Monday, November 30, 2009
Ours is a family of science. It is what we do. Not me personally but my husband has always been, and still is in retirement, a scientist. Our children were raised with inquiring minds. Our vacations were always associated with field trips. We collected fish, we watched dolphins, we walked the beaches and collected shells, we noticed what was going on around us in nature. One son has found new species of cycads, salamanders and scorpions, even though that is not his life's work. We've known how science works.
The people who perpetuated this fraud as shown in these emails and files are not using proper science. They have soiled the name of science. It means a lot to me and eventually it will effect every thing we do in our country, how we live, how we travel, our quality of life. This is why it has affected what I have posted.
*the word climate change was used after they knew we were actually cooling.
As Jones wrote to one-time United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author John Christy in one of his e-mails, “I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
He had 22.6 million reasons to write that.
Jones, Gore and their ilk deserve to be discredited.
Someone did read the entire House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care
Choices Act of 2009
From Michael Connelly - Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor,
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to he "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law. So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the onstitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:
And another to the Bill of Rights:
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
Ranking the Scam
Almost exactly six years ago, Guardian writer Tim Radford selected his top ten list of "all-time favourite science scams," credibly headed by the Piltdown man mystery.
Whether or not the planet is warming, cooling, or staying about the same, and whether or not modern human activity contributes significantly to any changes in climate, it seems to me that ClimateGate is a much bigger scandal than anything on Radford's list. The scope of the academic dishonesty is remarkable -- the disregard for the long-accepted practices of the scientific method with respect to legitimate peer review, the self-serving thumb-on-the-scale grant money grab, and the audacity to propose and insist that the now-compromised climate models be used to re-engineer the global economy at a cost of trillions of dollars, all make Piltdown man seem minor by comparison. I think we have a new Number One. The CRU people might be lucky to get new jobs as professional wrestling referees.
I should add that I basically agree with TigerHawk's implied position that it is entirely possible that the activities of 6.8 billion people may well have an impact on the climate. It is observable that more densely populated areas experience environmental changes during growth, so if humans can locally alter the ground and the flow of water, it may be premature to rule out the notion that we can't or don't alter the climate. We are apparently not at a point, however, where the "science is settled."
The U.S. has compelling national security reasons to reduce its dependence upon foreign oil, probably leading to the development of non-fossil fuel alternative energy sources. I will continue to be a thrifty, skin-flinty Yankee, keeping the house cool in the winter and warm in the summer, and generally try not to be wasteful. Of course, I do so out of choice, with no real desire to compel anyone else to conform to my habits, which disqualifies me from becoming a Gorebot.
Every scam requires a mark -- in the case of Piltdown man, it was principally the curators of the Natural History Museum in London, where the skull was on display for four decades -- so the question remains, why are so many well-educated elites willing to swallow the entirety of AGW whole?
"And set aside the partisan BS for a moment, because it doesn’t matter who is in charge of HHS, or what party they belong to. It could be Kathleen Sebelius, Adolf Hitler, or Mother Effing Teresa — but no single human being should ever wield that kind of power.
Democrat, Republican, or robot overlords."
Go read the whole thing.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Limited immigration has an important place in our country. Currently, there is virtually no limit. See the math in this simple video on YouTube.
A slightly different take on it, more depth to the point.
-By Warner Todd Huston
The reasons that I could never get elected to any government position is the same reason why conservatives have a tough time getting elected and, if they end up elected, can’t govern in this era of the ill-educated voter. First I’ll lay out my main principles…
Leave me alone
Stop taxing me
Shove your regulations
That’s about it. Though there are complexities and nuance contained in them, these are the main tenets of modern conservatism simply put. And therein lies the problem. How can one get elected when his basic tenets are that government should do less, stay out of our lives, and mostly go unnoticed and unseen? In essence a conservative is saying: “Elect me and I’ll do nothing for you.” It’s a tough message to sell in a day when people have lost touch with the American principles that are contained in those very tenets.
Go read the rest of it, he has some very good points.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites
Flopping Aces has a great post. Please go read it.
For years I've been swimming upstream against the current of the popular green beliefs. When my children came home and told me what they were being taught, when those idiotic mercury light bulbs came out, and now, finally, this!
My parents raised my brothers and me to be responsible, logical and conservative in our dealings with nature and our impact on it. To appreciate the wonder of it all. To not foul our nest, as big as that nest might be, to help where and when we can. But above all to enjoy the natural world around us.
It enrages me to be preached at by people who think they know better than I about my personal conservation habits. The smug condescension of their belief that the common person can't ever live up to their standards as the zip around the country and the world "preaching the word".
I wonder, have they ever spent the night in a tent out of reach of electricity, in the silence of everything but the natural sounds of the night? Have they ever just sat on a beach, alone but for the awsome beauty of the waves and the wind?
How DARE they.
How dare we let them get away with this. Don't let it pass, don't let up.
SAFEGUARDING OUR HERITAGE
Saturday, November 28, 2009
If you simply want to understand why our current government is in such a rush to implement (or force) unpopular (and seriously unaffordable)policies onto America -even as our friends across the ocean are busily hammering up signs shouting “Here be Monsters,” and trying to warn us away from dangerous waters- well, it’s because shut up. The Democrats do not give a crap about your quaint wonderings.
In the headlines, I see an American president who does as he damn pleases and serves himself and his pals, before the American people. I see a congress that is comfortable living in full-scale betrayal of their own pre-election rhetoric, and rather contemptuous of the people it claims to
ruleserve and to protect; contemptuous of their values and contemptuous of their concerns, contemptuous of the very idea of exceptionalism, except for themselves.
Perhaps they reason that if the American people were stupid enough to believe them (and the press that abetted them in all their lies, in all their faked indignation about cronyism, partisanship, ethics, transparency and personal character) then they really do not have to care. Why should they -the glorious they- be held accountable to the easily duped?
If there are noisy, unsophisticated rubes ranting on about a full-scale betrayal of democratic values in America, the Democrats are not listening and have somewhere else to be; the limosines are waiting, the private jet engines are running, despite the planet-death, and the Democrats are on their way out the door, which has opened upon a misty darkness. They have their coats over their arms and as the America they helped to overindulge and spoil calls out, “but what are we doing, where are we going,” they look back only briefly, in deep disdain.
Frankly, my dears, they don’t give a crap.
Figures. Obama’s Personal Physician Friend Was a Marxist, Too
New Zeal reported this week on Barack Obama’s Marxist neighbor and doctor friend who taught him about the single-payer health care system.
The push to socialize US Heathcare came, not from from the “people”, but from small clique of Marxists, led by a man with close persional ties to president Barack Obama.
This group’s goal is fully socialized, government run “single payer” healthcare-as long promoted through Congressman John Conyers’ National Health Insurance Act, or HR 676.
The leader of this Marxist clique is Quentin Young-a retired Chicago physician, a life long Marxist activist and long time friend and political ally of Barack Obama.
According to radical journalist John Nichols writing in The Progressive;
Obama…learned about single-payer health care from his old friend and neighbor Dr. Quentin Young, the longtime coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Quentin Young told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, that while an Illinois State senator, Obama was a strong supporter of “single payer.”
Barack Obama, in those early days—influenced, I hope, by me and others—categorically said single payer was the best way, and he would inaugurate it if he could get the support, meaning majorities in both houses, which he’s got, and the presidency, which he’s got. And he said that on more than one occasion…. ”
So who exactly is Dr. Quentin Young?
According to New Zeal:
Quentin Young is one of America’s most committed socialists, beginning with his time in the Young Communist League in late 1930s Chicago.
After WW2, into the mid 1970s, Young was closely associated with the Communist Party and was accused of belonging to the Bethune Club (a communist doctor’s club) by a US Congressional Committee investigating the riots at the 1968 Democratic Party convention in Chicago.
There’s much more.
Of course, this surprises no one.
Also from Gateway:
...The USCCR is also taking a major role in the high-profile New Black Panther party (NBPP) voter intimidation case. On Election Day 2008, members of the NBPP were caught on video threatening voters at a Philadelphia polling station. Department of Justice lawyers investigated and were poised to enter a default against the NBPP and three individual members. In May, though, Obama administration officials dismissed the case without explanation. The decision enraged legal groups and Republican congressmen, forcing an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). But no congressional hearings are forthcoming, and doubts about OPR's rigor and independence have been raised. Republican representative Frank Wolf says that he is "not so sure OPR is really digging": "They are not really talking to a lot of people and about a lot of things."
Into this breach has stepped the USCCR. It sent letters in June and August to Justice demanding to know the reasons for the dismissal and whether the department had changed its longstanding interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. The USCCR's concern goes beyond potential ethical violations by Obama appointees meddling with career attorneys' work, Reynolds explains. No one, he notes, would "seriously entertain the view that the Justice Department would have taken the same approach if we moved this out of Philadelphia, to the South with white men . . . in hoods, swinging billy clubs and saying 'This is a white man's world.' " The USCCR's interest, he explains, is in the "precedent": "I don't want any organization or group to point to the New Black Panther party controversy and say, 'We did the same exact things, and we want the same treatment.' "
Friday, November 27, 2009
This is what occurs to me as I listen to the Democratic Party and their cohorts in the media discuss job creation by the government. If I, an uneducated, elderly lady can figure out that if government uses money it gets either from taxes or borrowing from future taxes, it is not creating anything, why can't they? It is the same money going around in a circle, not growing, just moving. And in this situation a lot is dropping out of the stream for wasted "administration" costs. Someone special may be doing better but the economy is not.
Climategate: this is our Berlin Wall moment!
I’ve just had a great, very sympathetic interview about Climategate on LBC radio (London’s main commercial news and talk station) with Petrie Hosken. She told me she has been simply inundated with callers, all of them utterly unconvinced that human influence has made any significant on so-called “Global Warming”. She was desperate to get a few balancing calls from people who do believe in AGW but just couldn’t find any.
Can you imagine this happening a year ago? Or even a month ago? Until Climategate, we “Sceptics” were considered freaks – almost as bad as Holocaust deniers – beyond the pale of reasonable balanced discussion. Suddenly we’re the norm. Climategate has finally given us the chance to express openly what many of us secretly felt all along:
AGW is about raising taxes; increasing state control; about a few canny hucksters who’ve leapt on the bandwagon fleecing us rotten with their taxpayer subsidised windfarms and their carbon-trading; about the sour, anti-capitalist impulses of sandal-wearing vegans and lapsed Communists who loathe the idea of freedom and a functioning market economy.
We know it’s all a crock and we’re not going to take it.
This is our Berlin Wall moment! They can’t stop us now! (ed.emphasis)
via link from Lucianne.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
The Art of Political War for Tea Parties
by David Horowitz
A specter is haunting America – the specter of a people rising. All across the nation Americans are waking up to the threat of a leftist elite determined to fundamentally change America, push through a socialist agenda, and make every citizen dependent on the state. The Obama machine is spending trillions of tax-payer dollars to finance their takeover of the American workplace and stifle the independence of the American people. But America is resilient nation, built on the principles of private property and individual freedom, and the resistance to their socialist plans has already begun.
In May 2009, just five months into the Obama administration, the people of California launched a tax revolt in the biggest spending state in the nation. So reckless were the leftist Democrats who run California (and have done so for as long as anyone can remember) that its deficit alone was larger than the budgets of most other states in the Union and of many of the nations of the world. Leftwing politicians don’t cut budgets; they propose new taxes. And California’s leftwing legislature did just that. But thanks to a constitutional amendment put in place by the California electorate through the state Initiative process, California legislators can’t raise taxes without a two-thirds referendum of the people. So they were forced to hold a special election in May to appeal to the electorate to pass five new ballot Initiatives to raise taxes.
But when the votes were counted, all five tax-raising Initiatives had been defeated by 60% margins. Even in San Francisco. A sixth Initiative designed by tax opponents to punish legislators who do not balance the budget passed by a more than 70% margin. Even in San Francisco. If one of the most liberal states in the Union is saying no to the soak-the-public philosophy of leftwing legislators, Obama socialism is in big trouble.
The revolt in California quickly spread to the entire nation through the efforts of the Tea Parties movement, the most innovative, exciting and powerful grassroots force in the history of American conservatism. It is vital to the health of this country that the Tea Parties movement grow. More to the point: it is essential to American survival that the Tea Parties movement succeed. On the eve of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama said “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.” The Tea Parties movement is the American people saying no to Obama’s plans for revolution.
A movement without an effective strategy for defeating its opponents cannot succeed. Therefore it is important to reacquaint ourselves with the art of political war.
This is just a portion - read it all here.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Also by John:
Current poll data are brutal for the Democrats. In the Rasmussen survey, President Obama's approval index, the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of his performance, has hit a record low of -15. Overall, voters disapprove of Obama by 54-45%. That's no doubt in part because voters have also turned decisively against the Democrats' health care proposals, opposing them, currently, by 56-38%.
Meanwhile, voters now favor Republicans over Democrats by seven points on the generic ballot, 44-37%.
Byron York examines the numbers behind Obama's slumping Gallup rating and finds that Obama is now at 39% with whites and below 50% among all those who go to church. Pluralities of all of those who are over 29 years old or earn more than $2,000 a month disapprove of Obama's performance. Looking at it positively, you could say that the President is still hanging tough with the pivotal young, poor, atheist voting bloc. Michael Barone, meanwhile, asks whether Democrats are beginning to desert their sinking ship.
Is that premature? Sure. But there is no doubt that if the 2010 election were held tomorrow, the Democrats would be slaughtered. What do they plan to do between now and November 2010 to turn that around? Jam an unpopular health care bill down the voters' throats, enact a job-destroying tax on carbon that most people now believe is founded on a myth, and raise taxes. [UPDATE: I should have added, they're also freeing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four confederates into the federal court system--that'll generate some helpful headlines over the next year--and now they're also talking about bringing back "comprehensive immigration reform," which prior to the Obama administration was the most unpopular thing Congress had done in a long time. It's a perfect storm of legislative malpractice.] Beyond that, they are crossing their fingers and hoping that the extraordinary vigor of the American economy will survive all of the damage they have inflicted on it, and will rally by November.
That could happen, of course. But it seems like a rather poor bet.
A Sickening Story
You could call this pre-September 11 thinking, except that there never was a time when it would have been sane:Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq -- the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com. ...Our armed forces have become exquisitely sensitive--toward Nidal Malik Hasan and Ahmed Hashim Abed, and one wonders who else. Such sensitivity comes at a price, of course. But for now, at least, that price won't be paid by those who set the policy.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors -- and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers. ...
The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."
The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.
The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.
Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.
by Monty Pelerin
History is difficult to discern when you are living through it. The Great Depression provides an excellent example. That downturn was not considered abnormal for several years. Our current economic problems are subject to the same up-close myopia.
The "best and brightest" of the 1930s provide an embarrassing record. Here is some of the wisdom prior to the October 29, 1929 crash of the Dow:
We will not have any more crashes in our time. - John Maynard Keynes in 1927
Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever be a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months. - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. Yale economist, Oct. 17, 1929
The October crash was painful, but most of the pain was yet to come. The stock market did not bottom until mid 1932. The eventual drop from the 1929 peak was almost 90%. Most of that loss occurred after 1929, yet the gurus of the period never saw what was coming:
There will be no repetition of the break of yesterday... I have no fear of another comparable decline.
- Arthur W. Loasby, President of the Equitable Trust Company
The Wall Street crash doesn't mean that there will be any general or serious business depression... Business has come home again, back to its job, providentially unscathed, sound in wind and limb, financially stronger than ever before. - Business Week, November 2, 1929
... a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall. - Harvard Economic Society, November 10, 1929
The end of the decline of the Stock Market will probably not be long, only a few more days at most. - Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale University, November 14, 1929
Financial storm definitely passed. - Bernard Baruch, cablegram to Winston Churchill, November 15, 1929
All downturns were known as depressions until after the Great Depression. So references to "depression" meant the same in that day as "recession" does in our day. Arguably the Great Depression did not end until around 1946. Yet no one seemed to have any idea of what was happening:
I am convinced that through these measures we have reestablished confidence. - Herbert Hoover, December 1929
[1930 will be] a splendid employment year. - U.S. Dept. of Labor, New Year's Forecast, December 1929
For the immediate future, at least, the outlook (stocks) is bright. - Irving Fisher, Yale economist, in early 1930
There is nothing in the situation to be disturbed about. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, Feb 1930
Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over. - Herbert Hoover, - June 1930
... the present depression has about spent its force... - Harvard Economic Society, Aug 30, 1930
Years from now a similar collection of quotes from our time will be collected. The names will be different, but the quotes are likely to be just as embarrassing. The likes of Greenspan, Bush, Bernanke, Paulson, Obama, Cramer, Krugman, etc. etc. will likely appear as fools in the future. Most have already qualified, but are still enhancing their "resumes."
When you hear terms like "green shoots," "bottomed out," "new bull market," "exit strategy," "V-shaped recovery," "market undervalued" and all the other nonsense, think twice before acting. Go back and review the above quotations. History may only rhyme, but erroneous optimism always repeats.
I intend to put up a more complete list of quotations from the Great Depression on my website in the next few days.
Monty Pelerin www.economicnoise.com
One Nation PAC | OneNationPAC.org | Take Action Stop It in the Senate Call, Fax & Email Your Senator
One Nation PAC | OneNationPAC.org | Take Action Stop It in the Senate Call, Fax & Email Your Senator
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Chris Horner
This is the entire blog post, but go over to American Spectator and take a look. Be sure to look at the comments of this post. My husband is a scientist who has been very distressed at the political trend of the publications mentioned in the comments.Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.
All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, "cap-and-trade" legislation and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA's failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
- internal discussions about NASA's quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);
- internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);
- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or "blog" RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website.
This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Price of a Historic Vote
Glenn Reynolds writes:
"I think Obama’s “charisma” was based on voter narcissism — people excited not just about electing a black President, but about themselves, voting for a black President. Now that’s over, and they’re stuck just with him, and emptied of their own narcissism there’s not much there to fill out the suit."
That’s fairly strong stuff. Plainly, Obama played to many voters’ needs — for whites to vote for a historic candidate, for urban intellectuals to vote for one of their own, and for younger voters to vote for a new generation of leadership. Obama quite purposefully did not fill in many of the blanks, leaving to everyone’s imagination what he might do once in the White House. Indeed, he had made a career and an art out of being just beyond definition so that everyone could form a pleasing portrait of the candidate they were voting for.
Now there is an emptiness at the center of the presidency, an odd passivity. Decisiveness and specific policy proposals are missing, creating a sense that Obama is fulfilling the role of head of state but not that of head of government. Part of this is accentuated by his own aversion to projecting American strength and power on the world stage. So whom is he representing (a new multilateral world order?), and what are his aims? Getting along with competitors and shrinking from conflict seem to be high on his list.
Obama clearly wanted to become president, defying many who suggested he hadn’t the experience and would get run over by the Clintons. The latter, at least, proved to be untrue. Now that he is president, he plainly has a domestic-policy vision of America at odds with the views of many who voted for him. Does he have the force of will and the know-how to accomplish that reordering of government — before he loses much of his congressional majority? It’s not clear. And on the international stage, meekness and incompetence have ruled the day, suggesting he’s not in control of events.
Obama, who was omnipresent and larger than life, now seems to be a bystander in his own presidency. And the public is left pondering whether this was the candidate they voted for. Well, yes, but it’s now becoming apparent the price to be paid for voting to make themselves feel enlightened.
From Power Line:
Everyone Wants Respect, But Hardly Anyone Is Willing to Pay for It"
In an article titled "Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage," Der Spiegel sums up President Obama's Asian trip as a complete failure:
Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and disappeared. ...
The mood in Obama's foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The "first Pacific president," as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.
Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama's currency isn't as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik.
President Obama took office wanting to distinguish himself from President Bush. That was foolish and arrogant. Now, as Der Spiegel concludes, he is trying desperately to distinguish himself from Jimmy Carter.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates are gearing up for a media spectacle:
Scott Fenstermaker is a criminal defense lawyer from New York who has represented a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
A lawyer for one of five men facing trial for the Sept. 11 attacks says the men plan to plead not guilty and use the trial to express their political views.
Attorney Scott Fenstermaker says his client Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and the others will not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but will tell the jury "why they did it." He says the men will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy."
Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. He says the men, including professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have discussed the trial among themselves.
Yes, I'll bet they have. Eric Holder's decision to give them a jury trial must have seemed like a gift from Allah.
'Too high a price'
We watched an interesting YouTube video the other day. It was brought to our attention by state Sen. James Meeks, the Chicago Democrat who is also pastor of Salem Baptist Church on the South Side. We think our readers should check out the video. It'll open your eyes.
Meeks, who chairs the Illinois Senate Education Committee, has been in a war with the Chicago Teachers Union since he had some tough things to say about public education in a Tribune essay and in a speech at Rainbow Push.
The CTU responded with a vow not to give him another dime in campaign money until he apologized. Meeks promptly wrote a check for $4,000, giving back every dime the union had already given him.
You have to love this guy. He's genuinely looking out for kids and doesn't back down to pressure.
Back to the video. It shows the top lawyer of the National Education Association, Bob Chanin, speaking at the NEA's annual meeting in July. Chanin was retiring. This was his swan song.
Chanin makes unmistakably clear what the highest priority is for the union. Hint: It's not the education of your kids.
Chanin closed his nearly 25-minute speech by explaining the influence of the NEA:
Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.Oh, it gets more interesting.
And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.
This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.Too high a price to pay for educated children. Chanin got wild applause from thousands of NEA members at the San Diego Convention Centerfor his remarks.
We tried for several days to get NEA officials to explain those remarks. We wanted to ask if the rest of the union leadership believed that kids ranked behind collective bargaining on the teacher priority list. We're still waiting to hear from them.
We know the answer the Chicago Teachers Union gave the Rev. Meeks: Cross us and we'll choke off your money.
Meeks plans to introduce a bill in January that would give the kids at Chicago's lowest-performing schools a choice. It would give kids at 15 high schools and 48 elementary schools a voucher to pay for another school.
He plans to push to remove the cap on the number of charter schools in Illinois. The legislature raised the cap this year. But there should be no cap at all.
Meeks met on Thursday with Sen. Dan Cronin, the Republican leader on the Education Committee, to see if they can work out a bipartisan agenda.
Good for both of them.
The teachers unions in Illinois get angry when we write about them. They argue that they're pushing a reform agenda, too.
If that's the case, they shouldn't be asking Meeks for an apology. They should be asking for an apology from everyone who cheered Chanin.
Too high a price, eh?
Democrats are using her to keep attention off real issuesI've highlighted this because I have posted quite a lot of Sarah Palin items, I think that I and most of my readers have not let our minds wander from the goal, defeating liberalism.Sarah Palin is going rogue. The Democrats are going rottweiler.Liberals in the media make heinous personal attacks, dress up quibbles and debating as “fact-checking” and compare her to such noxious harridans as Evita Peron and Madonna. Newsweek went with a cover photo of a picture of her in running shorts to degrade her to the level of a spokesmodel and Stephen Colbert broke character to call her book “a steaming pile of s - - -.” They called her a “deeply disturbed person” (Andrew Sullivan) “unhinged” (ibid), a “delusional fantasist” (ibid; Andrew’s been a busy lad) and even — this is really low — “the leader of the Republican party.”
To all of these liberal attacks I say: well played, my friends. Take a bow.
Hate-drunk Democrats are possibly not even aware of what a savvy political move they are carrying out.
By attacking the former governor of a state smaller by population than Westchester County, a woman whose chances of being the next president are about the same as Nancy Pelosi’s, Democrats aren’t wasting their time at all. They are distracting conservatives and changing the subject.
Conservatives should be, but aren’t, completely focused on one idea. It’s liberalism, stupid.
How The Science Gets Settled
by Mark Steyn in National Review Online's The Corner
It all depends on how you look at it. From The Boston Herald:
In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.
From The Guardian:
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years.
Yes, it's awfully stressful having to develop models to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, "balance the needs of the science and the IPCC", pressure scientific journals to exclude dissenting views, and delete (illegally) material requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
"Climate change" and "health care" are different ends of the same stick: They're both all-purpose pretexts for regulating every aspect of your life. Don't take my word for it - listen to the Belgian nonentity upgraded on Friday to the Holy Roman Emperor de nos jours:
2009 is also the first year of global governance.
Did you get that memo? And, if you disagree, who do you call? Who do you vote out of office if you want a change in "global governance"? Previewing Copenhagen, global warm-monger Tim Flannery is entirely upfront about the end-game:
We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case... They deal with every aspect of our life and they will inﬂuence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.
And surely that admirable goal justifies a little bit of "hiding the decline" and other sleights.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Here's how it works: As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0..6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Palestine -- Muslim 99% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100% Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century. Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse.
The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama Appoints two devout Muslims to homeland security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano Appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
That should make our homeland much safer, huh!! Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood?
Socialist or vast expansion?
You be the Judge.
Gov. Rick Perry, Texas Republican, recently joined commentators Rush Limbaugh, Patrick Buchanan and others in using the word "socialist" to describe President Obama and his policies, and we all know what's coming - a verbal bombardment.
Critics will call him hysterical, paranoid and stupid. They will say he is a scaremonger misusing the language for political effect. Instead of looking at where Mr. Obama's policies are taking us, we'll have another fight over the meaning of a word and its connotations.
So fine. Let's drop the S-word and simply agree that Mr. Obama's policies call for a vastly enlarged welfare state, an extraordinarily more powerful and interventionist federal government exercising ever-greater control over business firms and the economy, further redistribution of income and fewer freedoms for all.
Obviously, our current chief of state did not invent this federal intrusiveness that the Founders explicitly tried to inhibit. From very early on, there were dribs and drabs of statist ambition, though it was not until President Franklin D. Roosevelt that we had the deluge - the New Deal - much of which is still with us.
Since then, both Republican and Democratic presidents have pushed us ever further in that direction. President Johnson gave us the Great Society, its most notable program being Medicare. President Nixon talked conservative talk but gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, temporary wage-and-price controls, far more regulation, and automatic Social Security increases based on inflation. He unsuccessfully sought comprehensive health care reform.
President Carter produced the Chrysler bailout and the Education Department, but he also deregulated airlines. President Reagan slowed governmental growth down some and, with the help of the Fed, broke the back of "stagflation" (inflation accompanied by low growth). President Clinton? After failing to get health care "reform," he gave us a smaller federal government, thanks to the end of the Cold War and the consequent downsizing of the military. He signed an act that succeeded in reducing welfare rolls.
President George W. Bush lowered taxes across the board, but he also saw spending go up significantly, increased Medicare through his prescription-drug program, and gave us more bureaucracy and a heightened federal presence through the demands of his school program and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He went along with campaign-finance legislation regulating political speech.
So we already have a country where well-intended programs have morphed into gargantuan, money-gobbling entitlements dwarfing all else in the federal budget and threatening our future well-being - where incomes are redistributed, where 145,000 pages of regulations are said by the Heritage Foundation to cost the economy $1.1 trillion a year, and the federal government is in our face everywhere we turn.
The question is whether the Obama agenda could take all of this to something like the still more overweening governmental invasiveness that much of Europe is now trying to escape, something that becomes a change in kind instead of just a change in degree, and the answer is: Look at what's happening.
Mr. Obama has already undone Mr. Clinton's welfare reform. The stimulus bill is a heaping helping of deficit deathliness with few compensatory benefits. The government now represents the largest percentage of the economy since World War II. The oppressively dictatorial House health bill would expand costs when the only salvation is to contain them. The government is the boss of financial institutions and much of the auto industry, massive new regulation is looming, and there is constant talk of reshaping the economy. Proposals to lessen global warming would further tax and control overtaxed businesses to restrict energy vital to economic growth with little hope of affecting climate more than an insignificant bit.
If you don't want to call all of this and much more socialism, don't. But it would assuredly give us a new kind of America that diminishes much that has been precious.
Friday, November 20, 2009
And this letter from the Senate ethics committee says so. Read it. He lied, he decieved and he basically conspired with then-Governor Blagojevich to buy Obama's Senate seat. This letter basically says he's guilty but they aren't going to charge him with bribery. Too bad, because that's what happened. Corruption. This letter (which is signed by Barbara Boxer and the other committee memebers) says that's what happened.
But he gets away with it. Thanks Senator Boxer, et al. Great precedent you're setting.
That's the beginning, this is the ending:After all, as the populist governor of a state whose voters respond to plainspoken directness, she suddenly found herself a national figure addressing big-media sophisticates. She was given about seven seconds to learn her role and then, after eight seconds, patronized and mocked. The reasons she performed so poorly are the very reasons her fan base loves her. If, over the next three years, her performance improves as much as it appears to have in just the last year, the conventional rap about her rustic idiocy may come off as mean-spirited and archaic. Her foes might be wise to contemplate the notion that someone of Palin’s background and sensibilities has a right, regardless of her views, to participate in the national debate merely because she speaks (though often unclearly) for many like her. If this possibility can’t be countenanced, then government for the people by the people is an abstract idea we’ve grown too cynical to practice. Sarah Palin endures not because she’s brilliant, smooth or philosophically correct, but because hope in democracy endures, too.
Democrat goes rogue, declares Palin's book "great"!....The surprising charms of the week's most talked-about political memoir Indeed, by the end of this book, I thought, Never mind the hundreds of thousands of reasons the fiery Republican femme fatale is hated in, for instance, my oh-so-blue state of California. Honestly, a fair amount of what makes Sarah Palin weird is the very same stuff that makes Alaska weird.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Watch this selection from Eric Holder's Senate testimony on the use of the civilian criminal justice system to try jihadis who kill Americans. Leaving the substantive arguments to Andy McCarthy, who has just been beating the hell out of them over at The Corner for days, how is it possible that Holder was not ready for the Miranda question? Boggles my mind.TigerHawk is a blog I check daily, sometimes several times. Go give him a look.
A failed presidency is now unavoidable
For the past couple of months I have worried about the risks of a failed presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royal regime known as Obama has ended.
Seth Leibsohn writing in the National Review summarized it this way:
"This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years - the last time the U.S. was seen as weak - unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran."
Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago. Quotes like these, however, suggest they are not far behind.
The NYT reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China's micro-management of Mr. Obama's appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China's ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama's agenda, analysts said."
The Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."
The Times stated that Obama was given "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton."
He only tried to address their "fears." Finally a man called him out on that and asked why he was calling it fear when it obviously was anger. They were fighting mad. Of course, he swatted that one off like he were a pesky fly. He is probably in a safe district but there are plenty of other senators and representatives who should really be watching their backs.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
From Watts Up with that:
Gore has no clue – a few million degrees here and there and pretty soon we’re talking about real temperature
This is mind blowing ignorance on the part of Al Gore. Gore in an 11/12/09 interview on NBC’s tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, speaking on geothermal energy, champion of slide show science, can’t even get the temperature of earth’s mantle right, claiming “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. Oh, and the “crust of the earth is hot” too.
Click the link above to read it all and see the graphs.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
For a while, I thought each day that I’d finally seen the worst Obama had to offer. Then I realized that was naive of me, and that Obama’s actions would probably continue to become ever more outrageous as he perceived he had less and less to lose.
What do I mean by that? Isn’t he losing more—for example, in the polls—as time goes on? While that’s true, I believe that at some point in the last few months Obama realized he had gravely damaged his own chances of re-election, perhaps beyond repair, and that the Democrats in Congress were bent on doing something similar for themselves. So his calculation was that there was no longer any need to dissemble by posing as a moderate in any way. Rather, it was desirable to take the mask off and push ever more quickly to get as much of his agenda as possible accomplished before 2010, and certainly before 2012.
And what might his agenda be? Statism. Socialism. Destruction of private wealth. Taxation. Rewards for friends (unions, minorities, lawyers, ACORN, SEIU) and punishment for enemies (Republicans, rich people, capitalists and capitalism). Reduction of American power on the international scene, as well as humiliation. Gutting of defense. Chaos and/or abandonment in Afghanistan. Projection of weakness. Appeasement of terrorists. Sowing fear in the ranks of the intelligence corps. Demoralization of the military. If possible, institutionalization of voter fraud that favors Democrats (this last might manage to counter the falling poll numbers, as well).
Have I forgotten anything? Probably. But Obama hasn’t; he’s a thorough man, and he’s got a job to do.
Key House Dem Wants Answers on Recovery.gov Errors
Hours after ABC's Jonathan Karl reported on government data showing hundreds of created jobs and millions of dollars spent in congressional districts that don't exist, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., late Monday issued a blistering statement demanding an immediate fix to "ludicrous mistakes" on the Recovery.gov Website.
This issue was raised on Monday with this post:The Magically Appearing Stimulus Jobs
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: We’ve long been wondering what taxpayers would get for their$18 million Website redesign at Recovery.gov. ABC’s Jonathan Karl is reporting on one thing we never guessed might have been purchased: Jobs created in congressional districts that do not exist.