Tuesday, May 31, 2011

6 Things The Mainstream Media Would Say About Obama

If He Were A Republican

By John Hawkins

Anyone who follows politics knows that the mainstream media has two sets of rules: one set for conservatives and another set for liberals. Conservatives spend most of their time correcting smears and trying to explain to the public what they really believe. Liberals, on the other hand, can count on the press to hide their unpopular beliefs and put the best spin possible on everything they do. This is why you often hear Republicans say, "Imagine what they'd say if a Democrat had said that," while you almost never hear Democrats say, "Imagine what they'd say if a Republican had said that."

Those two separate sets of rules shape how politicians behave, how they're perceived, and the issues that they spend most of their time talking about. In Barack Obama's case, the media would be focusing on an entirely different set of issues if he were a Republican.

1) This guy is way too stupid to be President of the United States! Poor Dan Quayle was forever branded as stupid for misspelling the word potato. It's not often noted, however, that the card that he was given by the school had misspelled the word. Then there's Obama, the man who stammers without a teleprompter, the guy who won't release his college records. How does Quayle's gaffe compare to Obama thinking there are 57 states? Duhr! How about Obama walking into a window at the White House? Duhr, duhr! What about signing a guest book 2008 in 2011? Duhr, duhr, duhr! Obama's stupidity would be a staple of late night talk show jokes if he were a Republican.

2) Obama's an amateurish cowboy who's wrecking our image around the world! Obama has made Jimmy Carter look like a foreign policy mastermind since he got into the White House. Sure, he gets credit for getting Osama Bin Laden. When the military walked up to Obama and said, "We know where Bin Laden is. Can we go get him?" he made the "gutsy call" to say "yes." Of course, he's also damaged our relations with Britain, Israel, and Pakistan. He's screwed things up so badly with Pakistan that it's endangering the war effort in Afghanistan. His administration gave Russia a "reset button" that actually said "overcharge." The fact you probably don't even know about how badly we screwed things up in Honduras is telling. Then, there's Obama's impulsive and bizarre insertion of the American military into a civil war in Libya. If Obama were a Republican, the media would be telling us we need to get a Democrat in office to repair the damage caused by Obama's blundering.

3) Obama's going to bankrupt the country by giving our money to his corporate cronies! Remember when the media talked about the size of the deficit all the time? Remember when we heard about Halliburton and Blackwater on a daily basis? Oh, yes, that was when we had a Republican President. Now we've got the most wasteful spender in the history of our country in the White House, we're in danger of going bankrupt, and tens of billions in tax dollars have been transferred to corporations that have given money to the Democratic Party. Now suddenly the "fierce watchdogs of the press" have become completely complacent about corporate cronyism and the very real possibility that our country will turn into Greece within the next decade.

4) He's the job-killing, gas-price-raising, economy-wrecking President! Can you imagine the stories we'd see every day if a Republican were President? We'd have daily stories on the people left homeless by the “Obamaconomy,” human interest stories about single mothers who can't feed their kids anymore, and we'd hear from experts every day about how Obama is killing jobs, raising costs at the pump, and destroying the economy with his policies. Remember how the press used to slip a reference to George Bush speaking in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner into every story about Iraq? Well, they'd do the same thing with Barack Obama's empty promises about how his 1.1 trillion dollar stimulus would "save or create jobs." Can you hear them now?

"So, how's the economy looking? Gas prices still high? Are we seeing any impact of the stimulus yet? How many jobs have been 'saved or created’ -- and that's a meaningless, made up phrase by the way...”

5) Obama's not an authentic black man. Black conservatives have their "blackness" challenged all the time, often by privileged white liberals who don't know any black people other than the ones who clean their mansions. If Barack Obama were a Republican, he'd be called an Oreo, a half-white house slave, and a white man pretending to be black. On the upside for the Clintons, Democrats would still be calling Bill Clinton the first (and only) black President.

6) He's an arrogant jerk who cares about no one but himself! Vacation, golf, shooting hoops -- the fun never stops for Barack Obama. It would be great if the rest of us could take that much time off, but our jobs keep us too busy. It's also fantastic that Obama finally went to Joplin, Missouri. If you're wondering why it took so long, well, they didn't have a golf course cleared until now. Have you heard that some Republicans have taken to calling Barack Obama "Mr. Spock" because of his "cool" demeanor? Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure Mr. Spock never wore mom jeans, he could talk without a teleprompter, and Bones was around to tell him, "Damnit Spock, it's not logical for the President to ignore the BP oil spill for so long. So, get your Vulcan behind in gear and do something!"



From The UK Telegraph

Monday, May 30, 2011



The person in this video is a professor (Ph.D.) at Yavapai College in
Prescott, Arizona.

Friday, May 27, 2011


Powerful centralized government powers

As if all the “CZARS” being appointed by Presidents in recent years were not bad enough, all of the agencies and departments within the federal government also continue to get more powerful with each administration.

The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) is an agency of the federal government charged with protecting human health and the environment.  They were suppose to just enforce regulations based on laws passed by Congress, but have now gone far beyond that.  (They decided CO2 was toxic and a hazard.) They are now one of several agencies this administration is using to bypass Congress.  This agency has approximately 18,000 full-time employees.

Then there is the Department of Energy which has never produced and energy.  The DOE was created by President Jimmy Carter, and now has over 16,000 full time federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract workers.

Jimmy Carter, the worst president in U.S. history until recently, was faced with double-digit inflation, domestic and foreign policy failures, and a fuel shortage so severe that drivers would actually get into fights if someone dared to jump the gas lines that stretched for numerous city blocks.

In an attempt to bring order, in some cities drivers had to buy gasoline on alternate days according to odd or even numbers on their license plates. In addition to the shortage, gasoline prices skyrocketed as well, in turn contributing to double-digit inflation.

Eventually, the Secretary of Energy included the nation’s nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production to the department’s list of government responsibility.

DOE is today involved in more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency. It is President Barack Obama who unveiled a $26.4 billion budget request for DOE for fiscal year 2011, including $2.3 billion for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

As with any government entity, the DOE is constantly growing in size and power. For example, a new regulation will impact every single household in the nation in the coming months.

Under the new law to be enforced by the DOE, all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today’s products by 2012 to 2014. The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient.

Incandescent bulbs were invented over 120 years ago, and environmentalists claim they could be replaced by many superior technologies if only the right regulations and financial incentives were put in place.

The alternative to the incandescent bulb is the Compact Fluorescent Lamp. However, they present their own environmental problems.  Their biggest drawback is the fact that they contain mercury. That must contain mercury to work.  The mercury vapor reacts to electricity to produce the light.  Unlike Carbon dioxide, Mercury really is a toxic hazard.

With rare exception, there is no safe way to dispose of these bulbs. They are ending up in landfills and lots of them are broken. The mercury will be seeping into the ground and our water supplies.   I wonder what the EPA thinks about this.   Truth is, it would be more beneficial to ban the CFLs rather than the incandescent.  Truth is, the real future in lighting will be the new LED bulbs, however, they are still a bit pricy.

Following America’s lead, over 30 countries (including the members of the European Union, the US, China and Australia) have had a look at the available lighting technologies and decided that the case for the banning of domestic incandescent light bulbs stacks up.

Radical environmentalists in Britain claim the UK’s ban of incandescent bulbs will reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 2-3 million tons. Similarly the EU’s annual emissions will be reduced by 23 million tons. Meanwhile, the Chinese government’s decision to stop manufacturing 70% of the world’s incandescent light bulbs will reduce the world’s annual carbon emissions by even more, according to some environmentalists.

But it’s the United States that is setting the standards for the world when it comes to environmental issues and Republicans in the White House and in the legislature appear ready to go along with the wishes of militant environmentalists.


U.S. Involvement in Libya Action Would Last 'Days, Not Weeks'

ABC NEWS March 18, 2011 
President Obama told a bipartisan group of members
of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be
actively involved in any military action against Libya
for "
days, not weeks," after which he said the U.S.
would take more of a supporting role, sources tell
ABC News.

The White House meeting with 18 lawmakers came as
Obama delivered an ultimatum to Libyan leader
Moammar Gadhafi that he must immediately
implement a ceasefire in all parts of
Libya and allow
international humanitarian assistance, or risk military
action against his regime.

"Moammar Gadhafi has a choice. The [U.N.] resolution
that passed lays out very clear conditions that must
be met. The
United States, the United Kingdom, France
and Arab states agree that a ceasefire must be
implemented immediately. That means all attacks
against civilians must stop," the president said today.
"Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach
the people of

"These terms are not subject to negotiation," Obama
said. "If Gadhafi does not comply with the resolution,
the international community will impose
consequences and the resolution will be enforced
through military action."

Sources told ABC News that
Obama's decision to
support the use of force came Tuesday, following
several days of internal administration deliberations
and the realization that diplomatic efforts to stop the
brutality of Gadhafi's regime weren't working.

Presented with intelligence about the push of the
Gadhafi regime to the rebel stronghold of
the president told his national security team, "What
we're doing isn't stopping him."

Some in his administration, such as Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, had been pushing for stronger action,
but it wasn't until Tuesday, administration sources
tell ABC News, that the president became convinced
sanctions and the threat of a no-fly zone wouldn't be

Obama's speech Friday indicated that
coalition forces
are giving Gadhafi time to change course, but are
representatives from the Arab League and European
Union to discuss the implementation of the no-fly
zone or targeted strikes inside
Libya. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton will also attend.

 I guess he gets a pass since he isn’t Bush

Wednesday, May 25, 2011


Would someone who is good with photoshop please make Netanyahu a phony birth certificate (like the one Obama has) so we can get him to run for OUR president.




From The New York Post

The supremes order up a crime wave

It's not often that the murder, rape and assault of American citizens can be tied directly to a court decision. But that's the foreseeable consequence of the Supreme Court's outrageous ruling on Monday in Brown v. Plata.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's order -- joined, unsurprisingly, by his four liberal brethren -- forces California to release 46,000 convicted criminals. It is, as dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia dubbed it, "the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation's history."

Kennedy's dangerous decision is based on the claim that California provides inadequate medical care for its convicts -- care so poor as to violate the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." What's the main cause of this violation? According to the court, prison overcrowding. Thus, it has ordered California to reduce its prison population.

But, as Scalia rightly observes, the majority disregarded the strict limitations of the governing statute (the Prison Litigation Reform Act) as well as "traditional constitutional limitations upon the power of a federal judge, in order to uphold the absurd."

Scalia points out that the court could certainly order the release of an individual prisoner if it found he was denied medical treatment, and release was the only remedy. But that isn't what occurred here.
The court is not ordering the release of prisoners who have received inadequate care. It's ordering the general release of thousands of prisoners who not only haven't suffered from any lack of medical care, but, as Scalia sardonically wrote, "will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym."

It is inconceivable, he added, "that anything more than a small proportion of prisoners . . . have personally received sufficiently atrocious [medical] treatment that their Eighth Amendment right [against cruel and unusual punishment] was violated."

Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, criticizing Kennedy for doing what federal law was intended to prevent. The Constitution, he noted, "does not give federal judges the authority to run state penal systems." Even the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit admitted that the current population level in California prisons does not violate the Constitution.

Rather than issue a court remedy that helps the specific prisoners who have medical problems, Alito thunders, the majority instead has ordered the premature release of "the equivalent of three Army divisions" -- a release "that is very likely to have a major and deleterious effect on public safety."

This expansive view of the judiciary's power lies far outside the boundaries of judicial authority granted by the Constitution. As Alito notes, "It has turned judges into long-term administrators" (as if they are part of the executive branch) of "complex social institutions such as schools, prisons, and police departments."

The lower courts even refused to allow California to introduce more recent evidence of the improvements the state had made in its medical care -- at one point relying on 14-year-old findings. They ignored evidence showing that California has the 13th lowest average mortality rate of all 50 state prison systems.

The courts justified what they did by pointing to deficiencies such as the high vacancy rates in medical and mental-health staff and an "outmoded records-management system." As Alito asks, is it really plausible that such deficiencies could not be remedied without releasing 46,000 dangerous prisoners?

The Supreme Court even approved the absurd finding of the lower courts that releasing these prisoners wouldn't endanger the public -- that it would "actually improve public safety." This is belied by what happened in Philadelphia in the 1990s, when a similar court-imposed cap on the prison population caused the release of thousands of convicts. In the crime wave that ensued, rearrested prisoners who'd benefited from that mass release committed 9,732 new crimes.

What will happen in California as a result of this unprecedented, improvident and foolish order is crystal-clear. As Alito concluded, it "will lead to a grim roster of victims." We can all hope that he is wrong. But as he said, "In a few years, we will see."

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fel low at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org) and a former Justice Department official.



1.   The earth is not flat.

2.   Al Gore is an idiot.

3.   Carbon (C) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not the same thing.

4.   Carbon Dioxide does NOT cause global warming.

I will begin by assuming you agree with me on fact #1.  If not, don’t bother reading any further.
When you understand facts 3 and 4, you will no doubt agree with me on fact #2.  But just to get your attention, I would like to remind you that “Al the inventor of the internet” got a “D” in natural sciences.  http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/24/figures-global-warming-expert-al-gore-got-a-d-in-natural-sciences-at-harvard/ .
Moving on to fact #3, "Carbon" (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy to power modern society. Carbon is the molecular building block for wood, charcoal and coal, and hydrocarbons (HC) like oil and natural gas. Cars and power plants do not emit carbon, except in the form of soot. Thus, talk of "carbon disclosure" or "reducing our carbon emissions" is misleading, unless one is confessing how much charcoal was used at a picnic, or apologizing for not having pollution controls on a wood-burning stove.
"Carbon dioxide" (CO2) is another natural byproduct of combustion, from power plants, factories, vehicles, homes, hospitals and other users of wood, coal, petroleum and biofuels.  This is what many environmental activists and politicians blame for recent and future climate change.   I do not dispute the fact that carbon emissions are an environmental problem but people like Al don’t seem to know the difference.

Another natural product of combustion is Carbon monoxide (CO).  This is an odorless, colorless, invisible gas which is deadly.   It increases when ventilation is poor, oxygen levels are low and burning is inefficient. It's why we shouldn't use charcoal grills indoors or operate cars in garages, unless we're suicidal.

The other major byproducts are water vapor or steam and pollutants that reflect impurities in the fuel and are removed via scrubbers and other technologies, or reduced by controlling the temperature, airflow and efficiency of combustion processes: sulfur and nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury and so on.)

Now that you are up to speed on fact #3, it’s time to move on to the final and most controversial fact #4.
Literally thousands of scientists vigorously disagree with the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for climate change. It plays only a minor role, they argue, in a complex, chaotic climate system that is driven by numerous natural forces, cycles, and positive and negative feedback loops. They also note that CO2 increases have followed, not preceded, temperature rises, throughout Earth's history.

CO2 constitutes a mere 0.0380% of our atmosphere. That's 380 parts per million (380 ppm), which sounds much more threatening, especially when used in juxtaposition with the pre-Industrial Revolution figure of 280 ppm. But even that 100 ppm increase represents only 0.0100% of Earth's atmosphere -- equivalent to one penny out of $100.

380 is far below historical CO2 levels. During the Jurassic and Early Carboniferous periods, geologists calculate, our atmosphere contained 1,500-2,500 ppm carbon dioxide. However, even at today's comparatively CO2-impoverished levels, this trace gas is vital to the health of our planet.

As you learned in grade school, CO2 enables photosynthesis and plant growth: carbon dioxide and water in, oxygen and plant growth out, through complex chemical reactions. Without CO2, there would be no plants and no oxygen; life as we know it would cease. Carbon dioxide is truly the "gas of life" -- and no attempt by Al Gore, James Hansen or EPA to brand it as a dangerous pollutant can change that.

The 100 ppm rise in CO2 levels came courtesy of two things. As oceans warmed after the Little Ice Age ended 160 years ago, they released some of their carbon dioxide storehouses. (As with beer and soda water, seawater is able to retain less CO2 as it warms.) The rest came from hydrocarbon fuels burned during the Industrial Revolution and modern era, and from billions more impoverished people still burning wood and animal dung in open fires.

Though vilified by radical greens and climate alarmists, hydrocarbon energy and the Industrial Revolution have hugely benefited mankind. They doubled average life expectances in industrialized nations and increased prosperity, overall health and living standards, in proportion to the ability of poor communities to acquire electricity and modern technologies. Thus, telling poor countries to limit hydrocarbon use, and focus instead on wind and solar power, sharply limits their ability to modernize, create jobs, and improve health, living conditions and life spans.

Drs. Craig and Sherwood Idso explain on their website http://co2science.org/  and in their fascinating book, The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, the extra carbon dioxide has blessed people and planet in at least 55 ways.

For example, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the photosynthesis rates for plants. It enables plants to extract more moisture from the air and soil, thereby expanding root systems that stabilize soil, reduce erosion and help plants survive better during droughts.

Higher CO2 levels also reduce the need for plants to keep their stomata (pores in leaves) open to absorb carbon dioxide -- and in the process release moisture from the plant -- further increasing drought resistance. Because stomata don't need to be open as much, plants also reduce their absorption of harmful pollutants that can damage their tissue. As with the air in greenhouses, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations improves nitrogen fixation by soil bacteria, increasing the availability of this important chemical.

CO2-enriched air also increases plants' ability to manufacture Vitamin C, antioxidants, and health-promoting substances in medicinal plants -- while likewise improving plants' immune systems and ability to withstand a wide variety of common plant diseases.

Many climatologists and astrophysicists believe recent sun spot, Pacific Ocean and global temperature trends suggest that our planet may have entered a cool phase that could last for 25 years. If that is the case, the additional carbon dioxide being emitted by China, India and other developing countries could bring a major additional benefit: helping to protect wildlife habitats, enhance oceanic biota and preserve crop yields under sub-optimal climatic conditions.

Attempts to coerce expanded wind and solar installations will require that we devote still more land, raw materials and taxpayer subsidies to these expensive, unreliable energy supplies. And trying to capture and store carbon dioxide from power plants and factories will require trillions of dollars and vast supplies of energy, to take this plant-fertilizing gas out of the atmosphere and inject it under high pressure deep into the earth - and keep it from escaping, to kill animals and people.

To get 1000 megawatts of net electricity from a power plant designed for CO2-capture-and-storage would require building (at minimum) a 1300-MW plant, burning at least one-third more fuel than a conventional plant does, using over one-third of the 1300 MW to power the CCS equipment -- and paying much higher electricity prices. The impact on factories, shops, jobs, household budgets and fuel supplies would be significant.

Legislators and regulators need to focus on controlling unhealthy amounts of real pollutants (based on valid medical and environmental science) -- and keep their pesky hands off our CO2!

Sunday, May 22, 2011




End of the World  

By Daniel Greenfield  Sunday, May 22, 2011 
The media has been having a prolonged belly laugh at a group that had the temerity to suggest that the world would end today. Of course it’s ridiculous when Harold Camping predicted that the world will be over today, but not when Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would melt in five years. True believers in Gore would say that’s the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don’t follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?

Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole. Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan. Camping is ridiculous, but Al Gore is right on the money.

The only real difference between Harold Camping and Al Gore, is that Harold Camping believes what he’s saying

The only real difference between Harold Camping and Al Gore, is that Harold Camping believes what he’s saying, while Al Gore preaches one thing to his followers, but lives a lifestyle in direct contraction of it. The Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet. Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better.

Of course prophets are immune from hypocrisy. Doubly so if they’re false prophets. If the invariably prosperous believers in Death by Global Warming really believed in the creed, wouldn’t they be selling their homes and cars, and going off to live a simpler life in the Himalayan mountains. But it’s easier to believe in something than to practice it. Like all liberal social engineering projects, environmentalism is meant to change everyone’s life. And there’s no point in its proponents doing more than paying lip service to it, as they make it the law of the land. If Osama bin Laden could preach Islamic morality while stocking up on X rated tapes, surely Al Gore can foretell the doom of the North Pole and still take a private jet around the world.

Liberals and the religion and the apocalypse

If liberals have turned to doomsday predictions, it’s because they have discovered that religion and the apocalypse can be a marvelously effective way of controlling human behavior. But their religion is materialistic, concerned with the human presence in the natural world. Even its materialism is consumeristic. The Reds had no truck with environmentalism. To a Communist, the natural world was a mass of raw resources to be used to build socialism. But to the children of the capitalists, concerned more with what they buy, than with what they do, environmentalism restraints and directs their buying habits. As religions goes, environmentalism is the Consumer Reports of theologies.

For all the talk of apocalypse and melting poles, the environmentalists really only care about what your economic activity. Buy or don’t buy. But preferably buy, so long as you’re buying green, or buying carbon credits along with whatever you’re buying. The sinner fills up on paper towels, but the righteous man buys paper towels with a green stamp on the box. The man of little faith may drive an SUV, and the faithful may also drive an SUV, but the faithful man’s SUV has a bumper sticker warning everyone to conserve something or other. Such hypocrisies are constant, pervasive and little commented on.

Environmentalism as a fanatical religion

When exactly did environmentalism turn into a fanatical religion, complete with its own televangelists, revival concerts and scripture? Arguably that’s what it always was. But what began as a movement for the responsible stewardship of the earth has been corrupted from the ethical to the fanatical. Conservationism kept humanity in the picture. Environmentalism rages at humanity. Behind its colorful drawings and its dolphin key chains is the vision of a world in which humanity and its fire sticks are the original sin.

But that primal rage has been channeled and diluted into a million businesses, into countless regulations and profitable ventures. The new environmentalists are regulatory robber barons like Al Gore, green rent seeking tycoons looking to use cap and trade, and a thousand mandatory revenue streams to fleece both the faithful and the unfaithful. There is no further way to corrupt environmentalism, its existence is already an abiding corruption. For the false prophets, the lab coated peddlers of junk science and the writers dreaming up ever more fanciful depictions of the day when the oceans rise and man finds himself paddling for safety besides the polar bear, there is nothing left but the lie.

The religious apocalypse is the break between a fallen world and a better world. But in the environmental apocalypse, it is only the end. Materialistic eschatology cannot see any way past the end or any purpose for it. Only a Waterworld in which some of us develop gills and others have to learn to kayak. The threat of their end of days is meant to badger us into bowing our heads. Buy Green or the North Pole will end in 5 years. Bicycle to work or a polar bear will chew your ear off. Their end of days lacks imagination and proof. It is constantly imminent, yet never arrives. It is held to be proven so thoroughly that it can never be disproven. And who would want to disprove it, except someone who doesn’t already have a grant to prove it.

There’s hardly a problem in the world that the media doesn’t blame on Global Warming. When it’s hot, they point to Global Warming. When it’s cold, they also point to Global Warming. Earthquakes,civil wars and the end of WiFi are all laid at the door of one single phenomenon. The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don’t repent and cast out their fluorescent light bulbs and SUV’s, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.

Science requires objectivity. Combine science with ideology and you get a mandatory belief in absurdity. Everyone who self-righteously insists that global warming is science misses the point. The scientific orthodoxy of every generation has embraced ridiculous and wrongheaded theories. Science is not a pure form of revealed truth, it is the trial and error process by which we crawl toward a better understanding. A less flawed picture of the universe. Turn the scientific orthodoxy of any era into a mandatory ideology and you have killed the science and left only another belief system.

Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist’ science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast’s fireplace does to a living creature.

Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility

Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.

The end of the world? The same people who ridicule Christians waiting for the end, are waiting for their own end. Without any real faith in it. That’s the difference between Camping’s followers and Gore’s followers. No one will hang around with a count down clock in 2014 and wait for the North Pole to end. Not even if Gore’s prediction was better known. Those who believe in Global Warming, paradoxically don’t really believe that the world could actually end. They may eat up the cinematic spectacle of oceans rising, cities sinking underwater and whales doing belly flops over the Grand Canyon, but it never really touches them.

To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn’t shopping, she’s engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.

Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient

Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It’s not the end of the world they’re waiting for, but a commercial break.

Friday, May 20, 2011

I really like and respect this man

Congressman Allen West Response to President Barack Obama’s Call for a Two State Solution in Israel

 (WASHINGTON)—- Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:
“Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.

From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.

Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.  Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.

America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.

It’s time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.

While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes.  I have questions for President Obama:  ‘Who will now lead in Egypt?’ and ‘Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?’

President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations.  The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”

Congressman Allen West (U.S. Army Ret.) (Fl. 22) has lived his life in service to America. In 2004, when it was time to retire from more than twenty years of service in the US Army. He then returned to Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan army, an assignment he finished in November 2007.
Col. West has been honored many times, including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals (one with Valor), and a Valorous Unit Award. He received his valor award as a Captain in Desert Shield/Storm, was the U.S. Army ROTC Instructor of the Year in 1993, and was a Distinguished Honor Graduate III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas Air Assault School.


GOP blocks radical judge with Soros ties

Goodwin Liu chaired the radical American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) which receives funding from George SorosOpen Society Institute and other left wing sugar daddies.

In a hearing Liu admitted to Sen. Kyle that he served on and chaired the board of the leftist American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) which according to Discover the Networks.org:

“Through its “International Law and the Constitution” working group, ACS disparages American law as antiquated and inequitable, and calls on judges to make American jurisprudence subservient to United Nations treaties and European Court of Human Rights decisions. Co-chairing this group are Jamil Dakwar, a former Human Rights Watch staffer who currently directs the ACLU’s Human Rights Program; Catherine Powell, a Board member of Human Rights

Watch; and Cindy Soohoo, Director of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ Domestic Legal Program.”
In that same hearing on Liu’s nomination Liu reiterated to Senator Sessions his belief that the constitution gives rights to “expanded access to health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job training and a robust earned income tax credit.” Remember that the government has no money. It must first take private property from its citizens to “provide” such benefits to other citizens.

Those who say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats need to look at the left wing radical judicial nomination of Goodwin Liu. Obama nominated Liu in early 2010 for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. Liu’s approval in the senate judiciary committee has been down strict party line votes.

In March of this year Concerned Women for America issued a memo about Liu’s nomination titled “Goodwin Liu is Unfit for a Lifetime Appointment to Federal Judiciary” [Posted by usACTIONnews.com]. The memo was signed by Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General; Penny Nance, CEO, Concerned Women for America; Mathew D. Staver, Founder & Chairman, Liberty Counsel; Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring; Gary Marx, Executive Director, Judicial Crisis Network; William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government; David N. Bossie, President, Citizens United; Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council; Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director, Students for Life of America; James Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association; Duane Parde, President, National Taxpayers Union; Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator and sixteen other prominent conservatives. The memo listed reasons for rejecting Liu:

ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: Mr. Liu has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land:
  • Mr. Liu holds a radical view of constitutional rights. For example, in his 2008 Stanford Law Review article he supports a judicial role in establishing constitutional welfare rights-i.e., “affirmative rights,” to education, shelter, subsistence, health care and the like, or to the money these things cost. This is the view of rights President Obama raised that caused a stir, and which Judge Sotomayor rejected when asked if she took such a view during her confirmation hearing.
  • In a 2006 article entitled “Education, Equality, and National Citizenship”, Liu suggests that the Constitution “assigns equal constitutional status to negative rights against government oppression and positive rights to government assistance on the ground that both are essential to liberty.
  • Mr. Liu has stated: “...it becomes pretty clear why ‚├ä├▓originalism’ or ‘strict construction’ don’t make a lot of sense. The Framers deliberately chose broad words so they would be adaptable over time.
  • Mr. Liu recklessly attacked the nominations of Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In the case of Roberts, he wrote, in an op-ed, that “[h]is legal career is studded with activities unfriendly to civil rights, abortion rights, and the environment.” These unfounded charges were dismissed by judicial experts on both sides of the aisle and Roberts was confirmed with bi-partisan support.
  • Mr. Liu actually testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of Alito. Liu testified that then-Judge Alito was “at the margin, not the mainstream,” and that the America envisioned by his record on the bench “is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be.” Alito was also confirmed with bi-partisan support.
  • In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, Mr. Liu wrote that judges should engage in “socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal ... to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society” and to “determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine.” According to a Washington Times editorial: “Mr. Liu’s goal was to create a judicially enforceable, constitutional right to welfare.
  • It has been noted that Mr. Liu doesn’t meet the standards for federal judges outlined by the American Bar Association. These standards include “at least 12 years’ experience in the practice of law” and “substantial courtroom and trial experience.” Mr. Liu, who is only 39 years old, hasn’t even been out of law school for 12 years and has no experience as a trial lawyer.
  • 42 of California’s 58 county district attorneys opposed Liu’s nomination in a March 2010 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying they believe Liu is hostile to the death penalty.
  • Mr. Liu implies racial quotas should continue indefinitely and in remarks before the American Constitution Society in August of 2003 advocates reviving “the idea of remedying societal discrimination as a justification for affirmative action.
  • Mr. Liu offered an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in which he and others argued that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage (approved twice by the voters of California) was unconstitutional.
After the vote to block Liu’s nomination Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Hugh Hewitt:
“Only one Republican voted in favor of giving this nominee a vote. So I think the reason for it is quite clear. He had the view that it’s perfectly permissible, and even desirable for judges to kind of make it up as they go, in other words, to act as legislators. It probably didn’t help him any that he testified against both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, and used some rather strident language in describing both of them. But I think the core reason he was denied a vote, and therefore defeated, was because he seemed to be uninterested in what the Constitution, or even the case law, might require a judge to do, and really, pretty openly, said he believed in judges ought to do whatever they think is the right thing to do.”

Earlier McConnell had called Mr. Liu “a left-wing ideologue who views the role of a judge not as that of an impartial arbiter, but as someone who views the bench as a position of power.”

Only One Democrat, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, had the guts to vote with Republicans to sustain the filibuster. Alaskans should be ashamed to have reelected Lisa Murkowski who was either clueless or is a radical progressive at heart and voted with the Democrats. Nothing so clearly shows the divide between Democrats who want government socialism despite the will of the people and the GOP.

Hopefully Obama will give up on Liu but don’t count on it. Harry Reid wants the same warped rewriting of the constitution as Liu and he has muscled the unwitting Democrats to follow the progressive party line. Even if Liu’s nomination is withdrawn there are many more radical revisionists waiting at ACS and Obama and the “progressive” [socialist] Democrats want to change the law and reinterpret the Constitution through the judiciary.


Former President Jimmy Carter always has, and always will be a complete idiot.   He now says the United States is guilty of a "human rights violation" because we "deliberately withhold food aid to the people of North Korea." After all, "one of the most important human rights is to have food to eat."

Give me a break.  The only reason North Korea is poor is because they spend all their money building up and maintaining their vast Military arsenal.  They are a very small country with one of the largest militaries on the planet.  The amount they spend just on advancing their nuclear capability would no doubt feed the people.



Obama has been busy appointing "czars" to further balloon his administration into the largest in the history of the presidency.

Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke
AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley
Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
Border Czar: Alan Bersin
California Water Czar: David J. Hayes
Car Czar: Ron Bloom
Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross
Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
Economic Czar: Paul Volcker
Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Brower
Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois
Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones - resigned 9-6-09 (due to earlier political suicide)
Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
Information Czar: Vivek Kundra
International Climate Czar: Todd Stern
Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair
Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell
Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein
Science Czar: John Holdren
Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney
Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration
TARP Czar: Herb Allison
Terrorism Czar: John Brennan
Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra
Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter
WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore

The much needed "Asian Carp Czar", John Goss, who was appointed in September 2010 to simply be the federal watchdog over a fish! Find that in the Constitution!
  • What about the "Global Warming Czar", Carol Browner? Her sole job is to continue pushing the fallacy of global warming to Americans and the liberal lunacy propagated by President Obama that we need to buy more tiny cars more akin to lawnmowers than automobiles so that we can plug them in for a whole 40 mile roundtrip spin. Even worse is her ideology! Ms. Browner, again appointed by President Obama, was a leader in the Socialist Commission for a Sustainable World Society.
  • Of course you also have the "Ethics Czar" or "Transparency Czar", a joke in and of itself in regards to a man in Obama who promised the most transparent presidency in history only to be the most secretive and manipulative Administration in our nation's history. His name - Norm Eisen, an old law school friend of Obama that was never confirmed for the post, as he was accused of firing an Inspector General for partisan political purposes. Later, Obama simply elevated Mr. Eisen to the position through an unconstitutional recess appointment.
  • We also have a "Science Czar", John Holdren. This man authored a book advocating forced abortions and mass sterilization. Folks, that is scary, and dare we say, Hitleresque? Yet, he apparently fits right in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  • Who can forget another Obama Czar, Cass Sunstein, and the "Regulatory Czar". Obama's "Regulatory Czar" isn't a fan of the First Amendment ... you know, the one that guarantees free speech. Instead, Mr. Sunstein, again the man Obama tapped as his regulation go-to-guy, was quoted as saying "in light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals." Sunstein also once wrote that he believe animals should have the right to sue humans for neglect! Again, he's Obama's regulatory man.
  • Then, finally, there was the all-important "Green Jobs Czar", Mr. Van Jones. Van Jones served as the "Green Jobs Czar" only from March to September 2009, after his past of Marxist leanings and 9/11 conspiratorial theories were brought to light.
What "Great Americans" Obama has illegally appointed to self-created positions! These people have absolutely NOTHING in common with the heart of America! Do you have neighbors clamoring for mass sterilization and forced abortions? Do you have friends who believe Fluffy the cat should be able to sue her owners?

Glen Beck posted a list of Obama's czars on the internet, but I don't think it's been updated sense 2009 and there have been a bunch more appointed sense then.


Thursday, May 19, 2011


Do we have too little or too much federal Government?
** Pythagorean theorem: .................................................. 24 words.
** Lord's prayer:............................................................... 66 words.
** Archimedes' Principle: ................................................... 67 words.
** 10 Commandments: .................................................... 179 words.
** Gettysburg address: ................................................... 286 words.
** Declaration of Independence : ..................................... 1,300 words.
** US Constitution with 27 Amendments : .......................... 7,818 words.
** US Government regulations on sale of cabbage ............ 26,911 words.
** Obama Care...................................................Lets not even go there.


Tuesday, May 17, 2011


How much special interest politics can we take?

On Friday, hidden among the trash that the Obama administration would prefer the public pay no attention to, was another round of ObamaCare waivers given out to labor and state governments with the lobbying power to command them. But still, for the average American this administration offers no relief.

While powerful liberal unions are now reaping the benefits of their tens of millions of dollars in support for President Obama’s campaign, the rest of America is left fully complying with the destructive ObamaCare law. 

Despite union workers only making up 11% of the workforce, over 50% of waiver beneficiaries are unionized! Why do unions receive an exemption that you and I don't?

I have only one question:  Where is my waiver?

Aircraft Carrier Killer

China has achieved “initial operational capability” on the Dong Feng 21D missile system – a weapon that could be launched from shore, to take out large, slow-moving ships. 

The DF-21D evolved from a submarine-launched ballistic missile, and has a variant that can carry nuclear warheads.  The system uses satellites to lock on to its targets – China already had two suitable satellites in orbit, and launched a third last August, according to the Strategypage.com website.  The missile switches to infrared targeting on final approach.  It can hit even the most advanced modern carrier from a distance of over 900 miles, if it lives up to its design specifications.  Some analysts think that range could be doubled with a smaller payload, which would still be adequate to damage the carrier and suspend flight operations.

The existence of a land-based missile that can kill aircraft carriers would radically alter the strategic picture in theaters like Taiwan or North Korea, since it would severely compromise America’s ability to project air power.  Taking out a carrier is an extremely difficult proposition, as her battle group controls the sea in a tremendous radius around her, complete with extensive anti-submarine defenses.  A forest of carrier-killing missiles growing on enemy shorelines would be a real game-changer, if China decides the time has come for sudden reunification with a certain “renegade province” in the western Pacific.  The only imaginable threat to “regional peace and stability” that would end up on the wrong end of the DF-21D is the same one Western liberals worry about.


The Institute for Energy Research, the Sierra Club, WWF and even Al Gore now all agree that ethanol was a mistake and it's time to end ethanol subsidies

Ethanol tax credits and renewable energy grants are among the worst government programs ever conceived.  As we have seen in countless examples around the world, policies that promote the green economy myth achieve nothing but increased government spending and higher energy prices and higher food prices for consumers.

During the last decade, ethanol enjoyed a good run as a mythical part of the solution to the mythical global warming problem. Then, environmentalists began to realize it actually increases greenhouse emissions.  Ethanol does releases less carbon dioxide per gallon than gasoline.  However, once the emissions necessary to convert land to corn production and then grow and process it are taken into account, ethanol doesn't look so green anymore.

So much corn (about 40 percent of the US crop) is used to feed the government-created demand for the fuel that it is increasing world-wide food prices.  In short, in exchange for not reducing greenhouse emissions, ethanol reduces the availability of food to the poor.  Engines can run on gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, wood or electricity so there is no need to burn our food crops.

The multiple layers of subsidization have their own perversity. Since there's already a mandate to blend ethanol into gasoline, the tax credit is giving away money for something that is already mandated to happen anyway.  Environmental groups say this accomplishes nothing other than padding the bottom line of Big Oil.

But who cares about the facts?  Once we have fired up a vast machine that from cornfield to distilleries produces 38 million gallons of ethanol a day, it will be nearly impossible to turn it off.  Too many people will have a vested interest in continuing the scam, and its supporters will always argue that any change is too disruptive. We'll probably still be mandating ethanol long after the internal-combustion engine is obsolete.

Why should we care?  Because corn is in everything. It’s in your soda, syrup, shaving cream and licorice. You can find corn in batteries, ink and mayonnaise.  It’s used to feed the animals that end up on your dinner table. There are thousands of uses for corn, but the least efficient and most costly use is ethanol to blend with gasoline.

Like most people, I discovered long ago that my car runs better and gets much better mileage on pure gasoline than on gasoline with ethanol.  There are fewer service stations selling “pure gas” with each passing month, and it’s getting quite a bit more expensive than the ethanol blend.  I am now paying about ten cents per gallon more fore pure gas, but it is still less expensive because of the improved mileage.
The ethanol blend would actually be more expensive than pure gasoline if our stupid federal government was not subsidizing ethanol with six billion dollars a year of our tax money.  This subsidy is to help offset production costs for refiners who blend gasoline with ethanol.

There are a number of problems with blending ethanol with gasoline, but don’t take my word for it.  Forbes called extending the ethanol subsidy ”...fiscally irresponsible.” On the other end of the business spectrum, Friends of the Earth explained that large scale argo-fuels are “ecologically unsustainable and inefficient.” Freedom Works summed up their stance on ethanol by saying it’s, “net loser for the economy, the environment, and for our energy security.” The World Wildlife Fund and the Sierra Club agree with Reason in that ethanol has done nothing to reduce green house gas emissions and has not weaned American’s off of imported oil. And the U.N.‘s special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, called biofuels a “crime against humanity” because they use food for fuel instead of feeding the poor.

But the most telling insight into the ethanol subsidy debate came from Mr. “global warming” himself, Al Gore.  In a candid moment, he told reporters that “ethanol” was a mistake and that he only favored ethanol because he represented farmers in Tennessee (this does not explain why Gore’s supported ethanol in An Inconvenient Truth after he left office) In the end, ethanol has come to represent Al Gore’s billion dollar mistake.

Governments are planning to triple ethanol production by 2020. The effect of this on world food supplies will be worse than a worldwide drought lasting for decades.

For the last century, world food production has benefitted greatly from a natural cycle of global warming which has produced increasing carbon dioxide plant food in the atmosphere.

This warming has now halted and global cooling will be with us for who knows how long this cooling will no doubt reduce world food production.

“Crops for Cars” is very risky and costly for all mankind. Ethanol production will have no effect on climate, damages the environment, is a poor fuel, and sets the stage for world famine.

Time to end all ethanol subsidies and mandates.