Even though it is painfully obvious that we are having difficulty determining if America can even afford the massive nine-hundred billion dollar healthcare that the administration recently forced through Congress, other factions in the Senate have already begun discussing the Climate bill, recently renamed “The American Power Act”, as well. The damage the healthcare bill will inflict on our economy will pale in significance compared to the harm that the American Power Act will mean for all Americans. Well, almost all Americans. It appears that Al Gore and his closest friends are prepared through their investments, to turn millions into billions once this bill has passed into law.
But why are we even considering this? The scientists and organizations that have demanded immediate action have been caught red handed falsifying data in order to support their global warming theories and Mr. Hanson of Nasa’s Goddard Space Center still refuses to release the data that he based his report on even though his peers have been unable to duplicate his findings. In fact, the data is so flawed that the proponents of the climate bill have changed the name of the crisis from “global warming” to “climate change” rather than have to answer for earth’s recent cooling trend.
I’ve stated in previous posts that the urgency of a global catastrophe fits very neatly into the general criteria laid out by neo-socialists; those that have already stated their strategy to use a crisis, man-made or otherwise, to destabilize the global economy. The enormous amount of resources that would be required to stave off certain doom in a global environmental crisis would devastate capitalism and bring about the collapse of the current geopolitical balance of power. This is nothing new; in fact, it is little more that a revision of the Cloward-Piven strategy that we have barely remained one step ahead of since it’s inception in 1966. Cloward-Piven was directed at the United States but the eco-socialists are attempting this now on a global scale.
If you don’t believe it, then why is it that democracies and republics of the western industrial nations are the only ones being pressured to join this circus? China and India have already stated they have no intention of damaging their economic growth with restrictions on industry even though their carbon emissions are far greater than that of the United States and there is no hue and cry from the global environmental movement demanding their participation. Much of the third world is not required to participate by the basic provisions of the latest U.N. sponsored climate accord and in fact, they would receive monetary assistance and technological support under these accords that would allow them to industrialize. With that in mind, what is this but a blatant attempt by the UN and eco-socialists to disassemble the United States and distribute our wealth and industrial might evenly around the globe.
Of course, environmentalists accuse those that dismiss the validity of global warming, climate change or whatever the next name will be, of being ignorant and standing in the way of saving countless millions from doom. I think it’s more than fair that we look at the claims these same people were making forty years ago and examine their track record for accuracy.
U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) founded “Earth Day” in 1970 to bring awareness to the impending global catastrophe that man’s ignorance had wrought upon the earth. Was Mr. Nelson a climatologist or an environmental expert? Uh, no; as you might have already guessed, he received a Bachelor of Arts from San Jose College but eventually completed law school in Wisconsin.
Environmentalists and sympathetic scientists from around the world gathered for Earth Day to make the public aware of what we had done to the planet and to convey the urgency with which we must act before our mistakes consume the planet and all life on it. Below are a series of quotes taken from the hysterical pleas being made all through this event; quotes that adequately display how wrong these people were then, and remain to be now. Quotes that show just how far they are willing to go to make you believe we must enact their radical agenda right now or face doom. Bear in mind when you read these quotes that they are forty years old and frame the core beliefs of the environmental movement in 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something."Kenneth Watt, ecologist.
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”George Wald, Harvard Biologist.
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist.
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day.
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University.
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”Life Magazine, January 1970.
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”Martin Litton, Sierra Club director.
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any."Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”Sen. Gaylord Nelson.
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.
It’s time to stop fooling around with these people. The climate crisis is nothing more than a concocted event and the voices of the 30,000 scientists that can prove that it is false must be heard; not suppressed. What is clear is that the data used by environmentalists to stake their claim of climate change was not misinterpreted, it was deliberately crafted to yield those results and when tested, they are the only ones that have come up with the results they say are proof positive. The real question is what is the political machine driving this attempt to crush the free market and democracy?
Paul
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Green Movement - Eco Terror or Socialist Plot?
Out of all the nooks and crannies that socialists have infiltrated in our society, the environmental movement has proven the most productive. It has everything they need. Armies of passionate followers that can be easily swayed by tainted studies laced with falsified data as well as the urgency of crisis they need to force entire nations headlong into self-destructive legislation and international pacts under the guise of saving the planet Neither of which are acts that are designed to save the planet. It wasn’t always that way. Many environmental groups began life to protect endangered species, prevent deforestation and to insure our air and water were free of dangerous chemicals and poisons. It was only in the last 30 years that the “green” movement added political activism into their repertoire.
The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.
Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.
In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.
The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?
One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability. All of this draws Senator Kerry’s involvement with environmental legislation into serious question. With that kind of money changing hands, there must be a trade off. Has Kerry been promised a “soft landing” when the eco-activists finish tearing our Constitution and economy to shreds? Will these deals leave the Heinz-Kerry fortune one of the fortunate “untouchables” in a post-America, Socialist elite club with George Soros, Maurice Strong and Al Gore?
Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.
One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.
Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level.”
A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”
Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”
Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on his desire for globalization and his disgust of the free market. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”
The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.
Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.
You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?
Last summer, half a million acres of fertile California farmland in the San Joaquin Valley have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will ultimately wield much of the power in the “New World Order".
The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.
Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.
In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.
The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?
One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability. All of this draws Senator Kerry’s involvement with environmental legislation into serious question. With that kind of money changing hands, there must be a trade off. Has Kerry been promised a “soft landing” when the eco-activists finish tearing our Constitution and economy to shreds? Will these deals leave the Heinz-Kerry fortune one of the fortunate “untouchables” in a post-America, Socialist elite club with George Soros, Maurice Strong and Al Gore?
Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.
One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.
Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level.”
A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”
Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”
Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on his desire for globalization and his disgust of the free market. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”
The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.
Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.
You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?
Last summer, half a million acres of fertile California farmland in the San Joaquin Valley have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will ultimately wield much of the power in the “New World Order".
Paul
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Obama Plan: Plenty of Change But Little Hope
As if the Obama administration wanted to help me make the point I was illustrating in yesterday’s article, a new flurry of regulatory threats are now emanating from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently the government is taking its stance on healthcare very seriously now that they have made themselves a fixture in your health insurance and by virtue of that, a fixture in your health care decisions. In addition to everything we have already heard in the healthcare bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now posturing itself to regulate the amount of salt in your foods. This is changing the focus of the agency from protecting you against tainted or diseased foods and assuming the role of deciding what you should eat because a bureaucrat can now decide it is not good for you.
Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.
Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.
In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.
Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.
In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.
The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.
Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?
If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?
The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.
Paul
Food without salt through government edict? Somehow I just don’t think that Washington is listening to us. We want government out of our lives; not taking control of our most basic choices. The people that should not have added salt in their foods because of a medical condition already know what they can and cannot have and have been making those decisions for themselves ever since doctors made the link between food and health. Necessarily, the regulation of salt would put some foods normally high in this once crucial condiment on the chopping block. I’m not sure you can even make bacon without salt and even if you could, would it be worth eating? Can you imagine a pretzel that didn’t have a healthy sprinkling of course salt or the summertime favorite, margaritas by the pool without salt encrusting the rim of the glass? New York is already going down this road and it is driving chefs crazy in the Big Apple. Professional cooks know there is nothing more basic to great tasting foods than the salt that enhances the natural flavor of nearly everything it touches.
Unfortunately, we now have a slew of radical advisors in positions of power within the White House and administrative agencies. Some, like Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar that also has a keen interest in animal rights, would prefer to see America abstain from eating meats as well. If we allow the FDA to pick our seasonings; can a government selection of our main course be that far behind? Sunstein’s beliefs are centered on government control of the masses, he also recognizes that direct regulatory actions can at times, be counter productive. Rather than risking confrontation with the people, Sunstein prefers a clandestine approach that would guide the actions of Americans while giving people the illusion of free choice. This would be accomplished by broadening government regulatory authority to limit the range of options people would be offered. Of course, those regulations would be imposed on manufacturers and industries so the resulting limits placed on American citizens would not be such an obvious intrusion of government.
In a 2008 book he co-authored with Richard Thaler titled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein speculates that we should maintain an illusion of liberty where personal decisions are concerned by having the government “nudge” people to make better decisions. Obviously Mr. Sunstein believes that the learned scholars of his alma mater, Harvard, or the Washington agencies chock full of “deep thinkers” are in a far better position to make those critical choices for you. Sunstein’s book is not ashamed to mention that the regulatory power of government and a liberal application of the tax structure could easily be used to nudge people to make “correct” decisions based on the government definition of correct. Just the idea that he thinks that this coercion process is acceptable in a free society protected by unalienable rights deeply concerns me. Our freedoms and rights would have to be, at the very least, “trimmed” before any nudging could lawfully take place. Of course, if the nudge was gentle and hidden under the guise of the “regulation of commerce”, the question of government interference with personal liberties may never actually make headlines.
Even more insidious are the recent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA chief Lisa Jackson, recently declared an endangerment finding against Carbon Dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases”. The finding allows the agency broad powers to regulate these gases under the existing authority granted to the agency under the Clean Air Act; avoiding the need for Congressional action all together. The purpose is clear. The President wants his Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) passed because of the enormous tax revenues that will be collected under the false premise of protecting the environment. Many in Congress recognize the dangers of this bill and the damage it will do to our economy so the passage of this bill is in question. Much of the resistance is due to the fact that the President’s Energy Bill offers absolutely no benefit to the environment. The general knowledge that the science behind global warming and climate change has been tainted with news of corrupt data and a concerted effort to silence dissent and debate has further complicated passage of the bill.
In the face of the uncertain future of the Energy Bill, the EPA has threatened to use their endangerment finding to impose regulatory sanctions on Carbon emissions in an attempt to blackmail Congress. Jackson argues that regulatory sanctions would be far more damaging to the US economy than the Cap and Trade Bill; in essence, telling Congress they must now pick the lesser of two evils but is climate change what this is really about? China, the world’s largest producer of CO2 and India, another mass producer of the questionable gas, have already said they will not sign an agreement to reduce their Carbon emissions. Best estimates say that the Carbon reduction proposed in the US energy bill will reduce global temperatures by a mere one tenth of one degree Celsius by the year 2050 and the cost factors to achieve this inconsequential reduction stagger the mind.
The implementation of the President’s Energy Bill may show a net decrease in the Carbon emission produced by US industries but the reality is that these Carbon emissions will only have been transferred to foreign nations that have not burdened themselves with self destructive legislative agreements to reduce their Carbon output. This will place the US at a disadvantage as business weighs the cost of these new regulations and that cost difference will drive manufacturers to nations where profitability is still possible. Curiously, this crucial Energy Bill does not place punitive taxes on goods coming from nations that have not agreed to reduce their Carbon output so how serious are we about actually reducing Carbon emissions to “save” the planet? This bill will only allow foreign nations to steal our few remaining industries, forcing millions more into unemployment while facing exponentially rising costs for electricity and fuels right here at home.
Lisa Jackson said something else in a recent speech that is crucial to deciphering the President’s interest in Cap and Trade. Radical Communist Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, had once accused “white polluters” of intentionally steering poisons into minority communities; leaving many of us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. Now Lisa Jackson says that instances of pollution and environmental degradation are disproportionately higher in low income and minority communities across America and to combat this, the EPA is building up their “environmental justice” team. The United States Congress had passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 with major amendments added to strengthen it in 1970 and again, in 1990. Congress followed that with the Clean Water Act in 1972 which was also amended and strengthened in 1977 and 1987. Since we have already entrusted the government with monitoring pollution and gave them the teeth to aggressively fine violators of these comprehensive environmental laws how can there be such an alarming pollution problem in America, let alone a disparity in the distribution of that pollution if the EPA and other Federal agencies were actually doing their jobs?
If the legislation was impotent after two or more amendments or the EPA was disinterested or incapable of performing their duties with the strength of the legislation already at their disposal, then why should we believe that a multi-trillion dollar energy bill will make them any better at what they do? Secondly, if there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of pollution being steered into low income and minority communities, then a hate crime has been committed and the Justice Department has also fallen down on the job as well. Since Lisa Jackson has been with the EPA for twenty years now….what is her part in this conspiracy? Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, was the head of the EPA under Bill Clinton so what did she know; when did she know it and does that mean indictments are on the way?
The truth is there is no conspiracy; there is no alarming disparity in the level of pollution by community and there is no climate change that isn’t a natural process of a dynamic earth. This is another attempt at the enactment of this administration’s redistributive wish list because, as Barack Obama said, “I don’t believe in reparations (for slavery) because reparations don’t go far enough.” This is not a redistribution of wealth to level some imaginary Progressive playing field. This is a massive redistribution scheme designed to overturn the entire wealth structure of the United States and any policy instituted by government that seeks to pit one segment of the populace against another, must be by its intent, unconstitutional.
Paul
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Man of Change?
Well here we are just six days away from the much publicized summit on healthcare reform the President announced during the State of the Union Address. Some foolishly believed that his invitation to ranking Republican’s signaled his understanding of the message voters had sent in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections and finally, the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. Apparently that assumption was premature and the election of Republicans to all three of these vital races is being dismissed as easily as the town hall meetings and Tea Parties have been.
It is bizarre that the Democrats can be this blatant as to their intentions. Behind the scenes work to reconcile the Healthcare Bill is still progressing even as the President continues to at least say, that he wants the best ideas from both Parties. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have both signaled their intention to “go nuclear” and rely on a reconciliation tactic to pass the bill with a simple majority, causing reasonable people to ask what kind of summit can this be if these negotiation are till taking place in secret and these kind of plans are being made before Congressional Republicans are even given the opportunity to present their ideas and compromises?
Scott Brown was not simply a message for the Democrats. His campaign was centered on the promise that he would be the 41st vote that would stop the race to pass a healthcare reform bill that the majority of American’s do not want. As support for the President wanes, the trust the American people have in the Democrat’s healthcare plan evaporates at an astounding rate. In recent polls, most Americans would prefer that the plan be scrapped and that the government turn its attention to the economy and the faltering job market.
Regardless of the loud and clear voice of the people, Congressional Democrats are standing firm because their President said they must move forward and also because the Progressive movement has been holding the Democratic Party hostage for decades. That is why Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh decided to throw in the towel and refuse to run for another term. He was bitter in his statements about the ineffectiveness of Congress and said that he could accomplish more as a private citizen than he ever could as a member of the Senate. Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith recently switched Parties for much the same reason. He joined the Republican Party because the Democrats under the Progressive assault had lost their way. They were no longer the Party of the people but some weird group of far left elitists that no longer cared to hear the people. That is why the President’s agenda is being propelled forward as the economy continues to crumble; they have been in effect, deafened by their own rhetoric.
To continue their push for healthcare reform and cap and trade they must convince you that the economy is already in recovery. As the President and the DNC struggle to convince people that the Recovery Act (Stimulus Bill) is working fine and has “saved or created” two million jobs, the U.S. Department of Labor’s own website says the job loss average for the past month has been 467,500 jobs lost in each of the last four weeks. Of course “saved jobs” is the new catch phrase since it is as impossible to disprove as it is to quantify. You know, that we might have even begun to believe some of that if Joe Biden hadn’t spilled the beans in an interview on Wednesday. As he spouted the administration line of “saved jobs” he added that the Recovery Act is a two phase program with the money for actual job creation loaded in the second half of the program. He explained that most of the funds spent in phase one had been targeted to offset the cost of State unemployment benefits and to provide tax relief.
Ok, I admit I’m a little confused here. The job creation funds have not been disbursed yet but the Recovery Act has already saved or created two million jobs? “Most of the funds spent in phase one were to offset the cost of State unemployment benefits and to provide tax relief” but the Recovery Act has already saved or created two million jobs? Is Vice President Biden saying that the act of collecting unemployment insurance is now considered a job? If so, is it a created job or a saved job? Maybe it’s both. If you had already been collecting benefits and are now drawing on an emergency extension then it is clearly a saved job but if you are one of the unfortunate 467,500 that are still losing their jobs every week; well, then that must be a created job.
All of this nonsense of saved jobs and created jobs flies in the face of the statements made by White House Economic Advisor Christina Romer in a Congressional hearing in October of 2009. Romer testified “Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009 and by mid-2010 fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to further growth.” Of course when the economy did not respond as hoped, Romer was obviously asked by the White House to revise her assessment. While recently appearing on the February 17th edition of Good Morning America, Romer said in response to questions about the economy that the greatest effects of the Stimulus Bill have yet to be realized.
The inconsistencies aren’t something shocking. In fact, this administration is amazingly consistent in its inconsistency. If you speak with five different people in this administration you will get five different numbers of the jobs the stimulus bill has “saved or created”. What doesn’t change is the mindless defense of the actions they have already taken or are hell bent on passing into law. Regardless of every possible economic index you can look at, the stimulus bill is not only a failure but has resulted in a “job deficit” as the economy fails to respond. What they absolutely refuse to see is that they can have another five stimulus bills of equal amount and still not create lasting private sector employment. Business is not responding because as this administration continues to apply its short term fiscal Band-Aid, the threat of future tax hikes and new regulations are still part of the overall plan.
The Healthcare Bill is just one of those black holes that are making businesses apprehensive. We still don’t know what is being crafted in the dark up on Capitol Hill. What will the tax liability be? At what income level does it begin? How many employees can I have before the mandate to provide coverage hits me? Will the plan I already provide have an additional tax levied against it? How can responsible business owners make a decision to hire additional employees until they know if they can even remain profitable after the Bush tax cuts expire and the capital gains tax go up in 2011?
Cap and trade, if passed, will increase energy costs by 65% in the first few years and more that 100% by 2015. The only thing that has allowed American businesses to remain even marginally competitive against nations that pay their employees five dollars a day is affordable and abundant energy. Proponents of cap and trade claim the difference is pennies a day but California has already installed Smart Meters, a major component of Smart Grid, the key to cap and trade. California energy costs to PS&G customers have skyrocketed and they are ready to revolt at the increases they are experiencing. Bear in mind that the cost of purchasing carbon credits to produce their electricity aren’t even part of that increase yet. That is where the real kick in the pants will come from. There are estimates that claim cap and trade will cost America five million jobs or two jobs for every so-called “green job” it creates. Looking at Spain, I think that estimate is conservative if not overly optimistic. Spain was suckered into the whole plan of creating a green economy that Obama is trying to sell us and unemployment in Spain has already passed 19%.
So where is the change? The actions of this administration are bordering on criminal; there is no transparency other than a few carefully orchestrated photo ops and the President has broken every promise he made during his campaign. The legislative process itself has been hijacked by Progressive radicals and special interests and even Obama’s friends in the Community Organizing business have been writing key parts of costly legislation that Congress won’t bother to read before passing. If Progressive Democrats continue to ignore the impact their plans are having on the economy and force healthcare through while unemployment is still close to 10%, the backlash will cost them both the House and the Senate in 2010. The damage they are doing now has already insured a long and hard road to recovery and the measures that will have to be taken to right the wrongs will be painful and unpopular. I can only hope that the American people will wean themselves from the public teat so we can actually address the spending problems in Congress before the world economy forces even more drastic change against our will.
Paul
It is bizarre that the Democrats can be this blatant as to their intentions. Behind the scenes work to reconcile the Healthcare Bill is still progressing even as the President continues to at least say, that he wants the best ideas from both Parties. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have both signaled their intention to “go nuclear” and rely on a reconciliation tactic to pass the bill with a simple majority, causing reasonable people to ask what kind of summit can this be if these negotiation are till taking place in secret and these kind of plans are being made before Congressional Republicans are even given the opportunity to present their ideas and compromises?
Scott Brown was not simply a message for the Democrats. His campaign was centered on the promise that he would be the 41st vote that would stop the race to pass a healthcare reform bill that the majority of American’s do not want. As support for the President wanes, the trust the American people have in the Democrat’s healthcare plan evaporates at an astounding rate. In recent polls, most Americans would prefer that the plan be scrapped and that the government turn its attention to the economy and the faltering job market.
Regardless of the loud and clear voice of the people, Congressional Democrats are standing firm because their President said they must move forward and also because the Progressive movement has been holding the Democratic Party hostage for decades. That is why Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh decided to throw in the towel and refuse to run for another term. He was bitter in his statements about the ineffectiveness of Congress and said that he could accomplish more as a private citizen than he ever could as a member of the Senate. Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith recently switched Parties for much the same reason. He joined the Republican Party because the Democrats under the Progressive assault had lost their way. They were no longer the Party of the people but some weird group of far left elitists that no longer cared to hear the people. That is why the President’s agenda is being propelled forward as the economy continues to crumble; they have been in effect, deafened by their own rhetoric.
To continue their push for healthcare reform and cap and trade they must convince you that the economy is already in recovery. As the President and the DNC struggle to convince people that the Recovery Act (Stimulus Bill) is working fine and has “saved or created” two million jobs, the U.S. Department of Labor’s own website says the job loss average for the past month has been 467,500 jobs lost in each of the last four weeks. Of course “saved jobs” is the new catch phrase since it is as impossible to disprove as it is to quantify. You know, that we might have even begun to believe some of that if Joe Biden hadn’t spilled the beans in an interview on Wednesday. As he spouted the administration line of “saved jobs” he added that the Recovery Act is a two phase program with the money for actual job creation loaded in the second half of the program. He explained that most of the funds spent in phase one had been targeted to offset the cost of State unemployment benefits and to provide tax relief.
Ok, I admit I’m a little confused here. The job creation funds have not been disbursed yet but the Recovery Act has already saved or created two million jobs? “Most of the funds spent in phase one were to offset the cost of State unemployment benefits and to provide tax relief” but the Recovery Act has already saved or created two million jobs? Is Vice President Biden saying that the act of collecting unemployment insurance is now considered a job? If so, is it a created job or a saved job? Maybe it’s both. If you had already been collecting benefits and are now drawing on an emergency extension then it is clearly a saved job but if you are one of the unfortunate 467,500 that are still losing their jobs every week; well, then that must be a created job.
All of this nonsense of saved jobs and created jobs flies in the face of the statements made by White House Economic Advisor Christina Romer in a Congressional hearing in October of 2009. Romer testified “Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009 and by mid-2010 fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to further growth.” Of course when the economy did not respond as hoped, Romer was obviously asked by the White House to revise her assessment. While recently appearing on the February 17th edition of Good Morning America, Romer said in response to questions about the economy that the greatest effects of the Stimulus Bill have yet to be realized.
The inconsistencies aren’t something shocking. In fact, this administration is amazingly consistent in its inconsistency. If you speak with five different people in this administration you will get five different numbers of the jobs the stimulus bill has “saved or created”. What doesn’t change is the mindless defense of the actions they have already taken or are hell bent on passing into law. Regardless of every possible economic index you can look at, the stimulus bill is not only a failure but has resulted in a “job deficit” as the economy fails to respond. What they absolutely refuse to see is that they can have another five stimulus bills of equal amount and still not create lasting private sector employment. Business is not responding because as this administration continues to apply its short term fiscal Band-Aid, the threat of future tax hikes and new regulations are still part of the overall plan.
The Healthcare Bill is just one of those black holes that are making businesses apprehensive. We still don’t know what is being crafted in the dark up on Capitol Hill. What will the tax liability be? At what income level does it begin? How many employees can I have before the mandate to provide coverage hits me? Will the plan I already provide have an additional tax levied against it? How can responsible business owners make a decision to hire additional employees until they know if they can even remain profitable after the Bush tax cuts expire and the capital gains tax go up in 2011?
Cap and trade, if passed, will increase energy costs by 65% in the first few years and more that 100% by 2015. The only thing that has allowed American businesses to remain even marginally competitive against nations that pay their employees five dollars a day is affordable and abundant energy. Proponents of cap and trade claim the difference is pennies a day but California has already installed Smart Meters, a major component of Smart Grid, the key to cap and trade. California energy costs to PS&G customers have skyrocketed and they are ready to revolt at the increases they are experiencing. Bear in mind that the cost of purchasing carbon credits to produce their electricity aren’t even part of that increase yet. That is where the real kick in the pants will come from. There are estimates that claim cap and trade will cost America five million jobs or two jobs for every so-called “green job” it creates. Looking at Spain, I think that estimate is conservative if not overly optimistic. Spain was suckered into the whole plan of creating a green economy that Obama is trying to sell us and unemployment in Spain has already passed 19%.
So where is the change? The actions of this administration are bordering on criminal; there is no transparency other than a few carefully orchestrated photo ops and the President has broken every promise he made during his campaign. The legislative process itself has been hijacked by Progressive radicals and special interests and even Obama’s friends in the Community Organizing business have been writing key parts of costly legislation that Congress won’t bother to read before passing. If Progressive Democrats continue to ignore the impact their plans are having on the economy and force healthcare through while unemployment is still close to 10%, the backlash will cost them both the House and the Senate in 2010. The damage they are doing now has already insured a long and hard road to recovery and the measures that will have to be taken to right the wrongs will be painful and unpopular. I can only hope that the American people will wean themselves from the public teat so we can actually address the spending problems in Congress before the world economy forces even more drastic change against our will.
Paul
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Newsweek's Curious Adoration of Al Gore
Barack Obama is an unqualified disaster so rather than accept fact, Newsweek (or is it News-Weak?) is taking a trip down memory lane so they can play “What if Gore won the 2000 election?” In what may be the most idiotic article to ever to stain the pages of that Liberal rag-sheet, News-weak has decided to imagine a fantasy timeline to give us a glimpse of what a Gore Presidency would look like.
We know Liberals are all about fantasy. After all, in a Liberal’s world, hard work and research just can’t yield the concrete results that wearing ribbons do. If they could only convince all Americans to wear the appropriate ribbon of awareness, think how much human suffering would vanish overnight. In fact, the ribbons possess so much power; Liberal’s would rather wear those than waste their money on funding established research or support centers. That is unless they are one of those filthy rich liberals. In that case, they use their money to create foundations; accepting donations to raise awareness among the massive population of insensitive people that do not wear ribbons.
The other thing Liberals love to do is dream about the utopian society they could create if last remnants of capitalism were finally swept away and the progressive (Marxist) agenda were realized in totality. Since Obama clearly can’t deliver on that, they did the next best thing and created a dream world where Bush was defeated and Gore took his rightful place as the 43rd President of the United States.
In David Rakoff's dream world, 9-11 never happened because Gore took the appropriate steps to prevent it and Gore’s attention to the environment, particularly the restoration of wetlands and erosion prevention on the gulf coast, mitigated the severity of Katrina and the swift response of the Federal government under Gore, prevented countless deaths and needless devastation. Obama maybe a weak and ineffectual Liberal but he is still a Liberal so they just couldn’t ignore him. In Rakoff's world, Gore would eventually name Obama as a Supreme Court Justice.
The piece begins by eluding all sense of Constitutional law as the United States, under Gore, finally becomes party to the Kyoto Protocol and passes a comprehensive energy bill. Somehow, the mystical powers of Al Gore can even circumvent the Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify our treaties with a 2/3 majority, something that could not happen with Kyoto and would not happen even if Copenhagen managed to cobble an agreement together within the next few days. The comprehensive energy agreement is also a work of fiction since that was proclaimed dead on arrival with democrats in control of both houses of Congress and a President that is willing to sign it. But this is a work of fantasy so to hell with logic and law….let’s dream on
At the ceremony to mark the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, President Gore announces ground breaking for high speed maglev rail along the Eastern Seaboard. Old rail cars would be sunk offshore to create artificial reefs and by September 2009, the system is opened, offering high speed rail service from Portland, Maine to Jacksonville, Florida. Of course, since Al Gore is the patron saint of the religion of Climatology, he would have no problem at all persuading the eco-fascists that the rail line is an important step in the “greening” of America….or would he?
Environmental activists have fought every major project, green or otherwise, under the banner of protecting the diversity of species and to restore the natural beauty of a planet untouched by human activity. If the project was to replace an existing system rail by rail and tie by tie, I am sure they would find some foul species of hairless mouse that has called the existing rail line home. Even if none were found, they would still sue to force us to do another one of those endless environmental impact studies before the basic route survey could even begin. Damn! Those little details keep ruining the plot.
The story continues with Gore’s superior intellect being able to decipher a disjointed and seemingly meaningless string of information (which is all that was left of our intelligence gathering capabilities after Clinton-Gore gutted the system) whereby he discovers a plot crafted by Osama Bin Laden to attack the United States. Despite his historical disdain for the military and his repeated assertions that war is an option only needed by those that fail at diplomacy, Gore races to the nearest phone booth and dons his “Commander in Chief” Underoos before ordering preemptive strategic bombing strikes on Al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border, averting the disaster of 9-11 altogether.
Just to imply the petty hardships that a victorious Al Gore would have to contend with as President, Rakoff adds that President Gore signs the Patriot Act to provide an additional measure of security for the country but since he is not George Bush, the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. He also says that a Gore administration would be ridiculed and denigrated at every turn which I take as more of a slap at Obama than a commentary on Gore. In Mr. Rakoff’s world, Gore is unaffected by his critics; making the hard decisions that he apparently feels Mr. Obama is incapable of.
To further show his fierce determination and Gore’s iron will, when Vice President Joe Lieberman speaks out against healthcare reform, Gore demands, and gets, his resignation which only proves the adolescence of the author. When this article was written, Lieberman was still holding out on healthcare so he apparently felt compelled to throw a few literary rocks at him. After all, since Lieberman is obviously not part of the collective mind, he must be eliminated, even in a fantasy administration. Of course, Hillary Clinton is named as Lieberman’s replacement. Colin Powell steps down as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton assumes that position.
Just to prove that this is indeed, OZ and not a work of fact driven speculation; Gore supposedly signs a bill providing tax cuts equaling $1.35 trillion dollars over ten years to America’s wealthiest citizens, drawing harsh criticism from both the left and the right. He also faces the nation during his 2002 State of the Union address and singles out Iran, Iraq and North Korea as having goals similar to the Axis powers of World War II.
Fear not…all ends well with King Al Gore the first. He is eventually recognized for his bold actions and foresight in preventing not only an imminent attack on the US by fundamentalist terrorists but in preventing catastrophe through his environmental restoration of the Gulf of Mexico coast line, which saved thousands of lives and billions in property damage. The number of Gore’s successes are eventually criticized in the Senate because the sheer amount of time they have to spend commending this President’s actions are seen as distracting the Senate from their primary purpose.
Of course no story in News-Weak would be complete if it didn’t trash Bush too. Now that Gore has completed his two terms, it is finally Hillary Clinton’s turn. The Democratic ticket for 2008 is Hillary Clinton with her mate and running mate, Bill. Just as strange is the notion that George Bush throws his hat in the ring in a bid to finally capture his second term with brother Jeb as his running mate. Rakoff suggests that George Bush’s fortunes begin to turn after a televised and tearful interview about his alcoholism with Dr. Drew Pinsky; a condition that Bush supposedly falls pray to after his 2000 loss to Gore.
Really? Apparently Mr. Rakoff is under the delusion that Al Gore would have been able to have see what dozens of experts could not, where Islamic terror is concerned. Much like the followers of Nostradamus, the snippets of information about Bin Laden’s activities could only have been reasonably connected after the attack when the names and countries of origin of the perpetrators were known. Similarly, Rakoff assumes that Gore would have found a stomach for military action if the need arose and that he would even care about the environment if he were not in a position to personally accrue millions of dollars by exploiting the fears of the Eco-weirdoes on a national level.
No, Gore is a lack-luster and unpolished imitation of a politician frustrated by his failed bid for the Presidency. His lack of substance and personality is why he was not elected in spite of every felonious act of voter fraud committed by the left.
Now that climate-gate has proven the fraud of environmental extremism and may even be the largest hoax of the century, perhaps Gore will finally find some other kind of snake oil to peddle. Maybe he can retire to a local park and sell snow cones this summer to help in the fight against seasonal global warming?
Paul
We know Liberals are all about fantasy. After all, in a Liberal’s world, hard work and research just can’t yield the concrete results that wearing ribbons do. If they could only convince all Americans to wear the appropriate ribbon of awareness, think how much human suffering would vanish overnight. In fact, the ribbons possess so much power; Liberal’s would rather wear those than waste their money on funding established research or support centers. That is unless they are one of those filthy rich liberals. In that case, they use their money to create foundations; accepting donations to raise awareness among the massive population of insensitive people that do not wear ribbons.
The other thing Liberals love to do is dream about the utopian society they could create if last remnants of capitalism were finally swept away and the progressive (Marxist) agenda were realized in totality. Since Obama clearly can’t deliver on that, they did the next best thing and created a dream world where Bush was defeated and Gore took his rightful place as the 43rd President of the United States.
In David Rakoff's dream world, 9-11 never happened because Gore took the appropriate steps to prevent it and Gore’s attention to the environment, particularly the restoration of wetlands and erosion prevention on the gulf coast, mitigated the severity of Katrina and the swift response of the Federal government under Gore, prevented countless deaths and needless devastation. Obama maybe a weak and ineffectual Liberal but he is still a Liberal so they just couldn’t ignore him. In Rakoff's world, Gore would eventually name Obama as a Supreme Court Justice.
The piece begins by eluding all sense of Constitutional law as the United States, under Gore, finally becomes party to the Kyoto Protocol and passes a comprehensive energy bill. Somehow, the mystical powers of Al Gore can even circumvent the Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify our treaties with a 2/3 majority, something that could not happen with Kyoto and would not happen even if Copenhagen managed to cobble an agreement together within the next few days. The comprehensive energy agreement is also a work of fiction since that was proclaimed dead on arrival with democrats in control of both houses of Congress and a President that is willing to sign it. But this is a work of fantasy so to hell with logic and law….let’s dream on
At the ceremony to mark the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, President Gore announces ground breaking for high speed maglev rail along the Eastern Seaboard. Old rail cars would be sunk offshore to create artificial reefs and by September 2009, the system is opened, offering high speed rail service from Portland, Maine to Jacksonville, Florida. Of course, since Al Gore is the patron saint of the religion of Climatology, he would have no problem at all persuading the eco-fascists that the rail line is an important step in the “greening” of America….or would he?
Environmental activists have fought every major project, green or otherwise, under the banner of protecting the diversity of species and to restore the natural beauty of a planet untouched by human activity. If the project was to replace an existing system rail by rail and tie by tie, I am sure they would find some foul species of hairless mouse that has called the existing rail line home. Even if none were found, they would still sue to force us to do another one of those endless environmental impact studies before the basic route survey could even begin. Damn! Those little details keep ruining the plot.
The story continues with Gore’s superior intellect being able to decipher a disjointed and seemingly meaningless string of information (which is all that was left of our intelligence gathering capabilities after Clinton-Gore gutted the system) whereby he discovers a plot crafted by Osama Bin Laden to attack the United States. Despite his historical disdain for the military and his repeated assertions that war is an option only needed by those that fail at diplomacy, Gore races to the nearest phone booth and dons his “Commander in Chief” Underoos before ordering preemptive strategic bombing strikes on Al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border, averting the disaster of 9-11 altogether.
Just to imply the petty hardships that a victorious Al Gore would have to contend with as President, Rakoff adds that President Gore signs the Patriot Act to provide an additional measure of security for the country but since he is not George Bush, the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. He also says that a Gore administration would be ridiculed and denigrated at every turn which I take as more of a slap at Obama than a commentary on Gore. In Mr. Rakoff’s world, Gore is unaffected by his critics; making the hard decisions that he apparently feels Mr. Obama is incapable of.
To further show his fierce determination and Gore’s iron will, when Vice President Joe Lieberman speaks out against healthcare reform, Gore demands, and gets, his resignation which only proves the adolescence of the author. When this article was written, Lieberman was still holding out on healthcare so he apparently felt compelled to throw a few literary rocks at him. After all, since Lieberman is obviously not part of the collective mind, he must be eliminated, even in a fantasy administration. Of course, Hillary Clinton is named as Lieberman’s replacement. Colin Powell steps down as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton assumes that position.
Just to prove that this is indeed, OZ and not a work of fact driven speculation; Gore supposedly signs a bill providing tax cuts equaling $1.35 trillion dollars over ten years to America’s wealthiest citizens, drawing harsh criticism from both the left and the right. He also faces the nation during his 2002 State of the Union address and singles out Iran, Iraq and North Korea as having goals similar to the Axis powers of World War II.
Fear not…all ends well with King Al Gore the first. He is eventually recognized for his bold actions and foresight in preventing not only an imminent attack on the US by fundamentalist terrorists but in preventing catastrophe through his environmental restoration of the Gulf of Mexico coast line, which saved thousands of lives and billions in property damage. The number of Gore’s successes are eventually criticized in the Senate because the sheer amount of time they have to spend commending this President’s actions are seen as distracting the Senate from their primary purpose.
Of course no story in News-Weak would be complete if it didn’t trash Bush too. Now that Gore has completed his two terms, it is finally Hillary Clinton’s turn. The Democratic ticket for 2008 is Hillary Clinton with her mate and running mate, Bill. Just as strange is the notion that George Bush throws his hat in the ring in a bid to finally capture his second term with brother Jeb as his running mate. Rakoff suggests that George Bush’s fortunes begin to turn after a televised and tearful interview about his alcoholism with Dr. Drew Pinsky; a condition that Bush supposedly falls pray to after his 2000 loss to Gore.
Really? Apparently Mr. Rakoff is under the delusion that Al Gore would have been able to have see what dozens of experts could not, where Islamic terror is concerned. Much like the followers of Nostradamus, the snippets of information about Bin Laden’s activities could only have been reasonably connected after the attack when the names and countries of origin of the perpetrators were known. Similarly, Rakoff assumes that Gore would have found a stomach for military action if the need arose and that he would even care about the environment if he were not in a position to personally accrue millions of dollars by exploiting the fears of the Eco-weirdoes on a national level.
No, Gore is a lack-luster and unpolished imitation of a politician frustrated by his failed bid for the Presidency. His lack of substance and personality is why he was not elected in spite of every felonious act of voter fraud committed by the left.
Now that climate-gate has proven the fraud of environmental extremism and may even be the largest hoax of the century, perhaps Gore will finally find some other kind of snake oil to peddle. Maybe he can retire to a local park and sell snow cones this summer to help in the fight against seasonal global warming?
Paul
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Copenhagen Unwittingly Exposes Climate Fraud
The climate conference in Copenhagen is becoming a running commentary on everything I told you it would be. Ironically, thousands of arriving delegates had to stand outside in freezing rain, snow and bitterly cold temperatures while conference personnel sorted out their registration difficulties. Apparently the body of nations that wants to impose international rule over the evils of industrial societies do not possess the required brain power to realize that you cannot fit the invited 45,000 delegates in a building designed for a maximum occupancy of 12,000 people. How encouraging.
There were more headlines Monday as a contingent of poorer nations stormed out of the negotiations because their demands for money were not being adequately addressed. In somewhat of an eco-reparations scheme, they contend that since industrial nations have already produced nearly two centuries of greenhouse gas, we should pay them (handsomely) because they haven’t. While it’s true that pre-industrial and developing nations emit very little greenhouse gas, this is not proof of their ecological prowess; it is a commentary on their corrupt governance.
Many of these nations have failed to develop because their war-lord leaders steal as much as possible from their own people and that has stalled any growth of their economy or industry. Pre-conference estimates said the climate accords could eventually result in a massive redistribution of wealth from prosperous nations to the poorer nations of as much as $145 Trillion dollars. Even if that were true, it is doubtful that this money would be used to develop environment friendly infrastructure in those countries as advertised. Instead, I envision massive retrofits of the palatial dwellings of hundreds of war-lords and totalitarian leaders while the people of those nations continue to live in squalor; cooking their meager meals on fires of dried ox dung.
The talks were not quite as lucrative for those poor nations as they had expected and the commitment for that kind of transfer of wealth was just not fleshing out. I don’t blame them for being upset. I am a regular Power Ball player so I understand their disappointment. I was checking numbers on a recent ticket I had purchased and had the first three in a row. I had envisioned all the ways I was going to spend my fortune before realizing that those were the only three numbers I was going to get and my fortune would be a mere seven dollars. Of course the delegates’ walkout only lasted a couple of hours since global warming hasn’t quite reached Copenhagen and the temperatures were below freezing outside of the conference hall.
There were also massive demonstrations all around the conference area demanding immediate action to “save the planet”. Curiously, the angry mobs were carrying flags adorned with the Communist Hammer and Sickle which may have shocked Danish police, but really shouldn’t surprise anyone that regularly reads this blog. Marxists have long recognized that the climate movement is the best possible vehicles to have capitalist nations commit suicide, eventually forcing their people in to socialism to survive. Apparently, climate-gate had the same catastrophic result for die hard communist intentions that the fall of the Berlin Wall had. You see, not everyone cheered at the collapse of the Soviet Union. For these throw-backs to the days of Stalin, hysteria over global warming was supposed to mean a resurgence of Marxism while us silly westerners cut our own financial throats to save the planet.
The President plans to attend the last day of the conference and rumors say that he will offer guarantees that the United States will commit to a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020; a guarantee he has no authority to make unless he plans to scrap the Constitution and negate its requirement that international treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. Apparently that is the plan, at least in spirit. According to Robert Creamer’s book, “Stand up Straight, How Progressives Can Win”, one of his strategies to advance progressive agendas is to create a crisis and then offer the people the lesser of two evils as a solution. You remember Robert Creamer, the husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)? He wrote this book while serving a prison sentence for attempting to defraud banks of $2.3 million to keep his insolvent progressive activist group afloat.
The lessons in his book have not fallen on deaf ears. Obama’s chief political advisor, David Axelrod, calls the book a “blueprint” for progressive victory. Well I suppose it’s comforting that the White House understands the concept of victory even if they have no intention of applying the discipline to foreign affairs. Now that Cap and Trade had been called dead on arrival, the President’s appointed hit man (or should I say hit person), Lisa Jackson of the EPA is issuing her ultimatum to Congress. Without Cap and Trade, warns Ms. Jackson, the EPA will exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act and begin the process of regulating CO2 production as a function of “command and control”. The threat is a clear assault by this administration against the authority of Congress and the most blatant misuse of government power to date.
The “deal” Lisa Jackson offered is that the EPA can enact regulatory control over the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses without the market based initiatives that would allow the trade of carbon credits, effectively shutting down all industry in the United States (The evil plan) or Congress can pass Cap and Trade that promises to damage business, raise energy costs for everyone, raise taxes and put millions out of work (the lesser of the two evils plan). How about door number three? If Congress can find the will (and the courage) to face this President and his radical advisors, they can pass a single page bill excluding CO2 from the Clean Air Act. Sure, that would result in law suits between environmentalists, the EPA and the Federal government but at least we could focus on getting millions of people off unemployment and putting them back to work while they sort the logistics out in the courts for the next forty years. If Congress fails to restrain the EPA, millions more will be out of work and our financial system will finally collapse.
Don’t forget the premise of Cap and Trade was meant to reduce global warming and have the added benefit of bringing America into a 21st century “green” economy. We now know through leaked e-mails and documents that “global warming” is the largest hoax ever perpetrated against the people of the world and that the latest verifiable data shows the earth is actually cooling. Besides the mitigation of global warming, we are being promised that if Cap and Trade passes that another main goal is to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil as we shift to renewable and non-polluting energy sources such as solar and wind power. Do you really think that can happen on a national level when environmental groups are filing one law suit after another effectively ceasing all major wind and solar projects now?
A recent project to install wind generating facilities in one of this nation’s desert regions, was brought to a screeching halt be one such law suit. The suit maintains that the installation would destroy the desert environment, ruin the natural beauty and affect a multitude of endangered species. It seems the only species that environmentalist are not concerned with are humans so even renewable, clean energy projects are being fought because that would allow us to continue to thrive. Desert lizards are far more deserving than we are and according to the most radical environmentalists, the loss of billions of humans would only begin to restore balance to the planet.
The reality of the situation has not deterred the White House and according to them, we are going to reduce CO2 production no matter how bad it is for the nation and how phony the science of global warming is found to be. The EPA declared its endangerment finding based on the reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC reports were constructed using the data prepared by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia; data that was proven to be manipulated and manufactured by those damaging e-mails that were released by an unknown whistle blower. Even though there is now concrete evidence that opposing scientific views were not only ignored but the scientists that brought them to the table were intentionally discredited; even thought there is concrete evidence that the work of the CRU and the IPCC was a calculated lie designed to provide proof of global warming by rigging the data to hide historical fluctuations in climate prior to industrial pollution, the push for climate legislation and EPA regulation continues.
It will not stop there. As if taking over the banking industry, the auto industry, the healthcare industry and now the regulation of CO2 was not enough to prove this administration is seeking to cultivate incredible power in violation of the Constitution; the Congress is now discussing amending the Clean Water Restoration Act. The CWRA currently gives the Federal government regulatory control over all navigable waters in and around the United States. The proposed amendment would expand that regulatory authority to ALL waters in and around the United States. Wetlands, streams, lakes, farm ponds, wells, aquifers; even dry washes that only carry water once every ten years would then be subject to Federal regulation.
What is going on here? The Constitution is being trashed before our eyes and the government is actively seizing control of food, water, jobs and healthcare….everything that would make it possible for the citizens to mount a successful opposition to the dismantling of our way of life. After all, how far would a citizen revolt get without money, food or water? None of this is by chance and if there were any doubts, we now know with certainty what Obama meant when he declared before Election Day, that we were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. I see a lot that is being transformed and if they are successful, the Constitution will be relegated to the dust bin of history and replaced with a new document that will bring all of us to our knees. If we let them do that, what will you tell your children and grandchildren when they ask you why?
Paul
There were more headlines Monday as a contingent of poorer nations stormed out of the negotiations because their demands for money were not being adequately addressed. In somewhat of an eco-reparations scheme, they contend that since industrial nations have already produced nearly two centuries of greenhouse gas, we should pay them (handsomely) because they haven’t. While it’s true that pre-industrial and developing nations emit very little greenhouse gas, this is not proof of their ecological prowess; it is a commentary on their corrupt governance.
Many of these nations have failed to develop because their war-lord leaders steal as much as possible from their own people and that has stalled any growth of their economy or industry. Pre-conference estimates said the climate accords could eventually result in a massive redistribution of wealth from prosperous nations to the poorer nations of as much as $145 Trillion dollars. Even if that were true, it is doubtful that this money would be used to develop environment friendly infrastructure in those countries as advertised. Instead, I envision massive retrofits of the palatial dwellings of hundreds of war-lords and totalitarian leaders while the people of those nations continue to live in squalor; cooking their meager meals on fires of dried ox dung.
The talks were not quite as lucrative for those poor nations as they had expected and the commitment for that kind of transfer of wealth was just not fleshing out. I don’t blame them for being upset. I am a regular Power Ball player so I understand their disappointment. I was checking numbers on a recent ticket I had purchased and had the first three in a row. I had envisioned all the ways I was going to spend my fortune before realizing that those were the only three numbers I was going to get and my fortune would be a mere seven dollars. Of course the delegates’ walkout only lasted a couple of hours since global warming hasn’t quite reached Copenhagen and the temperatures were below freezing outside of the conference hall.
There were also massive demonstrations all around the conference area demanding immediate action to “save the planet”. Curiously, the angry mobs were carrying flags adorned with the Communist Hammer and Sickle which may have shocked Danish police, but really shouldn’t surprise anyone that regularly reads this blog. Marxists have long recognized that the climate movement is the best possible vehicles to have capitalist nations commit suicide, eventually forcing their people in to socialism to survive. Apparently, climate-gate had the same catastrophic result for die hard communist intentions that the fall of the Berlin Wall had. You see, not everyone cheered at the collapse of the Soviet Union. For these throw-backs to the days of Stalin, hysteria over global warming was supposed to mean a resurgence of Marxism while us silly westerners cut our own financial throats to save the planet.
The President plans to attend the last day of the conference and rumors say that he will offer guarantees that the United States will commit to a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020; a guarantee he has no authority to make unless he plans to scrap the Constitution and negate its requirement that international treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. Apparently that is the plan, at least in spirit. According to Robert Creamer’s book, “Stand up Straight, How Progressives Can Win”, one of his strategies to advance progressive agendas is to create a crisis and then offer the people the lesser of two evils as a solution. You remember Robert Creamer, the husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)? He wrote this book while serving a prison sentence for attempting to defraud banks of $2.3 million to keep his insolvent progressive activist group afloat.
The lessons in his book have not fallen on deaf ears. Obama’s chief political advisor, David Axelrod, calls the book a “blueprint” for progressive victory. Well I suppose it’s comforting that the White House understands the concept of victory even if they have no intention of applying the discipline to foreign affairs. Now that Cap and Trade had been called dead on arrival, the President’s appointed hit man (or should I say hit person), Lisa Jackson of the EPA is issuing her ultimatum to Congress. Without Cap and Trade, warns Ms. Jackson, the EPA will exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act and begin the process of regulating CO2 production as a function of “command and control”. The threat is a clear assault by this administration against the authority of Congress and the most blatant misuse of government power to date.
The “deal” Lisa Jackson offered is that the EPA can enact regulatory control over the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses without the market based initiatives that would allow the trade of carbon credits, effectively shutting down all industry in the United States (The evil plan) or Congress can pass Cap and Trade that promises to damage business, raise energy costs for everyone, raise taxes and put millions out of work (the lesser of the two evils plan). How about door number three? If Congress can find the will (and the courage) to face this President and his radical advisors, they can pass a single page bill excluding CO2 from the Clean Air Act. Sure, that would result in law suits between environmentalists, the EPA and the Federal government but at least we could focus on getting millions of people off unemployment and putting them back to work while they sort the logistics out in the courts for the next forty years. If Congress fails to restrain the EPA, millions more will be out of work and our financial system will finally collapse.
Don’t forget the premise of Cap and Trade was meant to reduce global warming and have the added benefit of bringing America into a 21st century “green” economy. We now know through leaked e-mails and documents that “global warming” is the largest hoax ever perpetrated against the people of the world and that the latest verifiable data shows the earth is actually cooling. Besides the mitigation of global warming, we are being promised that if Cap and Trade passes that another main goal is to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil as we shift to renewable and non-polluting energy sources such as solar and wind power. Do you really think that can happen on a national level when environmental groups are filing one law suit after another effectively ceasing all major wind and solar projects now?
A recent project to install wind generating facilities in one of this nation’s desert regions, was brought to a screeching halt be one such law suit. The suit maintains that the installation would destroy the desert environment, ruin the natural beauty and affect a multitude of endangered species. It seems the only species that environmentalist are not concerned with are humans so even renewable, clean energy projects are being fought because that would allow us to continue to thrive. Desert lizards are far more deserving than we are and according to the most radical environmentalists, the loss of billions of humans would only begin to restore balance to the planet.
The reality of the situation has not deterred the White House and according to them, we are going to reduce CO2 production no matter how bad it is for the nation and how phony the science of global warming is found to be. The EPA declared its endangerment finding based on the reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC reports were constructed using the data prepared by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia; data that was proven to be manipulated and manufactured by those damaging e-mails that were released by an unknown whistle blower. Even though there is now concrete evidence that opposing scientific views were not only ignored but the scientists that brought them to the table were intentionally discredited; even thought there is concrete evidence that the work of the CRU and the IPCC was a calculated lie designed to provide proof of global warming by rigging the data to hide historical fluctuations in climate prior to industrial pollution, the push for climate legislation and EPA regulation continues.
It will not stop there. As if taking over the banking industry, the auto industry, the healthcare industry and now the regulation of CO2 was not enough to prove this administration is seeking to cultivate incredible power in violation of the Constitution; the Congress is now discussing amending the Clean Water Restoration Act. The CWRA currently gives the Federal government regulatory control over all navigable waters in and around the United States. The proposed amendment would expand that regulatory authority to ALL waters in and around the United States. Wetlands, streams, lakes, farm ponds, wells, aquifers; even dry washes that only carry water once every ten years would then be subject to Federal regulation.
What is going on here? The Constitution is being trashed before our eyes and the government is actively seizing control of food, water, jobs and healthcare….everything that would make it possible for the citizens to mount a successful opposition to the dismantling of our way of life. After all, how far would a citizen revolt get without money, food or water? None of this is by chance and if there were any doubts, we now know with certainty what Obama meant when he declared before Election Day, that we were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. I see a lot that is being transformed and if they are successful, the Constitution will be relegated to the dust bin of history and replaced with a new document that will bring all of us to our knees. If we let them do that, what will you tell your children and grandchildren when they ask you why?
Paul
Friday, December 11, 2009
Pass the "Creamer" please!
While the main stream media was consumed with finding out exactly who Tareq and Michaele Salahi are and how they managed to get past three levels of Secret Service security screenings, gaining entry into a White House State Dinner, the press apparently missed the bigger story of at least one of the invited guests.
Robert Creamer, husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), was an invited guest of the same White House function that the Salahi’s snuck into. The Salahi’s are merely publicity hounds seeking attention for a reality show Bravo reportedly has them competing for. While they may eventually face charges for their bold move, the Salahi’s, unlike Robert Creamer, are not convicted felons.
While Congress holds hearings on the lapse of security that allowed the Salahi’s to waltz through the front door of the White House I wonder if they will take up the question of how effective White House security really is when a convicted felon can receive a bona fide invitation to a State dinner. I’m sure if the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh were asked, he would probably have preferred the company of the Salahi’s over that of a Chicago felon but then again, this whole concept of a Presidential “Thugocracy” is new to the White House and it will take world leaders some time to adapt.
Robert Creamer plead guilty to charges of bank fraud in 2004 and received five months in prison and eleven months of house arrest for defrauding banks of $2.3 million dollars in an elaborate check kiting scheme. Prosecutors had wanted a three-year sentence, but U.S. District Judge James B. Moran said five months was fairer because no one suffered "out of pocket losses" and Creamer acted not out of greed but in an effort to keep his community action group going through a period of financial difficulty.
James Moran (1930-2009) was not only a Federal Judge but a self described liberal Democrat who supported many liberal and progressive causes. To Judge Moran, the ends obviously justified the means and he couldn’t bring himself to mete out a harsh punishment to someone that wasn’t committing fraud for personal gain, but had only broken the law to help his struggling progressive group, the Illinois Public Action Council, from failing. After all, Creamer was a political organizer and strategist, a lobbyist for George Soros and a progressive (Marxist) just like the good judge. Sentencing Creamer to the three years the prosecutor had asked for would be akin to political cannibalism and we all know that liberals, like cannibals, don’t eat their friends no matter what they’ve done.
Like many other felons, Robert Creamer had to find himself in prison. He wrote a book while he was serving his sentence titled: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win. This book was lauded by David Axelrod as the blueprint for progressive politics and I suppose, as Obama’s top political advisor, his glowing review probably placed this book high on the President’s reading list. Curiously, many of the bullet points that Creamer named in his strategy appear to have been adopted, verse and chapter by this administration in their plan to advance their agenda. It’s all there…creating a crisis, naming enemies, shaming opponents, etc, etc.
I’m just not sure if Axelrod really believes Creamer’s book is that brilliant or if he just sees Creamer as a kindred spirit. After all, Axelrod was born to a middle class family living in the lower east side of Manhattan, New York City. He never held a job outside of politics, political reporting or political consulting but has managed to amass a comfortable fortune reported to be between $6.9 and $9.5 million dollars. Last year he reported a $900,000 salary from AKP&D and more than $650,000 in partnership income from his two firms. It always amazed me that so many of our political figures seem to make millions, virtually overnight. Oh sure, there are many that were just born into money like Rockefeller and Kennedy or married it like John Kerry but for many, it is an almost miraculous transformation into wealth.
Who would ever think that devoting your life to Democratic principals and service to your nation could be so…..so rewarding! Not like those corrupt corporate heads and Wall Street fat cats that deserve to have their salaries capped by the Federal Government at $500,000. They are evil and Democrats are only working for the good of the people. I bet that Mr. Axelrod would forgo his excessive salary altogether if it weren’t for the fact that he wants to pay as much income tax as possible to help support the government. If it were not for the progressive tax structure, he would probably despise himself for being so loaded with filthy, evil, capitalist money. What a guy!
Conspiracy advocates are usually denigrated because most conspiracy theories are such a stretch of the imagination and if they have proof, it is nearly invisible. This administration, however, is surrounded by curious characters with very troubling views. None of the allegations about communist beliefs or links between his agenda and radical third parties have ever been disputed by the White House which only deepens the mystery. The links to 1960’s militant radicals, Czars with ties to socialist organizations and alliances with Marxist union chiefs are all well know and the most damning evidence is documented by their own statements made in speeches and other appearances or in black and white on the pages of their own books.
Cash for Clunkers and training prison labor for “green Jobs” are now known to have been the brain child of Van Jones, the self-proclaimed communist and the only Czar that was too radical, even for this administration. Now we have policies adopted by the White House that appear to be part of a plan crafted by an ex-con detailed in a book he wrote in prison. How much lower can they go? It is all filthy politics designed around the absolute control of America with or without the consent of Congress but that sounds like the kind of plan a common criminal would come up with; doesn’t it.
The inspirations that Obama has based his life and career on were, until a very few years ago, the people and plans that the radical left discussed in dark closets and University courses in political science. Lenin, Mao Zedong, Saul Alinsky and now Robert Creamer are all part of the equation. Can anyone deny that the healthcare reform bill now under discussion is not the first brick in a socialist cathedral? The foundation was laid by FDR in the 1930’s and reinforced by Johnson in the 1960’s. Both would have preferred to have universal healthcare brought to life under their administrations but Americans then, as now, have no stomach for a massive and all powerful Federal government. Can anyone deny that Cap and Trade otherwise known as the Climate Bill, would give government express control over every industrial and economic activity in this nation? We were shocked when the Feds took over GM and now it appears that this was the tip of the iceberg. Cap and trade will give the government power to regulate everything and in essence, seize control of industry without having to “buy” control as in the case if GM.
Now that the evidence to support global warming is known to have been manufactured for political reasons, the Congress is rethinking their commitment to Cap and Trade, as well they should. Well that throws a good old fashioned monkey wrench into their plans for national domination so Obama’s appointee to the EPA steps in and declares carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated by the EPA under existing law. The White House is now threatening Congress to either pass cap and trade or the EPA will do something even worse. They will impose cap without the trade and just shut industry down all together.
You know, I am really beginning to believe we have been looking in all the wrong places for terrorists. After all, only a terrorist would threaten to collapse the entire American economy unless we concede to their demands. Only terrorists would intentionally surround themselves with radicals, militants and criminals. Aren’t terrorists driven by ideology? Aren’t they driven by the “teachings” of like minded individuals? Don’t they believe they are the soldiers of fundamental change?
Well it is another Friday so I will be keeping my ear to the ground again. The other trait this administration has in common with terrorists is in their tendency to strike without warning and when least expected. They love making surprise announcements and personnel changes during the wee hours of the night during weekend when few are looking. I only hope that 2010 isn’t too far away to stop these people and the things they manage to push through can be undone while we still have a nation and a Constitution to protects.
Paul
Robert Creamer, husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), was an invited guest of the same White House function that the Salahi’s snuck into. The Salahi’s are merely publicity hounds seeking attention for a reality show Bravo reportedly has them competing for. While they may eventually face charges for their bold move, the Salahi’s, unlike Robert Creamer, are not convicted felons.
While Congress holds hearings on the lapse of security that allowed the Salahi’s to waltz through the front door of the White House I wonder if they will take up the question of how effective White House security really is when a convicted felon can receive a bona fide invitation to a State dinner. I’m sure if the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh were asked, he would probably have preferred the company of the Salahi’s over that of a Chicago felon but then again, this whole concept of a Presidential “Thugocracy” is new to the White House and it will take world leaders some time to adapt.
Robert Creamer plead guilty to charges of bank fraud in 2004 and received five months in prison and eleven months of house arrest for defrauding banks of $2.3 million dollars in an elaborate check kiting scheme. Prosecutors had wanted a three-year sentence, but U.S. District Judge James B. Moran said five months was fairer because no one suffered "out of pocket losses" and Creamer acted not out of greed but in an effort to keep his community action group going through a period of financial difficulty.
James Moran (1930-2009) was not only a Federal Judge but a self described liberal Democrat who supported many liberal and progressive causes. To Judge Moran, the ends obviously justified the means and he couldn’t bring himself to mete out a harsh punishment to someone that wasn’t committing fraud for personal gain, but had only broken the law to help his struggling progressive group, the Illinois Public Action Council, from failing. After all, Creamer was a political organizer and strategist, a lobbyist for George Soros and a progressive (Marxist) just like the good judge. Sentencing Creamer to the three years the prosecutor had asked for would be akin to political cannibalism and we all know that liberals, like cannibals, don’t eat their friends no matter what they’ve done.
Like many other felons, Robert Creamer had to find himself in prison. He wrote a book while he was serving his sentence titled: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win. This book was lauded by David Axelrod as the blueprint for progressive politics and I suppose, as Obama’s top political advisor, his glowing review probably placed this book high on the President’s reading list. Curiously, many of the bullet points that Creamer named in his strategy appear to have been adopted, verse and chapter by this administration in their plan to advance their agenda. It’s all there…creating a crisis, naming enemies, shaming opponents, etc, etc.
I’m just not sure if Axelrod really believes Creamer’s book is that brilliant or if he just sees Creamer as a kindred spirit. After all, Axelrod was born to a middle class family living in the lower east side of Manhattan, New York City. He never held a job outside of politics, political reporting or political consulting but has managed to amass a comfortable fortune reported to be between $6.9 and $9.5 million dollars. Last year he reported a $900,000 salary from AKP&D and more than $650,000 in partnership income from his two firms. It always amazed me that so many of our political figures seem to make millions, virtually overnight. Oh sure, there are many that were just born into money like Rockefeller and Kennedy or married it like John Kerry but for many, it is an almost miraculous transformation into wealth.
Who would ever think that devoting your life to Democratic principals and service to your nation could be so…..so rewarding! Not like those corrupt corporate heads and Wall Street fat cats that deserve to have their salaries capped by the Federal Government at $500,000. They are evil and Democrats are only working for the good of the people. I bet that Mr. Axelrod would forgo his excessive salary altogether if it weren’t for the fact that he wants to pay as much income tax as possible to help support the government. If it were not for the progressive tax structure, he would probably despise himself for being so loaded with filthy, evil, capitalist money. What a guy!
Conspiracy advocates are usually denigrated because most conspiracy theories are such a stretch of the imagination and if they have proof, it is nearly invisible. This administration, however, is surrounded by curious characters with very troubling views. None of the allegations about communist beliefs or links between his agenda and radical third parties have ever been disputed by the White House which only deepens the mystery. The links to 1960’s militant radicals, Czars with ties to socialist organizations and alliances with Marxist union chiefs are all well know and the most damning evidence is documented by their own statements made in speeches and other appearances or in black and white on the pages of their own books.
Cash for Clunkers and training prison labor for “green Jobs” are now known to have been the brain child of Van Jones, the self-proclaimed communist and the only Czar that was too radical, even for this administration. Now we have policies adopted by the White House that appear to be part of a plan crafted by an ex-con detailed in a book he wrote in prison. How much lower can they go? It is all filthy politics designed around the absolute control of America with or without the consent of Congress but that sounds like the kind of plan a common criminal would come up with; doesn’t it.
The inspirations that Obama has based his life and career on were, until a very few years ago, the people and plans that the radical left discussed in dark closets and University courses in political science. Lenin, Mao Zedong, Saul Alinsky and now Robert Creamer are all part of the equation. Can anyone deny that the healthcare reform bill now under discussion is not the first brick in a socialist cathedral? The foundation was laid by FDR in the 1930’s and reinforced by Johnson in the 1960’s. Both would have preferred to have universal healthcare brought to life under their administrations but Americans then, as now, have no stomach for a massive and all powerful Federal government. Can anyone deny that Cap and Trade otherwise known as the Climate Bill, would give government express control over every industrial and economic activity in this nation? We were shocked when the Feds took over GM and now it appears that this was the tip of the iceberg. Cap and trade will give the government power to regulate everything and in essence, seize control of industry without having to “buy” control as in the case if GM.
Now that the evidence to support global warming is known to have been manufactured for political reasons, the Congress is rethinking their commitment to Cap and Trade, as well they should. Well that throws a good old fashioned monkey wrench into their plans for national domination so Obama’s appointee to the EPA steps in and declares carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated by the EPA under existing law. The White House is now threatening Congress to either pass cap and trade or the EPA will do something even worse. They will impose cap without the trade and just shut industry down all together.
You know, I am really beginning to believe we have been looking in all the wrong places for terrorists. After all, only a terrorist would threaten to collapse the entire American economy unless we concede to their demands. Only terrorists would intentionally surround themselves with radicals, militants and criminals. Aren’t terrorists driven by ideology? Aren’t they driven by the “teachings” of like minded individuals? Don’t they believe they are the soldiers of fundamental change?
Well it is another Friday so I will be keeping my ear to the ground again. The other trait this administration has in common with terrorists is in their tendency to strike without warning and when least expected. They love making surprise announcements and personnel changes during the wee hours of the night during weekend when few are looking. I only hope that 2010 isn’t too far away to stop these people and the things they manage to push through can be undone while we still have a nation and a Constitution to protects.
Paul
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Manchurian Candidate
The climate debate is raging in Copenhagen and as I suspected, is turning into a money issue between poorer and richer nations. After all, the UN promised that there would be a major shift of wealth from the suckers, I mean the western industrial nations to the parasites…oops…I mean developing nations. I am not disparaging the poor. They have an awful existence but one would have to be foolish to ignore that the impoverished people of those nations are the victims of massive government corruption within their own countries and not suffering because the west prefers I-Pods to drums and cars to ox carts.
EPA Chief Lisa Jackson is there to calm the nerves of Obama’s globalist friends in the UN by laying out her plan to negate Congressional authority and bypass the democratic process by unilaterally enacting sweeping regulations in the US to cap greenhouse gases through a dangerous loophole crafted into the clean air act. This, my friends, is what happens when you elect a radical to the Presidency. They appoint radical environmentalists to positions of power such as Carol Browner, and the radicals in turn, use our own laws against us to bring about their own twisted agenda based on bad science and egalitarian socialist principals.
Half of Obama’s appointees believe in a one world government responsible for controlling every facets of human existence and the other half have a world first, people last eco-fascist mentality. Both of these factions believe their ideology is too important to worry about the sovereignty of the United States and if we must cease to exist as a nation for the greater good of the world, then that is a small price to pay. Don’t believe me? Then why, when all evidence points to a massive, international and concerted effort to conceal the fallacies of the global warming theory, has the EPA decided to “go rogue” and continue these insanely damaging policies to cripple business in the US in the name of reducing greenhouse gasses?
Global warming proponents are disregarding the evidence contained in these e-mails stating that there is sufficient corroboration in the work of other climate scientists to validate the existence of man-made global warming. Really? Does it matter that the believers in global warming, as a body, have collaborated on their work and many use the same data sources; data that is proven to have been manipulated? Does it matter that dissenting views and research by serious scientists that contradict the theory of global warming have not only been locked out of the discussion but that any peer paper or organization that even print their work have been ostracized as well?
The religious leaders of the global warming camp have pointed to NASA and NOAA as collaborative proof of global warming, noting studies and reports that confirm their findings. Unfortunately for them, NASA has been brought under fire and the researcher that issued the report validating global warming has refused to release his data, even under the threat of a Freedom of Information law suit. We all know that Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia had sent e-mails warning colleagues to destroy damning communications and data before a Freedom of Information Act suit could be brought. The CRU recently announced that its climate data from 1960 to present has been “irretrievably lost” but denies that this has anything to do with Mr., Jones’s e-mails. Add to this that NOAA personnel have also actively sought to silence dissenting views and have recently been caught eliminating the input of live satellite data from their computer model to better show the rise in sea temperature.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. There is nothing in the explanation of the scientific method that would allow a researcher from distorting or deleting “observable, empirical and measurable evidence” because it contradicts their pre-conceived ideas about what should be happening. If the evidence does not correspond, then the theory is wrong….plain and simple; at least it should be.
There is far too much effort being exerted to force everyone into the acceptance of global warming, or climate change as it is now called, to be a matter of scientific rationale. Let’s face it, if the empirical evidence is there; if this is a solid scientific fact then why aren’t the climate change proponents opening the books and showing the world their proof? Instead all we have heard is “So what….a few e-mails do not negate the science.” Then where is the science?
In 1917, Albert Einstein applied his general theory of relativity to the universe and was stunned at what he found. According to his theories, the universe must be expanding but as a devout creationist, he believed that a universe created by God had to be static and eternal. The evidence was there and the mathematics were solid, but his faith in God prevented him from believing in his own work. It wasn’t until Edwin Hubble correctly interpreted the Doppler shift in 1929 that the expanding universe became part of our store of scientific knowledge. I believe in God, but I also believe that God would put all of the physical laws in place to sustain whatever he created; so I can exist quite comfortably with science and religion. Einstein could not believe that a created universe could be dynamic and expanding so he suppressed his own theory.
Similarly, climate change fanatics are so convinced that man is destructive to the planet that our industrial society must be harmful. The theory of global warming was written in part, because of recurrent and persistent droughts in certain areas of the world. Even though there was sufficient evidence of historically massive swings in earths climate that occur as part of the natural cycles of the sun’s output coupled with fluctuations in the earth’s orbital path, the seemingly religious fervor of environmental radicals refused to acknowledge anything that did not lay the blame squarely at man’s feet. Let’s not forget that these are the same people that warned of an impending ice age during the first “Earth Day” back in 1970. According to the same eco-nuts that are pushing global warming now, the earth was being thrust into an ice age because our industrial pollution was blocking the sun’s warming and nurturing rays, giving us only decades to avert disaster.
The last and most dangerous part of this equation is that there are always malevolent forces hiding in the shadows waiting to exploit man’s foolishness. The threat of global catastrophe has long been viewed by those that seek absolute political power as the one thing that would entice people to act without reason. We would deal with economic woes and even the threat of war but when the future of our children is brought into question, all bets are off. We will do anything for our children; even give up our wealth and sovereignty as long as we can guarantee their safety. This is well known to our enemies.
It wasn’t Russia that tried to crush us in the ‘60’s, it was communism. They tried to subvert our culture and for some, it worked; but the majority of America resisted because it threatened our children’s future. They tried to engage us in a war of economics but communism cannot out-produce capitalism because they have no profit motive. They threatened war and again, we resisted with a massive arms buildup to protect our children. Now they have the ultimate weapon, the threat of world annihilation at our own hands. They are hell bent on convincing us that we are killing our own children through our corrupt way of life, expecting that we will finally surrender and for the first time in history, they have a willing ally in the White House.
Do I believe that Obama is a willing part of this conspiracy? No, I think that like the bulk of his radical czars and other friends, he has been brainwashed only because Joe McCarthy was never able to finish his work of routing communists and Marxists out of our government and Universities. He is, in essence, the quintessential Manchurian Candidate. Scripted and schooled by the left, ready to strangle our nation and her people as soon as someone turns over the Queen of Hearts.
Paul
EPA Chief Lisa Jackson is there to calm the nerves of Obama’s globalist friends in the UN by laying out her plan to negate Congressional authority and bypass the democratic process by unilaterally enacting sweeping regulations in the US to cap greenhouse gases through a dangerous loophole crafted into the clean air act. This, my friends, is what happens when you elect a radical to the Presidency. They appoint radical environmentalists to positions of power such as Carol Browner, and the radicals in turn, use our own laws against us to bring about their own twisted agenda based on bad science and egalitarian socialist principals.
Half of Obama’s appointees believe in a one world government responsible for controlling every facets of human existence and the other half have a world first, people last eco-fascist mentality. Both of these factions believe their ideology is too important to worry about the sovereignty of the United States and if we must cease to exist as a nation for the greater good of the world, then that is a small price to pay. Don’t believe me? Then why, when all evidence points to a massive, international and concerted effort to conceal the fallacies of the global warming theory, has the EPA decided to “go rogue” and continue these insanely damaging policies to cripple business in the US in the name of reducing greenhouse gasses?
Global warming proponents are disregarding the evidence contained in these e-mails stating that there is sufficient corroboration in the work of other climate scientists to validate the existence of man-made global warming. Really? Does it matter that the believers in global warming, as a body, have collaborated on their work and many use the same data sources; data that is proven to have been manipulated? Does it matter that dissenting views and research by serious scientists that contradict the theory of global warming have not only been locked out of the discussion but that any peer paper or organization that even print their work have been ostracized as well?
The religious leaders of the global warming camp have pointed to NASA and NOAA as collaborative proof of global warming, noting studies and reports that confirm their findings. Unfortunately for them, NASA has been brought under fire and the researcher that issued the report validating global warming has refused to release his data, even under the threat of a Freedom of Information law suit. We all know that Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia had sent e-mails warning colleagues to destroy damning communications and data before a Freedom of Information Act suit could be brought. The CRU recently announced that its climate data from 1960 to present has been “irretrievably lost” but denies that this has anything to do with Mr., Jones’s e-mails. Add to this that NOAA personnel have also actively sought to silence dissenting views and have recently been caught eliminating the input of live satellite data from their computer model to better show the rise in sea temperature.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. There is nothing in the explanation of the scientific method that would allow a researcher from distorting or deleting “observable, empirical and measurable evidence” because it contradicts their pre-conceived ideas about what should be happening. If the evidence does not correspond, then the theory is wrong….plain and simple; at least it should be.
There is far too much effort being exerted to force everyone into the acceptance of global warming, or climate change as it is now called, to be a matter of scientific rationale. Let’s face it, if the empirical evidence is there; if this is a solid scientific fact then why aren’t the climate change proponents opening the books and showing the world their proof? Instead all we have heard is “So what….a few e-mails do not negate the science.” Then where is the science?
In 1917, Albert Einstein applied his general theory of relativity to the universe and was stunned at what he found. According to his theories, the universe must be expanding but as a devout creationist, he believed that a universe created by God had to be static and eternal. The evidence was there and the mathematics were solid, but his faith in God prevented him from believing in his own work. It wasn’t until Edwin Hubble correctly interpreted the Doppler shift in 1929 that the expanding universe became part of our store of scientific knowledge. I believe in God, but I also believe that God would put all of the physical laws in place to sustain whatever he created; so I can exist quite comfortably with science and religion. Einstein could not believe that a created universe could be dynamic and expanding so he suppressed his own theory.
Similarly, climate change fanatics are so convinced that man is destructive to the planet that our industrial society must be harmful. The theory of global warming was written in part, because of recurrent and persistent droughts in certain areas of the world. Even though there was sufficient evidence of historically massive swings in earths climate that occur as part of the natural cycles of the sun’s output coupled with fluctuations in the earth’s orbital path, the seemingly religious fervor of environmental radicals refused to acknowledge anything that did not lay the blame squarely at man’s feet. Let’s not forget that these are the same people that warned of an impending ice age during the first “Earth Day” back in 1970. According to the same eco-nuts that are pushing global warming now, the earth was being thrust into an ice age because our industrial pollution was blocking the sun’s warming and nurturing rays, giving us only decades to avert disaster.
The last and most dangerous part of this equation is that there are always malevolent forces hiding in the shadows waiting to exploit man’s foolishness. The threat of global catastrophe has long been viewed by those that seek absolute political power as the one thing that would entice people to act without reason. We would deal with economic woes and even the threat of war but when the future of our children is brought into question, all bets are off. We will do anything for our children; even give up our wealth and sovereignty as long as we can guarantee their safety. This is well known to our enemies.
It wasn’t Russia that tried to crush us in the ‘60’s, it was communism. They tried to subvert our culture and for some, it worked; but the majority of America resisted because it threatened our children’s future. They tried to engage us in a war of economics but communism cannot out-produce capitalism because they have no profit motive. They threatened war and again, we resisted with a massive arms buildup to protect our children. Now they have the ultimate weapon, the threat of world annihilation at our own hands. They are hell bent on convincing us that we are killing our own children through our corrupt way of life, expecting that we will finally surrender and for the first time in history, they have a willing ally in the White House.
Do I believe that Obama is a willing part of this conspiracy? No, I think that like the bulk of his radical czars and other friends, he has been brainwashed only because Joe McCarthy was never able to finish his work of routing communists and Marxists out of our government and Universities. He is, in essence, the quintessential Manchurian Candidate. Scripted and schooled by the left, ready to strangle our nation and her people as soon as someone turns over the Queen of Hearts.
Paul
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Copenhagen, Climate and the EPA
The global warming argument is falling apart at the seams since the disclosure of evidence that scientific groups assembling the so-called proof of global warming were manipulating data to create a false validation of their theories. The evidence also shows that they were actively engaged in discrediting scientists that even questioned the theory of global warming and sought to exclude them and their work from any discussion on the subject.
Andy Revkin of the New York Times is finding out what happens to people that haven’t drunk their weekly dose of “Klimate Kool-Aid”. Andy wrote a blog piece on the climate conference in Copenhagen that is trying to recover momentum in the wake of the University of East Anglia’s “climate-gate” scandal. He included what he thought was an amusing story about Copenhagen Prostitutes. Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming climate conference.
That did not sit well with the ladies of the evening and they are fighting back. Although I imagine that heavy breathing could be construed by global warming fanatics as creating an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the delegates, prostitution is still a legitimate and otherwise, environmentally friendly business in Copenhagen. In retaliation, the ladies announced that they would offer free “services” to anyone that brought in one of the Mayor’s postcards.
Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois wrote a scathing note to Mr. Rivken that contained more that just his disgust about some silly story about Copenhagen prostitutes. Apparently Mr. Schlesinger didn’t get the memo about the damage that is caused when scientists try to squash dissenting opinions on global warming. It reeks of a cover-up and worse, it gives the appearance that global warming proponents are on some kind of religious fundamentalist quest to limit even the discussion of global warming to only the faithful.
Michael Schlesinger wrote:
“Andy:Copenhagen prostitutes?Climate prostitutes?Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable. What are you doing and why? Michael”
Hmmm? The most worrisome part of that to me is: “The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.”
If you are not in lock step with the “Church of Climatology” they apparently excommunicate you. So is that how they maintain such tight control of the media when stories like the CRU of the University of East Anglia is concerned? The main stream media ignored that for as long as humanly possible but the word still managed to get out. We now know they already hand select data that fits their needs and dispose of the troublesome facts that don’t but if they are really attempting to control what is written and what is spoken, then all of their research is suspect.
Did you notice the remark about giving blog space to “the Pielkes”? Roger Pielke is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder but Mr. Pielke is also a skeptic of global warming. Andy Rivken obviously violated the “Big Cutoff” of Roger Pielke by giving him mention in his blog and that is why Rivken can no longer be trusted by the clergy of the Church of Climatology. Maybe in Gore’s next film we’ll be able to watch Tom Cruise grill Salinger and we’ll finally find out who ordered the “Code Red”!
Of course the Obama administration is leaving nothing to chance. When Obama took office, global warming was being called a confirmed science and he had the threat of global disaster on his side to enable him enact insanely powerful climate legislation; legislation that would give the government control over every business, enterprise and activity in this nation.
If you recall some of my earlier articles, I reported the blatant admission of socialists that the environmental movement would help them achieve their goals faster than any other strategy they could employ. People began to question my logic when climate-gate surfaced. After all, if this were actually some deeply rooted Marxist plot, then they wouldn’t let that slip away from them. Well, they probably wouldn’t if they didn’t have a “plan B”.
On December 7, 2009, the Administrator of the EPA, signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
1- Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
2- Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
Isn’t it funny that the President announced that he was reneging on his agreement to place defensive missiles in Poland on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union? Now his EPA chief announces on the 68th anniversary of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that the Obama administration is going to do an end run around Congress and the Constitution to enact the most damaging parts of the “cap and tax” legislation through loopholes in the Environmental Protection act that would allow this agency to act without congressional approval if a “danger to the public” exists.
Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, threatened to use the EPA and the Supreme Court to obtain authority to ram these massive regulatory actions down our throats if the Climate Bill failed. They probably would have waited for the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor before announcing their sneak attack on America but things aren’t looking so good for them in the 2010 election and they probably feared that a Congress that was no longer full of Democrat stooges might use the power of legislation to append the EPA to close the loophole before they could do their supreme damage to our economy and our way of life.
It is clear that we are running out of time with the pace these people are taking. I just hope that 2010 isn’t too late to put the brakes on. Like Nazi Germany, I fear this is a scorched earth administration and if they can’t control it, they will burn it to the ground so no one else can out of nothing but sheer spite.
Paul
Andy Revkin of the New York Times is finding out what happens to people that haven’t drunk their weekly dose of “Klimate Kool-Aid”. Andy wrote a blog piece on the climate conference in Copenhagen that is trying to recover momentum in the wake of the University of East Anglia’s “climate-gate” scandal. He included what he thought was an amusing story about Copenhagen Prostitutes. Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming climate conference.
That did not sit well with the ladies of the evening and they are fighting back. Although I imagine that heavy breathing could be construed by global warming fanatics as creating an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the delegates, prostitution is still a legitimate and otherwise, environmentally friendly business in Copenhagen. In retaliation, the ladies announced that they would offer free “services” to anyone that brought in one of the Mayor’s postcards.
Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois wrote a scathing note to Mr. Rivken that contained more that just his disgust about some silly story about Copenhagen prostitutes. Apparently Mr. Schlesinger didn’t get the memo about the damage that is caused when scientists try to squash dissenting opinions on global warming. It reeks of a cover-up and worse, it gives the appearance that global warming proponents are on some kind of religious fundamentalist quest to limit even the discussion of global warming to only the faithful.
Michael Schlesinger wrote:
“Andy:Copenhagen prostitutes?Climate prostitutes?Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable. What are you doing and why? Michael”
Hmmm? The most worrisome part of that to me is: “The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.”
If you are not in lock step with the “Church of Climatology” they apparently excommunicate you. So is that how they maintain such tight control of the media when stories like the CRU of the University of East Anglia is concerned? The main stream media ignored that for as long as humanly possible but the word still managed to get out. We now know they already hand select data that fits their needs and dispose of the troublesome facts that don’t but if they are really attempting to control what is written and what is spoken, then all of their research is suspect.
Did you notice the remark about giving blog space to “the Pielkes”? Roger Pielke is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder but Mr. Pielke is also a skeptic of global warming. Andy Rivken obviously violated the “Big Cutoff” of Roger Pielke by giving him mention in his blog and that is why Rivken can no longer be trusted by the clergy of the Church of Climatology. Maybe in Gore’s next film we’ll be able to watch Tom Cruise grill Salinger and we’ll finally find out who ordered the “Code Red”!
Of course the Obama administration is leaving nothing to chance. When Obama took office, global warming was being called a confirmed science and he had the threat of global disaster on his side to enable him enact insanely powerful climate legislation; legislation that would give the government control over every business, enterprise and activity in this nation.
If you recall some of my earlier articles, I reported the blatant admission of socialists that the environmental movement would help them achieve their goals faster than any other strategy they could employ. People began to question my logic when climate-gate surfaced. After all, if this were actually some deeply rooted Marxist plot, then they wouldn’t let that slip away from them. Well, they probably wouldn’t if they didn’t have a “plan B”.
On December 7, 2009, the Administrator of the EPA, signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
1- Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
2- Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
Isn’t it funny that the President announced that he was reneging on his agreement to place defensive missiles in Poland on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union? Now his EPA chief announces on the 68th anniversary of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that the Obama administration is going to do an end run around Congress and the Constitution to enact the most damaging parts of the “cap and tax” legislation through loopholes in the Environmental Protection act that would allow this agency to act without congressional approval if a “danger to the public” exists.
Carol Browner, Obama’s Climate Czar, threatened to use the EPA and the Supreme Court to obtain authority to ram these massive regulatory actions down our throats if the Climate Bill failed. They probably would have waited for the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor before announcing their sneak attack on America but things aren’t looking so good for them in the 2010 election and they probably feared that a Congress that was no longer full of Democrat stooges might use the power of legislation to append the EPA to close the loophole before they could do their supreme damage to our economy and our way of life.
It is clear that we are running out of time with the pace these people are taking. I just hope that 2010 isn’t too late to put the brakes on. Like Nazi Germany, I fear this is a scorched earth administration and if they can’t control it, they will burn it to the ground so no one else can out of nothing but sheer spite.
Paul
Friday, November 6, 2009
What is the "Earth Crisis" This Time?
Even though it is painfully obvious that we are having difficulty determining if America can even afford the massive nine-hundred billion dollar healthcare bill Nancy Pelosi seems hell bent on passing this week, other factions in the Senate have already begun discussing the Climate bill as well. The damage the healthcare bill will inflict on our economy will pale in significance compared to the harm that the climate bill will create for all Americans. Well, almost all Americans. It appears that Al Gore and his closest friends are prepared through their investments, to turn millions into billions once this bill has passed into law.
But why are we even considering this? The scientists and organizations that have demanded immediate action have apparently been caught red handed falsifying data in order to support their global warming theories and Mr. Hanson of Nasa’s Goddard Space Center still refuses to release the data that he based his report on even though his peers have been unable to duplicate his findings. In fact, the data is so flawed that the proponents of the climate bill have changed the name of the crisis from “global warming” to “climate change” rather than have to answer for earth’s recent cooling trend.
I’ve stated in previous posts that the urgency of a global catastrophe fits very neatly into the general criteria laid out by neo-socialists; those that have already stated their strategy to use a crisis, man-made or otherwise, to destabilize the global economy. The enormous amount of resources that would be required to stave off certain doom in a global environmental crisis would devastate capitalism and bring about the collapse of the current geopolitical balance of power. This nothing new; in fact, it is little more that a revision of the Cloward-Piven strategy that we have barely remained one step ahead of since it’s inception in 1966. Cloward-Piven was directed at the United States but the eco-socialists are attempting this now on a global scale.
If you don’t believe it, then why is it that democracies and republics of the western industrial nations are the only ones being pressured to join this circus? China and India have already stated they have no intention of damaging their economic growth with restrictions on industry even though their carbon emissions are far greater than that of the United States and there is no hue and cry from the global environmental movement demanding their participation. Much of the third world is not required to participate by the basic provisions of the latest U.N. sponsored climate accord and in fact, they would receive monetary assistance and technological support under these accords that would allow them to industrialize. With that in mind, what is this but a blatant attempt by the UN and eco-socialists to disassemble the United States and distribute our wealth and industrial might evenly around the globe.
Of course, environmentalists accuse those that dismiss the validity of global warming, climate change or whatever the next name will be, of being ignorant and standing in the way of saving countless millions from doom. I think it’s more than fair that we look at the claims these same people were making forty years ago and examine their track record for accuracy.
U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) founded “Earth Day” in 1970 to bring awareness to the impending global catastrophe that man’s ignorance had wrought upon the earth. Was Mr. Nelson a climatologist or an environmental expert? Uh, no; as you might have already guessed, he received a Bachelor of Arts from San Jose College but eventually completed law school in Wisconsin.
Environmentalists and sympathetic scientists from around the world gathered for Earth Day to make the public aware of what we had done to the planet and to convey the urgency with which we must act before our mistakes consume the planet and all life on it. Below are a series of quotes taken from the hysterical pleas being made all through this event; quotes that adequately display how wrong these people are, and remain to be. Quotes that show just how far they are willing to go to make you believe we must enact their radical agenda right now or face doom. Bear in mind when you read these quotes that they are forty years old and frame the core beliefs of the environmental movement in 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any."
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
It’s time to stop fooling around with these people. The climate crisis is a created event and the voices of the 30,000 scientists that can prove that it is false must be heard. What is clear is that the data used by environmentalists to stake their claim of climate change was not misinterpreted, it was deliberately crafted to yield those results and when tested, they are the only ones that have come up with the results they say are proof positive. The real question is what is the political machine driving this attempt to crush the free market and democracy?
Paul
But why are we even considering this? The scientists and organizations that have demanded immediate action have apparently been caught red handed falsifying data in order to support their global warming theories and Mr. Hanson of Nasa’s Goddard Space Center still refuses to release the data that he based his report on even though his peers have been unable to duplicate his findings. In fact, the data is so flawed that the proponents of the climate bill have changed the name of the crisis from “global warming” to “climate change” rather than have to answer for earth’s recent cooling trend.
I’ve stated in previous posts that the urgency of a global catastrophe fits very neatly into the general criteria laid out by neo-socialists; those that have already stated their strategy to use a crisis, man-made or otherwise, to destabilize the global economy. The enormous amount of resources that would be required to stave off certain doom in a global environmental crisis would devastate capitalism and bring about the collapse of the current geopolitical balance of power. This nothing new; in fact, it is little more that a revision of the Cloward-Piven strategy that we have barely remained one step ahead of since it’s inception in 1966. Cloward-Piven was directed at the United States but the eco-socialists are attempting this now on a global scale.
If you don’t believe it, then why is it that democracies and republics of the western industrial nations are the only ones being pressured to join this circus? China and India have already stated they have no intention of damaging their economic growth with restrictions on industry even though their carbon emissions are far greater than that of the United States and there is no hue and cry from the global environmental movement demanding their participation. Much of the third world is not required to participate by the basic provisions of the latest U.N. sponsored climate accord and in fact, they would receive monetary assistance and technological support under these accords that would allow them to industrialize. With that in mind, what is this but a blatant attempt by the UN and eco-socialists to disassemble the United States and distribute our wealth and industrial might evenly around the globe.
Of course, environmentalists accuse those that dismiss the validity of global warming, climate change or whatever the next name will be, of being ignorant and standing in the way of saving countless millions from doom. I think it’s more than fair that we look at the claims these same people were making forty years ago and examine their track record for accuracy.
U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) founded “Earth Day” in 1970 to bring awareness to the impending global catastrophe that man’s ignorance had wrought upon the earth. Was Mr. Nelson a climatologist or an environmental expert? Uh, no; as you might have already guessed, he received a Bachelor of Arts from San Jose College but eventually completed law school in Wisconsin.
Environmentalists and sympathetic scientists from around the world gathered for Earth Day to make the public aware of what we had done to the planet and to convey the urgency with which we must act before our mistakes consume the planet and all life on it. Below are a series of quotes taken from the hysterical pleas being made all through this event; quotes that adequately display how wrong these people are, and remain to be. Quotes that show just how far they are willing to go to make you believe we must enact their radical agenda right now or face doom. Bear in mind when you read these quotes that they are forty years old and frame the core beliefs of the environmental movement in 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any."
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
It’s time to stop fooling around with these people. The climate crisis is a created event and the voices of the 30,000 scientists that can prove that it is false must be heard. What is clear is that the data used by environmentalists to stake their claim of climate change was not misinterpreted, it was deliberately crafted to yield those results and when tested, they are the only ones that have come up with the results they say are proof positive. The real question is what is the political machine driving this attempt to crush the free market and democracy?
Paul
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
An Open Letter to Congress
- Dear Honorable Representatives and Senators,
We are at a crossroads in America and many wonder if the America we know and love will be passed on to our children intact. I grew up in a time when personal responsibility was a measure of character; when frugality, not credit, was how you obtained possessions and when hard work was rewarded with personal gain not punished with confiscatory taxation.
When I went to school, children either mastered their lessons or were held back until they did. There was no such thing as “outcome based education” and we certainly didn’t have lesson plans based on political ideology. We did learn civics and that taught us how government was supposed to work. In school, I remember watching classics like “Davey Crocket”; films that made us proud of our heritage and told us that people with morality based values could make a positive contribution.
We also watched movies like “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” that showed us how corrupt government could be without the direct involvement of the American people. I remember when Kennedy was shot and when man first set foot on the moon. I remember the blackout of 1965 and the riots of 1968. I also remember that Kennedy was the last President that all of America had faith in and that Nixon was the President that proved our faith was unfounded. I remember that Ford and Carter had brought the nation to despair and Reagan revived our national pride, if only for a brief time. I even remember a time when Congress was full of our best and brightest. Congress was the field where the next generation of national leaders was grown. They were the knowledgeable, the wise and the guardians of our liberty.
Our President has set an agenda that is hazardous to the well being of this nation. The Federal government has already exceeded its lawful powers under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and this President’s goals can only succeed if the Federal government is willing to ignore the Constitution all together. He has appeased hostile nations and has employed people whose personal beliefs are diametrically opposed to the founding principals of our country. He has found favor with socialist potentates and totalitarian leaders. His closest friends and allies were those that threatened violent harm to our nation in their youth and still threaten harm to our nation now, using the very laws that were put in place with good intentions and originally written to protect us.
Where is the honesty? Where is the integrity? Where is the honor in what you do? The healthcare reform debate is laughable. Will one of you dare tell the truth? I have made the same statement over and over and over and not one of you would dare answer the charge. I will say it again. Healthcare reform is not about healthcare reform. It is not about lower premiums for Americans that have health insurance and it is not about affordable coverage for the uninsured. It is definitely not about the American people.
What it is about is failed government programs. Medicare and Medicaid were in serious trouble a mere three years after their inception. Rather than admit failure, the Federal government raided the money in the Social Security trust fund in 1968 and place Social Security as a new line on the Federal budget. Now that the “baby boomers” are retiring and the IOU’s that Congress wrote for Social Security are due, we must find another solution because you will still not admit that Medicare and Medicaid do not work. To keep the memory of Johnson’s “Great Society” alive, the government is now engaged in this grand scheme of healthcare reform. Any successful Ponzi scheme needs a steady flow of money into the wide end of the funnel otherwise the illusion of rewards that trickle from the small end cease to appeal.
American families don’t have six children anymore and most have two or less. America’s business and immigration policies have seen to it that entire industries have moved out while uneducated, unskilled labor has moved in. These three truths have slowed the money that goes into the funnel from a flow to a trickle while the expansion of benefits have turned the trickle at the small end into a torrent.
Since healthcare reform, as it is called in the halls of Congress, is really about paying for a government program that only took three years to implode, it stands to reason that today’s “fix” is just as temporary. What you fail to see is that this “end of the funnel” is dry as well. American’s can no longer afford to lie down for even deeper taxes to fund your grand schemes.
I will give Congress the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you don’t realize how hard most of your constituents are struggling. A 10% rise in healthcare insurance may affect the family diet but add 10% rise in energy and a 10% increase in taxes and the increase costs of all consumer items as business taxes are increased and people stop being able to afford their mortgages.
The truth is that many Americans do not believe you understand us let alone have our interests at heart. Do you want to earn our trust? Then answer these questions.
1- Will healthcare reform reduce our costs for health insurance?
2- Will healthcare reform raise taxes (in any form) on incomes below $100,000?
3- Will illegal immigrants be covered under the healthcare reform plan?
4- Will American’s be able to read the completed bill on-line 5 days before a vote as the President promised?
5- The CBO says the Healthcare plan will provide an $81 billion dollar savings over ten years but considering the tax increases and service cuts are enacted in year one of the healthcare plan and the actual benefits do not begin to take place until 2013…what are the budget projections for year 5 through year 15?
6- Is Congress willing to prove that it can police itself by investigating those that are accused of breaking the law and expel those that are found guilty even when they are members of the majority party?
7- Will the climate bill be used to redistribute wealth to minority communities and/or foreign nations as was the stated goals of both Van Jones and Cass Sunstein?
8- Will Congress enforce constitutionally mandated oversight with regards to the special advisors or “Czars” in this administration?
9- Is Congress willing to abide by the letter of the law as stated in the United States constitution?
10- Will members of Congress agree to never vote on a bill that was not written by Congress and that they have not read in its entirety?
These are not random ramblings. These are serious questions in the mind of all Americans. I have witnessed no less that a dozen “calls to action” by organizations funded by, and operatives for, the Democratic Party to help advance their agenda. How dare Congressional leaders call opposition to healthcare and climate legislation “Astroturf” or “Manufactured” when the actual call for manufactured support has come from the DNC itself.
Don’t misunderstand me. My statements are for both parties. Republicans must not make the mistake of assuming the anger of the American people means an easy win for Republicans. We are angry with the blatant actions of Congress to enact legislation that does not represent the will and wishes of the public. At this point, we are more than happy to throw every last one of you out and start over. We would prefer experience but not at the expense of our freedom or our children’s futures.
I believe we are standing at the knifes edge of socialism and you are all holding hands for the big leap into the abyss. Make no mistake. Except for that unfortunate sub-culture that you raised on the public dole, Americans will not sacrifice our freedoms nor will we sacrifice our rights but I promise you with all my heart, we do pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to defend our nation and our Constitution against all enemies foreign and especially, domestic.
Paul Magel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)