Sunday, April 03, 2016

"I'm just sayin'..."

I have to laugh at cable news. The poor souls can only focus on polls and election results. The people watching them chronically are completely out of touch with what is going on in the world. Cable news is for the politically obsessed.

I don't think I can watch one more town hall or debate.

The destructive forces of nature is not exclusively found in the Third World. There have been deaths in the USA every year due to the climate crisis. 

March 25, 2016
By Lindsay Abrams

This March 23, 2014 photo, made available by the Washington State Dept of Transportation shows a view of the damage from Saturday's mudslide in Oso, Wash. (AP Photo/Washington State Dept of Transportation)
As rescuers continue (click here) to sort through the muck, the death toll in Washington’s horrific landslide has risen to 14; officials say 176 have been reported missing, although that doesn’t account for potential duplicates.
A terrible tragedy on its own, it’s also a reminder of yet another hazard that could increase as global warming intensifies.
Meteorologist and Slate blogger Eric Holthaus explains that the most immediate cause of the landslide was the near-record rainfall experienced in the area this month (he links to an explainer from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which gets into the specifics of why a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture). Landslides aren’t unusual for the region, but as Climate Progress explains, such weather is already linked to climate change, and is expected to become more common in the future:
Landslides are not unusual in Washington, but such a large one in close proximity to residences is more rare....
Tornadoes, dual tornadoes that last for a day, floods, hurricanes, winter hurricanes, bone wrenching cold temperatures and landslides are taking American lives every year and among them children. When is the USA going to embrace the lives of it's people over that of corporate greed?

The climate crisis is real. It takes lives.

April 3, 2016
By Attorney Gloria Estenzo Ramos

...The Haiyan/Yolanda tragedy (click here) where more than 7000 lives were lost should have been a long-overdue wake up call for citizens and  authorities alike to reexamine the failure of the government to put in place the necessary response to climate change through a genuine community-based planning and preparation for mitigation and adaptation to the climate crisis, which should include the urgent restoration of the devastated life support systems.
We have enough strong laws to protect our rights to life, health, a healthy environment and to build the resiliency of our people to adapt to the drastic food and national security threat that humanity faces. We were commended to be one of the first in Asia to craft laws for  good governance and local autonomy through the revolutionary Local Government Code.
We were likewise one of the first in the world to craft  what could be an effective climate response through the Climate Change Act and the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Law. The national framework for our collective action to climate change was launched amid great celebration....

Where the climate crisis is most felt are in countries least able to protect from it. The USA is always there to help, but, it would be better if the First World would realize a return to far lower greenhouse gas levels is the best policy.

In this case the first paragraph of the article stats a confrontation between two farmers and police resulting in their deaths. They were distraught over the lack of help due to the drought.

Yes, a drought. 

Where people do not have resources to survive the worst of the climate crisis there is unrest, decent and in the case of Syria violent overthrows of government. 


Measurements (click here) by the Scripps CO2 program are supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and by Earth Networks, a technology company that is collaborating with Scripps to expand the global GHG monitoring network.
In kind support for field operations is also provided by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), Environment Canada, and the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

Trees are an important part of the climate crisis picture.

As trees grow, (click here) they help stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Trees provide many benefits to us, every day. They offer cooling shade, block cold winter winds, attract birds and wildlife, purify our air, prevent soil erosion, clean our water, and add grace and beauty to our homes and communities.

I am sure this graph is familiar to many. It is the decades measurements conducted by Mauna Loa Laboratories of the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

I am not going to get into the particulars of the mission of Mauna Loa, but, rather to the saw tooth pattern of the graph. In the lower right corner is the "Annual Cycle."

That word annual is very important. At the top of this entry is an illustration of Earth noting the Equator and north and south hemispheres. The annual cycle of the Mauna Loa graph is the result of the transit of the sun and the seasonal changes in the northern hemisphere. So, when one thinks of land based carbon sinks, of course there is the much beloved South American Amazon Rainforest and some of the same forests in Africa, but, primarily the fluctuation is because of the northern hemisphere.

Kindly realize how much the northern hemisphere plays in mitigating carbon dioxide in the troposphere. The biomass of chlorophyll is enormous in the northern hemisphere. When Arbor Day comes around it is a very good idea to celebrate it and plant trees. 

The northern hemisphere is as much or more of a carbon sink. The land mass in the northern hemisphere far exceeds that of the southern hemisphere. It is because of plate movement in the oceans. 

Hugging trees is important, but, conserving our forests is just as important and ending damage to the rainforests and ending palm tree plantations.

The lakes are far smaller than oceans and have closed borders.

July 23, 2013

Arenac County (click here) — Available data from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests the Great Lakes could be soaking up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which could change the pH levels in the water and have a negative impact on wildlife.
Galen McKinley, ocean sciences professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said while data is currently limited, computer projections suggest the Great Lakes’ waters are becoming more acidic due to human carbon emissions. She said a similar process is happening in the open oceans.
According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ-
ration, when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gets absorbed by bodies of water, the ensuing chemical reaction will reduce the pH level in the water. The pH level of a liquid indicates how acidic or basic it is on a 0-14 scale, with water usually measuring at 7 — perfectly neutral. Lowered pH levels should not impact the drinkability of the water in the lake, McKinley said.
McKinley said the open oceans have faced a 30-percent increase in acidity since the Industrial Revolution, and the NOAA estimates that with current carbon emissions, by 2100 the ocean surfaces could be 150 percent more acidic than pre-industrial levels.
McKinley believes the Great Lakes, and smaller inland lakes, could be facing the same issues on a smaller scale. She said Lakes Michigan, Superior and Huron have long residency periods — water tends to stay in the lake for 100-200 years before moving elsewhere in the watershed. She said that means they tend to be in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
“If you just think about the chemistry of carbon and water and about what we know about the Great Lakes, they are more or less responsive,” McKinley said. “They are in equilibrium with the atmospheric carbon dioxide, so the carbon dioxide in the water will also increase and the pH will go down, similarly to the oceans.”...

The article is from Forbes. I never discourage business to take an honest look at science and measure themselves against it.

The picture above is from NOAA and illustrates what happens to ocean creatures with shells. The shells are unable to form and consequently, the shellfish perish.

March 31, 2016
By GrrlScientist

...Significant changes in water chemistry (click here) can be measured directly: already, the pH of the world’s oceans has decreased by more than 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times, representing an increase of almost 30% in the concentration of hydronium ions. Additionally, scientists estimate that the process of ocean acidification will gain momentum over the next few decades. Research projections show that the pH of the world’s oceans will further decrease by between 0.07 to 0.33 pH units by 2100, thereby attaining a level of acidity was last seen on Earth 20 million years ago. But this dramatic transformation will occur within our children’s lifetimes....

The ocean creatures with shells are the primary concern of most scientists measuring the acidifying of the oceans. There is little to no investigation I know of that measures the skeletal system of other fish. 

April 3, 2016
By Andrea F. Carter

Two Falmouth students joined scientists and legislators (click here) at the Ocean Acidification Roundtable at the Woods Hole Research Center on Monday, March 28, to talk about how a more acidic ocean can affect sea life.
Sarah Theiler, a 6th grader at Morse Pond School, and Charles Xu, a 9th grader at Falmouth High School, presented their posters from the Falmouth public schools' science fair during the lunchtime break at the meeting.
“It seems like a great honor,” Charles said of being chosen to present his poster at the meeting.
At the roundtable, Anne Cohen, associate scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, spoke about the vulnerability of mollusks to more acidic conditions in the ocean. In higher acidity, shells may not develop normally and dissolve.
Sarah chose a project that tested this idea....

Mollusks (those with shells) comprise about 23 percent of ocean creatures. With that level of species involvement there will be ecosystems in the oceans collapsing.

There are over 50,000 known species of Mollusks, (click here) which makes them second only to the Arthropods in invertebrate phylum size. Among the Mollusks are some of the most well known of invertebrate sea creatures, like snails, clams, mussels, squid, and octopods. Although one might not see an obvious physical relationship between a snail and a squid, they are remarkably similar in construction....

Carbon dioxide

The carbon dioxide molecule is extremely stable. It is not flammable. 

Carbon is one the the bricks of life. It is a vital element in organic life. Carbon has four bonding electrons. Hence the double bond of oxygen. 

Carbon dioxide (click here) in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The mass of the Earth atmosphere is 5.14×1018 kg, so the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes). Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay (see graph at right). Concentrations also vary considerably on a regional basis: in urban areas it is generally higher and indoors it can reach 10 times the background atmospheric concentration.

From the same webpage as above. This is the negative feedback loop of Earth's oceans. The oceans is where the majority of Earth's oxygen comes from, so why have we allowed such saturation of our oceans with carbon dioxide that when dissolved with sea water forms carbonic acid?

There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date." Generally, gas solubility decreases as water temperature increases. Accordingly the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere decreases as ocean temperatures rise.
Most of the CO2 taken up by the ocean forms carbonic acid. Some is consumed in photosynthesis by organisms in the water, and a small proportion of that sinks and leaves the carbon cycle. There is considerable concern that as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere the acidity of seawater has been increasing and may adversely affect organisms living in the water. In particular, with increasing acidity, the availability of carbonates for forming shells decreases.

Where does the oxygen come from?

Scientists agree (click here) that there’s oxygen from ocean plants in every breath we take. Most of this oxygen comes from tiny ocean plants – called phytoplankton – that live near the water’s surface and drift with the currents. Like all plants, they photosynthesize – that is, they use sunlight and carbon dioxide to make food. A byproduct of photosynthesis is oxygen.
Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere. They aren’t sure because it’s a tough thing to calculate. In the lab, scientists can determine how much oxygen is produced by a single phytoplankton cell. The hard part is figuring out the total number of these microscopic plants throughout Earth’s oceans. Phytoplankton wax and wane with the seasons. Phytoplankton blooms happen in spring when there’s more available light and nutrients.
And the density of phytoplankton varies. They sometimes float just at the surface. At other times and places they can be a hundred meters – about 100 yards – thick.
By the way, by about 400 million years ago, scientists say, enough oxygen had accumulated in Earth’s atmosphere for the evolution of air-breathing land animals. But free oxygen by itself wasn’t enough. Another form of oxygen was also essential: the build-up of a special kind of oxygen at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. There, where three atoms of oxygen bonded together, ozone formed. This layer of ozone at the top of Earth’s atmosphere shields land organisms from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
Bottom line: Tiny ocean plants called phytoplankton contribute 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.

This is the percentages of the gases that make up Earth's troposphere.

That is correct. Nitrogen which is responsible for Earth's blue sky is the majority of occupying gases. That is followed by oxygen. Oxygen is 21 percent. Oddly, the percentage of oxygen in human respiration is 21 percent. If a person's lungs are less than optimal the blood levels of oxygen drop and then there are complications and potential danger to life. 

The red pie chart are the trace gases of Earth's atmosphere that provides for the planet's climate. Carbon dioxide is the majority gas of the trace elements. The trace elements are only 0.1 % of Earth's atmosphere. That fact lends to the understanding that minimal increases in greenhouse gases causes an incredible change in Earth's climate.

Kindly, think about that.

One gas that is rarely discussed is water vapor. It is classified as a greenhouse gas.

...Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is.  In the cold, dry arctic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.  Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather....

The level of gases of Earth's atmosphere needs to remain benevolent and stable. There is no option to changing the balance. It sustains life just fine.

What is CO2e and global warming potential (GWP)?

27 April 2011

CO2e, or carbon dioxide equivalent, is a standard unit for measuring carbon footprints. The idea is to express the impact of each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of CO2 that would create the same amount of warming. That way, a carbon footprint consisting of lots of different greenhouse gases can be expressed as a single number.
For example, in 2009, the UK released 474 million tonnes of CO2. But if you include its emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and F-gases, the country's total emissions work out at 566 million tonnes of CO2e. In other words, those extra gases added the equivalent of 92 million extra tonnes of CO2.
Standard ratios are used to convert the various gases into equivalent amounts of CO2. These ratios are based on the so-called global warming potential (GWP) of each gas, which describes its total warming impact relative to CO2 over a set period – usually a hundred years. Over this time frame, according to the standard data, methane scores 25 (meaning that one tonne of methane will cause the same amount of warming as 25 tonnes of CO2), nitrous oxide comes in at 298 and some of the super-potent F-gases score more than 10,000.
The only wrinkle with all this is that 100 years is a fairly arbitrary time frame, and the ratios change significantly if a shorter or longer period is chosen. That's because some gases last much longer in the atmosphere than others. For instance, a tonne of CO2 emissions may warm the planet gently but over many centuries. A tonne of methane emissions, by contrast, creates a strong burst of warming over a much shorter period....
No, methane releases are not more preferable!!!
No greenhouse gases are the preference of future generations!
The standarda are established after much debate. We have our tasks cut out for us the way it is, we don't need any more volatility in forward movement to emissions of fossil fuels. The petroleum is always playing with facts and dialogue. It is amazing how the tobacco industry's model actually turns people into confused political constituents. The entire lying paradigm should be outlawed. I sincerely thought TRUTH IN ADVERTISING MADE THAT ILLEGAL!

It is not a myth. Reductions in greenhouse gases is real. It was proven to be effective first with the ozone hole.

UK greenhouse gas emissions down 3.4% in 2015 on less coal use - govt estimates (click here)

March 31, 2016
The UK’s greenhouse gas output dropped by 3.4% in 2015 mainly due to less coal being used by the energy sector, according to provisional estimates published by the government on Thursday.
The country emitted 497.2 million tonnes of CO2e last year, down from 514.4 million in 2014, with the energy supply sector leading the way lower with a 13% reduction to 136 million tonnes.
“Since 2014, emissions from power stations have decreased by 17%, largely due to changes in the fuel mix,” the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said in a report, adding that with output of 101.5 million tonnes, power plants accounted for just over a quarter of the total figure.
“In particular there was a 24% decrease in coal use for generation, resulting from the conversion of a unit at the Drax plant from coal to biomass and the temporary closure of some plants due to market conditions, in addition to an increase in the carbon floor price from Apr. 2015.  There was increased use of nuclear and renewables for electricity generation (10% and 29% increases respectively).”...
The idea of reducing the greenhouse gas load in Earth's troposphere has to be stated as a promise to future generations. Current leadership has to promise to bring alternative energies to any growth in need by a growing population and economy. 
In other words, there needs to be a reality check that everyday on Earth there are more and more people. The planning for population growth has to be definitive in that these additional consumers of energy will receive it from environmentally responsible sources. 
It isn't enough to simply reduce old energy sources, it means Earth's future will be untainted by old fossil fuel usage. In addition, as energy sources become outdated and aged, they have to be replaced with alternative sources because that is the future. The future has to be defined as safe, renewable energy that has zero greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuels will be phased out. 
The problem in asking any government to end the use of fossil fuels was the fact long term spending dictated energy sources. Once a coal fired plant was built is usually had a life of at least 30 years. Ending that dependence on fossil fuel for cheap energy was very difficult. Today, alternative energies are economical because they are being perfected along with new electrical grids.
The beautiful thing about alternative energies is that consumers can produce their own solar and wind energy. The more independent a consumer can be the less and less cost energy becomes after initial construction and occasional maintenance. 
The future is taking shape, but, it is only the beginning.

Annex A

Greenhouse gases

Carbon dioxide (C02) 
Methane (CH4) 
Nitrous oxide (N20) 
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) 

The six above are in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol.

Many chemical compounds (click here) present in Earth's atmosphere behave as 'greenhouse gases'. These are gases which allow direct sunlight (relative shortwave energy) to reach the Earth's surface unimpeded. As the shortwave energy (that in the visible and ultraviolet portion of the spectra) heats the surface, longer-wave (infrared) energy (heat) is reradiated to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb this energy, thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. 

Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are synthetic. 

Those that are man-made include the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)

Atmospheric concentrations of both the natural and man-made gases have been rising over the last few centuries due to the industrial revolution. As the global population has increased and our reliance on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) has been firmly solidified, so emissions of these gases have risen. While gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally in the atmosphere, through our interference with the carbon cycle (through burning forest lands, or mining and burning coal), we artificially move carbon from solid storage to its gaseous state, thereby increasing atmospheric concentrations.
It's Sunday Night

"Go Your Own Way" by Fleetwood Mac (click here for official website - thank you)

Loving you
Isn't the right thing to do
How can I ever change things that I feel?

If I could
Baby I'd give you my world
How can I
When you won't take it from me?

You can go your own way
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
You can go your own way
Go your own way

Tell me why
Everything turned around
Packing up
Shacking up's all you wanna do

If I could
Baby I'd give you my world
Open up
Everything's waiting for you

You can go your own way
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
You can go your own way
Go your own way

Our Hot Planet.

I trust Greenpeace. They do stand a ridge line on the climate crisis. They are also effective. They definitely capture the public's awareness of climate problems and educate them. Greenpeace has been around a long time. That type of establishment is important. Their morality is good. While their methods seem extreme, I assure you they are not. The methods are required in a world that is desperately struggling between political ideologies to stop this insane paradigm of petroleum energy. We can all do much, much better.

I would like to remind those that read this, there was a time when Hillary Clinton was a strong proponent of a measure John McCain backed to institute a Carbon Exchange. Below is a political commercial for action on climate from John McCain.

March 12, 2008
By Ariel Alexovich

One of the presidential candidates (click here) is off to the Pacific Northwest today to talk up a big campaign pledge to combat climate change — and it’s a Republican.
John McCain is set to outline his proposal for offsetting global warming in a major address in Portland, Ore., this afternoon. His campaign says he’ll “propose a domestic cap-and-trade system that will mobilize market forces to develop and commercialize alternatives to carbon-based fuels” — a split from the Bush administration, which has largely ignored the topic....

There is a reason why I brought John McCain up and it is the fact while he had a scheme in Cap and Trade to address the climate crisis, he also was inconsistent in mitigating carbon dioxide in voting against new CAFE standards, etc. 

Hillary Clinton after her years as First Lady of the USA, became A US Senator for New York State. She reached across the isle to Senator John McCain in hopes of forging legislation to drastically reduce greenhouse gases and the climate crisis. While she sought bipartisan support she did not end her votes at the door of the petroleum industry as John McCain did with items such as CAFE Standards for automobiles. CAFE standards determine greater efficiency in burning fossil fuels in cars. A vote for strong CAFE standards is a vote for Greenpeace. 

The former Secretary Clinton never wavered. (click here)

As Senator, I will work for New York to get its fair share of federal mass transit funds and to increase the amount of money that goes to transit funds. And, I will vote to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to bring all nations together to address global warming and build a better future for us all.

It didn't matter the topic; if it was to continue greenhouse gas pollution by fossil fuels she was against it. If it was to subsidize the petroleum industry she refused to be a part of it. If it was to allow the petroleum industry permission to offshore drilling it was out of the question. She opposed drilling in ANWR and today we know the hideousness of that idea after Royal Dutch Shell first had a ship run aground and then after attempting to drill in the Arctic Ocean decided it was not worth it. At least there was no oil disaster in a very special ocean. It didn't matter the topic, when she voiced her vote, I would have voted the same way. 

In the year of her time as Secretary of State she received the reports about KXL and stated she had no right to stand in the way of the project. Well. We all know that when the documents were submitted to her they were corrupted by the very company "TransCanada" seeking the permit to cross our sovereign border. The study was then rejected and when Secretary Kerry took over, the entire process was conducted with very loud, vital and valuable objections to the KXL. The KXL was stopped and rightfully so. Now, the failing petroleum industry wants to build the same exact pipeline without crossing the northern border. Why would this be any different than before? A pipeline by any other name is still a pipeline capable of doing enormous damage to very precious land of Native Americans and farmers.


The former Secretary has since withdrew any permission for such a hideous project in the future. Maybe that is why the petroleum industry wants to drive this NEW EDITION of the KXL through as quickly as possible. That didn't work either. 

Secretary Clinton is steadfast on her values of the environment and long standing law of The Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act. She recognizes the importance of the Endangered Species Act. 

While she may have made a mistake in thinking a representative of Greenpeace was that of Senator Sanders, I believe she had every right to be annoyed at the idea she would compromise Earth for votes or Congressional and White House harmony.

She has never wavered and I won't either. She is a good friend to the climate, environmental and conservative organizations, their members and Americans that value our natural world, including National Parks, the US Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife. And let's not forget the United States Geological Survey in their study of the reality of post fracking seismic dangers most dramatically illustrated in Oklahoma. Damage to the North American Craton is no joke. It is serious and this is EXACTLY what everyone warned the federal government about in 2005 after Cheney gave the petroleum industry the right to destroy our land for the purpose of profits.

I have been a member of Greenpeace, have opposed every issue they have, too. I also believe we are in good company when realizing Hillary Clinton handles power of the USA government with vigilance when it comes to the health and well being of Americans and their relationship with our natural world.

2016 is a real race for the White House. The number of people turning out for their chosen candidate is great.

If this is an indication of any contest, there is a real race between Clinton-Trump. I think the likability rating of Bush vs Clinton in 1992 is very interesting.

April 2, 2016
By Jonathan 

...Mr. Trump (click here) is so negatively viewed, polls suggest, that he could turn otherwise safe Republican states, usually political afterthoughts because of their strong conservative tilt, into tight contests. In Utah, his deep unpopularity with Mormon voters suggests that a state that has gone Republican every election for a half-century could wind up in play. Republicans there pointed to a much-discussed Deseret News poll last month, showing Mrs. Clinton with a narrow lead over Mr. Trump, to argue that the state would be difficult for him.

Horse-race polls this early are poor predictors of election results, and candidates have turned around public opinion before. And the country’s politics have become so sharply polarized that no major-party contender is likely to come near the 49-state defeats suffered by Democrats in 1972 and 1984....

Likability doesn't seem to have as much influence as some would like it to mean. As a matter of fact, likability seems to cloud the candidates reality to being elected. 

A candidate has to run and meet real people and answer real questions.

When Karl Rove didn't win a single seat in the presidential election of 2012, he declared war against the Tea Partyl.

Donald Trump is a successful contender and carries with him the members of the Tea Party. Considering they have been fighting this fight for over 3 years, this is no surprise to most of the grassroots Republicans. It is a fight that was somewhat expected. Donald Trump is very much a Republican.

March 4, 2013
By Michelle Malkin

This is war. (click here)
But of course, for Beltway establishment strategist and GOP control freak Karl Rove, it has been war on grass-roots conservatives for years now. The New York Times reported this weekend that Rove and the deep-pocketed donors whose coffers he drained futilely this past year are doubling down on stupid. Rove, Inc. will re-commit to a new group that will “protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.”
Who needs Obama and his Team Chicago to destroy the Tea Party when you’ve got Rove and his big government band of elites?...

Donald Trump has real reasons to sue the RNC.

The party bosses are defaming and classifying him in an isolated position and not Republican.

The Republican leadership is lying. Donald Trump has been a Republican for a long time. He is a supporter of CPAC and the Tea Party. He has served in leadership himself and all the those in the establishment now realizing their affiliation with the Tea Party was a mistake. The party bosses are so intent on ostracizing Donald Trump they are even defaming their electorate that finds him important and his message important.

Amazing. Control is the RNC and it has never been more obvious.

The RNC party bosses are afraid of an "authoritarian?" What? Their last president ordered the USA military into an illegal and highly immoral war and today the party bosses are calling Donald Trump authoritarian and it is not a characteristic of a Republican. Right.

This is what to expect from Republican majorities in Washington, DC.

All that has to be done is lifting the cap on SSI dedutions, but, in complete disregard of the "limited income" of recipients the Republican Congress is hurting senior citizens. How did retiree organizations allow this to happen?
The cuts in options is changing on May 1, 2016.

I don't like the precedent. It is the beginning of the end to Social Security.

To note, this article states the current FULL retirement age is 66 years old. Where did 65 go and why were the American people completely clueless about this incredible change in benefit RIGHTS!

A Republican Congress majority is such a mistake. These changes were attached to a budget.

December 4, 2015
By Maryalene LaPonsie
While the loss of the file-and-suspend strategy is getting the most attention right now, retirees are actually losing three separate Social Security options. Here’s a look at each piece of the puzzle....