are now low and expensive. As technology advances, many

investors expect the break-even price of production to fall.

Politicians in the past have sought to secure American energy independence with

price controls, ethanol mandates and the oil export ban. But they and OPEC should

note that America owes its new energy prosperity to industry innovation, private

property, and the free market.

5a)Follow the (Climate Change) Money

Stephen Moore & https://patriotpost.us/columnists/334> * Dec. 18, 2018
The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This
explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington.
Shortly after the latest "Chicken Little" climate change report was
published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of
scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid
handsomely to do so.

I said, "In America and around the globe governments have created a
multibillion dollar climate change industrial complex." And then I added: "A
lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change
industry." According to a recent report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, "Federal funding for climate change research,
technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4
billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion
for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act in 2009."

This doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming. But the tidal wave of
funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude
that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no
fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if
there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn't anyone in the
media ever mention this?

But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything
I've said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way
too close to home?

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think tanks by
suggesting that their findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of
dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any
academic whose research dares question the "settled science" of the climate
change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas
industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your
work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from
Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.

How big is the climate change industrial complex today? Surprisingly, no one
seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago,
Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150
billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during
President Obama's first term.

That didn't include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit
for wind and solar power - so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10
billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29
states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy
expensive "green" energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called
the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study that found that "global
investment in climate change" reached $359 billion that year. Then to give
you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned
that this spending "falls far short of what's needed" a number estimated at
$5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and
provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in
Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for
cancer and Alzheimer's.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200
billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even
the scientists who are corrupted often don't appreciate. If you are a young
eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of
global warming, you're probably not going to do your career any good or get
famous by publishing research that the crisis isn't happening.

But if you've built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by
the day, then step right up and get a multi-million-dollar grant.

Now here's the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments
have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By
the industry's own admission, there has been almost no progress worldwide in
combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the
United Nations say the problem is getting worse, and we have not delayed the
apocalypse by a single day.

as there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such
miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of "research" the only
"solution" is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying
that we should stop growing food.

Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions
of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest
government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production
(just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green
energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If
that's the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.

President Donald Trump should tell these so-called scientists that "you're
fired." And we taxpayers should demand our money back.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Middle East and Other Musings

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Politically Incorrect Santa Humor. Can Trump Be Re-Elected and His Greatest Enemy. Left, Right Brain and Mind By Prager. Finding Power and Money!